Ukraine: The straw that broke the camel's blyat

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Ukraine: The straw that broke the camel's blyat

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

pmchem posted:

I think that this, and other replies pointing at map distances, make a dangerously poor assumption that land will continue to change hands at a static rate. If Ukraine is really put on the retreat in an area, enemy advance will only be limited by logistics/supply.

Why would Ukraine retreating from an area mean that the Russian advance would only be limited by their (nonexistent) logistics? If the Ukrainian military does it correctly, then retreating means pulling back forces from indefensible positions back to prepared defensive positions set up beforehand, maybe even already defended by reserve forces. Only pulling back completely by dozens of kilometers - like the Russians have done multiple times - would lead to new reports of nonexistent Russian logistics.

# ¿ May 24, 2022 21:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 04:44

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

orange juche posted:

They had a functioning nuclear infrastructure for a long time before now, but the literal mission of the German Green party is to end nuclear power in the country and they don't give a poo poo about how much coal they burn to do it, because they are afraid of the radiant glow of almighty Atom, nevermind that coal power plants emit 100x more radiation via Uranium, Radium, Thorium, and Potassium than a functioning nuclear plant at the same power level.

It's always interesting to see the Greens being blamed for something decided and implemented by the conservative CDU in coalitions with the liberal FDP and social-democratic SPD. The Greens have only been in power as the middle party in a three party coalition since last December. The 16 years before that, they were always in the opposition. Merkel decided to get out of nuclear power, and supported Nord Stream 1 and 2. The SPD, FDP and CDU pushed gas as the environmentally friendly, cheap alternative to oil and coal. The SPD and CDU did everything to stay with coal as long as possible.

But yes, it is those dastardly environmentalist Greens who single handedly forced everyone to destroy the perfect solution of nuclear power and pushed the dependency on Russian gas.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2022 19:38

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

bird food bathtub posted:

Playing the optimistic note, what happens when Ukraine finally has full territorial sovereignty restored?

In that scenario Ukraine would have demonstrated enough military might to spank Russia and push them out of their country, but what happens on the restored borders? Russia gonna Russia, so I see them being dickheads about it constantly. Bombing/striking cities trying to rebuild, endless funding of destabilization agents and entities, constant border skirmishes.

Even my optimist hopes turn out not too optimistic going down that line of thought.

Ukraine is already getting better all the time at shooting down missiles:
https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1566339393597702144
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1568506904048975873
I think that if it comes to that situation, Russia will run out of planes and (really dangerous) ballistic missiles before Ukraine will run out of air and missile defense.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2022 23:04

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

bennyfactor posted:

The Russians have been firing TBMs that are nuclear capable throughout this war, like Iskander, but have they started actually using weapons that were previously allocated to nuclear forces that have had the warheads removed? That seems like an interesting (and pathetic) escalation.

According to the UK Ministry of Defence, wreckage from nuclear only cruise missiles has been recovered:
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1596389927733927937

# ¿ Nov 27, 2022 14:38

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

psydude posted:

Sure, but why are they preventing other countries from sending tanks?

Because they aren't.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2023 11:45

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

psydude posted:

IIRC, Poland and another country (Finland?) are willing to send them and require the German MoD to approve the transfer. So far that hasn't happened.

Last I heard is that they�ve just recently (as in a few days ago) asked, but no decision has been made. Poland has announced that they are going ahead with training, so that deliveries can be quickly made once the go is given.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2023 00:46

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Just Another Lurker posted:

What's the feasibility of Ukrainian forces striking for the Sea of Azov (Berdyans'k or Melitopol) and splitting the whole front in two?

IIRC, there were multiple reports about the planning of the Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives last year that said that the Ukrainians (especially Zelenskyy) wanted to also attack there at that time. Apparently the Americans were really adamant about it being a really, really bad idea. They then organized a war game that emphasized how bad of an idea it would be and it was called off in order to concentrate on the other offensives.

Everybody looking at a map can see how effective an offensive to the coast there would be. My impression is that the Ukrainians want and need a real armored fist in order to push through the lines and get to the coast there. If I needed to guess, what I think could happen is that as the Russian offensive falters and the Russian defensive lines get thinner and demoralized, Ukraine will use its first larger groups of Western IFVs and tanks in order to launch a counteroffensive somewhere in that region in order to reach the coast and cut off Crimea.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2023 20:13

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

mllaneza posted:

Jesus, that AFV is practically on top of them.

Yeah this is very close (last frame before the first RPG shot at the AFV):

vvv We don't know if it hit. That can't be seen. He fires a second shot at it 30 seconds later - it looks like the AFV was maybe burning, maybe still shooting, maybe being hit at the same time by something else. It can't be seen what his shots did.

Screenshot of the AFV possibly being hit by something else, and then 2 frames later possible secondary explosion?

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Feb 21, 2023

# ¿ Feb 21, 2023 00:08

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Do you have any proof that they aren't being used?

Counterpoint:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1628068260225720324

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Feb 21, 2023

# ¿ Feb 21, 2023 22:22

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

psydude posted:

Satellite photo of Bakhmut as of Friday.

Hard to make out exactly how damaged everything is. In an interview on the radio this morning, the reporter said that not everything in Bakhmut is destroyed (as of a few days ago)- remember, there are still people living there.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2023 23:42

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Kallikaa posted:

How much impact will mixing the L/55 guns of the a6 with the Swedish ones having the L/44 have in practise?

What about different communication systems, targeting systems and such?

I don't think it will have any impact at all. They can use the same ammo and they have the same "standard" range (the firing computer has a hard maximum of 4km). The trajectory of the shot is flatter for an A6 and the "kinetic dart" ammo will have better penetration. The A4's turret turns faster and smoother, which enables better supporting machine gun fire. The longer cannon and the (geared? - there is a distinct point where the turning speed has a step) electric motor for turning the turret on the A6 have a lot more inertia. This has the effect that when trying to "spray" an area, the cannon can't stay close enough to where it should be pointing, leading to the fire control computer quickly locking and unlocking the MG. You can't fire a long, continuous burst as you can with the A4.

The sights for the gunners are the same. The commander on the A6 has a very nice periscope/thermal sight system that us really, really useful for having some situational awareness.

Communication is the same - one radio for the commander, one for the leader.

Carth Dookie posted:

comms at least should all be NATO standard and able to interact normally. Unsure about the rest but I think sensor fused data might be a bit too modern for what's being given to them, but I admit to knowing precisely nothing about modern tank data share abilities.

As of a bit less than 20 years ago, neither the A4 or the A6 had any kind of multi-unit data transmission except for the radio.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2023 15:17

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Nessus posted:

Is Germany doing it like this to avoid or minimize political blowback in German politics? My impression on why Macron kept hammering on the 'talk to Putin' button is because French voters expected him to make double dog sure that Putin had a diplomatic option even if he didn't take it.

Scholz thinks that explaining his thinking and motivation in public in order to convince people is a sign of weakness. Strong leadership is doing what you think is right when everybody is telling you to do something else. When it then is shown to have worked, people will be convinced.

From an interview last year:
https://www.rnd.de/politik/olaf-scholz-an-jungs-und-maedels-kanzler-interview-sorgt-fuer-unmut-VBSMMZEUMJEMZGBDNYCCNTNN24.html

quote:

Ganz klar ist, dass in so einer Situation sich immer wer zu Wort meldet und sagt: �Ich m�chte, dass es in diese Richtung geht, und das ist F�hrung.� � Manchen von diesen Jungs und M�dels muss ich mal sagen: Weil ich nicht tue, was ihr wollt, deshalb f�hre ich.

It's very clear that in a situation like that, there's always someone who speaks up and says, 'I want it to go in this direction, and that's leadership.' ... I have to say to some of these guys and gals: Because I'm not doing what you want, that's why I'm leading."

He was referring to the leadership of his coalition.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Mar 3, 2023

# ¿ Mar 3, 2023 17:21

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

shame on an IGA posted:

so he's espousing some kind of weird... leadership principle? how does one say that in german?

F�hrungsstil.

The positive view of his leadership style is that he is merely bad at communicating. In that view, he is working behind the scenes, and getting good results (getting the US to agree to sending Abrams is one of the big things these people point at). It's just that he he is too bad at communicating the genius of his leadership and it is basically everyone else that is missing that by just focussing too much on that communication style.

The middle of the road view is that while he might be accomplishing some things in the background, he is ruining Germany's perception in the world, the unity of his coalition and is staying far behind what he could accomplish in light of the circumstances.

The negative view is that he is not showing any leadership at all and is permanently damaging Germany's role in the world and is failing to adequately adress and adjust to the numerous challenges facing Germany and the world.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2023 22:06

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Flyinglemur posted:

Been reading a lot about how Russia won't be able to go much farther than Bakhmut and that Ukraine will be able to turn that into a counter offensive. Someone good with land fighting please explain to this Bubblehead how that works. I assume that the thinking is that Russia has used a lot of troops to take it and won't be able to hold it, but why were they able to take it then?

My internal comparison is that - hopefully - the current situation with Bakhmut is similar to the situation last year with Sievierodonetsk. Russia still has not fully mobilized, so they are not getting large amounts of manpower every month Only Wagner through prisoners was able to mobilize some additional manpower. That limited manpower is all being thrown into the fight at Bakhmut and pulled from other places on the front towards the fight in Bakhmut. This enables them to make some headway there, but it also weakens the front everywhere else. At some point, either Russia mobilizes additional manpower or they become vulnerable to a counteroffensive in those other areas, similar to what happened in Kharkiv.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Mar 7, 2023

# ¿ Mar 6, 2023 23:57

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Icon Of Sin posted:

Normally their intercept rate is better than 34/80, what was the difference for this one?

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1633727866562027525

quote:

Due to countermeasures all 8 Kh-31P/X-59 did not reach their targets.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...f0873d4a6d886ea

quote:

It adds: �As a result of organised countermeasures, 8 Kh-31P and Kh-59 guided air missiles did not reach their targets. It is worth noting that the armed forces of Ukraine do not have means capable of destroying Kh-22 and Kh-47 �Kinzhal� and S-300.�

Some of these missiles are only available in extremely small numbers.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2023 14:03

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Turrurrurrurrrrrrr posted:

No I mean they know for sure. I would imagine that with the amounts of missiles spent they could have destroyed ten downtown blocks of each of those five towns and captured them faster than they have been able so far. But for some reason they prefer to shoot at energy infra.

It would be an even bigger and dumber waste to shoot the limited number of long range missiles at stuff that is within range of their towed artillery.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2023 08:18

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

psydude posted:

Not trying to start an argument here, but how does one reconcile this viewpoint with the 26 million dead?

1. It wasn't 26 million dead soldiers.
2. A lot of soldiers died as prisoners of war.
3. Germany also lost a huge amount of soldiers - the scale of the war was very different.
4. An astounding number of soldiers died in the first few months.
5. Soviet leadership generally tried to hold to a high intensity of warfare. This meant for example that a successful advantance would be pushed as far as it could go. Unfortunately, this lead to over extensions that were then often punished severely. Also, they would try to force breaks in the German defensive lines. If they underestimated the defense or overestimated their own position this lead to horrendously high casualties in failed offensives (see Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942).

# ¿ Mar 16, 2023 15:00

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Cimber posted:

I'm seeing reports that Russians/Wagner are making gains in Bakhmut, taking the central admin building in the past 24-36 hours. How significant is that in reality? Is it a _big_ deal or do the Ukrainian military actually care? It seems to me that the Russians are taking huge losses for gains of minimal value and the UA is bleeding them to death and forcing them to waste lots of resources that might otherwise be better used when the spring offensive starts?

All the gains/losses of ground in the last few months have been insignificant. We are talking about 0.1% of Ukraine. The only significance any of the fighting had is with regards to equipment and trained personnel.

https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1641961313793441792

# ¿ Apr 4, 2023 17:31

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

FWIW, someone posted a CNN article speculating about a possible start to an offensive in another Ukraine thread:

Mr. Apollo posted:

I've seen a few articles, that are speculating that a counteroffensive may have begun. The biggest indicator they all point to is the sudden silence on social media especially on the southern front.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/24/europe/ukraine-counteroffensive-speculation-intl-cmd/index.html

If it really is the start of their offensive, let's hope that it is another Kharkiv type offensive (this time with tanks instead of Humvees).

# ¿ Apr 24, 2023 21:59

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Dandywalken posted:

Lancet can absolutely kill modern MBTs.

Heres one hitting a Leopard 2

This Leo may very well have been saved by blowout panels in rear turret tho, its hard to tell. But if so, it'd prob be the first time in video Ive seen that safety feature in action in combat.

The ammo storage is on the other side of the turret. On the inside of where that Lancet hit is storage, radio, electronics, and maybe batteries (can�t find a labeled picture, but batteries looks like a good guess). On the outside are smoke grenade launchers

From that video, it is even unclear how much it actually penetrated. The explosion seen is all on the outside. In the last few seconds, it is hard to see on a tablet where exactly the smoke is coming from (could be from inside the tank, a bit longer would make that clearer).

# ¿ Jul 26, 2023 18:38

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

I'm assuming it hit the powerpack and something in it is burning.

It looks like turret APU and the panels are just doors. The Lancet isn't even on the correct side to hit that ammo bin, the blowout panel is in one piece, and it slips under and explodes where the hydraulic powerpack sits.

The pictures you�ve posted are from an A4 which has the hydraulics for the turret situated in that corner. The A5 and A6 replaced that with an electric motor. I don�t know where that was placed, or what the space was used for instead.

The best picture I can find is from model kits:

Which makes it look like mostly electronics - which might actually be mostly separated from the actual crew compartment.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jul 26, 2023

# ¿ Jul 26, 2023 18:56

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Antigravitas posted:

KEPD 350 are not SCALP, but they are very much equivalent. It has all the modern gizmos you expect from a subsonic cruise missile and a dual-stage warhead to penetrate bunkers.

There aren't a lot of them around, though. No idea how replacements are supposed to work out.

I think roughly 600 total produced and roughly 150 immediately available.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2023 20:30

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

RoyKeen posted:

What does FPV stand for? Can't find in it in a casual search.

E: "First Person View" I'm assuming.

Edit is correct. The pilot flies the drone from a first person view instead of on a map or similar. Used mostly for kamikaze drones

# ¿ Aug 14, 2023 18:05

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Gaius Marius posted:

The whole population situation is different. Russia has already been teetering on the edge of demographic collapse and this war is only accelerating things. Even if tomorrow Putin achieved his wildest aims and fully annexed Ukraine and Belarus fully without a single drop more blood spilled he'd in ten-fifteen years be running a state that can't even rate as a secondary power.

The number of troops mobilized is insignificant from a demographics point of view. The number of casualties and especially deaths even more so. This war will not end because there are no more bodies to throw on the front lines.

It will end because of unsustainable loss of military materiel or the civil or political will to keep fighting collapsing.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2023 21:04

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Zudgemud posted:

And Ukraine is being hit even harder. Their demographic profile was even worse than Russia's before the war and now they have both an exodus and a massacre of their young most productive and fertile generation. A large chunk of the refugees won't come back and a large amount of the soldiers not physically crippled by the war will still be traumatized PTSD wrecks. There might not really be a post war economic boom or even baby boom due to factors like this. The only thing that might help is if a massive marshall-plan aid from the west doesn't get eaten up by Ukrainian (+ western!) corruption. And the west are in aggregate ruled by stingy fucks that due to ideology don't even want to spend that amount on their own populations, so the post war future of Ukraine is gonna be... rough.

Before the war there were roughly 300k births every year in Ukraine. Last year due to the war that dropped by roughly 30%. Losses are far, far, far below that (and not in any way at a level of a massacre).
More than half of Ukrainian refugees have returned, despite the war still going on. Ukrainian GDP has mostly stabilized this year. Various European countries and entities have already pledged large amounts of money for rebuilding after the war. Ukraine is looking at rapidly integrating into or closer to the EU, which has a lot of experience at integrating Eastern European countries.
Post-war future Ukraine is looking to be a lot more positive than it would have been under Russian control or if it had stayed in the Russian sphere of influence.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2023 23:10

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

It will never not be strange to see normal cars driving around on the very front of the frontline.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2023 09:12

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

PurpleXVI posted:

Really, Germany? You're still pounding that old drum? Russia must have some wild dirt on Scholz.

It's actually worse than that. I posted it in the D&D Ukraine thread. The main concern is that unlike the British and French missiles, targeting for Taurus could be done autonomously by Ukrainians. The German officials expressed concern that Ukraine might use Taurus to attack the Kerch bridge and Germany couldn't do anything to stop them.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2023 12:27

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Discussion Quorum posted:

Wait - so every Storm Shadow that hits a Russian target is actually programmed/set up/whatever by the Brits rather than the Ukrainians? That actually seems worse from a "nuh uh we're not touching you" standpoint

From what I understood, the French remotely input the target coordinates while the British have personnel in Ukraine directly inputting the target coordinates.

Here's my post from the other thread:
The source is Bild (a tabloid), but they do have good contacts in the government.

Bild - Machine translated posted:

The German government is not planning to deliver the Taurus cruise missiles so urgently requested by the Ukrainian army in the foreseeable future. This was confirmed to BILD from German and Ukrainian government circles.
...
This is why Scholz does not supply Taurus missiles

Germany has not yet given the government in Kiev a formal denial of the request, but has made it clear internally that the Taurus missiles will not be delivered at present. Thus, Scholz is theoretically keeping the option open for the future, but delivery is considered highly unlikely.

What are the reasons for Scholz's current no to Taurus?

Last week, according to BILD information, the chancellor was asked in an internal meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee why France and Great Britain supply cruise missiles but Germany continues not to. Scholz responded in the meeting, according to participants, that the two countries "can do something we are not allowed to do, so the question doesn't arise." A clear Taurus rejection!

What Scholz apparently means by this is that the UK and France contribute the geospatial data for missile targets directly themselves, the UK also with its own personnel on the ground.

In addition to the issue of geospatial data and possible personnel, German government officials are also said to have expressed concern that Taurus cruise missiles could be used to hit the Kerch Bridge.

Thus, in recent weeks, there have been talks between British and German government officials in which British representatives tried to convince Germany to supply them. During these talks, according to BILD information, the German side expressed concrete concern that the bridge in Crimea could be destroyed with the German weapon.

There is clear criticism of the chancellor's actions from the CDU. "With the cancellation of the Taurus delivery, Scholz confirms Germany's total failure as a self-proclaimed leading nation for European security and offends our partners like Great Britain and France, who are already supplying cruise missiles," foreign affairs and defense expert Roderich Kiesewetter (60) told BILD.

Kiesewetter still believes a Taurus delivery is the right thing to do, but that the Chancellery's stance is dangerous. "With Taurus, there is a chance for Ukraine to cut off Russian supply lines to Crimea and liberate Crimea, thus ending the war more quickly. Putin's fate hangs on Crimea, Scholz knows that," the CDU politician said. "He is thus deliberately sacrificing the lives of many innocent Ukrainians and opposing coalition partners FDP and Greens, apparently because he does not want Russia to lose. This is bitter and harmful for European and German security!"

Emphasis mine.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Oct 6, 2023

# ¿ Oct 6, 2023 13:00

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Antigravitas posted:

e: Also, why would you voluntarily out yourself as a Bild reader?

If you mean me: I�m not. However, they were the original source for the reporting in that article. Everybody else was paraphrasing or citing them.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2023 15:47

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Arrath posted:

Huh. Here I would have assumed the MIC would spring for insulated wire in the first place.

They need a lot of wire in a small space, so I could see them going with bare wire just to save volume. If they fixed it, it was probably some electronic wizardry or some super thin lacquer solution.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2023 07:12

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

As long as the wire is only touching itself that wouldn�t matter. It would still only be connecting the missile and the launcher. Just with a large clump of copper/metal on one end. That wouldn�t affect any electrical signal.

That said, if the wire sagging and touching water was a problem, then sagging and touching the ground could also be a problem. However, water is a much better conductor, so I guess leaked current could be a bigger problem there.

I�m mostly just guessing/speculating here. It could also be that they didn�t really consider the water problem too much (or deliberately ignored it) until they later found a good, easy way to fix it or decided it was worth the effort and expense to fix it.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2023 07:44

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

spankmeister posted:

You need a circuit for current to flow, so you need two wires.

I knew I was forgetting something.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2023 08:35

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

According to this source the TOW 2 wire-guided missile has two wires:

quote:

TOW anti-armour missile

The missile has command to line-of-sight guidance. The weapons operator uses a telescopic sight to view a point on the target and then fires the missile. The missile has a two-stage ATK (Alliant Techsystems) solid propellant rocket motor. The operator continues to view and track the target through the sight. Guidance signals from the guidance computer are transmitted along two wires, which spool from the back of the missile to the control system on the missile. The Chandler Evans CACS-2 control system uses differential piston type actuators.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2023 09:47

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

shame on an IGA posted:

could the problem have been the physical effects of drag from the very long wires falling into the water rather than electrical effects?

According to this .mil site the problem is explicitly shorting out:

quote:

Firing over bodies of water.

Maximum and limited range firing over water varies by missile type. If the range is less than 1100 meters, the missile�s range is not affected. However, if it is wider than 1100 meters it can reduce the range of the TOW. A TOW position should be as high above and as far back from the water as the tactical situation allows. The squad or section leader should analyze his sector as soon as the position is occupied to determine if water will affect the employment of the TOW. Signals being sent through the command-link wires are shorted out when a large amount of wire is submerged in water.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2023 11:40

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Stultus Maximus posted:

That�s cool and all but why waste ATACMS on helicopters? Wait long enough and they�ll run into each other or just fall out of the sky on their own.

Arrath posted:

Any helicopters that can no longer pepper the countryside or cityscape with parabolic, volley fired unguided rockets sounds like a win to me.

Those helicopters are actually among the most effective anti-tank platforms Russia has/had close to the front. Their missiles have enough range, and they can fly low enough, that they can sit back untouched 10km or so and fire guided missiles at any tanks that stick around too long at the front.

Nothing else has that capability.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2023 23:35

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Russia had roughly 130 KA-52 before the war. They've lost at least 40-50 so far. Losing another 5 at once does hurt quite a bit.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2023 11:03

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

InAndOutBrennan posted:

I don't think ATACMS.

More like the Russians trying really hard to wreck poo poo in Avdiivka but getting seriously counter wrecked in the process. That's probably the majority.

In addition to that the Ukrainians wrecking poo poo in multiple places. There seems to be some footholds on the left side of Dnipro (aka the Russian occupied side) which is causing some panic.

And more.

On the German Spiegel they reported that Russia again launched major attacks at Avdiivka in the last two days and had bad losses there (again).

# ¿ Oct 20, 2023 09:05

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

PurpleXVI posted:

quote:
Ukraine�s top diplomat says Biden and Zelensky discussed future delivery of newer missiles that can reach up to 300 km

Oh it's going to be real loving funny if this happens.

300km would put the entirety of Russian-occupied Ukraine in range from Ukraine-held territory.

I expect that there will continue to be a restriction on not using it against Russian territory, but two thirds of the Crimean bridge is on Ukrainian territory, so ...

# ¿ Oct 20, 2023 11:01

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

dennyk posted:

loving hell, it's literally like watching a bunch of World of Tanks pubbies lemming-rush an open field one by one. Hell, at 0:15 there's even a tomato pushing their teammate into the enemy's field of fire so that both promptly explode.

The first vehicle was probably disabled by a previous mine hit. It makes sense to push it further in front of you, because then that vehicle will hit the other mines, or get pushed off to the side after a while. You don�t want to drive around it, as you will then just hit the other mines to the left or right of the ones that disabled the first vehicle.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2023 20:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 04:44

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Herstory Begins Now posted:

what would that be, that's like a glsdb but with double the range?

It�s the newer ATACMS variants. They have roughly 300 km of range and the warhead contains 100kg (220 pounds) of explosives in a 500 pound package.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2023 19:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > Ukraine: The straw that broke the camel's blyat

«‹›2 »