Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread

[Disheveled Human]

No roman legions had extensive training in fact most ancient armies we're made up of trained men who spent years doing martial combat. Your average Knight, Squire, and peasant Archer had years of training. It isn't until gunpowder and the proliferation of muskets that the average person could pick up a musket/rifle and fight. There is a reason that Egyptian light calvary got devastated by Napoleons army. There is a reason why a couple companies worth of men with muskets can easily annihilate a legion of men with longbows.

I think you guys are missing the point of what I was saying, I would rather fight a guy unarmed with a sword at 10 feet then a guy with and AK-47 at 20 feet. Back in medieval times an unarmed soldier could get away with more then an ill equipped soldier in modern times. Meaning overall manpower held more water then it does today when it comes to warfare.

 

[Lookie-lou]

I thought they were talking about word known as hohols.


Implying the CCP doesn't already have the designs due to cyber attacks and manufacturing being outsourced as well as the fifth column being hired by America for cheap labor and being enrolled in by the universities.

yeah it really seems like with the CCP the West has just given up trying to counter meaningfully beyond perhaps the silicon race. Its a problem establishment politicians are aware of, but are far too corrupt and fearful to deal with a military power with aims far beyond its border. Russia are not as weak as they portray, but still doesn't really care to do much besides mock them and kick their puppets off their doormat. Meanwhile China keeps a stiff upper lip outside of twitter, but is actually subversive as one can be outside of direct war.

 

[Screamer]

For shits and giggles I have checked the Aussies news website to see what they had today.


Despite daily propaganda, the comments are actually mostly sane people who see through it. Which is encouraging.

Last comment is feels.



Now for the hardcore propaganda.


source

Browsing the article, which most won't do. It's another all over the place article.

Claims of proof of Russian war crimes.
Then the balance, claims of Ukrainian crimes shooting POW.
Back to Evidence of Russian atrocities.
Onto Ukrainians finding 16 sabotage and reconnaissance units.
Then onto the plight of the Ukrainian people.

Interesting, it's very much pushing the propaganda line, while also giving enough so it could deny it is, give people doubt and excuse themselves of just doing propoganda.

 

[Gondola Enjoyer]

I think you guys are missing the point of what I was saying, I would rather fight a guy unarmed with a sword at 10 feet then a guy with and AK-47 at 20 feet. Back in medieval times an unarmed soldier could get away with more then an ill equipped soldier in modern times. Meaning overall manpower held more water then it does today when it comes to warfare.

Oh yeah, because the unarmed guy can do so much against a knight in plate, a guy on a horse, or someone with a really long, pointy stick. Genuine question, after seeing a bunch of your posts in this thread, are you actually fucking retarded or something?

 

[Matt Damon]

I think you guys are missing the point of what I was saying, I would rather fight a guy unarmed with a sword at 10 feet then a guy with and AK-47 at 20 feet. Back in medieval times an unarmed soldier could get away with more then an ill equipped soldier in modern times. Meaning overall manpower held more water then it does today when it comes to warfare.

You're backpedaling incoherently after being utterly BTFO'd and demonstrating you have no understanding of any warfare, much less ancient warfare.

Take the L, bro.

 

[The best and greatest]

A whole kilometer out is a pretty long range. To me, it seems like if you're seeing a tank at more than a kilometer out, you and the tank both are most likely in pretty open areas. This is fine, so long as your enemy doesn't have air and artillery superiority. In this context you kind of narrow down the situations where it is actually useful to only situations where the tanks are stuck in an open area and you're in some location where the enemy isn't willing to just level the entire grid square. I think also as small combat drones start to become more commonplace, the use of weapons like the javelin is going to increasingly become more suicidal since it's a lot easier to figure out where they have been fired from VS traditional direct fire AT weapons.

I think context of use is the difference maker. I can see how a Jav would be more useful if you have the capabilities to spot enemy vehicles over a mountain in afghanistan or even just over the crest of a hill a mile or so out so one branch of the US army could spot a build up of armor and relay the necessary information to infantry on the ground for them to deal with. Ukes probably don't have the necessary systems that would allow javelins to shine so they end up becoming second-rate NLAWs

that's just all speculation on my part though so take it as a cope-filled rationalization as you will.

 

[Die Dunkle Maus]

Oh yeah, because the unarmed guy can do so much against a knight in plate, a guy on a horse, or someone with a really long, pointy stick. Genuine question, after seeing a bunch of your posts in this thread, are you actually fucking retarded or something?

I can tell you haven't done any research in the powers of KUNG-FU.

 

[LeChampion1992]

I think you guys are missing the point of what I was saying, I would rather fight a guy unarmed with a sword at 10 feet then a guy with and AK-47 at 20 feet. Back in medieval times an unarmed soldier could get away with more then an ill equipped soldier in modern times. Meaning overall manpower held more water then it does today when it comes to warfare.

Here is the thing an unarmed man has a slight fighting chance against a sword. But here is the thing manpower simply means a man with a rifle. It only takes a couple of weeks with drills to train a soldier if even that. Most times you can hand some rando off of the street, give them a rifle give them the basics and voila. In the middle ages you needed to train someone to be a swordsman, Archer, spearman, and etc....

When it comes to manpower you're wrong manpower has become more important not less. Now in modern war we have reached the professional soldier point because it's better to pay and train a bunch of people how to use expensive and complex equipment like tanks and apcs then press them and teach them how to use it. But when it comes to raising a milita or an effective rifleman you simply need at most a couple weeks of basic drills, how to accurately fire the weapon effectively and voila you have yourself an army.

 

[Disheveled Human]

Oh yeah, because the unarmed guy can do so much against a knight in plate, a guy on a horse, or someone with a really long, pointy stick. Genuine question, after seeing a bunch of your posts in this thread, are you actually fucking retarded or something?

You're backpedaling incoherently after being utterly BTFO'd and demonstrating you have no understanding of any warfare, much less ancient warfare.

Take the L, bro.

How many troops can the Russians effectively support at once assuming they had an infinite amount of manpower. 100k? 200k? 1,000,000? Did I dumb it down enough for you guys?

 

[Bush King]

The US couldn't win two wars against vastly outmatched foes this century, why would Russia have any better luck?

No nation on earth would be able to wrestle Ukraine into submission so quickly, even the US military which is suffering severe manpower issues for its actual combat wings.

No major nation has "won" a proper war this century.

Just because the US eventually pulls out of a country because they are sick of tard wrangling a primitive population doesn't mean they wouldn't absolutely fuck up a foreign country in a war. The power parity between Iraq and the US was far closer than it is today with the US and Russia or even Ukraine, yet no one is going to pretend that wasn't one of the easiest victories in history. Even the advance to Baghdad in '03 was more hampered by logistics and not wanting to allow civilians to get caught up in a battle for the city.

The only opponent you could even plausibly say would not be immediately fucked up by an unconstrained US is China, and that war would be on the sea and in the air anyway. If people seriously thought the US couldn't win a war the military budget of France, the UK and Germany would be 5% of GDP 20 years ago.

 

[Grand Wizard Wakka]

View attachment 3156202

 

[Gondola Enjoyer]

How many troops can the Russians effectively support at once assuming they had an infinite amount of manpower. 100k? 200k? 1,000,000? Did I dumb it down enough for you guys?

Don't know, don't care.
What I'm trying to say is, you should come within walking distance of a history book at least once in your lifetime before embarrassing yourself online.

 

[Disheveled Human]

Just because the US eventually pulls out of a country because they are sick of tard wrangling a primitive population doesn't mean they wouldn't absolutely fuck up a foreign country in a war. The power parity between Iraq and the US was far closer than it is today with the US and Russia or even Ukraine, yet no one is going to pretend that wasn't one of the easiest victories in history. Even the advance to Baghdad in '03 was more hampered by logistics and not wanting to allow civilians to get caught up in a battle for the city.

The only opponent you could even plausibly say would not be immediately fucked up by an unconstrained US is China, and that war would be on the sea and in the air anyway. If people seriously thought the US couldn't win a war the military budget of France, the UK and Germany would be 5% of GDP 20 years ago.

If optics were off the table the US could have erased Iraq in a week with non-nuclear strikes. An unchained US would steamroll any country in a conventional war.

Don't know, don't care.
What I'm trying to say is, you should come within walking distance of a history book at least once in your lifetime before embarrassing yourself online.

All I said was Unarmed troops were more effective and actually used effectively before ballistic weapons were invented chill out. It was an argument about manpower being more viable pre WW1 then in modern warfare.

 

[DumbDude42]

I think you guys are missing the point of what I was saying, I would rather fight a guy unarmed with a sword at 10 feet then a guy with and AK-47 at 20 feet. Back in medieval times an unarmed soldier could get away with more then an ill equipped soldier in modern times. Meaning overall manpower held more water then it does today when it comes to warfare.

bro an unarmed man going against a swordsman will get fucking massacred
the only thing that's better about facing a swordsman than facing a rifleman is that against the swordsman you can try to run away, and if you run faster than him then you will survive, while the rifleman will just shoot you in the back if you turn and run.

but if you want to actually fight then it's hopeless, you'll get slaughtered with no chance to fight back.

 

[Die Dunkle Maus]

If optics were off the table the US could have erased Iraq in a week with non-nuclear strikes. An unchained US would steamroll any country in a conventional war.

Nah. USA could steamroll anyone attacking USA, true... but couldn't steamroll China in China or Russia in Russia. Sorry.

 

[mr.moon1488]

I think context of use is the difference maker. I can see how a Jav would be more useful if you have the capabilities to spot enemy vehicles over a mountain in afghanistan or even just over the crest of a hill a mile or so out so one branch of the US army could spot a build up of armor and relay the necessary information to infantry on the ground for them to deal with. Ukes probably don't have the necessary systems that would allow javelins to shine so they end up becoming second-rate NLAWs

that's just all speculation on my part though so take it as a cope-filled rationalization as you will.

No I largely agree with you, I just think that the long-term prospects of weapons like the Javelin seem to indicate that their usefulness will likely degrade over time. Partly because of drones, but also because I think that it's going to be more susceptible to countermeasures in the future. If you think about it, if you find some way to make the top attack ability of the Javelin ineffective, it basically becomes a really shity traditional AT weapon.

 

[potato in mah painus]

Hey if I get threadbanned for causing the resident white nationalist cosplayers to fawn over soviet monuments to the rape of berlin, openly support anti-nazi diversity crusades, and straight up justify child molestation to own da libz then I will take it as the honor that it is.

Just a shame none of them have yet been able to tell me what any of them are actually doing to further the white race and white civlisation IRL tho...

>Expecting white nationalists to fawn over slavic niggers killing and raping each other. Especially slavic niggers that point fingers and lie about each other constantly.

There I answered both your questions in one paragraph, the best way to presserve the white race is to keep noses out of other people's business and not throw away our children's future over.... you guessed it.... niggers.

 

[LeChampion1992]

The rpg 7 hasn't been their primary man portable rocket launcher for decades. They still use it, but it's long been replaced in most roles.

I mean the RPG-7 is still in use because of it's cheapness. Basically you can reload them practically infinitely. It's not meant to take on tanks but lightly armored vehicles, APCs, even Helicopters that are hovering down troops the RPG is very effective against. They also Updated the warheads and have disposable versions of their Nlaws.

Compare this with the US they're designed to be cheap and disposable. The AT4 will basically take out almost any vehicle in one or two shots. If you have a problematic advanced tank use the Javalin. People forget this about the Russian armor their cope cages were not meant to stop javalins those things cost 100k and are meant to destroy in one shot. However they would be fairly effective in close quarters combat at stopping older RPG-7 rounds which are plentiful in Ukraine still.

 

[DumbDude42]

Nah. USA could steamroll anyone attacking USA, true... but couldn't steamroll China in China or Russia in Russia. Sorry.

they could annihilate chinas/russias profesisonal military, especially air force and navy. but they could not pull off a land invasion.

 

[Gondola Enjoyer]

I mean the RPG-7 is still in use because of it's cheapness. Basically you can reload them practically infinitely. It's not meant to take on tanks but lightly armored vehicles, APCs, even Helicopters that are hovering down troops the RPG is very effective against. They also Updated the warheads and have disposable versions of their Nlaws.

Compare this with the US they're designed to be cheap and disposable. The AT4 will basically take out almost any vehicle in one or two shots. If you have a problematic advanced tank use the Javalin. People forget this about the Russian armor their cope cages were not meant to stop javalins those things cost 100k and are meant to destroy in one shot. However they would be fairly effective in close quarters combat at stopping older RPG-7 rounds which are plentiful in Ukraine still.

Cope cage also works wonders against hand-thrown AT grenades, which they were expecting to be thrown from higher floors of buildings during urban combat.