Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread

[Stoneheart]

>US M1A2/A3 Abrams waving the red, white & blue while playing Toby Keith over Russia's open radios destroys a T-90A in Ukraine

Ukraine want the good stuff and they dont have to pay for it, so no Abrams...

 

[pylosurf]

The question shouldn't be, "Could this escalate into a nuclear war?" but rather, "Am I willing for myself and everyone I know to die in a nuclear war for Zelenskyy?" The answer should be obvious.

Honestly, who could say no to that face? I regret that I have only one life to sacrifice for Zelenskyy!

Volodymyr Zelensky's $850 Million Accumulated Assets Questioned by Dutch Party After Campaign Vows Against Corruption During Elections​

Honestly, though, the time to really worry is if US troops and Russian troops are facing each other for real on a battlefield. The reason why the nukes could fly in such an instance is simple because both sides would have to be prepared for the other side launching them all at once. It's kind of funny to read people talk like Russia would launch a nuke at Washington, DC and then another one later, possible at NYC. No, they'd launch every nuke aimed at every major NATO city all at once. All our nukes would launch around the same time. I mean MAD doctrine hasn't changed, has it? The whole reason we never directly took on the Soviet Union was due to that.

But of course, we didn't have a charismatic man like Zelenskyy to make it worth it at that time. If only we had, maybe we'd have taken Stalin out back then. It's very sad that Zelenskyy was not the leader of the free world back then!

That background looks fake, like they green-screened it.

 

[kuuu]

"Saw a video from a Ukrainian blogger, where he ate a Ukrainian tankman. Made me understand that in principle Azov can hold out for a long time"

 

[cistendered]

Link / Archive
Polonia stronk! Polans can clean toilet without Russian gas . lmao enjoy rising energy prices because your pride dictates that you need to pay Germany to convert your euros to rubles for you. Sure hope the Deutsch continue to play ball and that their gas doesn't get cut off as well.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Tucker Carlson finally name dropped the Azov Battalion's love for swastikas.

This was in reference to Biden grabbing guns at home while giving guns free of charge to Talichads and Hohol Nazis lol.

 

[Simpadoo]

Shit, I remember when the Soviets wanted to nuke China in 1969 but President Nixon said no.

Nobody’s perfect.

 

[Tom Nook's Gloryhole]

The British lad who was blown to pieces today has apparently left behind two children. I'm absolutely bamboozled that someone with something to actually live for would go and have a massive target painted on their back while getting paid next to nothing.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Now it's being mentioned on Tucker's show.

If i understood it right, Forbes reported majority of Russian oligarchs with business within America have not been sanctioned as some of them have links to Hunter Biden despite being best buds with Putler.

Like 14 oligarchs sanctioned and 45 oligarchs free to do as they please for now.

 

[mr.moon1488]

I've seen some people complain about both sides using old ass weaponry, but I do kind of wonder about whether that old weaponry doesn't have some advantages in certain contexts.

• Mosin Nagant (mostly DPR forces)

While in urban warfare more modern weapons like the M4 would have a huge advantage over the Mosin Nagant, if you look at satellite images of Ukraine, there are a lot of massive farmers' fields with hedgerows around them. From hedgerow to hedgerow in many of these fields, there are a lot of areas that are well outside the max effective range for point targets for most of the modern infantry rifles, but well within the max effective range for rifles like the Mosin Nagant. Likewise, most of the Mosin Nagants fielded are likely personally owned weapons that the shooters using them have a lot of familiarity with.

• Maxim machine gun (mostly Ukraine)

This one is likely the most out of place on a modern battlefield, but on the flip side of that point, it's entirely expendable. A lot of the conscripts Ukraine is sending to the front have very little to no training and there's no assurance they won't just surrender as soon as they start taking fire. Having them use expendable weapons like the Maxim machine gun frees up resources for soldiers who are actually trained and motivated. Likewise, an antiquated machine gun with an untrained shooter is still able to provide the main benefit machine guns are meant to provide which is suppression.

• PPSh 41 (militia on both sides)

This is one I think has the most use on a modern battlefield despite there being better (which means more expensive) alternatives. If we compare it to other open bolt weapons which are designed to be able to perform suppression within the context of a line squad like the more modern M249, no it's not nearly as good. On the other side of that though, it's not hot garbage in room clearing like what more modern LMGs like the M249 are. In doctrine for regular US infantry units, a SAW gunner is always the four-man in the stack mainly because the weapon is unwieldy inside enclosed environments. This is not the case for the PPSh 41. The PPSh 41 is also capable of semi-auto fire and even in full auto, can be fired fairly easily while standing which is not so easy to do with most light machine guns.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

"Saw a video from a Ukrainian blogger, where he ate a Ukrainian tankman. Made me understand that in principle Azov can hold out for a long time"

View attachment 3227777

If cannibals are your best hope I don't think you really thought that one through.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Ukraine want the good stuff and they dont have to pay for it, so no Abrams...

If you would read my post you see I was saying it was a US tank in the hypothetical scenario.
i.e. why is it worth mutual nuclear suicide when its a US M1A2/A3 Abrams playing "turret toss" with your T-90 but not a Ukie T-64BM Bulat playing turret toss with your T-90?

Now it's being mentioned on Tucker's show.

If i understood it right, Forbes reported majority of Russian oligarchs with business within America have not been sanctioned as some of them have links to Hunter Biden despite being best buds with Putler.

Like 14 oligarchs sanctioned and 45 oligarchs free to do as they please for now.

As someone who wants to see Ukraine win, this pisses me off.
Thanks, Biden...

 

[Feline Supremacist]

If you would read my post you see I was saying it was a US tank in the hypothetical scenario.
i.e. why is it worth mutual nuclear suicide when its a US M1A2/A3 Abrams playing "turret toss" with your T-90 but not a Ukie T-64BM Bulat playing turret toss with your T-90?


As someone who wants to see Ukraine win, this pisses me off.
Thanks, Biden...

Imagine getting mad not at the blatant hypocrisy but that your favorite team could lose, not to mention the ruined credibility of your team captain.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Imagine getting mad not at the blatant hypocrisy but that your favorite team could lose, not to mention the ruined credibility of your team captain.

I am mad about the hypocrisy

 

[Feline Supremacist]

I am mad about the hypocrisy

Aren't we all though. Imagine what all those billions could do right here at home, fixing rusted bridges, roads full of potholes and making Amtrak worth using.

 

[OG Swolemaster]

If cannibals are your best hope I don't think you really thought that one through.

It allegedly happened during The Battle of Stalingrad.

 

[Amphotericin B]

I showed the cannibal video to a physician friend and he said the bone isn’t human and that it’s a prank. Still more believable than the Ghost of Kiev.

 

[Spicey McHaggis]

I've seen some people complain about both sides using old ass weaponry, but I do kind of wonder about whether that old weaponry doesn't have some advantages in certain contexts.

• Mosin Nagant (mostly DPR forces)

While in urban warfare more modern weapons like the M4 would have a huge advantage over the Mosin Nagant, if you look at satellite images of Ukraine, there are a lot of massive farmers' fields with hedgerows around them. From hedgerow to hedgerow in many of these fields, there are a lot of areas that are well outside the max effective range for point targets for most of the modern infantry rifles, but well within the max effective range for rifles like the Mosin Nagant. Likewise, most of the Mosin Nagants fielded are likely personally owned weapons that the shooters using them have a lot of familiarity with.

• Maxim machine gun (mostly Ukraine)

This one is likely the most out of place on a modern battlefield, but on the flip side of that point, it's entirely expendable. A lot of the conscripts Ukraine is sending to the front have very little to no training and there's no assurance they won't just surrender as soon as they start taking fire. Having them use expendable weapons like the Maxim machine gun frees up resources for soldiers who are actually trained and motivated. Likewise, an antiquated machine gun with an untrained shooter is still able to provide the main benefit machine guns are meant to provide which is suppression.

• PPSh 41 (militia on both sides)

This is one I think has the most use on a modern battlefield despite there being better (which means more expensive) alternatives. If we compare it to other open bolt weapons which are designed to be able to perform suppression within the context of a line squad like the more modern M249, no it's not nearly as good. On the other side of that though, it's not hot garbage in room clearing like what more modern LMGs like the M249 are. In doctrine for regular US infantry units, a SAW gunner is always the four-man in the stack mainly because the weapon is unwieldy inside enclosed environments. This is not the case for the PPSh 41. The PPSh 41 is also capable of semi-auto fire and even in full auto, can be fired fairly easily while standing which is not so easy to do with most light machine guns.

None of them may be the ideal weapons for the job, but at the end of the day, they're still effective and lethal. Obsolete doesn't mean they stop being dangerous. As to the maxim though, those things are stupidly reliable, I believe the British did a test where they fired one for like 12 hours continuously without a single failure.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Aren't we all though. Imagine what all those billions could do right here at home, fixing rusted bridges, roads full of potholes and making Amtrak worth using.

Or better, not being taken out of our paychecks in the first place.

 

[Ponzo]

There were dozens of times throughout the cold war where nato and soviet forces engaged each other, with fatalities, and no war. I think you're vastly underestimating just how far things have to go before nato goes to war or nukes fly.

 

[The Ugly One]

I've seen some people complain about both sides using old ass weaponry, but I do kind of wonder about whether that old weaponry doesn't have some advantages in certain contexts.

• Mosin Nagant (mostly DPR forces)

While in urban warfare more modern weapons like the M4 would have a huge advantage over the Mosin Nagant, if you look at satellite images of Ukraine, there are a lot of massive farmers' fields with hedgerows around them. From hedgerow to hedgerow in many of these fields, there are a lot of areas that are well outside the max effective range for point targets for most of the modern infantry rifles, but well within the max effective range for rifles like the Mosin Nagant. Likewise, most of the Mosin Nagants fielded are likely personally owned weapons that the shooters using them have a lot of familiarity with.

• Maxim machine gun (mostly Ukraine)

This one is likely the most out of place on a modern battlefield, but on the flip side of that point, it's entirely expendable. A lot of the conscripts Ukraine is sending to the front have very little to no training and there's no assurance they won't just surrender as soon as they start taking fire. Having them use expendable weapons like the Maxim machine gun frees up resources for soldiers who are actually trained and motivated. Likewise, an antiquated machine gun with an untrained shooter is still able to provide the main benefit machine guns are meant to provide which is suppression.

• PPSh 41 (militia on both sides)

This is one I think has the most use on a modern battlefield despite there being better (which means more expensive) alternatives. If we compare it to other open bolt weapons which are designed to be able to perform suppression within the context of a line squad like the more modern M249, no it's not nearly as good. On the other side of that though, it's not hot garbage in room clearing like what more modern LMGs like the M249 are. In doctrine for regular US infantry units, a SAW gunner is always the four-man in the stack mainly because the weapon is unwieldy inside enclosed environments. This is not the case for the PPSh 41. The PPSh 41 is also capable of semi-auto fire and even in full auto, can be fired fairly easily while standing which is not so easy to do with most light machine guns.

Bullets fired from any gun will kill you dead. Guns like the Mosin aren't suitable as a primary infantry weapon any more, but 7.62x54r is still a really big round that will rip right through most cover. The PPSh's main drawback is it generally won't defeat modern body armor...but a lot of the combatants don't seem to have that. And a defensive position, a Maxim should be just as serviceable as it was in WW1. Just don't try to support squad movements with it.