Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread

[Captain Autism69]

lol
View attachment 3304296

View attachment 3304297View attachment 3304298View attachment 3304299


By the way, it is refreshing to see ordinary soldiers in comparison to the hysterics of the media about "Ukrainian fighters for democracy/ the fate of Aryans/transgender people". And the low quality of the video reminds me of Chechnya, which is a bonus.

By Ukranian standards she's a solid 3/10.By UK standards she's an 8, so I guess he traded up...either that or the Sun is posting bullshit posing as real news as usual.

 

[White_N]

Reports.

OK, so what do the reports say that indicate this siege was a disaster and an embarrassment?

For example, the Battle of Baghdad lasted only 6 days with 34 losses out of 30.000 soldiers, and the Siege of Homs lasted 3 years with 800 losses out of 10,000 soldiers. The Siege of Mariupol lasted almost 3 months, so not that bad for the time of the siege. The losses of Russian forces are unknown and will remain so for some time; what we do know is that there were approximately 14,000 Russian soldiers fighting and approximately 150 losses from Naval Infantry, and that's about it.

 

[Getting tard comed]

OK, so what do the reports say that indicate this siege was a disaster and an embarrassment?

For example, the Battle of Baghdad lasted only 6 days with 34 losses out of 30.000 soldiers, and the Siege of Homs lasted 3 years with 800 losses out of 10,000 soldiers. The Siege of Mariupol lasted almost 3 months, so not that bad for the time of the siege. The losses of Russian forces are unknown and will remain so for some time; what we do know is that there were approximately 14,000 Russian soldiers fighting and approximately 150 losses from Naval Infantry, and that's about it.

Don't

Touch

The

Poop


Especially when it's coping hard.

 

[Givi]

A lot of excuses here. Didn't need to write a whole paragraph if this was a well organized siege.

Sure Russia took over Mariupol, but it was objectively a badly organized siege and Russia threw away more than it needed to.

No offense but you have to be really retarded to think 6,000 dead to take a city with 7,000 to 14,000 defenders is bad (likely around 8,000 in reality). Storming fortified areas is basically the hardest thing you can do in a war.

How was it a "badly organized siege" anyway? I saw no examples of Ukrainian troops being able to break through en-masse (or even break through at all really) or anything else that would denote a poorly organized siege, like running out of artillery shells, or even worse, running out of men. They took the city a month ago in fact, and were able to just leave 2,000 men or so to hold the Azovstal guys in place.

War is about how much you spend, not how much you conquer.

Spending 6k troops, DPR, Chechens and Russia combined, to take Mariupol, is not a bad trade. Especially when you consider that this is a likely inflated number thrown around by Palamar, who isn't exactly a reliable source for Russian casualties.

PS for anyone reading: We will never get any true casualty counts from either nation. Russia doesn't do that and Ukraine doesn't either. Maybe in 70 years when that stuff gets thrown into some dusty Moscow library.

 

[IKOL]

Haha more cope.

I'm not saying sieges shouldn't be this slow/costly, I'm saying this one was inefficient, took longer than it should and wasted more than it should have.

Have you served in army service, sister? Have you had to learn military history?

 

[White_N]

No offense but you have to be really retarded to think 6,000 dead to take a city with 7,000 to 14,000 defenders is bad (likely around 8,000 in reality). Storming fortified areas is basically the hardest thing you can do in a war.

How was it a "badly organized siege" anyway? I saw no examples of Ukrainian troops being able to break through en-masse (or even break through at all really) or anything else that would denote a poorly organized siege, like running out of artillery shells, or even worse, running out of men. They took the city a month ago in fact, and were able to just leave 2,000 men or so to hold the Azovstal guys in place.


Spending 6k troops, DPR, Chechens and Russia combined, to take Mariupol, is not a bad trade. Especially when you consider that this is a likely inflated number thrown around by Palamar, who isn't exactly a reliable source for Russian casualties.

In fact, I'm calling bullshit the losses of 6,000 people. Not only does it come from Ukrainian sources that greatly inflate all the figures, but you also have to take into account that on average there are two or three times more wounded compared to those killed, and you cannot get this statistic by saying that from 14,000 to 6,000 people are already dead. Then what is the number of wounded? Does it turn out that the crippled and wounded took Azovstal or what?

 

[Gender: Xenomorph]

The losses of Russian forces are unknown and will remain so for some time; what we do know is that there were approximately 14,000 Russian soldiers fighting and approximately 150 losses from Naval Infantry, and that's about it.

It's retarded to think 6000 casualities happen, but it's even more retarded to think only 150 happened, because "nobody reported it".

I see a lot of "Russia is 100% true, Ukraine is 100% fake" takes here and you people (you know who you are) are the real retards.

No offense but you have to be really retarded to think 6,000 dead to take a city with 7,000 to 14,000 defenders is bad (likely around 8,000 in reality). Storming fortified areas is basically the hardest thing you can do in a war.

How was it a "badly organized siege" anyway? I saw no examples of Ukrainian troops being able to break through en-masse (or even break through at all really) or anything else that would denote a poorly organized siege, like running out of artillery shells, or even worse, running out of men. They took the city a month ago in fact, and were able to just leave 2,000 men or so to hold the Azovstal guys in place.

(attacking side had 14000 troops, the city was defended by 3500)

Even so; 3000 (averaged?) out of 14000 is still huge casualities.

 

[Givi]

the city was defended by 3500)

Um no, it wasn't. There were 4,000 captured alone. There were also at least 4 brigades and the Azov battalion in there, combined this would make around 9,000, already accounting for Eastern Euro incompetence leaving only 2,000 men for each brigade, which should normally be at at least 3,000-5,000, and the Azov Battalion's 1000 men. This doesn't even account for any TDF personnel.

No wonder you came to such a stupid conclusion if you believe there was somehow only 3,500 men there, lol.

 

[Gender: Xenomorph]

Um no, it wasn't. There were 4,000 captured alone. There were also at least 4 brigades and the Azov battalion in there, combined this would make around 9,000, already accounting for Eastern Euro incompetence leaving only 2,000 men for each brigade, which should normally be at at least 3,000-5,000, and the Azov Battalion's 1000 men. This doesn't even account for any TDF personnel.

No wonder you came to such a stupid conclusion if you believe there was somehow only 3,500 men there, lol.

My source: Wikipedia

Yours; Putin's cum that grants you enlightenment

 

[IKOL]

My source: Wikipedia

Trusting wikipedia in 2022, lol you're exceptional individual.

 

[Su-27 Flanker-B]

Um no, it wasn't. There were 4,000 captured alone. There were also at least 4 brigades and the Azov battalion in there, combined this would make around 9,000, already accounting for Eastern Euro incompetence leaving only 2,000 men for each brigade, which should normally be at at least 3,000-5,000, and the Azov Battalion's 1000 men. This doesn't even account for any TDF personnel.

No wonder you came to such a stupid conclusion if you believe there was somehow only 3,500 men there, lol.

Isnt it actually that post soviet states that didnt enter nato still use the soviet doctrine for unit sizes? Eg where soviet army corps has a size of nato division?

Also you guys better not tell the retard about sieges in history

 

[Feline Supremacist]

My source: Wikipedia

Yours; Putin's cum that grants you enlightenment

Wikiepedo is a shit reference for an ongoing war

 

[Givi]

My source: Wikipedia

Yours; Putin's cum that grants you enlightenment

I've been monitoring that article for a month or more. The source for 3,500 comes from an Economist article that cites no one and therefore the number has always been contentious even between Wikipedia editors (who aren't exactly biased towards Russia). This is just the most recent discussion, check the archive and there's more.

If you can't use your brain a little and think "Hmmm... if Russia captured 4,000, 2,500 at Azovstal alone, how could there possibly only be 3,500 defenders? then not much can be done, you're terminally retarded. What part of "4 brigades and a battalion cannot possibly only be 3,500 men" do you not understand?

Isnt it actually that post soviet states that didnt enter nato still use the soviet doctrine for unit sizes? Eg where soviet army corps has a size of nato division?

Also you guys better not tell the retard about sieges in history

I do believe Ukrainian brigades are NATO standard. Even Russia modernized into BTGs so I don't think Soviet style organization is used anywhere anymore.

 

[Gender: Xenomorph]

Trusting wikipedia in 2022, lol you're exceptional individual.

Wikiepedo is a shit reference for an ongoing war

So are russian sources.

Yet people here take them word-for-word.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

So are russian sources.

Yet people here take them word-for-word.

For comparison the Siege of Sadr City lasted four fucking years and resulted in hundreds of dead and thousands of causalities for the US/Coalition forces, and really only ended when we gave it over to the Iraqis to secure (with our help of course). Siege warfare has always been bloody and brutal, and the US is no better than Russia at it; in fact, you could the US is worse if you start making comparisons to GWOT, as it didn't take Russia years to take Mariupol.

 

[DumbDude42]

In fact, I'm calling bullshit the losses of 6,000 people. Not only does it come from Ukrainian sources that greatly inflate all the figures, but you also have to take into account that on average there are two or three times more wounded compared to those killed, and you cannot get this statistic by saying that from 14,000 to 6,000 people are already dead. Then what is the number of wounded? Does it turn out that the crippled and wounded took Azovstal or what?

as wounded (and dead) are taken away from the front, their positions are filled by new soldiers instead to keep the numbers of active soldiers on the front somewhat consistent

 

[Gender: Xenomorph]

If you can't use your brain a little and think "Hmmm... if Russia captured 4,000 at Azovstal alone, how could there possibly only be 3,500 defenders?) then not much can be done, you're terminally retarded. What part of "4 brigades and a battalion cannot possibly only be 3,500 men" do you not understand?

It's almost like RUSSIA SOURCES ARE LYING

For comparison the Siege of Sadr City lasted four fucking years and resulted in hundreds of dead and thousands of causalities for the US/Coalition forces, and really only ended when we gave it over to the Iraqis to secure (with our help of course). Siege warfare has always been bloody and brutal, and the US is no better than Russia at it; in fact, you could the US is worse if you start making comparisons to GWOT, as it didn't take Russia years to take Mariupol.

More whataboutism

 

[Hell on Earth]

For comparison the Siege of Sadr City lasted four fucking years and resulted in hundreds of dead and thousands of causalities for the US/Coalition forces, and really only ended when we gave it over to the Iraqis to secure (with our help of course). Siege warfare has always been bloody and brutal, and the US is no better than Russia at it; in fact, you could the US is worse if you start making comparisons to GWOT, as it didn't take Russia years to take Mariupol.

You can't argue with him, in his own fantasy world he thinks sieges like the battle of Okinawa are "failed" sieges because the Americans lost more than 20.000 dead.

In his own mind he says to himself : COPE, COPE, EVERY SIEGE NEEDS TO BE LIKE FALLUJAH, IF IT ISN'T LIKE FALLUJAH THEN YOU'RE SHIT AT SIEGE WARFARE.

 

[Givi]

It's almost like RUSSIA SOURCES ARE LYING

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/zmistovni-peregovori-pro-mir-i-bezpeku-dlya-ukrayini-yedinij-73661

Official Ukrainian government websites and Ukrainian news sites are now Russian sources

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3414859-russian-invasion-update-ukraine-repels-tank-attack-captures-six-russians-in-mariupol.html

What about Western sources?

https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220330-mariupol-war-images-propaganda-azov-chechen-soldiers

 

[Feline Supremacist]

You can't argue with him, in his own fantasy world he thinks sieges like the battle of Okinawa are "failed" sieges because the Americans lost more than 20.000 dead.

In his own mind he says to himself : COPE, COPE, EVERY SIEGE NEEDS TO BE LIKE FALLUJAH, IF IT ISN'T LIKE FALLUJAH THEN YOU'RE SHIT AT SIEGE WARFARE.

Fallujah 1 and 2 were fucking brutal, it was hardly a "win", it was a slog that saw more jarheads killed in battle than at any time since WW2 in the Pacific.