Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread - Episode III - Revenge of the Ruski (now unlocked with new skins and gameplay modes!!!)

[kuuu]

What is the tactical advantage of having your soldiers freeze to death on Ukrainian soil?
View attachment 4255431

Nice yellow and blue ruzzian flag that soldier has on his chest. Oh wait-

 

[Ghostse]

I'm gonna be doubtful on the Abrams being much of a game changer either, due to the prevalence of modern ATGMs and RPGs that are capable of defeating it's armor in the area and being quite the thirsty vehicle. The main things it's got going on is that it's got modern thermals which are really nice to have in a conflict like this and the crew's likely to survive the ammo racks detonating if they drive into a mine or get their shit fucked by a Kornet. The only way it would genuinely change the tide is if's sent in the several hundreds.

Bolded the key bit, and I solidly agree -for the most part.
I said earlier, Russia at the start of the invasion had a 4 to 1 population advantage. While they can't deploy all their troops or risk being weak on their borders, Ukraine also had a fourth of the population flee and that doesn't count the loss of the Donbros. So I'd say a 5 to one advantage for Russia is about right - Ukraine needs a supply of modern weapon platforms to even that odds. Not this piece mealing.

That said, Ukraine has taken 20 HIMARS systems and pushed russia's shit all the way in to their "must hold" positions.

This is a huge, big maybe, but if you have a good old fashioned American armored battalion and you deploy it right, you could do vastly outsized damaged to Russian forces and really reduce Russia's advantage of armor, as well as have it as a Fleet in being where even if rarely used, once proven lethal their potential presence would need to be factored into any Russian armor advances.
That would would in no way win the war (so STFU vatniggers), but it'd make any russian advances need more forces involved - which means more logistics, and giving Ukraine more time to respond.

But in addition it all being academic, it would depend on getting the tanks, that depends on the Yook crews being up to snuff, that depends on platoon, company, battalion, and division commanders being competent and deploying correctly.

The other problem is that unlike HIMARS which can hang back in safe territory, to use MBTs to full effectiveness they would need to be mixing it up in the shit (on a relative basis that is). And If russia has a company of Abrams running rough-shod over their supply depos, they're going to risk their attack helos on a close strike to take them out or damage them - especially if its unlikely Ukraine would get more.

RPGs i wouldn't put much faith in defeating an Abrams. Modern ATGM would at least get a mission or mobility kill, but again that's what the Bradley units would be there to prevent.

 

[CaptainAutism69]

What is the tactical advantage of having your soldiers freeze to death on Ukrainian soil?
View attachment 4255431

poor Ukranian conscript. I bet a few months ago he was tip tapping away on a keyboard in a callcentre, and now he's shivering in a hole in a field. Surprised he still wears his countries flag tbh.

 

[Ghostse]

I know its frowned upon to berate the mentally disabled, but:

• a Bradley
• In an environment and terrain it's unsuited for

I know you are a dumb civie faggot, but this IS the environment it was designed to operate in. It made its bones stomping dune coons, but It was made to fight in Europe, to fight the godless russians, in woods and hills and take advantage of cover to locate the enemy, harrass them, and then tell the actual tanks where to start shooting.

The only thing that is holding it back from reclaiming the glory it was denied by the Commies destroying themselves is no MBT to cover it/for it to spot for.

You vatniggers keep showing IED'd bradleys from Iraq like this is some sick own. There aren't a lot of smoldering Bradleys in pictures from Desert Storm, but there IS a lot of burned out T-72s and BMPs.

 

[Snekposter]

You are not wrong, but the problem is in the listed tactic is Ukaine has very small ammounts of anything that could be called a modern MBT. The problem with the tactic is getting the bradley's across the line unnoticed and undamaged, and then get back across after kicking the hornet's nest. Bradleys without support will have a very bad time if they are mixing up with armor. You should deploy with something that immediately gets the enemy to forget all about the little IFV and swivel to the bigger threat, and the Abrams did that magnificently, and that armored fist could also be the ram that gets you through the lines and back out.

To be fair, Russia also has surprisingly small amounts of anything that could be called a modern MBT after the bulk of it exploded in the early stages of the conflict. Further, the goal is not any sort of extended combat but a raid and retreat, using the superior armor and firepower of the Bradleys to take out screening units. Naturally the Bradley is far more likely to tear apart a BMP-3 than be torn apart thanks to the much heavier armor that was explicitly designed to neutralize the Russian 30mm for obvious reasons, and even if it can't shoot a TOW on the move against armor... at anything over a kilometer neither can any Russian tanks older than a modernized T-72. The longer the range gets, the better the Bradley gets compared to its opposition thanks to optics and fire control.

Obviously if it encounters armor that's ready for combat and isn't in a prepared ambush position expecting said armor it should GTFO, however just because tanks exist that doesn't mean they or their crews are 100% ready for combat. If some tanks are in a rear area and their commanders are standing in the hatches yelling at each other how about they're going to fuck each other's mothers because they're bored out of their minds waiting for the order to advance I'd say if the terrain is favorable the chances of the Bradleys being able to close to 3km or so (TOW has a max range of 3.75km, TOW-2B 4.5km) before they can button up and get mobile are pretty good, even if they're forewarned about an enemy breakthrough on the flank by the time the Bradleys arrive, which given the terrible Russian coordination we've seen is debatable.

Plus, it is a battle taxi that can act as a combination transport and ammo storage for Javelin teams either on offense or defense and provide fire support against infantry or light vehicles that would try to hunt said teams down, which is a really fucking handy capability given how useful those have proven.

In an environment and terrain it's unsuited for

I know you struggle with abstract concepts sometimes but shooting at Russians in Europe is what it was explicitly designed to do considering its origins in the Cold War.

On the steppes/town, under artillery and constant shelling, exactly what benefit does this Infantry Fighting Vehicle bring to the table?

Shrapnel-proof armored transport. You need to get a hell of a lot luckier with artillery to take out a Bradley over a BMP. According to a Russian source with Kaktus and applique the BMP only has 360 protection against 12.7mm rounds... if they're fired at 200m or more. Of course that's an extra 3.5 metric tons of weight to haul around, which is a lot considering its only 18.7 to start with. You go from 27 horsepower a tonne to 22.5 (or roughly the same as a Bradley), and of course you're not amphibious when you add all that on, negating one of the BMP's biggest advantages over the Bradley.

Not to mention the role it was designed for

Literally depends on how Ukraine uses it.

Ukraine understands this (while you do not) and are lobbying for Abrams tanks, which, while better than Bradleys, are also unsuitable for this type of warfare. You see, all these were conceived to roll over the Fulda Gap to meet the USSR in a WW3 scenario in the 1980s, not to fight the Russian Federation in the Ukraine over salo rights, in the 21st century, because sane and normal people understood starting a war with a nuclear power (with the most nukes, mind you) was stupid, so no one was ever tasked with designing any tanks/vehicles/artillery for such an unthinkable event.

"Armored vehicles intended to fight a war against the Russians are useless fighting against the Russians in a war."
Do you ever read the things you post and think about what you're saying?

 

[The Grognard]

RPGs i wouldn't put much faith in defeating an Abrams. Modern ATGM would at least get a mission or mobility kill, but again that's what the Bradley units would be there to prevent.

Don't underestimate them. These things are pretty damn nasty and have shown themselves to be a headache in the middle-east to Leopards of Turkey and Abrams of Saudis.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

I pray Russia glasses Ukraine and its greedy kikes ASAP.

As you were saying, it's the other side that are supposed to be Nazis, right?

 

[Ghostse]

To be fair, Russia also has surprisingly small amounts of anything that could be called a modern MBT after the bulk of it exploded in the early stages of the conflict. Further, the goal is not any sort of extended combat but a raid and retreat, using the superior armor and firepower of the Bradleys to take out screening units. Naturally the Bradley is far more likely to tear apart a BMP-3 than be torn apart thanks to the much heavier armor that was explicitly designed to neutralize the Russian 30mm for obvious reasons, and even if it can't shoot a TOW on the move against armor... at anything over a kilometer neither can any Russian tanks older than a modernized T-72. The longer the range gets, the better the Bradley gets compared to its opposition thanks to optics and fire control.

Russia hasn't deployed a lot of its T-90s after taking some embarrassing early losses. They are mostly rolling out T-72 which depending on the modernization level & crew specifically not storing naked rounds in the turret so it does a pringles impression when hit. can still hang on the modern battlefield.
Kills are also dubious, because it is hard to completely offline a tank. (again as long as you aren't storing ammo in the crew compartment).

I guess I'm trying to convey is while Russia is "modernizing" T-62s (aka throwing on optics and brackets on could in theory mount reactive armor to and then putting mobliks in them and saying good luck) we don't know exactly what they have, but they've got more of it than Ukraine has.

Its not like the Bradleys will instantly combust the minute they get near enemy armor, but while it will be operating the terrain it was designed for, I doubt they get the heavy support they need.

Obviously if it encounters armor that's ready for combat and isn't in a prepared ambush position expecting said armor it should GTFO, however just because tanks exist that doesn't mean they or their crews are 100% ready for combat. If some tanks are in a rear area and their commanders are standing in the hatches yelling at each other how about they're going to fuck each other's mothers because they're bored out of their minds waiting for the order to advance I'd say if the terrain is favorable the chances of the Bradleys being able to close to 3km or so (TOW has a max range of 3.75km, TOW-2B 4.5km) before they can button up and get mobile are pretty good, even if they're forewarned about an enemy breakthrough on the flank by the time the Bradleys arrive, which given the terrible Russian coordination we've seen is debatable.

Plus, it is a battle taxi that can act as a combination transport and ammo storage for Javelin teams either on offense or defense and provide fire support against infantry or light vehicles that would try to hunt said teams down, which is a really fucking handy capability given how useful those have proven.

I think the problem is they aren't getting enough bradleys really make a sector-wide swap, and with a higher profile than a BMP they are big, sore-thumb type targets.

In your infiltration scenario, an enemy would know a bradley is an enemy vehicle as soon as they see it. The bradley is slower than a BMP-3, so your raiding force might get out-played.

anyway, its all academic. We can all agree firstly to laugh at vatnigger retards who think the Bradley wasn't designed for combat in Eastern Europe, but secondly that the platform is a fine platform and good fit for the combat terrain (just no Wunderwaffe), but that how well it does is going to come down to how well the crews are trained and how well UAF command deploys it/what missions it gives. And that regardless of how well it does, it'd do a lot better with a battalion of Abrams.

 

[Ghostse]

At this point I don't honestly care which side "wins," if such a condition is even possible. I am curious how this is affecting general military readiness in NATO, though.

In the short term, bad. The Eurocucks were already cucking under, and it makes Germany's calls for an EU army all the more lol worthy.

In the medium term, it should be good as all these coldwar era weapons are shipped to ukraine, the mothballed "oh shit" stocker are replaced by older systems in sevice, current systems are downgraded to older systems, and brand new systems are brought in. It should also be a wake up call for the inflexibility of the arms industry and the slowness to respond, and to actually take care of ammo stock piles.

Please note the copious use of "Should" because Eurocucks; "we can't update our defense forces, we have thousands of violent & ignorant niggers and dune coons who hate our society to import and subsidize their breeding!"

 

[teriyakiburns]

I am curious how this is affecting general military readiness in NATO, though.

Unless Russia has a second, hidden army ready to roll through the fulda gap and shatter Berlin, I'm not sure it actually matters all that much. Several of the NATO members were in middle of inventory renewal (the UK for instance, is carrying out the upgrade of her tank and IFV fleet with the MoD's famed efficiency and transparency*), meaning much of the equipment they're sending out to Ukraine would have been mothballed and scrapped within a few years anyway. Others are taking advantage of the upheaval to stimulate their domestic production (again, the UK is handling this exactly as you'd expect**). There will be a temporary reduction in capability in the short term, but it should be followed by a marked overall improvement.

Except in Germany, but that's because Germany makes even the British government look competent right now.

The real long-term readiness issue is population. Most of western Europe is ageing rapidly, with classic inverted population pyramids - even with immigration. In another 30 years, they'll be seeing population crashes similar to the one Russia has been going through for the last 20. Defence spending doesn't matter much when you have nobody left to drive the tanks.

* This is sarcasm.
** "We need to level up the north! No no, none of that silly industry nonsense, we'll just buy tanks from China or whatever. Besides, we'd get called mean names at the next climate change conference. They're going to have computer jobs! The red wall is never coming back!"

 

[Useful_Mistake]

CNN team near Soledar witnesses organized pullback of Ukrainian troops

The team, positioned approximately 2.5 miles from Soledar, witnessed Ukrainian forces ferrying troops out on Friday afternoon, in what appeared to be an organized pullback from the town.

That doesn't seem good for Ukraine. Though, if Russia encircled them, how are they escaping? Or am I mixing up my towns?

There did not appear to be a sense of panic among the withdrawing Ukrainian troops.

Well, that's good for the troops

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

At this point I don't honestly care which side "wins," if such a condition is even possible. I am curious how this is affecting general military readiness in NATO, though.

If anything, we can pretty much tell much of NATO was content just going about their business and hoping Putin doesn't go full retard, and that US would take care of everything if things go south. Especially Germany, out of more prominent members, from what I understand their military is pathetic.
As for who wins though, even if you don't care, in my opinion it's more or less a stalemate on the frontline, there isn't going to be major changes anytime soon. I think it more depends on how things progress politically in both countries, and in case of Ukraine international support as well. They've demonstrated they can at the very least hold on and keep fighting as long as they have weapons to fight with, there's plenty of will to do so. This can last for a while as neither side is capable of amassing enough force to make a decisive blow and break the opponent.
Smarter people than me have said that the days of large offensives are over, so I assume it's all local meatgrinders from now on and fighting for mere meters of ground.

Russia still acts as if it's WWII and they can expend men as they did back then, but that's not true at all. So their gains come at an absurd price, it's not sort of shit a competent military like that of US would consider a success. Of course Ukrainians take losses too, but what also matters is the ability to replenish them. Ukraine has been mobilizing for a while, and understandably a lot of men don't want to fight, but I can bet there's a lot more of those who does than there is in Russia, and that's an important distinction. They've been living in a state of war for almost a year now, many of them lost someone to invaders and definitely know someone who did, they know that Russia came to their land, bringing death and destruction, it's their reality.

There are far less Russians who both believes that it's a justified preemptive attack or some other bullshit and is willing to fight... especially men of the fighting age. Most have enjoyed a peaceful life until "partial mobilization" started knocking on their doors. People who naively go along with it often view it through the prism of war drama from TV and sterilized reporting by state media on how great everything is going, and just like the guys in Makiivka they often die without even realizing how wrong they were. But with time more and more Russians will realize that they're being lied to. They could force the unwilling into uniforms with threats and violence, but can you trust someone like that with lethal weapons, let alone to be of any use with them?
There's also economic repercussions of course, when country increasingly relies on domestic industry to sustain itself in the face growing isolation from the rest of the world, it seems like a really bad idea to feed your able-bodied men to the meatgrinder. And unlike with Ukraine, there's no one to bail Russia out.

What I'm getting at is that people are mistaken when they say that Russia has the ability to mobilize a large army. If they could, they would've already. Unless one is willing to believe that they just opted out for winning* slowly instead.
Two major reasons for that in my opinion is that they simply can't afford it in terms of materiel, logistics and administrative burden the process entails. And secondly, it severely disturbs the populace: after decades of desensitizing people from getting involved in politics, suddenly government comes in their homes, comes for their very lives.

TL;DR: IMO this war is less likely to be resolved on the battlefield, while compromise is impossible to achieve at this point - Ukrainians suffered too much to agree to humiliating concessions that Russia demands (demands they're in no position to make unless they have a knife to Ukraine's collective neck, which they don't).
It's more likely that it will end with one of the governments collapsing, be it a coup something else.

Sources: Talking out of my ass, purely anecdotal. Was going for a concise post but ended up rambling, sorry. Hopefully it's of at least some use.

 

[CaptainAutism69]

Unless Russia has a second, hidden army ready to roll through the fulda gap and shatter Berlin, I'm not sure it actually matters all that much. Several of the NATO members were in middle of inventory renewal (the UK for instance, is carrying out the upgrade of her tank and IFV fleet with the MoD's famed efficiency and transparency*), meaning much of the equipment they're sending out to Ukraine would have been mothballed and scrapped within a few years anyway. Others are taking advantage of the upheaval to stimulate their domestic production (again, the UK is handling this exactly as you'd expect**). There will be a temporary reduction in capability in the short term, but it should be followed by a marked overall improvement.

Except in Germany, but that's because Germany makes even the British government look competent right now.

The real long-term readiness issue is population. Most of western Europe is ageing rapidly, with classic inverted population pyramids - even with immigration. In another 30 years, they'll be seeing population crashes similar to the one Russia has been going through for the last 20. Defence spending doesn't matter much when you have nobody left to drive the tanks.

* This is sarcasm.
** "We need to level up the north! No no, none of that silly industry nonsense, we'll just buy tanks from China or whatever. Besides, we'd get called mean names at the next climate change conference. They're going to have computer jobs! The red wall is never coming back!"

Well the UK's solution to population decline was importing Indians en mass. They breed like rabbits, and are as ruthless with money as the Jewiest Jew. They even took over the British national dish. The Mayor of London and the Prime Minister are from the ex-colony of India.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

Poor vatnik cherry picks as per usual, I guess larping as a Russian comes with that territory, tell me ruskieboo remind me how old are people in literal children from elementary to middle and first years of high school? Children are being drafted by youth party.

Not to mention trainees who still yet have to see a single hour of combat are shipped from Moscow and surrounding Oblasts, recruitment letters are sent, contracts are forced under pretense of mandatory military service.

In case you ever looked much less were in Russian military the training is lackluster when compared western counterparts who do not college age kids to active war zones against people with NATO backed training and active military servicemen from 2014. Baltic countries for example keep their reserves in reserves unlike Russia who drafted 350,000 men last year and aim to double that number this year. These conscripts have only basic training, not years that is required to be in tank core, paratroopers and pioneers to name few.

Since you are a vatnik I'll let you on little secret Russian conscripts have to pay for their own equipment and two months isn't nearly enough to familiarize use of anything else outside basic firearm and outdated automatic weaponry most of which are unmaintained or dug up from cold war era stockpiles suffering from rust, obvious lack of maintenance and poor storage. 20 odd years of neglect in weather struck depos do a thing or two weapons and ammo as well.

It doesn't help that even current military stockpiles are poor quality either caused by neglect, corruption or both.
For example instead of using military grade tires on army supply trucks russian commissioners bought Chinese tires for trucks, rocket platform and others.
To top it off russian military left rubbed wheeled vehicles out in open during summer and winter resulting in sun rot and causing massive amounts of equipment to break down inside enemy territory for example.

Another example of Russian ineptitude was and is poor intelligence and leadership.
More Russian commanders died war in Ukraine than in entirety of World War 2 mounting to 56+ top brass dying in the field.

Hell vaunted Russian first tank company that was sent to Ukraine was devastated, forcing them to abandon their tanks and flee back to Russia. This tank core was supposed to counter NATOs very best, but handful of HIMARs and soldiers with single use javelin systems took out these supposed elites and these were "best of the best"

Since you haven't seen a single day in military action in your life you stick with propaganda and trust there are enough of untrained retards who buy your shit. For example


It took 30 days for Wagner group to take 3 miles of territory. Meaning it would take 10+ years to invade Ukraine controlled oblast. Wagner group are strictly infantry and and armor based infantry. They do not have air forces, advanced drone technology or smart weaponry. Their casualty rate rate combined with snail's pace progress is embarrassing to say the least, capturing insignificant targets and hailing them as great victories is very definition of optics. Hell "Putin's chef" went into salt mines for a photoshoot for optics with his GoPro
I don't know about your definition of efficiency and success. Wagner group was sitting thumbs up their ass for 4 months losing ground and men by the mile, supposed errand boys of Iran and Saudis who suffered major casualties in this "special operations", lack of munitions and manpower.

Anyone who is capable of basic research and has military background can call out your bullshit. Others have been either been too polite or indifferent to look into your claims like @Ghostse for example who know exactly what you lot are.

Russia does not have allies, much economy to slog through their Afghanistan 2.0 electronic Boogaloo. When USSR did that in 1990 it resulted in collapse of soviet union.

To be blunt you're either deluded, desperate vatnik cheerleader or both. Anything for internet points am I right?

Cool story, bro. Do they pay you per each word? And it's almost the 15th, when is that super secret mobilization starting?

For some updates, here's today's map.

Рыбарь

❗️🇷🇺🇺🇦 Старобельское направление обстановка по состоянию на 15.00 13 января 2023 года 🔻На Купянско-Сватовском участке ВСУ проводят ротацию личного состава подразделений теробороны в Гряниковке, Двуречном, Кучеровке, Купянск-Узловом и Купянске. ▪️Противник осведомлен о деятельности российских...

t.me

 

[Snekposter]

I doubt they get the heavy support they need.

Well, that's sort of where we're running into a difference of opinion because the Bradley is sort of designed as its own heavy support. Its late and I don't want to descend into too much autistic rambling but the TL;DR is that US cavalry doctrine which is a weird mix of dragoon tactics (aka mounted infantry) and mobile artillery has wanted something like the Bradley that can blow up 90% of the things on the battlefield and transport troops in safety ever since WW2 but technology just wasn't available for something like that.

As far as firepower goes, the M41 Walker Bulldog had a 76mm cannon that had more in common with the 17-pounder than it did any other 76mm guns in prior US service, the M551 Sheridan was all about putting a literal artillery piece on a light tank for infantry support, the M56 Scorpion was a 90mm gun on tracks, and aside from the M56 they've all had armor to resist autocannon fire unlike most light tanks of that time, such as the PT-76 which in order to be amphibious would have gotten opened up like a tin can by a Ma Deuce. All of our post-WW2 APC's were surprisingly well armored such as the M59 APC and its 25mm of steel in the front, which was actually less than the M75 and its inch and a half it replaced, which the Army considered too light and wanted more for the M113. When that all that didn't exactly work out as intended (aka perfectly) we decided to stick to scale up the M113 ACAV concept to the point we could have more dakka and room in the back for a combat team and keep them safe from everything save heavy firepower, which has been far more successful than all our light tank designs in blowing things up. Although now that the Sheridan finally has a proper replacement in the Griffin II, 105mm and all, I'm sure the French will start seething and coping soon since we now once again have more light tank dakka than them.

As to the MGS its a weird little thing that has done surprisingly well considering it was never intended to stick around for any period of time or do much in that time besides tootle around on the NATO borders to scare off any men in unmarked Russian-pattern uniforms from crossing. The fact it only slowly disintegrates instead of completely disintegrating when it fires that big-ass gun is from a purely technical and engineering standpoint quite impressive. Besides, the Stryker in general was designed by and for the Leafs which should explain why its got so many issues, but thankfully it was a by a Canadian subsidiary of GM so its not as crap as it could have been had a purely local company designed and built it.

 

[Napoleon Bonerfart]

I think the problem is they aren't getting enough bradleys really make a sector-wide swap, and with a higher profile than a BMP they are big, sore-thumb type targets.

The next-to-useless amount of tanks being sent is to prod at whatever red line Russia set this week.

Once it’s confirmed that all that will happen is Lavrov or Peskov issuing an impotent warning on Russian television, the floodgate will open for more heavy weapons.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

In case anyone wondered what IFVs are being used by Wagner, this is a "Chekan" MRAP with the turret from a BTR-80. Doesn't cost $5 million like a Bradley, but judging from Wagner's string of successes it seems to work just fine.


Edit: There's a report of a Russian advance south of Artemovsk (Bakhmut). Let's see if it gets confirmed by others. If true, then Ukrainians knew about it, that's why the officers and foreign mercenaries started leaving Artemovsk yesterday.

Prima Vigilia 👁️‍🗨️

🇺🇦🇷🇺 - Ukrainian sources are reporting a major advance of the Russian forces south of Bakhmut. If true, Chasiv Yar, where the last road that leads to Bakhmut is, could be in danger.

t.me

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

I again dare this thread to make a Team Yankee army to show how competent you are because otherwise no1curr about your hot take

 

[Napoleon Bonerfart]

I again dare this thread to make a Team Yankee army to show how competent you are because otherwise no1curr about your hot take

I am not an armchair general but I play one on TV.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

A Ukrainian soldier stationed in the eastern city of Bakhmut has told CNN that Ukrainian units are still at the edges of the nearby town of Soledar, which has been under intense attack by Russian forces for several weeks.

Paratroopers from 77th and 46th brigades "are still on the western outskirts of Soledar," said Taras Berezovets, a captain in the Ukrainian Special Forces First Brigade.

That gives context to the earlier CNN report of the troops withdrawing. There's only two brigades left apparently.