War Invasion of Ukraine News Megathread - Thread is only for articles and discussion of articles, general discussion thread is still in Happenings.

Status
Not open for further replies.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday said that the United States will impose sanctions “far beyond” the ones that the United States imposed in 2014 following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Biden said in a White House speech, signaling a shift in his administration’s position. “We will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates,” he added.

Russian elites and their family members will also soon face sanctions, Biden said, adding that “Russia will pay an even steeper price” if Moscow decides to push forward into Ukraine. Two Russian banks and Russian sovereign debt will also be sanctioned, he said.

Also in his speech, Biden said he would send more U.S. troops to the Baltic states as a defensive measure to strengthen NATO’s position in the area.

Russia shares a border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to go into the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine after a lengthy speech in which he recognized the two regions’ independence.

Western powers decried the move and began to slap sanctions on certain Russian individuals, while Germany announced it would halt plans to go ahead with the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

At home, Biden is facing bipartisan pressure to take more extensive actions against Russia following Putin’s decision. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that sending troops to Ukraine is a “bad idea,” and a slim minority believes it’s a good one.

All 27 European Union countries unanimously agreed on an initial list of sanctions targeting Russian authorities, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, and EU foreign affairs head Josep Borell claimed the package “will hurt Russia … a lot.”

Earlier Tuesday, Borell asserted that Russian troops have already entered the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Lugansk, which are under the control of pro-Russia groups since 2014.

And on Tuesday, the Russian Parliament approved a Putin-back plan to use military force outside of Russia’s borders as Putin further said that Russia confirmed it would recognize the expanded borders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“We recognized the states,” the Russian president said. “That means we recognized all of their fundamental documents, including the constitution, where it is written that their [borders] are the territories at the time the two regions were part of Ukraine.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin said that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions” and that “every day, they are amassing troops in the Donbas.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning again downplayed the prospect of a Russian invasion and proclaimed: “There will be no war.”

“There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing,” he said in a televised address.

The White House began to signal that they would shift their own position on whether it’s the start of an invasion.

“We think this is, yes, the beginning of an invasion, Russia’s latest invasion into Ukraine,” said Jon Finer, the White House deputy national security adviser in public remarks. “An invasion is an invasion and that is what is underway.”

For weeks, Western governments have been claiming Moscow would invade its neighbor after Russia gathered some 150,000 troops along the countries’ borders. They alleged that the Kremlin would attempt to come up with a pretext to attack, while some officials on Monday said Putin’s speech recognizing the two regions was just that.

But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s “latest invasion” of Ukraine is threatening stability in the region, but he asserted that Putin can “still avoid a full blown, tragic war of choice.”

Article
 

Putin discusses Russia's claim to giant chunk of Arctic Ocean seabed

President Vladimir Putin held talks on Friday with top security officials about the status of Russia's efforts to legally expand the outer boundaries of its continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean.
Russia in 2021 filed a submission to the United Nations seeking to redefine its continental shelf, which is believed to contain vast untapped reservoirs of oil and gas. Moscow said at the time it wanted much more Arctic seabed, a move that has implications for Canada and Denmark who have their own claims.
A continental shelf is defined under international law as an area of typically shallow water bordering a country's shoreline that is considered an extension of its territory, allowing the country to exploit its natural resources.
"We have several important issues today, colleagues, concerning both the domestic agenda and the issue of the outer limit of Russia's continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. Let's get to work," the Kremlin website cited Putin as saying.
The Kremlin did not immediately provide further details about the meeting, which was attended by several high-ranking officials, including Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and Sergei Naryshkin, the foreign intelligence chief.
Russia's neighbours in the Arctic have become increasingly concerned about Moscow's ambitions in the strategically important region since it sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine in February last year.
NATO member states have ramped up Arctic military exercises in recent years, as Russia has expanded and renewed its military infrastructure in the region.
 
Lula vetoes sending ammunition from Brazil to tanks in Ukraine

The decision took place last Friday 20, at the PT meeting with the heads of the Armed Forces and the Minister of Defense, José Múcio

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ( PT ) denied a request made by the German government for Brazil to supply ammunition from war tanks that would be transferred by Berlin to Ukraine in war with Russia.

The decision took place last Friday 20, at the PT meeting with the heads of the Armed Forces and the Minister of Defense, José Múcio. It was the eve of the resignation of the army commander, Júlio Cesar de Arruda.

The general had taken the German proposal for discussion, showing that the government's effort by Prime Minister Olaf Scholz to assemble a package of aid in the area of heavy tanks for Kiev is broader than has been reported.

After weeks of pressure from the United States and Western allies, Scholz decided this week to send a contingent of 14 Leopard-2 tanks to Ukrainians and, most importantly, released the arms re-export license for anyone who wants to donate them to Kiev – 12 countries in Europe operate about 2,300 armored vehicles of the type.

According to military and politicians with knowledge of the episode, Arruda stated that Brazil would pocket about R $ 25 million for a batch of ammunition stocked into its Leopard-1 tanks, the model that preceded the tank desired by the Volodimir Zelenski government. He raised the chance to demand that Berlin not send the product to Kiev, which would not make sense.

Lula said no, arguing that it was not worth provoking the Russians. Brazil, despite having condemned the February 24, 2022 invasion of the UN, maintains a position of neutrality for economic reasons, refusing to participate in sanctions against Russia by Vladimir Putin.

The German order for ammunition from Leopard-1 suggests that Berlin is willing to offer the old model, of which the manufacturer Rheinmetall has 88 units in stock. They would need to be prepared for use, which the company president says can take all year, but the main problem today is their ammunition.

Leopard-1 is only operated by Brazil ( 261 units, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London ), Chile ( 30 ), Greece ( 500 ) and Turkey ( 397 ) – the last two, members of NATO ( Western military alliance ) like Germany. The tank has a cannon with an old standard caliber of 105 mm, while the Leopard-2 uses 120 mm ammunition.

It was not the first treatise of its kind. Last year, Germany unofficially probed the government to buy ammunition from the Gepard anti-aircraft gun armor that it took out of retirement to send to Ukraine, to no avail. Brazil still operates the model.

The report sought out Itamaraty, the Ministry of Defense and the Army, operator of ammunition, to comment on the case and specify the nature of the German request – whether it was official or a survey. None of the organs responded so far.

Brazil is not alone in its denial. The United States asked Gustavo Petro's new Colombian government to hand over former Soviet Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters to Kiev, which operates the models.
They took no, according to Petro reported this week, just as American ally Israel said it would not release a batch of anti-aircraft Hawk missiles from its stocks. In the case of Tel Aviv, an excuse was given that the material is old and unreliable, but weighed on the fact that the government has a close relationship, although not always friendly, with Moscow.

Fertilizers motivate Brazil The central motivation for Lula's position has a name: fertilizers, vital to the country's agribusiness and which have to be mostly imported. Russia has been the leader of this market for years – from 2018 to 2022, selling an average of 22% of the product that is consumed by Brazilians.

Last year, with Western embargoes, insurance companies and shipping carriers stopped doing business with Russian shipments, and alternative routes were created until an agreement for the export of grain from Ukraine during the war in theory to reopen the market to Moscow – Russia claims, however, that the West is not its part.

The result was a jump in international prices, visible in Brazil: despite importing 8 million tons of fertilizers from Moscow, 1.3 million tons less than in 2021, the Russians' profit grew 58.8% in the period, with a record US $ 5.6 billion sold to Brazilians.

This pulled the result of the trade balance with Russia, according to data from the Foreign Trade Secretariat, in favor of the Kremlin. Brazil bought a total of 37% more from Moscow in 2022, compared to 2021, totaling US $ 7.8 billion.

Russians are sixth in the ranking of countries that sold the most to Brazil. Regarding exports, they bought a mere US $ 1.9 billion Brazilian products.

Russia, despite pressure from sanctions, managed to navigate the crisis in 2022. Selling discounted oil and gas, as a result of the gradual closure of Europe's priority market, China and India saw trade with the country multiply.

Ukraine, of course, condemns this relationship, accusing countries of financing Russian aggression. In the Brazilian case, Zelenski even complained about the country's position, in particular that of the then agent Jair Bolsonaro ( PL ).

Also president, Bolsonaro made a controversial visit to Russia the week before the conflict, and made several statements refusing to take a clear side – which, moreover, is the historic position of the Itamaraty.

Lula, in interviews, was also in the same vein of condemning the war without taking a stand against Putin. This earned him a ticket on the Ukrainian government's list of Russian propaganda disseminators, but his name was eventually removed.

The Russians thanked the Brazilian position, and Putin even told Folha de S.Paulo before the second round in October that he would work very well with both the PT and the opponent finally defeated.

 
Sort of, the T 72 design was originally intended to only be produced in a time of war as a cheaper mass produced tank. However those issues you mentioned, as well as the cost of the T-64 led to it being produced as a "good enough" service tank.
There was also political pressure to keep the T-64 going no matter the cost or inability to produce enough for the USSR's needs. By the time the political pressures had abated the T-72 had almost a decade of non-stop prototype work and testing so any and all kinks were worked out.
 
Russian instructions on how to kill an Abrams:
Whwre-to-hit-Abrams-1068x441.jpg
How to destroy the American battle tank "Abrams"
Strike with small arms and machine-gun fire at the guidance devices.

Hit the gun.

Hit a larger gap between the hull and turret armor. The gap is so large that you can get under the Abrams tower from a great distance.

Hit the sides of the hull, they can be pierced even with the help of old RPG models.

Bay on the aft niches of the tower.

Fire bursts from the 30-mm BMP-2 cannon along the sides of the hull (the areas are marked in Figure 1).

The distance of confident defeat when using the BP projectile "Kerner" at an angle of 38 to 90 degrees will be up to 2000 meters (500 m for the BT projectile).

The entire area around the gun and the characteristic triangle under it are vulnerable.

The upper frontal part of the tank is much weaker, so tankers and armor-piercers are advised to hit it there.

The side of the "Abrams" in the rear is up to 7 cm of steel screens and 3 cm of armored steel of the hull. Such an obstacle is affected by 2A42 / 2A72 guns.

To successfully fight this formidable enemy, you need to know the vulnerabilities of this tank - see Figure 1

"Vulnerabilities of the side projection of the M1A1 Abrams tank" and Figure 2
fullsize.png
Modern anti-tank weapons of the Russian army are capable of destroying or incapacitating any type of enemy tank. However, if for some reason they are not available, the M1A1 Abrams tank can also be fought with obsolete means, for example, using single-block cumulative grenades for the RPG-7 grenade launcher (PG-7, PG-7V, PG-7 VM grenades it is recommended to apply along the sections of the onboard projection indicated in Figure 1, as well as along the aft niche of the tower). Hit the tank only when it turns its side (38-90 degrees).
fullsize (1).png
Figure 3. The distribution of the reservation of the M1A2 "Abrams" tank

Green - booking from 20 to 70 mm.

Red - booking from 600 to 770 mm.

Yellow - armor up to 80 mm (when firing at a right angle).
fullsize (2).pngfullsize (2).jpg
Grenades PG-7VL, and PG-7VR (armor penetration 500-750 mm) can be used in any areas of the side projection and in vulnerable areas of the frontal projection.

Based on the experience of previous conflicts, to combat enemy tanks, it is recommended:

1. Create special teams of armor-piercers, which should include a machine gunner and a sniper to protect against infantry covering an enemy tank.

2. Places for ambushes should be selected in areas that restrict the movement of tanks.

3. The location of the ambush should ensure cutting off escape routes and locking vehicles in the destruction sector.

4. When conducting military operations in the city, it is necessary to use several teams, placing them at different levels - in basements, on the first or third floors of buildings. For a reliable destruction of the tank, it is recommended to simultaneously fire up to 5 - 6 shots from RPGs from various directions.

5. It is recommended to fire at armored objects from above, from the flanks and from the rear. Shots on the frontal armor are ineffective and can only unmask the grenade launcher.
The Second Iraq War exposed the weaknesses of the American M1A1 Abrams tanks and finally dispelled the myth about its invulnerability, which had been carefully propagated over the past decade. The frontal armor of the Abrams turret and hull still provide good protection against the anti-tank weapons used by the Iraqi army.

However, side and aft projections remain vulnerable even to grenade launchers developed in the 60s of the last century. There were also cases of incapacitation of tanks by fire from the stern of both the 25-mm guns of "their own" BMP "Bradley" and the 30-mm guns of the BMP-2. It is no secret that, not keeping within the allotted weight restrictions, American designers were forced to sacrifice the armor of the hull sides, which provides protection against armor-piercing shells of a 30-mm cannon only at a heading angle of +/- 30 degrees, where side screens 70 mm thick are installed. The remaining sections of the board are made of 5 mm mild steel, followed by 30 mm armor steel of the hull. Such an obstacle is hit by 30 mm BMP-2 cannons from 2000 m (when using armor-piercing sub-caliber shells).
According to official sources, based on the actions of the US 3rd Mechanized Division, the following conclusions can be drawn about the vulnerability of the Abrams tank:

No Kornet missiles were found in Iraq.

Top, sides, and rear armor are susceptible to damage.

Registered cases where 30 mm armor-piercing shells pierced a tank from the rear.

The left and right side of the side screens, RPG breaks through.

Cosmetic damage when hit by anti-personnel rounds for RPGs.

There were no cases of tanks hit by anti-tank mines (unlike in 1991).

The knockout panels on the turret worked normally, the recorded cases of falling into the ammunition rack did not lead to the death of the crew.

The engine demonstrated low reliability and extremely high fire hazard.

To completely destroy a tank, 1 thermite grenade (inside), 2 Mayverick missiles or a BPS shot (into the ammunition area) is enough.

To disable a tank, one RPG shot at the side of the hull is enough.

Additional comments:
On many destroyed Abrams, hit by the fire of RPG-7 hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers on board, anti-cumulative screens even made their way through PG-7V grenades (this is one of the oldest types of grenades for RPG-7), and its cumulative jet was enough to after the screen, break through the side armor.

There have been cases of irretrievable losses due to the ignition of auxiliary power units (APU) and/or the ignition of containers with fuel and lubricants reserves that fell into the engine compartment and thereby ignited the engine. So one "Abrams" burned down ("due to a secondary effect"), which was fired from a 12.7-mm DShK machine gun. The bullet hit the left rear part of the tower, where the APU is located, pierced the box, disabled the installation, and the burning fuel and oil from it rushed down into the MTO. There was an ignition of the power plant, which completely burned out, the tank cannot be restored.
American propaganda is actively working to create a myth about the invulnerability of the M1A1 General Abrams tank, however, this is nothing more than lies and propaganda, the purpose of which is to instill in the hearts of our fighters self-doubt and their weapons.

Indeed, the main battle tank M1A1 "General Abrams", as well as its modifications M1A1HA and M1A2, have a high protection of the frontal projection, which is about 550-770 mm (depending on modification) from feathered armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles and about 800-1110 (depending on from modification) from cumulative weapons. However, we are talking about booking the most protected areas, which make up less than 50% of the frontal projection of the tank.

In the rest of the areas, the defeat of the tank is not difficult for a skilled fighter who is aware of the weak armor zones. In addition, data on tests of the M1A1NA tank with reinforced armor using depleted uranium showed that the data on its armor protection given in open sources are greatly overestimated and for this modification are no more than 550-600 mm at a distance of 1000 m from against feathered armor-piercing sub-caliber shells and about 800 mm from cumulative weapons.
 
That dumbass datasheet is going to get a lot of fucking vodka niggers killed.

What the fuck are they even talking about 'rolled steel armor" for. The M1 has used DU armor since the 1980's. Holy shit.

EDIT: That datasheet is just fucking dumb. "Can be taken out by systems developed in the 1960's..."

At least train the poor bastards on mockups like they did us REMFs in the 80's.
 
Last edited:
That dumbass datasheet is going to get a lot of fucking vodka niggers killed.

What the fuck are they even talking about 'rolled steel armor" for. The M1 has used DU armor since the 1980's. Holy shit.

EDIT: That datasheet is just fucking dumb. "Can be taken out by systems developed in the 1960's..."

At least train the poor bastards on mockups like they did us REMFs in the 80's.
They've been doing an all out propaganda blitz the last few days about how weak the M1 is. A few propaganda Twitter morons are spamming "the US lost 430 M1s in Iraq to enemy fire", which is just the amount sent out of country for any maintenance, not just combat damage. I've also seen a few claims of confirmed Abrams kills using 20 year old images with about 8 pixels.
 
One thing I'd like to add is that statistically speaking you're more likely to receive a hit from about 30-50 degrees off center than from any other direction, so nailing the UFP of an Abrams at that extra 30 degrees of obliquity brings it up to a 112.5 degree compound angle, so, bounce!

And yes, the Abrams can be knocked out if you hit it perfectly in one of those weakspots. If you hit it perfectly, that is. Good luck nailing an Abrams in the lower turret from 1km away... if not more like it was intended to engage at.
 
That dumbass datasheet is going to get a lot of fucking vodka niggers killed.

What the fuck are they even talking about 'rolled steel armor" for. The M1 has used DU armor since the 1980's. Holy shit.

EDIT: That datasheet is just fucking dumb. "Can be taken out by systems developed in the 1960's..."

At least train the poor bastards on mockups like they did us REMFs in the 80's.
I think a lot of these things are made by fucking video game players who think Warthunder and Arma 2 are accurate military simulations. A lot of these images are preexisting sketches from google images with added MS Paint arrows. If these images were official releases from the Russian military than they're even more hopeless than originally thought. I can't wait to see videos of mobliks trying to whittle down HP bars on an Abrams or Leopard II with DSKH or even a PKM (good luck trying to take out the optics with your iron sights as they dial you in with FLIR from 1000+ meters). That being said a reward of roughly 17,000 USD for a Leopard II capture and 5,000 for a kill has been announced. Note it's only for the first kill or capture, any follow up claims are worth nothing.

1674822949015578.png
 
Lula vetoes sending ammunition from Brazil to tanks in Ukraine
Kek, I know a bunch of anti-Bolsonaro types that got massively butthurt by this.
Turkey shouldn't be in NATO to begin with.

IMO.
NATO has always had issues with members, it's nothing new. See France constantly acting too high-and-mighty for the organization only to come running when they need everyone else to pile on someone they hate (ahem, Libya) or Greece vetoing Macedonia's membership for something like 15 years because of their name. I also vaguely recall something hilariously retarded happening with Albania's membership though it escapes me right now.
 
Apart from sending over some of their Leos, Poland is also going to send over around 30 Pt-91, a polish upgrade of the t72 in the 90s.
Last year, they send over 250 t72s to Ukraine.
So unlike the Leo, the Pt-91 will be very familiar for Ukraine.
and no, I don't know why it is published under the sport section on yahoo.
 
Another good interview, this time with a foreign fighter who's been in the region since before 2014, knows language and nuances of the matter, touches up on the nationalist question as well

@Pocket Dragoon That "How to destroy Abrams" diagram is hilarious, probably WoT nolifers coming out of the woodwork, a lot of Russian boomers who's also armchair tacticians are playing it
 
What the fuck are they even talking about 'rolled steel armor" for. The M1 has used DU armor since the 1980's. Holy shit.
It's not like they'll ever see many Abrams in the field. IIRC, the tanks being sent are new-build, so they probably won't arrive before the war is close to its end.

@Pocket Dragoon That "How to destroy Abrams" diagram is hilarious, probably WoT nolifers coming out of the woodwork, a lot of Russian boomers who's also armchair tacticians are playing it
See, they should listen to those guys. Russia's clearest path to victory is to deploy a few batallions of KV-2s and TOG IIs. Meme tanks never lose.

Funny how only one of those sekrit Russian dokuments ever leaked, though. And they're not the ones Gaijin boasted about having.
Russian bias.
 
Scrolling through the news while waiting for my groceries this morning and I see a brand new angle that I haven't seen, not fucking once since this war started.
Angles I've seen.
- Wheat, Ukraine is all about feeding the world, we must defend it otherwise the world will starve.
- Freedom, Ukraine represents the freedom of the world, we much defend it otherwise we'll lose our freedom to Russia.
- Prevent the Holocaust 2, if Russia gets their way they'll Holocaust everyone for some reason.
- Stop Russian aggression, Russia won't stop until they've taken over the UK and Europe.

Today, is the straightest angle I've ever seen. It almost feels like the truth. Almost. I mean if you haven't been paying attention to anything Ukraine related for the last year, this is is 100% swallow-able.

The Battle For Ukraine's Titanium
https://archive.ph/wip/uBH4S , still processing so hold on if it's gives an error.
 
Another good interview, this time with a foreign fighter who's been in the region since before 2014, knows language and nuances of the matter, touches up on the nationalist question as well

@Pocket Dragoon That "How to destroy Abrams" diagram is hilarious, probably WoT nolifers coming out of the woodwork, a lot of Russian boomers who's also armchair tacticians are playing it

Yemeni rebels living in caves don't seem to have a whole lot of trouble disabling and destroying Saudi purchased Abrams so I won't hold my breath. 100 abrams isn't an "lol this will win the war" thing like this line of bullshit we're being fed. A mobility kill on an Abrams is just as good as Ukraine has very minimal ability to retrieve damaged abrams or any damaged vehicle off the battlefield.

Drop in the bucket.

In Iraq with a downed American vehicle immense resources would be expended to retrieve it. The Ukrainian army simply cannot afford such a luxury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back