Blyatskrieg

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Sat May 27, 2023 2:49 pm

bjn wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 2:25 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 11:49 am
Grumble wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 6:19 am
I would have expected drone subs to be more successful, but I guess the problem is controlling the things once underwater.
Yes, and a submerged drone wouldn't be able to receive GPS signals.
An antenna sticking out of the water? You couldn't submerge too deeply, but you don't need to have the water stop bullets and shells.
Something like a narco submarine would be fairly simple and have most of those benefits
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Sat May 27, 2023 10:07 pm

bjn wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 2:25 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 11:49 am
Grumble wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 6:19 am
I would have expected drone subs to be more successful, but I guess the problem is controlling the things once underwater.
Yes, and a submerged drone wouldn't be able to receive GPS signals.
An antenna sticking out of the water? You couldn't submerge too deeply, but you don't need to have the water stop bullets and shells.
That's what I've seen on the proposed Ukrainian loitering torpedoes, and it makes sense - the radar return of a little antenna and camera unit isn't going to be very much.

Also it takes very little water to stop bullets, not sure about autocannon shells, which are the main weapon used against these approaching drone boats, but I don't think running at a depth which is out of autocannon reach and having a little camera and antenna mast is an impossible combination.

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by bjn » Sun May 28, 2023 5:29 am

I had an English fail, I meant what you said about water and bullets.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Sun May 28, 2023 7:44 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 8:34 am
Just a quick reminder that a) when you are planning an operation that relies to a significant extent on surprise for its effectiveness, you don't brief the media on it first, and b) when you are planning an operation that relies to a significant extent on surprise for its effectiveness, you do benefit from misdirections, demonstrations and feints.
Message in meme form https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/statu ... 1zY-PW4R9w

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Sun May 28, 2023 2:29 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Sun May 28, 2023 7:44 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 8:34 am
Just a quick reminder that a) when you are planning an operation that relies to a significant extent on surprise for its effectiveness, you don't brief the media on it first, and b) when you are planning an operation that relies to a significant extent on surprise for its effectiveness, you do benefit from misdirections, demonstrations and feints.
Message in meme form https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/statu ... 1zY-PW4R9w
That said they do seem to be going out of their way to encourage speculation. https://news.sky.com/video/ukraines-top ... t-12891123

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Mon May 29, 2023 6:40 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Sun May 28, 2023 2:29 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Sun May 28, 2023 7:44 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 8:34 am
Just a quick reminder that a) when you are planning an operation that relies to a significant extent on surprise for its effectiveness, you don't brief the media on it first, and b) when you are planning an operation that relies to a significant extent on surprise for its effectiveness, you do benefit from misdirections, demonstrations and feints.
Message in meme form https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/statu ... 1zY-PW4R9w
That said they do seem to be going out of their way to encourage speculation. https://news.sky.com/video/ukraines-top ... t-12891123
It's basically impossible to stop some information about the real offensive making it out into the open. The goal is thus to ensure that the information space is so flooded with speculation and b.llsh.t the real information isn't recognised and acted upon.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 am

This article has been getting some attention

"Study shows drones the cheapest, most effective in battle against Russian invasion"
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/05/28/ ... -invasion/

It appears to show that drones are enormously more cost effective at destroying Russian tanks than high tech missiles like the Javelin or precision guided artillery rounds like the Excalibur round.

I've been somewhat skeptical of some high tech systems in the past. But I have a few issues with some of the takes based upon the article.

Firstly, a lot depends upon the probability of knocking out the tank. The article puts it at 5-50% which is a lot of variation. There's good reason to believe that its closer to 5%, maybe lower. For example
:
Despite the importance of UAVs to remaining competitive, their attrition rates were extremely high. Of all UAVs used by the UAF in the first three phases of the war covered by this study, around 90% were destroyed. The average life expectancy of a quadcopter remained around three flights. The average life expectancy of a fixed-wing UAV was around six flights. Skilled crews who properly pre-programmed the flight path of their UAVs to approach targets shielded by terrain and other features could extend the life of their platforms. However, even when UAVs survived, this did not mean that they were successful in carrying out their missions. UAVs could fail to achieve their missions because the requirements to get them in place – flying without transmitting data, with captured images to be downloaded on recovery, for example – prevented timely target acquisition before the enemy displaced. Many missions failed to find targets because there was no target at the specified location. Alternatively, and more common, was mission failure owing to disruption of a UAV under control through electronic warfare, the dazzling of its sensors or the denial of its navigational systems from determining the accurate location of a target. In other instances, the Russians successfully struck the ground control stations of the UAV. In aggregate, only around a third of UAV missions can be said to have been successful
Even with such a high attrition rate the drones may still be more cost effective. But there is another problem. In many cases its necessary to destroy an enemy tank at exactly the right time. A unit may need to destroy an attacking tank immediately. In that case a Javelin or Stugna P missile is going to be far quicker than sending out a drone. Moreover, a lot of drone hits have been against stationary vehicles. Drone dropped munitions don't appear to be so accurate against moving targets. Even with a stationary target the time between identification and firing may well be far shorter with an Excalibur round. That will make a difference if the tank is only stationary for a short period.

Drones have been very effective but they fill a niche. They are good against certain types of target. Other more expensive weapons are also needed.

Imrael
Snowbonk
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Imrael » Mon May 29, 2023 11:24 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 am
This article has been getting some attention

"Study shows drones the cheapest, most effective in battle against Russian invasion"
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/05/28/ ... -invasion/


Drones have been very effective but they fill a niche. They are good against certain types of target. Other more expensive weapons are also needed.
Looking at some of the vids of drones detroying vehicles, I thought they were already abandoned. This can be totally legit- prevent subsequent recovery by the enemy when you cant practically capture them - but might mess up the figures somewhat.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Mon May 29, 2023 12:01 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 am
This article has been getting some attention

"Study shows drones the cheapest, most effective in battle against Russian invasion"
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/05/28/ ... -invasion/

It appears to show that drones are enormously more cost effective at destroying Russian tanks than high tech missiles like the Javelin or precision guided artillery rounds like the Excalibur round.

I've been somewhat skeptical of some high tech systems in the past. But I have a few issues with some of the takes based upon the article.

Firstly, a lot depends upon the probability of knocking out the tank. The article puts it at 5-50% which is a lot of variation. There's good reason to believe that its closer to 5%, maybe lower. For example
:
Despite the importance of UAVs to remaining competitive, their attrition rates were extremely high. Of all UAVs used by the UAF in the first three phases of the war covered by this study, around 90% were destroyed. The average life expectancy of a quadcopter remained around three flights. The average life expectancy of a fixed-wing UAV was around six flights. Skilled crews who properly pre-programmed the flight path of their UAVs to approach targets shielded by terrain and other features could extend the life of their platforms. However, even when UAVs survived, this did not mean that they were successful in carrying out their missions. UAVs could fail to achieve their missions because the requirements to get them in place – flying without transmitting data, with captured images to be downloaded on recovery, for example – prevented timely target acquisition before the enemy displaced. Many missions failed to find targets because there was no target at the specified location. Alternatively, and more common, was mission failure owing to disruption of a UAV under control through electronic warfare, the dazzling of its sensors or the denial of its navigational systems from determining the accurate location of a target. In other instances, the Russians successfully struck the ground control stations of the UAV. In aggregate, only around a third of UAV missions can be said to have been successful
Even with such a high attrition rate the drones may still be more cost effective. But there is another problem. In many cases its necessary to destroy an enemy tank at exactly the right time. A unit may need to destroy an attacking tank immediately. In that case a Javelin or Stugna P missile is going to be far quicker than sending out a drone. Moreover, a lot of drone hits have been against stationary vehicles. Drone dropped munitions don't appear to be so accurate against moving targets. Even with a stationary target the time between identification and firing may well be far shorter with an Excalibur round. That will make a difference if the tank is only stationary for a short period.

Drones have been very effective but they fill a niche. They are good against certain types of target. Other more expensive weapons are also needed.
Yes.

Remote and autonomous vehicles are going to be increasingly important* and quite likely especially disposable ones at the tactical level, but that is different from saying that they have rendered more expensive systems obsolete.

You cannot jam a wire guided missile, for example.






*as an aside I did write a report saying that when I was in the air cadets in the late 1980s - the closest I got to the military
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Mon May 29, 2023 9:35 pm


“We have approved the dates for the start of the movement of our troops, the decisions have been made, I thank the brigades that prepared for this,” President Volodymyr #Zelensky said.
https://twitter.com/kyivpost/status/166 ... 1zY-PW4R9w

Looks like it’s on. At some point. Which we knew anyway. So no change.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Tue May 30, 2023 11:42 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 6:40 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Sun May 28, 2023 2:29 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Sun May 28, 2023 7:44 am


Message in meme form https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/statu ... 1zY-PW4R9w
That said they do seem to be going out of their way to encourage speculation. https://news.sky.com/video/ukraines-top ... t-12891123
It's basically impossible to stop some information about the real offensive making it out into the open. The goal is thus to ensure that the information space is so flooded with speculation and b.llsh.t the real information isn't recognised and acted upon.
And your can back up that speculation with feints and maneuvers just before the main offensive.

With Internet based speculation, you can read and feint with what a lot of the right commentators are converging on, in the hopes that you know what your enemy is expecting.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed May 31, 2023 9:45 am

Chris O thread on how the raids and other operations have led to Russia deploying more troops to the border. https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/ ... 11520?s=20

The raids look like enormously effective operations given their size and strategic consequences.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed May 31, 2023 10:54 am

James Cleverly quite rightly pointed out that Ukraine has a right to strike Russian territory to undermine Russia's ability to attack Ukraine. It's a pleasant contrast with the timidity from the White House. This, of course, has drawn a Russian response - no, I don't mean concrete action of any kind, I mean a baseless threat, of course. In this case, the threat is to drop the spire of Salisbury Cathedral on his head. I'd actually be quite impressed if they managed to carry that out.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed May 31, 2023 11:45 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 10:54 am
James Cleverly quite rightly pointed out that Ukraine has a right to strike Russian territory to undermine Russia's ability to attack Ukraine. It's a pleasant contrast with the timidity from the White House. This, of course, has drawn a Russian response - no, I don't mean concrete action of any kind, I mean a baseless threat, of course. In this case, the threat is to drop the spire of Salisbury Cathedral on his head. I'd actually be quite impressed if they managed to carry that out.
Well, they do know exactly high the spire is. Clearly evidence of advanced mission planning.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:21 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 am
This article has been getting some attention

"Study shows drones the cheapest, most effective in battle against Russian invasion"
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/05/28/ ... -invasion/

It appears to show that drones are enormously more cost effective at destroying Russian tanks than high tech missiles like the Javelin or precision guided artillery rounds like the Excalibur round.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous and foolish ways to evaluate weapon effectiveness, and I agree with your criticisms of it. It's right up there with comparing the cost of an interceptor with the cost of the incoming munition in terms of missing the point chinstroking - though that comparison is relevant to attrition, in terms of individual interceptions, the correct comparison of course is between the cost of the interceptor and the value of what is protected from the incoming munition.

When a tank is trying to kill you, you need to get rid of it fast. A drone doesn't do that. A Javelin or an NLAW does. If you are conducting an ambush on an armoured formation, you need to get troops into position to conduct that, and that endangers them. You then draw the attention of the armoured formation, which will inevitably dislike what you are doing and seek to thwart your intentions by shooting high explosives at you. If you are aiming for a moving convoy, you might only have a small window of opportunity to make your attack. Drones don't reliably make the most of that opportunity, they don't reliably give a pay off for the risks taken to earn that opportunity. Javelins and Stugna-Ps - and for that matter MBT main guns - do.

Which is not to say drones don't have their uses. They are an essential part of modern warfare, and can suppress enemies, guide attacking forces, deliver accurate close air support in trench clearing operations no conventional platform can deliver.

But just by looking at purchase cost, you are asking entirely the wrong questions. Imrael correctly points out that videos showing drones taking out MBTs mostly show them taking out abandoned ones - often bypassing the armour by dropping a munition through a hatch opened when the tank was abandoned. There's also videos out there showing what happens when a unit doesn't have the kind of munition that can stop a tank to hand. There's several videos out there of Russian units on the flanks of Bakhmut clearly lacking that sort of weapon - bereft of weapons comparable to the NLAW, or even RPG-7s, which might not stop a modern MBT reliably but at least give you something to shoot at it albeit with a very short effective range, Russian squads have been shown being overrun by tanks. Without an appropriate counter, they are defenceless to the point that Ukrainian tanks have been able to fire high explosive shell down into trenches at point blank range, or even crush positions with their tracks. Reliable weapons with a high kill probability are essential to preventing that happening. Russia has various RPGs, though these are quite limited in their accurate range, and effective heavy ATGMs, but what is needed is something that is with the frontline squad, or can be called upon to aid them at a moments notice. Again, cheap drones don't do that.

Which again, is not to say they don't have their uses. Ukrainians are making very effective use of cheap suicide drones - generally referred to as FPV drones as they use a first person view forward facing camera rather than a gimballed one, and are derived from racing drones - which have certain advantages over other munitions. The low cost means they can be deployed en masse, but in addition they allow the operator to scout for likely targets, and because they don't need to lock on to a target, they can be used against anything - personnel, vehicles, ammo dumps, electronic warfare and observation systems - with equal facility. A good example of this is the use of these drones against Russian supply lines leading to the Orikhivo-Vasylivka salient north of Bakhmut, with a map of such strikes and videos in the accompanying thread here. Be warned that this thread does include quite a lot of footage from the point of view of munitions as they close in on their targets, and the videos may be distressing to watch.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:27 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:21 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 am
This article has been getting some attention

"Study shows drones the cheapest, most effective in battle against Russian invasion"
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/05/28/ ... -invasion/

It appears to show that drones are enormously more cost effective at destroying Russian tanks than high tech missiles like the Javelin or precision guided artillery rounds like the Excalibur round.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous and foolish ways to evaluate weapon effectiveness, and I agree with your criticisms of it. It's right up there with comparing the cost of an interceptor with the cost of the incoming munition in terms of missing the point chinstroking - though that comparison is relevant to attrition, in terms of individual interceptions, the correct comparison of course is between the cost of the interceptor and the value of what is protected from the incoming munition.

When a tank is trying to kill you, you need to get rid of it fast. A drone doesn't do that. A Javelin or an NLAW does. If you are conducting an ambush on an armoured formation, you need to get troops into position to conduct that, and that endangers them. You then draw the attention of the armoured formation, which will inevitably dislike what you are doing and seek to thwart your intentions by shooting high explosives at you. If you are aiming for a moving convoy, you might only have a small window of opportunity to make your attack. Drones don't reliably make the most of that opportunity, they don't reliably give a pay off for the risks taken to earn that opportunity. Javelins and Stugna-Ps - and for that matter MBT main guns - do.

Which is not to say drones don't have their uses. They are an essential part of modern warfare, and can suppress enemies, guide attacking forces, deliver accurate close air support in trench clearing operations no conventional platform can deliver.

But just by looking at purchase cost, you are asking entirely the wrong questions. Imrael correctly points out that videos showing drones taking out MBTs mostly show them taking out abandoned ones - often bypassing the armour by dropping a munition through a hatch opened when the tank was abandoned. There's also videos out there showing what happens when a unit doesn't have the kind of munition that can stop a tank to hand. There's several videos out there of Russian units on the flanks of Bakhmut clearly lacking that sort of weapon - bereft of weapons comparable to the NLAW, or even RPG-7s, which might not stop a modern MBT reliably but at least give you something to shoot at it albeit with a very short effective range, Russian squads have been shown being overrun by tanks. Without an appropriate counter, they are defenceless to the point that Ukrainian tanks have been able to fire high explosive shell down into trenches at point blank range, or even crush positions with their tracks. Reliable weapons with a high kill probability are essential to preventing that happening. Russia has various RPGs, though these are quite limited in their accurate range, and effective heavy ATGMs, but what is needed is something that is with the frontline squad, or can be called upon to aid them at a moments notice. Again, cheap drones don't do that.

Which again, is not to say they don't have their uses. Ukrainians are making very effective use of cheap suicide drones - generally referred to as FPV drones as they use a first person view forward facing camera rather than a gimballed one, and are derived from racing drones - which have certain advantages over other munitions. The low cost means they can be deployed en masse, but in addition they allow the operator to scout for likely targets, and because they don't need to lock on to a target, they can be used against anything - personnel, vehicles, ammo dumps, electronic warfare and observation systems - with equal facility. A good example of this is the use of these drones against Russian supply lines leading to the Orikhivo-Vasylivka salient north of Bakhmut, with a map of such strikes and videos in the accompanying thread here. Be warned that this thread does include quite a lot of footage from the point of view of munitions as they close in on their targets, and the videos may be distressing to watch.
Yes, it's another type of weapons system and threat no more making missiles obsolete than tanks rendered artillery obsolete
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:04 am

Another element is that racing drone derived munitions could very easily be jammed. The lack of kit for ground troops for this is currently meaning that this isn't a problem, but within five years, I'd expect small semi-improvised drone effectiveness to reduce significantly.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:32 am

dyqik wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:04 am
Another element is that racing drone derived munitions could very easily be jammed. The lack of kit for ground troops for this is currently meaning that this isn't a problem, but within five years, I'd expect small semi-improvised drone effectiveness to reduce significantly.
Yup

jimbob wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 12:01 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 am
<good stuff spoilered>Spoiler:


Drones have been very effective but they fill a niche. They are good against certain types of target. Other more expensive weapons are also needed.
Yes.

Remote and autonomous vehicles are going to be increasingly important* and quite likely especially disposable ones at the tactical level, but that is different from saying that they have rendered more expensive systems obsolete.

You cannot jam a wire guided missile, for example.






*as an aside I did write a report saying that when I was in the air cadets in the late 1980s - the closest I got to the military
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:34 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:04 am
Another element is that racing drone derived munitions could very easily be jammed. The lack of kit for ground troops for this is currently meaning that this isn't a problem, but within five years, I'd expect small semi-improvised drone effectiveness to reduce significantly.
Yes. Though we will also see more high end, electronic warfare resistant designs out there too. There is not any fundamental difference between "FPV Suicide Drone" "Small Loitering Munition" and "Electro-Optical Command Guided Missile", these munitions are basically a budget Switchblade in function.

On the other end of the spectrum, though, newly introduced weapons often have a honeymoon period where they are very effective and nobody is trained or equipped to counter them, which then comes to an end with the implementation of new training and deployment of new equipment.

For example, Israel has successfully tested the Iron Beam, a laser weapon designed to increase the capacity and reduce the cost of Iron Dome. The USA is working on Laser SHORADS on a Stryker 8x8 chassis. The Royal Navy is also apparently soon to be testing defensive lasers on warships. Between modern computing power allowing you to track and aim at small targets, and fibre lasers, we're going to see more of this sort of thing. Gated-proximity fused autocannon ammunition is also exceptionally capable against drones, so expect to see IFVs suitably equipped in the future, and potentially a return of autocannon based SPAAGs, given the (unexpected, per received wisdom) success of the Gepard in Ukraine.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:28 pm

The USA is, via a private contractor, buying Gepards reportedly from Jordan. While Gepards are likely more urgent than main battle tanks, if Jordan's willing to sell equipment that way, there's a decent reserve of just retired Challenger 1s that could be obtained that way if the political will is there and the political consent is there.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:13 am

Prigozhin released a video showing a badly beaten Russian lieutentant colonel who he accused of ordering troops to fire on his units as they left Bakhmut. He also earlier accused the MOD of mining the roads they used to withdraw. While Prigozhin is of course a liar and a manipulator, the identity of the Lt. Col's been confirmed, and he does appear to have a freshly broken nose.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:08 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:13 am
Prigozhin released a video showing a badly beaten Russian lieutentant colonel who he accused of ordering troops to fire on his units as they left Bakhmut. He also earlier accused the MOD of mining the roads they used to withdraw. While Prigozhin is of course a liar and a manipulator, the identity of the Lt. Col's been confirmed, and he does appear to have a freshly broken nose.
And War Gonzo, the pro Russian milblogger is "not talking about panic now" about Ukrainian attacks in Novodonetske
Last edited by jimbob on Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:11 am

Reznikov (Ukrainian defence minister) states that the F16s will be ready to be deployed in the autumn or winter, due to the need to train pilots and set up maintenance etc.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230605_01/

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:45 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:13 am
Prigozhin released a video showing a badly beaten Russian lieutentant colonel who he accused of ordering troops to fire on his units as they left Bakhmut. He also earlier accused the MOD of mining the roads they used to withdraw. While Prigozhin is of course a liar and a manipulator, the identity of the Lt. Col's been confirmed, and he does appear to have a freshly broken nose.
Fighting between Wagner and the Russian arms seems to cross a threshold. Its one thing to criticize the army, another to beat up an officer.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by lpm » Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:53 am

The BBC is reporting Russia has won a glorious victory and has destroyed the Ukraine offensive.

Gerasimov himself led the Russian forces.

The BBC reports are based on information supplied by Russia so it is highly likely to be true.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

Post Reply