Something like a narco submarine would be fairly simple and have most of those benefitsbjn wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:25 pmAn 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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 11:49 amYes, and a submerged drone wouldn't be able to receive GPS signals.
Blyatskrieg
Re: Blyatskrieg
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.bjn wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:25 pmAn 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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 11:49 amYes, and a submerged drone wouldn't be able to receive GPS signals.
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.
Re: Blyatskrieg
I had an English fail, I meant what you said about water and bullets.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Blyatskrieg
Message in meme form https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/statu ... 1zY-PW4R9wEACLucifer wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 8:34 amJust 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.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Blyatskrieg
That said they do seem to be going out of their way to encourage speculation. https://news.sky.com/video/ukraines-top ... t-12891123Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 7:44 amMessage in meme form https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/statu ... 1zY-PW4R9wEACLucifer wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 8:34 amJust 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.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 2:29 pmThat said they do seem to be going out of their way to encourage speculation. https://news.sky.com/video/ukraines-top ... t-12891123Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 7:44 amMessage in meme form https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/statu ... 1zY-PW4R9wEACLucifer wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 8:34 amJust 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.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Blyatskrieg
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
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.
"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
:
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.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
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.
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 amThis 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.
Re: Blyatskrieg
Yes.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 amThis 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:
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.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
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.
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
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Blyatskrieg
https://twitter.com/kyivpost/status/166 ... 1zY-PW4R9w
“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.
Looks like it’s on. At some point. Which we knew anyway. So no change.
Re: Blyatskrieg
And your can back up that speculation with feints and maneuvers just before the main offensive.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:40 amIt'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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 2:29 pmThat said they do seem to be going out of their way to encourage speculation. https://news.sky.com/video/ukraines-top ... t-12891123Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 7:44 am
Message in meme form https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/statu ... 1zY-PW4R9w
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.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.
The raids look like enormously effective operations given their size and strategic consequences.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Blyatskrieg
Well, they do know exactly high the spire is. Clearly evidence of advanced mission planning.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 10:54 amJames 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.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 amThis 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.
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.
Re: Blyatskrieg
Yes, it's another type of weapons system and threat no more making missiles obsolete than tanks rendered artillery obsoleteEACLucifer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:21 amThis 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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 10:33 amThis 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.
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.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.
Re: Blyatskrieg
Yupdyqik wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:04 amAnother 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.
jimbob wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:01 pmYes.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.
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
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.dyqik wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:04 amAnother 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.
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.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.
Re: Blyatskrieg
And War Gonzo, the pro Russian milblogger is "not talking about panic now" about Ukrainian attacks in NovodonetskeEACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:13 amPrigozhin 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.
Last edited by jimbob on Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Blyatskrieg
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/
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230605_01/
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:13 amPrigozhin 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.
Re: Blyatskrieg
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.
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