International Russia/Ukraine Megathread V13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like someone doesn't understand obvious sarcasm..


Or is our resident communist being needlessly pedantic?
 
Rod1 said:
Neutered is the incorrect word, it has less range because it has less fuel and it has less fuel because it has way more bombs.

The ones they got killed between 10-20 helicopters
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering why the US keeps being wishy washy. To take down the Kerch bridge, Ukraine needs a single warhead ATACMS - not the cluster variant.
 
Hog-train said:
The US did not give the longer range ATACMS. They gave a neutered one that only had cluster munitions as opposed to a single more powerful warhead as well as have half the range. On top of that, they only gave them only a few of them.

I don't understand why the US is taking so long and then giving them neutered weapons.
Click to expand...

Rod1 said:
Neutered is the incorrect word, it has less range because it has less fuel and it has less fuel because it has way more bombs.

The ones they got killed between 10-20 helicopters
Click to expand...
Hog-train said:
I'm just wondering why the US keeps being wishy washy. To take down the Kerch bridge, Ukraine needs a single warhead ATACMS - not the cluster variant.
Click to expand...

If Germany wasn't pussing out of their agreement Taurus could do that.

Cluster variant works well too. Blanketing an entire airport is effective.

What's puzzling is the lack of regular HIMARS cluster ammunition. Seems a no brainer.
 
Hog-train said:
I'm just wondering why the US keeps being wishy washy. To take down the Kerch bridge, Ukraine needs a single warhead ATACMS - not the cluster variant.
Click to expand...
Yeah and not just one missile.

However this very old ATACMS version is better suitable IF it should be used on aircraft etc in airfields.
Damage potential for 1 missile against helicopters, airplanes, radars and RE antennas etc like stuff is considerably higher if this old 560 kg warhead with 950 submunitions is used.
Also due to just inertial guidance all jamming against this is useless.....
 
Cid said:
If Germany wasn't pussing out of their agreement Taurus could do that.

Cluster variant works well too. Blanketing an entire airport is effective.

What's puzzling is the lack of regular HIMARS cluster ammunition. Seems a no brainer.
Click to expand...
For striking aircraft in airfield cluster is more suitable than unitary warhead because high number of small bomblets easily might damage aircraft..radars etc...

If about cluster ammo, some euro countries does have it and didn not had signed treaty ....however Germany refuses to sign re export permit for stuff they had sold to us in 1990 ies....
155mm cluster ammo.

Germany also does have some missiles models with cluster ammo for MRLS like HIMARS ....
Dunno will they sign re export permit for these or no.
Also they does have this in their warehouses accumulating dust and spiders nets.
 
ferrisjso said:
Your PS more strictly the last sentence is a strawman.

If you're referring to the land bridge that was a core goal of the mission it's not "invading the whole country and taking as much of it as they can get". Kharkov Oblast is heavily Russian too and Russia had plans to annex it before the Ukranian offensive. The Ukranian Kharkov offensive is actually what led Russia to officially announce their annexations sort of thing.

If Russia was gunning for the whole country they'd have never withdrawn from the north.
Click to expand...
They tried to take Kyiv in the opening moves of the invasion. They failed and lost the battle, losing one of their most elite units in the process
 
PEB said:
Even though the ATACMS are like 1/3 the price of the British made Storm Shadow it sounds like they are not getting many of them even though the rumor is US owns like over 3,0000 of the older generation ATACMS. Biden still seems to be dragging his feet on sending what Ukraine needs hopefully Sweden and Boeing gets their HIMARS launched cruise missile running with similar ranges and even cheaper then US ATACMS soon. It seems Sweden more then happy to send them what they need.

They been talking about this for years and found a new way to put on another longer range booster.




https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...backs-of-hills-90-miles-away/?sh=51a558526371
Click to expand...

We actually do not have a large inventory of ATACMS which is probably why we’ve been reluctant to send them. We stopped producing them because they didn’t have any use in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. My understanding is we are parting with them now because their next generation replacement is about to come online
 
Hog-train said:
This war will most likely end in a frozen conflict. That's what it's looking like.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about that. As long as Ukraine has the upper hand, which right now they do, I don’t think they will stop the fighting. Freezing the conflict just gives Russia a chance to recover and restart the invasion when they’re ready.
 
Hog-train said:
I'm just wondering why the US keeps being wishy washy. To take down the Kerch bridge, Ukraine needs a single warhead ATACMS - not the cluster variant.
Click to expand...
They may have that already. I think they’ll wait to cut off the land bridge to Crimea first before they hit the Kerch bridge in earnest
 
Blayt7hh said:
They tried to take Kyiv in the opening moves of the invasion. They failed and lost the battle, losing one of their most elite units in the process
Click to expand...

The 60+ kilometer convoy to Kyiv is not something Russian propagandists talk about. Firstly, because it was another failure of epic proportions in the "special military operation" and secondly, because it destroys their narrative that Russia only wanted to save the "enslaved" population in Eastern Ukraine.
 
Blayt7hh said:
They tried to take Kyiv in the opening moves of the invasion. They failed and lost the battle, losing one of their most elite units in the process
Click to expand...

Yes when you take a capital they usually dictate peace. That does not mean you plan on actually annexing the capital and the route you took to get there. This is a very basic concept people are struggling to grasp. Now sometimes that does involve taking the whole country(especially if the country is small and there are no border territories to negotiate away) but that is not a clear thing and trying to capture Kiev does not suggest intent to take Kiev or the whole country. At least it doesn't mean that by itself.

If Russia wanted the land they controlled from their march of Kiev they'd have fortified their northern gains instead of leaving.

From the Russian perspective capturing Kiev would have brought Ukraine to the negotiating table and made it unneccessary to seize whatever their total aims are through combat.
 
ferrisjso said:
Yes when you take a capital they usually dictate peace. That does not mean you plan on actually annexing the capital and the route you took to get there. This is a very basic concept people are struggling to grasp. Now sometimes that does involve taking the whole country(especially if the country is small and there are no border territories to negotiate away) but that is not a clear thing and trying to capture Kiev does not suggest intent to take Kiev or the whole country. At least it doesn't mean that by itself.

If Russia wanted the land they controlled from their march of Kiev they'd have fortified their northern gains instead of leaving.

From the Russian perspective capturing Kiev would have brought Ukraine to the negotiating table and made it unneccessary to seize whatever their total aims are through combat.
Click to expand...
Except of course that Russia didn't just "leave" their "northern gains", they were driven out lmao
You're pathologically incapable of treating Russia as anything other than a floundering, pants shitting failure
 
ferrisjso said:
Yes when you take a capital they usually dictate peace. That does not mean you plan on actually annexing the capital and the route you took to get there. This is a very basic concept people are struggling to grasp. Now sometimes that does involve taking the whole country(especially if the country is small and there are no border territories to negotiate away) but that is not a clear thing and trying to capture Kiev does not suggest intent to take Kiev or the whole country. At least it doesn't mean that by itself.

If Russia wanted the land they controlled from their march of Kiev they'd have fortified their northern gains instead of leaving.

From the Russian perspective capturing Kiev would have brought Ukraine to the negotiating table and made it unneccessary to seize whatever their total aims are through combat.
Click to expand...
Trying to capture Kyiv does not suggest intent to take Kyiv… wait what?

Also you are actually aware that they left because they were driven out and not because they didn’t want to keep it right? They straight up lost the battle.
 
Blayt7hh said:
Trying to capture Kyiv does not suggest intent to take Kyiv… wait what?

Also you are actually aware that they left because they were driven out and not because they didn’t want to keep it right? They straight up lost the battle.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The point is if they captured it doesn't mean they would have annexed Kiev into Russia and the attempt does not conflate to ambitions to seize the whole country.
 
LeonardoBjj said:
- China pulled the checkmate on the nation of the chess-masters, It's actually a genious move.
Click to expand...
Not checkmate, as they're stuck in that situation too

If you want keep the chess metaphor it's more a stalemate, neither Russia nor China can move from that marriage, no other move is possible

China is getting more gains out of it, but still is forced to side with Russia who took the decisions alone and caused the fuck up to begin with
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,181
Messages
57,973,060
Members
175,888
Latest member
whatsername

Share this page

Back
Top