Russia/Ukraine Megathread V6

[Rational Poster]

This was my statement.


How far back in history are you going? Let us stay within the WWII period. 80% of British forces were fighting Germany in Europe. The threat came from Germany. Why is that so hard to understand? Americans had to commit 50% of their forces to Europe and the other 50% to the Pacific. The British did not have that luxury. - I'm correct!

* Britain did have secondary forces in North Africa for a period fighting Germans. Again, this was not a Main Effort from the British in fighting the Germans. A garrison of British troops was based in Egypt. Its main role was to defend the Suez Canal and protect Britain's oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. Same reason the Americans were there. The Italian Army was 'shit' in North Africa, that is why Germany had to send forces to help. Here is where the brilliant Erwin Rommel enters the scene on the side of Germany, but we shall save that for another thread.
Patton vs Montgomery:

Wrong, as usual. The US and allied forced operated under the Europe First or Germany First strategy.

"In 1944 and 1945, the balance of U.S. resources shifted heavily toward Europe as the Europe First strategy became a reality rather than just a stated objective. At war's end in Europe, the U.S. Army had 47 divisions in Europe and 21 divisions, plus 6 Marine Corps divisions, in the Pacific. 78% of Army and Army Air Force manpower was deployed against Germany versus 22% deployed in the Pacific."

Then, considering the Lend Lease act, it overwhelmingly favored the European powers.

The principal recipients of aid were the British Commonwealth countries (about 63 percent) and the Soviet Union (about 22 percent), though by the end of the war more than 40 countries had received lend-lease help. Much of the aid, valued at $49.1 billion, amounted to outright gifts.

 

[Mark McMichael]

A paid Russian asset in Congress.

It is so easy to be prepared for Rand Paul as you can bet with certainty as to the lines he is going to pursue in these types of exchanges, so I am always shocked that those on the other side are not prepared properly.

The proper reply to Rand on that statement is 'Yes hose are exactly the arguments Putin is making and we disagree. Well maybe you agree with him, but the rest of the West disagrees'.

I would hammer him with variants of that over and over. That he is putting out Putin's arguments.

 

[Joe]

Oh man a partisan argument that you favor who would of thought NPC’s had such deep thoughtful opinions

Yeah truly shocking rand believes ukraine belongs to russia

 

[ShadowRun]

Yeah truly shocking rand believes ukraine belongs to russia

Did he say that ? Oh he didn’t well then carrying on.

 

[Joe]

Did he say that ? Oh he didn’t well then carrying on.

Right so what does he mean that countries they attack were once part of russia?

 

[SandisLL]

Anyway to talk that so called recipients didn't had helped US to defeat Japan and even to deliver stuff to fin USSR is just joke....
US with a glance had used help from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and yeah, U.K too.

Sure US alone was a donor, did everything, others just had to sit and ate benefits from U.S.
Yeaaahhh.
Without european immigrants even didn't had nuke in 1945 th...
+ white americans and canadians are european immigrants offsprings and they does have european blood, at least partially. Some not white too, partially.

If someone is interested might google up phrase " Vangelis Conquest of paradise ". Nice video on YT to see from where white americans are....from the same europe.

 

[ShadowRun]

Right so what does he mean that countries they attack were once part of russia?

Your asking me a question about facts you can research ? Was Ukraine apart of USSR ? Hmm

 

[Mark McMichael]

It's literally ww2 ..... read up some more maybe.

Edit. - enough derailment. Apologies guys

I'm as guilty as you are, mate

Everyone should just consider putting San Marino on ignore.

This thread is a great source of information and discussion and he is committed to nothing but spin and lies and trying to 'whatabout' each and every point in very dishonest ways.

Simply removing him from the discussions (ignore) makes the thread way better.

 

[Joe]

Your asking me a question about facts you can research ? Was Ukraine apart of USSR ? Hmm

One could argue alaska was once part of russia

 

[Gunny]

This is fascinating. Definitely worth the full watch.

 

[SandisLL]

One could argue alaska was once part of russia

More than this.
Earlier some parts of US was under British crown, French king and king of Spain.
Israel was part of Roman empire.
Belgium in some time was under King of Spain.
Mexico under King of Spain.
Brasil under King of Portugal.
Part or Russia once was under great and large Mongol Golden Orda. Russians in these areas were their slaves...
More history?
Canada once had mainly 2 parts: one territory was under British crown, another part under King of France.
German kings for long term were under Pope! Pope was real ruler where to go to fight. Imagine? The same crusades....
Etc and etc....

If pro Kremlin oriented ppl so loves history, then there was very small part of history....

For example one relatively small area in europe one drunk duke had lost to Prince of Denmark on.....cards....
Now this too is Denmark? If historical rights are so respected.....

Interestingly earlier part of Ukraine was under Poland - Lithuania, union ruled by chatolic king blessed by Pope...
We don't see here these countries invading Ukraine and filling world with refugees....

 

[SammyPops]

I saw footage of a wrecked T900 in an open field, and the reporter said a drone knocked it out.

I understnad that NATO anti-tank weapons in urban settigs are really effective, but are we in a world where drones and knock out Russia's best battletank?

If so, the fuck? Are tanks the new battleships of 1940?

 

[Rational Poster]

I saw footage of a wrecked T900 in an open field, and the reporter said a drone knocked it out.

I understnad that NATO anti-tank weapons in urban settigs are really effective, but are we in a world where drones and knock out Russia's best battletank?

If so, the fuck? Are tanks the new battleships of 1940?

No, Russians are just really bad at modern war.

Tanks have been vulnerable to anti-tank weapons since there have been tanks.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I saw footage of a wrecked T900 in an open field, and the reporter said a drone knocked it out.

I understnad that NATO anti-tank weapons in urban settigs are really effective, but are we in a world where drones and knock out Russia's best battletank?

If so, the fuck? Are tanks the new battleships of 1940?

That’s a great point and I would argue, yes. Drone swarms are coming, if not already here. The kill ratio of a drone vs tank has to be off the charts. The cost ROI has to be astronomical.

Future warfare is here and it looks a whole hell of a lot like drone warfare.

 

[SandisLL]

I saw footage of a wrecked T900 in an open field, and the reporter said a drone knocked it out.

I understnad that NATO anti-tank weapons in urban settigs are really effective, but are we in a world where drones and knock out Russia's best battletank?

If so, the fuck? Are tanks the new battleships of 1940?

It depends where missile or shell will land.

For example with T-72 and T-64/80 and T-90.

They does have pros and cons.
Sometimes pros are cons in other kind.
T-64/80 and their derivatives does have autoloader working faster than T-72 or T-90 while this looks that makes them more vulnerable than T-72 or T-90.

In some angles T-90 might be destroyed by 30 mm autocannon.
In some might bear shell from 120mm/44 cal gun or ate standard 93? mm RPG shot as piece of cake.

They does have improved during decades reactive armour and decoy systems.
While still might be destroyed even from frontal position.
Depends from shell/ missile and where it will land....

 

[Rational Poster]

That’s a great point and I would argue, yes. Drone swarms are coming, if not already here. The kill ratio of a drone vs tank has to be off the charts. The cost ROI has to be astronomical.

Future warfare is here and it looks a whole hell of a lot like drone warfare.

Drones are only useful if you can maintain air superiority and your air infrastructure. Russia can't maintain air superiority so the drones can exploit that weakness. They also have been unable to stop Ukraine from operating their airfields.

Forces opposing US in recent years had access to drones, but they didn't have air superiority or even airbases to operate out of because we destroyed them.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Drones are only useful if you can maintain air superiority and your air infrastructure. Russia can't maintain air superiority so the drones can exploit that weakness. They also have been unable to stop Ukraine from operating their airfields.

Forces opposing US in recent years had access to drones, but they didn't have air superiority or even airbases to operate out of because we destroyed them.

True to an extent. I suppose I meant in battlefields with my parity than us vs. Taliban.

additionally, urban warfare of a more industrialized setting would see different scenarios play out with drones than Iraq/Afghanistan.

Air Superiority doesn’t equal total control of the air. Especially with the scale drones operate in.

 

[AWilder]

Drones are only useful if you can maintain air superiority and your air infrastructure. Russia can't maintain air superiority so the drones can exploit that weakness. They also have been unable to stop Ukraine from operating their airfields.

Forces opposing US in recent years had access to drones, but they didn't have air superiority or even airbases to operate out of because we destroyed them.

Drones also have their own weaknesses. GPS spoofing can make them think they are somewhere else as well as a lot of other EW to confuse them. Imagine the drone swarm doing a 180 and coming back to who launched them.

 

[Rational Poster]

True to an extent. I suppose I meant in battlefields with my parity than us vs. Taliban.

additionally, urban warfare of a more industrialized setting would see different scenarios play out with drones than Iraq/Afghanistan.

Air Superiority doesn’t equal total control of the air. Especially with the scale drones operate in.

Air superiority is not about controlling the skies directly, but the ground infrastructure and anti-aircraft emplacements.

If you cannot maintain, service, and launch your aircraft you've lost air superiority.

It's not about shooting the drones out of the sky, but destroying the enemy's ability to operate and maintain aircraft at all.

 

[AWilder]

is russia even flying anymore? seems like combat footage of air assets has dried up.