Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
"There's more than one way to kill a cat than choking it with margerine."
-- anon.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
"There's more than one way to kill a cat than choking it with margerine."
-- anon.
It was reported that it was flying with another SU-30 who could see the crew were unconscious so supposedly crashed when it ran out of fuel.Another Russian fighter jet crashed into another building in Russia today. I think this was a brand new aircraft not even put into service yet. I'm curious why the pilots didn't eject.
Russian fighter jet crashes in Siberia, killing two crew members | Russia | The Guardian
amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org
It's also been reported that the SU-34 crash on Oct 17th was due to birdstrikes.
Talking of Russian air failures, here's a nice FPV of an SU-25 being taken out.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Now who could see that coming?
The comments about the US' performance and resolve are interesting. When there is a reason to go to war, the US appears to perform. When not, we do not do so well. That said, the issue here is resolve. Look at the money that was spent by the allies along with the US in Afghanistan for example. The US has demonstrated deep enough pockets when compelled and I do not think anyone here doubts the resolve of the Ukrainian people. The combination of those two seems a poor comparison to the unilateral stupidity of the US in the last few wars they have been engaged in.
It seems the Russians are willing to ratchet up the cost to the other side for not capitulating all while doing so with the perceived impunity that their territory is beyond attack. Hit Russia and we will nuke back as THAT is an attack on the homeland. How can Russia be made to pay an unacceptable price for escalation short of triggering mutual assured destruction? Does anyone have a view into the escalation ladder should Moscow decide to blow a dam and kill tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
Last edited:
I suggest you read a history book or two before opining. Russia's track record against European rivals is very poor unless they have help from a strong European ally or the country was in disarray for some other reason. Their record against Japan is pretty bad too. They were pretty good at defeating poorly equipped Asian opponents because they had western weapons that were vastly superior, but against an equally equipped foe, they tend to lose.
Russia was very, very dependent on the US and UK in WW II. Studebaker trucks moved their army, US and UK aircraft made up half the Red Air Force (and were the most popular planes with pilots), and the US supplied about 2/3 of the chemicals needed to make ammunition.
The US beat Japan in the Pacific in WW II almost single handedly. There was some help from the Australian and New Zealand, plus British and Indian help in the India/Burma region and Chinese help in China, but the bulk of the fighting was done with US forces. At the same time the US committed more forces to Europe than the Pacific and the US would have made it to Berlin first if Eisenhower hadn't made a dead with the Russians to let them take the capital. The US reached the agreed to line of the Elbe River weeks before the Russians and could have continued on to Berlin if given permission.
The US is the only country I can think of that won decisive victories 4 combat theaters (CBI, PTO, MTO, and ETO) while at the same time giving away enough equipment to keep two major and many minor allies in the fight. No one country can claim the victory over Germany, it took the three major allies to do it and each contributed a major piece. The war against Japan was 80+% the US.
The US was in a unique position at the time with 50% of all the manufacturing capacity in the world in 1940, a large labor force, and factories that were out of the reach of the enemy along with the shipping capacity to get the goods to other theaters. (Not going rah rah USA here, just citing the facts.)
In the US the native resistance mostly ended in 1890. After that time the US was involved in the Spanish-American War, The Boxer Rebellion, US occupations of many countries in the western hemisphere, World War I, The Russian Revolution (the US occupied some fringe areas in support of the white faction), World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Civil War, other spin off wars from Vietnam in SE Asia, Lebanon 1982-83, Greneda 1983, Panama 1989, the First Gulf War, Somali Civil War, former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya.
Some of these were fairly small. I left off the really small conflicts like the US intervention in Samoa. The US left some with its tail between its legs and some had ambiguous results, but the US clearly won some too.
Ian Toll has written some excellent military histories. I've read a number of his books.
The US estimate was 70-80K killed or disabled in August. A Kremlin leak said 90K earlier this month.
Over 90K 'Irrecoverable Losses' Suffered by Russian Soldiers in Ukraine: iStories - The Moscow Times
Russian field medicine is way behind the US. A very high number of Americans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan who would have died as recently as Vietnam were saved, though with severe disabilities. Russia's field medicine is somewhere around where the Allies were in 1917. A much higher percentage of stretcher cases die from their wounds than in US wars.
We can't know for sure how many Russians have been killed, but I'm looking at what they are doing and how the war is going. I think the true number is closer to the Ukrainian figure and may be higher. The Ukrainians can count dead Russians or likely dead Russians from combat videos, but they don't have figures on wounded who were evacuated and died of their wounds.
Trent Telenko has been critical of US defense intelligence analysts. They tend to assume that Russian support whether that be medical or supply is on par with the US. He has made the case that the Russians are 80 years behind the US in supply logistics. Their medical practices are almost certainly better than WW I once they get to a hospital, but their means of evacuating a wounded soldier is close to WW I level.
-Russia stripped their training command to send more troops to Ukraine (a desperate move only done by armies completely on the ropes).
-There have been many, many intercepted calls with soldiers telling people back home how decimated their units are. In some case some are saying their BTG (nominal size about 600) is down to less than 50. Many are also complaining that all the officers are gone and their unit has no officers at all. They were all killed or seriously wounded.
-Russia has shanghaied every male over 16 who can walk in Luhansk and Donesk to throw on the front line in mass untrained units. The 90K losses mentioned above don't include these troops.
-Russian vehicle survivability is very low. In Afghanistan troops rode on top of BMPs because it was safer than being inside. Those things turn into a barbecue inside when hit. Same with their tanks. Their tanks have an auto-loader which allows them to have one fewer crew member, but the ammunition in the auto-loader cooks off very easily. The turret crew usually get launched into orbit with the turret when the tank explodes.
-Russia has been using WW I over the top type tactics to try and capture ground against the Ukrainians who sit back and gun everyone down. One transcript from an intercepted call I read I read the other day, a guy said that 30 men from his company tried to assault a Ukrainian position and only a couple weren't seriously wounded or kill. I think he said 18 were killed in the assault with another 8 badly wounded.
-The Ukrainians have been collecting the bodies of dead Russians and offering them back to Russia, though Russia rarely takes them. They have a pretty good idea how many bodies they have in refrigerators or newly dug cemeteries.
I don't know who has the best numbers for Russian losses, but I'm pretty certain they are very high.
And the troll is back.
Yes, there is a definite distinction between the US intelligence figure of 70-80k Russians killed and wounded (20k killed)between Feb 24th and Aug. 8th and the Ukrainian figure of 67k "losses" to date. A wounded soldier isn't always out of the fight for good. Plenty of US GIs were wounded in WW2 and went back into battle after recuperating. It's in the Ukranian's interests to give an inflated notion of Russian deaths, and also to minimize their own military losses. Russia does the same thing. I have greater faith in the US intelligence regarding casualties, honestly. I'd be quite surprised if more than 35k Russians have been killed in Ukraine since Feb. 24.
How many Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine? - Full Fact
Estimates vary from as few as 6,000 to as many as 55,000.
fullfact.org
Last edited:
Several km of 'defensive lines' have been laid in Ukraine and along the border near Belgorod, but the effectiveness of these has been called into question, for obvious reasons...
I wonder if this might be another case of someone confusing units of measurement...
I wonder if this might be another case of someone confusing units of measurement...
petit_bateau
Active Member
Russian nukes, backgrounder
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/VD3T5KUXV5OUTJZ2ZCY3RSBJPU.jpg)
www.reuters.com
What is Russia's policy on tactical nuclear weapons?
The United States has said the world faces the gravest nuclear danger since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis because of remarks by Russian leader its position has been misinterpreted.
www.reuters.com
I've reached my limit, so can't read that but are 'dirty bombs' covered and could the west consider one as a tactical weapon if used?Russian nukes, backgrounder
What is Russia's policy on tactical nuclear weapons?
The United States has said the world faces the gravest nuclear danger since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis because of remarks by Russian leader its position has been misinterpreted.
petit_bateau
Active Member
No. It is a backgrounder on the command & control systems and processes, and explains what might be different between tactical and strategic use in the C&C aspects. Bottom line, all very murky.
(I think if you register with Reuters you can get more articles for free. I don't seem to have a limit.)
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Or if you use private browsing mode.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Dirty bomb - Wikipedia
Zaporizhzhya NPP could become a (very large) dirty bomb if its reactor cooling systems fails after the dam is destroyed, emptying the reservoir. Russians would of course blame all this on Ukraine. Russian plans are now transparently telegraphed both in the media and in telephone calls to Turkey, France and U.K. Governments
The West can either stop this by showing unwavering resolve, or virtually guarantee it by flinching at the moment of crisis. This is the time for our "Winston bloody Churchill". Who will it be? We need to remove any doubt in Putin's inner circle that any one of them, personally, could survive such an adventure.
Imma call for a cruise missle in a certain dacha window (when the time comes). Name the rest publicly. Print deaath cards. Put out bounties on their heads. Hunt them down the way Israel tracked the NAZIs, to the ends of the Earth. And make sure they know this now, before they go along with this madness. Because after won't matter nearly as much.
Last edited:
I think Russia's dirty bomb posturing is more an act of psychological warfare and desperation, than an indication that they are planning to use one. Dirty bombs aren't really very effective battlefield weapons, and the blowback would be immense.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Regarding the Dictator and his mobsters 'progress' in Bakhmut... Don't know how to verify the date and the place of a video on Twitter – but if that checks out...
Credit goes to (in Swedish):
cornucopia.se
Credit goes to (in Swedish):
Stigande ryska manskapsförluster - fortsatt tystnad från fronten - Ukraina allt bättre på att skjuta ner iranska drönare - ukrainare angripna vid demonstration i Stockholm
Rysslands förluster i manskap fortsätter att stiga, men det är tyst med rapporter om frontlinjerna så det är oklart varför. Ukraina har blivit allt bättre på att skjuta ner de iranska patrullrobotarna och får nu även hjälp från Israel i hur man ska hantera dem. En ukrainsk demonstration i Stockholm
cornucopia.se
Radio Free Europe has some photos but no real data on what is going on other than the fighting is intense and Russians are using prisoner mercenaries.Regarding the Dictator and his mobsters 'progress' in Bakhmut... Don't know how to verify the date and the place of a video on Twitter – but if that checks out...
Credit goes to (in Swedish):
Stigande ryska manskapsförluster - fortsatt tystnad från fronten - Ukraina allt bättre på att skjuta ner iranska drönare - ukrainare angripna vid demonstration i Stockholm
Rysslands förluster i manskap fortsätter att stiga, men det är tyst med rapporter om frontlinjerna så det är oklart varför. Ukraina har blivit allt bättre på att skjuta ner de iranska patrullrobotarna och får nu även hjälp från Israel i hur man ska hantera dem. En ukrainsk demonstration i Stockholm
Ukrainian Forces Say They Are Holding Out Around Bakhmut Against Russian Mercenaries October 24, 2022 14:41 GMT By RFE/RL
The battle for Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine remains intense as Russian forces make small yet costly gains. Ukrainian forces say mercenaries from the Kremlin-backed Vagner group have been driving Russian advances in the area.
bobby g
Member
Didn't they fight Japan at the end of the 19th century? Didn't go well and they were scared Japan would come after them in WWII. They did enter Berlin at the trail end of that war but am I wrong that it was late and they still lost 60,000 men doing it. Exactly the same tactics as some contributors have mentioned.
I use a browser add on called NoScript. With it i disabled the script for reuters.com and the whole article appeared.
Soviet/Russian tactical nuclear doctrine is to use them to blow a large hole in the enemy line and run motorized units through the breach before the enemy can recover. The Russians don't have the offensive force to do that right now, so they would not be advancing if they used a TNW. A dirty bomb is an area denial weapon. If you can't have it, you want to deny it to the enemy too. In that regard leaving southern Ukraine a nuclear waste dump is a strategic move, but one that could have a lot of blow back.
Putin and his inner circle are much more politicians than military strategists. Putin is quite poor at military strategy, but he seems to have the same attitude about military strategy Elon Musk has towards international diplomacy, his opinion of his ability far exceeds his actual ability. Because of this, it's an unknown if this is just political posturing or a real threat.
The US and other western nuclear powers have been trying to make it crystal clear than anyone who uses a nuclear weapon of any kind will not like the response.
I think Putin is awaiting the outcome of the US elections. His allies in the Republican party have promised to cripple air to Ukraine if they win. If they fail to gain control of Congress, Putin might do something desperate as a scorched earth policy.
The war with Japan was 1906 and it was a complete disaster for the Russian Navy who lost their Pacific Fleet first, then steamed their Baltic Fleet all the way around the world to "teach Japan a lesson" and lost that fleet too.
Russia and Japan also clashed in Mongolia in 1938. The results there were inconclusive.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Yes turning off Java script works sometimes but some pages don't display properly without it. I usually try private browsing mode first, if that fails then I turn off Java script, and if those don't work sometimes running a link through a Google search will work. You can also right click and reveal page source code but it's often a real mess and you have to search for the text which can be all over the place.
I think Putin is awaiting the outcome of the US elections. His allies in the Republican party have promised to cripple air to Ukraine if they win.
Please state your source for this. I don't think that six or seven House Reps represent the thoughts of the other 206 Republican Representatives.
Please state your source for this. I don't think that six or seven House Reps represent the thoughts of the other 206 Republican Representatives.
