Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[Ich]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631972624787185665

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632125308156489729

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632131265699667973

 

[Ali_Baba]

Bakhmut has fallen

nope - not yet. You shot your load too prematurely again ..

 

[Ich]

Haaahahahaha Bellingcat If you followed the syrian war too, you also would have laughed about their predictions there

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632093470029680641

 

[Paul2]

Last June when thinking of how to hold back the Russians from the Baltic for tight budget, I thought of many shoulder fired weapons and many more mortars, along with more small arms for conscripts. If you can get longer range, 1000s of howitzers with enough ammo, is better if you can afford enough of them. Though every company needs to have a minimum number of mortars to be combat effective in modern warfare.

I was covering that Europe needs to have enough small arms and medium machine guns to face millions of Russians in a Russia vs EU war, of course these units would have mortars. When Russia attacks Europe it won't be with limited numbers in a special operation. To counter, enough Europeans need to be conscripted.

The main concern for Europe is their heavy weapons. Russia has a huge advantage in heavy weapons over Europe. Precision Artillery can destroy heavy weapons easily before they enter the battlefield. Mortars can destroy vehicles, though have less range. Precision mortars can destroy the enemy with close accuracy.

My focus on the war has been watching the heavy weapons of Russia dwindle. Once 25.000 heavy weapons losses for Russia, Europe is more at an even playing field.

Small nations can make small arms, ammo and mortars, if their put their minds to the task, along with the major industries. Leave the high tech weapons for Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, etc.

If you reduce Russia to only infantry wave attacks, it is much easier for Europe to take on should Russia attack.

A very insightful observation

What needs to be mentioned is that Russia too has some little amount of precision weaponry countering which is still strategy-critical.

Ukraine has documented loss of 160 artillery pieces to PGMs, and mostly to cheaper, lousy PGMs. Not to say that other losses to cruise missiles, tochkas, iskanders, glide bombs were all painful too.

Russian Lancet, and Iranian Shaheds are a giant pain any way you look at them.

 

[Ich]

thats true

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632115145584287749

 

[Ich]

Pump it up!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632113553837621248

https://twitter.com/x/status/1505457609389793285

 

[Paul2]

Tactical nuclear weapons typically have a blast radius of a mile or so and are mostly designed to be used against heavy armour in 'pinch points'. They would be pretty useless against thinly spread troops along a 600 mile border. So I guess it's not so much a matter of Putin not daring to use tactical nuclear weapons as not choosing to use tactical nuclear weapons because it would be pointless. Russia would never use nuclear weapons on the land it wishes to regain. On another country like Poland or Germany, maybe. Hopefully not !!! is that where you are currently residing in ?

Even multi-megaton warheads of the cold war period will likely not be much different, as units are spread apart by many miles. And there are much fewer multi-megaton warheads, and ballistic missiles to deliver them than kiloton nukes.

That's why the point is that WW3, should it go nuclear, will end up in a conventional slugfest, and bayonet charges, because units in the field would be simply too numerous, and too spread apart to be targetted even by a nuclear arsenal of a superpower.

 

[MeFishToo]

A very insightful observation

What needs to be mentioned is that Russia too has some little amount of precision weaponry countering which is still strategy-critical.

Ukraine has documented loss of 160 artillery pieces to PGMs, and mostly to cheaper, lousy PGMs. Not to say that other losses to cruise missiles, tochkas, iskanders, glide bombs were all painful too.

Russian Lancet, and Iranian Shaheds are a giant pain any way you look at them.

Seems to me the use of a few camo netting renders the lancet quite useless. It does look like a paper plane closing in on a target. Stationary targets could defend itself against the Lancet and Shaheds, but it requires manpower and some old school air defence systems... We might even see some barrage balloons over Ukraine before this war is over.

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632105109080494088

 

[MeFishToo]

Last June when thinking of how to hold back the Russians from the Baltic for tight budget, I thought of many shoulder fired weapons and many more mortars, along with more small arms for conscripts. If you can get longer range, 1000s of howitzers with enough ammo, is better if you can afford enough of them. Though every company needs to have a minimum number of mortars to be combat effective in modern warfare.

I was covering that Europe needs to have enough small arms and medium machine guns to face millions of Russians in a Russia vs EU war, of course these units would have mortars. When Russia attacks Europe it won't be with limited numbers in a special operation. To counter, enough Europeans need to be conscripted.

The main concern for Europe is their heavy weapons. Russia has a huge advantage in heavy weapons over Europe. Precision Artillery can destroy heavy weapons easily before they enter the battlefield. Mortars can destroy vehicles, though have less range. Precision mortars can destroy the enemy with close accuracy.

My focus on the war has been watching the heavy weapons of Russia dwindle. Once 25.000 heavy weapons losses for Russia, Europe is more at an even playing field.

Small nations can make small arms, ammo and mortars, if their put their minds to the task, along with the major industries. Leave the high tech weapons for Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, etc.

If you reduce Russia to only infantry wave attacks, it is much easier for Europe to take on should Russia attack.

Denmark, being a small nation, is actually discussing the reopening of a former state owned ammonitions factory as part of the negotiations involving the defence budget for 2023-2030 reaching 2% of GDP. The site was closed in 2020, because like most european countries the politicians agreed to pretend humanity evolved past wars..

 

[Ich]

That's why the point is that WW3, should it go nuclear, will end up in a conventional slugfest, and bayonet charges, because units in the field would be simply too numerous, and too spread apart to be targetted even by a nuclear arsenal of a superpower.

If i would push the button of my nuclear arsenal, i only would send it all to USA. The megatons on the big cities there. And the lower yield all over the countryside where the groceries and the meat come from. I wouldnt care about any soldiers anywhere.

 

[Ich]

heeeee hooooo

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632047986871087105

all of it

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632050693992325120

 

[Dalit]

Look at those super Nato Armys: Germany as biggest country: tanks about 200. fighter planes 50. Tow: no. Drones:no, Hirmas: no. Anti air systems: 2, 20 years old. 5 military ships without any weapons. Would not even last 1 day. The other countries are even worse. And then you tell me they could stand Russia ?????? Without usa help! Europe would be screwed , all Europe need to increase their defence spending ASAP

It is too late for Europe. You don't create an army in days, weeks or months. The war is already happening as we speak. Even if Europe decided to increase defence spending it would take years before it reaches desired levels. Europe doesn't have years. It doesn't even have months because with the war ongoing things could spiral out of control at any given time.

 

[Paul2]

It is too late for Europe. You don't create an army in days, weeks or months. The war is already happening as we speak. Even if Europe decided to increase defence spending it would take years before it reaches desired level. Europe doesn't have years. It doesn't even have months because with the war ongoing things could spiral out of control.

Here is the European mental fallacy:

We don't need ammo for longer than few weeks, because any serious conflict will turn nuclear within days.

In reality, they have spent most of their ammo, the end is nowhere in sight, but are they ready to use nukes now?

And even if they will spend their nukes now on anything other than successfully incinerating whole Russian command chain, they can't deal with hundreds of thousands of Russian troops in the field.