What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

Iran and DPRK are highly advanced countries, especially in the military front. That is why no other nation dares to attack them. And that is why they beat every sanction and subversive act that are thrown at them. That means, if one of these countries are doing far better in certain areas, Russia is wise enough to buy from them and test it in the battlefield.

Now, if your beloved NATO are so advanced, why can't they stop the cheap Shaheed drones that each cost $20,000 USD? If anything can be said in this regard, the so-called advanced economies and military can't beat $20,000-priced Shaheed drones.



HIMARS have been rendered ineffective, but you can continue believing in those fairytales.

DPRK is so far in the shitter that they literally have to take food aid from the very nation's they consider enemies.

Iran is also not highly advanced. They make decent drones, but that's about it.

NATO has beaten the shahed drone with Gepards which are a cheap way to shoot them down, the ammo being worth considerably less than the drone.

And HIMARS is still destroying Russian positions, this isn't my words, this is from Russian telegram channels. HIMARS is being used to target Russian artillery and C&C deep in Russian occupied territory.

Russia isn't wise, it's desperate. It is utterly humiliating for Russia to have to do this.

Also, according to Prigozhin and Russian sources, Russian lines are getting wreaked right now. In fact, Prigozhin pretty much predicts that Ukraine is gonna conduct its counteroffensive quite successfully because Shoigu and his MoD are a bunch of morons who don't know how to fight wars.
 
Last edited:
.
. .
NATO has beaten the shahed drone with Gepards which are a cheap way to shoot them down, the ammo being worth considerably less than the drone.
then explain this
 
.
Dont speak for what I do or don't know, soy boy.
@LeGenD

Is this behavior going to be tolerated? I've already reported him, and multiple people have complained about him, yet he's still be tolerated.

then explain this
That doesn't make the shahed valueless.

Just because modern artillery is wreaking tanks, doesn't mean tanks should no longer be produced.

Also, the Russians are very far behind the drone game, I'm not surprised that Iran is providing them with tech. Russia continues to prove its pathetic.
 
.
@LeGenD

Is this behavior going to be tolerated? I've already reported him, and multiple people have complained about him, yet he's still be tolerated.


That doesn't make the shahed valueless.

Just because modern artillery is wreaking tanks, doesn't mean tanks should no longer be produced.

Also, the Russians are very far behind the drone game, I'm not surprised that Iran is providing them with tech. Russia continues to prove its pathetic.
what about the scarcity of evidence on those drones shootdown
 
. .
Just like to comment first and hear what you and other experts think went wrong, on Ukrainian Leo tank loss.thank you.

But, even I thought straight away that this should have been during the night. The tanks and armoured vehicles need to be spaced out and they needed to be moving a lot quicker than what they were. Why no recon on forward enemy positions, why no air cover no drones as they’ve been using? Something is definitely not right with this, it just seems off. I can’t see tactics being that bad? I can’t believe they’ve made such basic mistakes. Very Russian type operation blundering into an ambush. A mine field. Thanks .
I don't know much on the actual operational parameter (Well, only Ukrainian high up knows) so I can only guess what happened.

First of all, this have all the hall mark of mine damage, so you would think something went wrong with mine clearing/breaching operation. This Forbes article suggest there are a IMR-2 and Leo 2R involved in this operation. But somehow, as per the article, failed the breaching.


Breaching operation is traditionally hard to carry out. This is probably one of the most difficult, if not the most, especially if you have to do it to an defending enemy, under fire.

In the US, the doctrine we were taught is SOSR, it stands for Suppress, Obscure, Secure and Reduce hence SOSR. What it entailed is 4 steps to successfully conduct a breaching op.

Suppress - Suppress your enemy with overwhelming firepower, preferable with 3 to 1 or more advantage.
Obscure - Take out your enemy eyes and ears to obscure their knowledge and reaction to the breaching operation.
Secure - Secure your lane of approach, eliminate enemy interference.
Reduce - Create lane to by-pass/avoid obstacle, reduce time and casualty from said operation.

As I said, I don't know what the mission parameter is. So I can only comment on what I can see or know, which mean that could be wrong. But my guess is, Ukrainian failed to suppress the Russian, if they were travelling in a light column (with the IMR-2 and Leo2R up front with a battalion of M2 Bradley across), that is obviously not enough to suppress the enemy, on the other hand, it didn't show whether or not the Ukrainian have a larger force behind or uses artillery to saturate the enemy for suppression, so I don't really know is it because they don't have enough units for the job or was it a tactical mistake.

Another issue I have is that the Ukrainian seems to me did not think of by-passing that particular obstacle (the mine field where you see all the Ukrainian tank and Bradley abandoned. The first rule of breaching ops is, if you know that there is an obstacle ahead, you first try to avoid it by diverting to somewhere it's less likely to be affected, only go across and breach when you have no choice. you can see almost all the vehicle "loss" (I don't know if they actually lost those equipment as I pointed out before, those equipment looks salvageable to me) are on that single lane. Which suggest to me that the Ukrainian did not try to avoid that choke point by alternate the breaching lane.

Finally, what I can see is the fact that they have 9 Bradley or more following that Breacher vehicle is a wrong move, you shouldn't pile on security asset behind that breacher. Now, I don't know when the Russian strike to make that result, they may have done with the initial lane clearing and the Bradley was hopping on across the lane, I don't know, but judging from the fact that they did that and at least one Bradley hit mine and all those vehicle was disabled in close proximity, it would suggest to me the demining op was not finished, they were just following the deminer.

F 5-10 Breaching.jpg


This is what they should have done if I was in charge of that particular operation.

  1. Position the security to the flank of the breaching op. And use them to suppress the Russian instead of having them follow the Breacher (again, they may have done it but I don't know)
  2. Obscure the breacher by either attacking the enemy OP with artillery, the Ukrainian have a few months to watch that line, they should have known where the Russian OP are.
  3. Conduct the breaching with suppressive fire on the flank
  4. Move the column into the breaching location after the lane was secure.

That is what I think was wrong and why they lose all these equipment in that lane.
 
.
so you agree that destroying the dam benefited Ukraine not russia
First of all, the tweet doesn't say they will cross the reservoir, the tweet actually said the Ukrainian will have a shallower river crossing when the water dried up, water is going to dry up regardless of the dam being blown because it is about to hit summer over there. This is what he meant; this is not about blowing the dam. With the dam in place water is still going to dry up because it is summer and that dam would have prevented the water from flowing downstream to begin with, that's what dam do.....

Second, what that mean actually did not benefit the Ukrainian, because as said, they would have a easier crossing in a week and a half (More likely 2 to 3 weeks) which means you are giving Russian more time to prepare for the crossing if they really do cross there because you are giving them about 2 weeks more to prepare for it. How does it benefit the Ukrainian??
 
. .
He has been going ham in this thread but more as a counterbalance to the users I mentioned who do the same thing. Out of the things you've listed he isn't the only person doing this, and making threads is part and parcel of a forum. You discuss things, and you have sticky threads for important issues.

Reported him many time till I put him on Ignor.

So much spam makes it impossinle to read updates on the war ( this thread is actuallly a very good source on that ),

And i am talking about pages upon pages of nonsence he posted.


~
 
Last edited:
.
so you agree that destroying the dam benefited Ukraine not russia
How can it benefit Ukraine? Large agricultural area is flooded, crops destroyed, famine coming. This disaster will set back Ukraine for decades. The dam and surrounding area in control by Russia invasion army. The explosion was inside the machine rooms, not from outside. The detonation was registered by instruments in Norway and other stations in Europe.
 
. .
Ukraine army advancing on Bakhmut front. Slow but steady. 2 km into Russia position on the northern and southern flank.


Ukraine-Krieg - Bachmut

Ukrainische Soldaten feuern eine Kanone in der Nähe von Bachmut in der Region Donezk ab. © LIBKOS/dpa
 
.
The boss of German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall is happy. The stock price goes thru the roof. Weapons factories running non stop. Ukraine army highly valued German arms. For instance the big artillery gun Pz2000 is intended for 4,500 shells. Ukraine says the cannon can fire more 20,000 shells before it be sent to maintenance facility. Rheinmetall will increase production of artillery shells to 600,000 per year. Maybe more.

Good for mass killings

Putin wants it.

1686460138965.png


 
.
Back
Top Bottom