|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On May 12 2022 23:34 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 22:54 Oleo wrote:On May 12 2022 15:32 Ardias wrote:On May 12 2022 06:15 Sermokala wrote:
Sending militia forces to do no combat duties is a legitimate strategy. Repairing damaged roads and paths, patrolling rear areas as well as handling pow guard duty while escorting supplies and captured equipment to rear areas.
You want your best forces doing combat and your worst forces to not do combat. On May 12 2022 04:58 Sent. wrote:
It would be completely irrational to keep people who can be useful in combat west of Lviv. What are they supposed to do in Zakarpatia, watch out for a Hungarian backstab? The things that members of 101st brigade are complaining about (I've pinned the link to their public message in my post) is that: 1) They do not have proper combat training; 2) They are only armed with small arms (assault rifles and machineguns); 3) Their order is to move into Lugansk region and reinforce elements of UAs 24th motorized brigade, which was fighting in Popasnaya for the last month, and was driven out of the city few days ago (which means they are going directly to the frontline); 4) That order wasn't properly made in a written form; 5) Some people in the brigade are not fit for active service due to medical reasons (hence why they are in territorial defence, which operates locally). Ukrainians in the thread are welcomed to verify if my translation was correct. My actual point was that if UA is killing RU with K/D ratio of 5:1, I doubt that there would be much need to send barely trained and lightly armed militia to the front. Well most of us do not speak Ukrainian or Russian, so its hard to check whats being said by whom on some random youtube video, I surely will not take the word of a Russian for it, but it makes no sense to lie about a translation either. If they reinforce another brigade, it could very well be that that brigade has a sufficient high stock of weapons which they can use, or they may be rearmed from stocks near the front instead of at their homebase. It does not make sense for them to be fully stocked in the west of Ukraine, since those weapons are needed in the south and east. The only thing I can find about a 101st brigade is that it was stationed in Kiev and fought in the battles around Kiev, they may have been redeployed, but that does not sound like a unit thats deployed in the west of Ukraine. Also the youtube channel that is your source has pinned on its home page a video of Russians using an UR-77 mineclearer against civilian buildings, which is if not a warcrime, definately inhuman and disgusting terrorism, even if there were soldiers in the building, as the video claims, which is like most things Russian probably a lie. It surely invalidates the channel to me as any useful source of Ukrainian troop deployment and appealvideo's. Finally Ukrainians dont kill Russians 5:1, I havent followed troopnumbers lately, but western sources estimates were between 1:1 - 3:1. Is this source credible enough? Text translatable via Google is also presented. About participation in battle for Kiev (also if you support Ukraine, you should write Kyiv, because Kiev is the Russian pronounciation) - you confuse 101st Territorial Defence brigade and 101st Brigade for the Protection of the General StaffIt is not about "fully stocked". Territorial defence is a militia force, not regular army, they aren't supposed to be heavily armed (or trained) anyway. Also after two and a half months of warfare I doubt that 24th Motorized has much of a stockpile, they have never had time to do even some kind of rotation yet. As for the use of mineclearer - it's simply a large piece of explosives. Explosives in urban combat wreck the buildings all the same, be it democratic explosives, or authoritarian explosives, or be it mineclearer, howitzer shell or air ordnance. Damage sustained by Al-Fallujah or Mosul are the proof of that. Also thank you for your honest opinion regarding me and credibility of my words.
Ah different brigade, thank you for the correction.
I was able to find 2 stories about this now, if true it is certainly not a good thing. However both stories read like russian bs. Typical Russian playbook, do something yourself and then accuse the other of doing it instead. There have been countless rapports of undertrained russian soldiers being sent into Kiev, only to be slaughtered, with more experienced troops and Kadyrovites being sent after them, so these soldiers are not able to retreat. Now both these stories I found from questionable sources are about a group of untrained Ukrainians being sent to the front, with an Azov (of course azov) battalion to prevent them from not going.
So maybe there is truth in the story, but I am not holding my breath.
Of course you dont see a problem with using an UR-77 to attack apartment buildings, pathetic whataboutism. But whats too expect after cruise missiles into residential area's with no military value, continuous bombing of hospitals, blowing up refugee buildings like the theater in Mariupol. Your "army" is supposed to come free the people of Ukraine from nazi's, not bomb them into oblivion...
|
On May 13 2022 15:14 Oleo wrote:
Of course you dont see a problem with using an UR-77 to attack apartment buildings, pathetic whataboutism. But whats too expect after cruise missiles into residential area's with no military value, continuous bombing of hospitals, blowing up refugee buildings like the theater in Mariupol. Your "army" is supposed to come free the people of Ukraine from nazi's, not bomb them into oblivion...
I think he misunderstood your point about the UR-77. It reads like he thought your critique was the use of said equipment, and not the potentially intentional destruction of civilian infrastructure without a good military reason.
|
Russian Federation610 Posts
On May 13 2022 15:14 Oleo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 23:34 Ardias wrote:On May 12 2022 22:54 Oleo wrote:On May 12 2022 15:32 Ardias wrote:On May 12 2022 06:15 Sermokala wrote:
Sending militia forces to do no combat duties is a legitimate strategy. Repairing damaged roads and paths, patrolling rear areas as well as handling pow guard duty while escorting supplies and captured equipment to rear areas.
You want your best forces doing combat and your worst forces to not do combat. On May 12 2022 04:58 Sent. wrote:
It would be completely irrational to keep people who can be useful in combat west of Lviv. What are they supposed to do in Zakarpatia, watch out for a Hungarian backstab? The things that members of 101st brigade are complaining about (I've pinned the link to their public message in my post) is that: 1) They do not have proper combat training; 2) They are only armed with small arms (assault rifles and machineguns); 3) Their order is to move into Lugansk region and reinforce elements of UAs 24th motorized brigade, which was fighting in Popasnaya for the last month, and was driven out of the city few days ago (which means they are going directly to the frontline); 4) That order wasn't properly made in a written form; 5) Some people in the brigade are not fit for active service due to medical reasons (hence why they are in territorial defence, which operates locally). Ukrainians in the thread are welcomed to verify if my translation was correct. My actual point was that if UA is killing RU with K/D ratio of 5:1, I doubt that there would be much need to send barely trained and lightly armed militia to the front. Well most of us do not speak Ukrainian or Russian, so its hard to check whats being said by whom on some random youtube video, I surely will not take the word of a Russian for it, but it makes no sense to lie about a translation either. If they reinforce another brigade, it could very well be that that brigade has a sufficient high stock of weapons which they can use, or they may be rearmed from stocks near the front instead of at their homebase. It does not make sense for them to be fully stocked in the west of Ukraine, since those weapons are needed in the south and east. The only thing I can find about a 101st brigade is that it was stationed in Kiev and fought in the battles around Kiev, they may have been redeployed, but that does not sound like a unit thats deployed in the west of Ukraine. Also the youtube channel that is your source has pinned on its home page a video of Russians using an UR-77 mineclearer against civilian buildings, which is if not a warcrime, definately inhuman and disgusting terrorism, even if there were soldiers in the building, as the video claims, which is like most things Russian probably a lie. It surely invalidates the channel to me as any useful source of Ukrainian troop deployment and appealvideo's. Finally Ukrainians dont kill Russians 5:1, I havent followed troopnumbers lately, but western sources estimates were between 1:1 - 3:1. Is this source credible enough? Text translatable via Google is also presented. About participation in battle for Kiev (also if you support Ukraine, you should write Kyiv, because Kiev is the Russian pronounciation) - you confuse 101st Territorial Defence brigade and 101st Brigade for the Protection of the General StaffIt is not about "fully stocked". Territorial defence is a militia force, not regular army, they aren't supposed to be heavily armed (or trained) anyway. Also after two and a half months of warfare I doubt that 24th Motorized has much of a stockpile, they have never had time to do even some kind of rotation yet. As for the use of mineclearer - it's simply a large piece of explosives. Explosives in urban combat wreck the buildings all the same, be it democratic explosives, or authoritarian explosives, or be it mineclearer, howitzer shell or air ordnance. Damage sustained by Al-Fallujah or Mosul are the proof of that. Also thank you for your honest opinion regarding me and credibility of my words. Ah different brigade, thank you for the correction. I was able to find 2 stories about this now, if true it is certainly not a good thing. However both stories read like russian bs. Typical Russian playbook, do something yourself and then accuse the other of doing it instead. There have been countless rapports of undertrained russian soldiers being sent into Kiev, only to be slaughtered, with more experienced troops and Kadyrovites being sent after them, so these soldiers are not able to retreat. Now both these stories I found from questionable sources are about a group of untrained Ukrainians being sent to the front, with an Azov (of course azov) battalion to prevent them from not going. So maybe there is truth in the story, but I am not holding my breath. Of course you dont see a problem with using an UR-77 to attack apartment buildings, pathetic whataboutism. But whats too expect after cruise missiles into residential area's with no military value, continuous bombing of hospitals, blowing up refugee buildings like the theater in Mariupol. Your "army" is supposed to come free the people of Ukraine from nazi's, not bomb them into oblivion...
Part about death squads of either Azov or Kadyrovtsi I consider bullshit. There could be a possibility of a local commander here and there going overboard, but not as a system.
As for destruction of civilian infrastructure - I'll repeat my point fron a few pages ago - if our army wanted to simply destroy as much of Ukraine as possible - there wouldn't be a single house standing in one piece in Kharkov, Chernigov or Sumy. But since that isn't the case, I doubt that such were the intentions.
Both sides use residential areas for protection. Since Ukrainians are the ones that are defending the cities, they do it more often. And I completely understand them, it's the best possible defensive position. Also where are you supposed to take positions in urban combat, when in a 3-4 km radius around you there is nothing but residential area?
But even if there is a single ATGM or machinegun crew, or even forward artillery observer in apartment building, school or other civilian building - it becomes military target as per article 8 of Geneva conventions: "objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action".
Also if you have a historical example of city taken after heavy fighting with most of the civilian infrastructure intact, I'm all ears.
Regarding your last sentence - I'll quote one of my previous posts: "My belief is that the best case scenario Kremlin hoped for is that Ukrainian leadership will be scared at the prospect of all-out war, quickly surrender, goverment will be made pro-Russian, Russian will be second official language, Ukraine won't be trying to go into EU or NATO, Donbass and Crimea are recognized, water from Dniepr and electricity from Zaporozhie nuclear plant flow into Crimea without problem. Hip-hip hooray, home before the leaves grow. Putin's narrative from the start was "that we come to liberate people from Kiev regime", and I believe he wanted to be seen not only by Russian, but also by Ukrainian (especially Russian-speaking) population in such regard."
But when Ukrainians did not submit and started to resist fiecrly, of course the damage and casualties from both sides grew up.
|
I will admit that they are useing civilian areas such as buildings as fortifications and therefore can be considered legitimate targets. I can also asset that Russia has denied doing this or considering this and has told its people that it is not bombing apartment buildings, hospitals, and theaters like they clearly have been doing. A number of these attacks could fall into the USA style excuse of "Malfunctioning munition, faulty intelligence" that we use for our war crimes but russia is not admitting this either. They just flatly deny that it is happening.
|
So apparently a majority of a Russian battalion was wiped out trying to cross a River.
|
On May 13 2022 21:37 Ardias wrote:
Also if you have a historical example of city taken after heavy fighting with most of the civilian infrastructure intact, I'm all ears.
[snip]
Putin's narrative from the start was "that we come to liberate people from Kiev regime", and I believe he wanted to be seen not only by Russian, but also by Ukrainian (especially Russian-speaking) population in such regard."
But when Ukrainians did not submit and started to resist fiecrly, of course the damage and casualties from both sides grew up.
I think it's less victim-blamey and more true to say, "When Putin didn't GTFO, damage and casualties mounted."
I don't mean to paint you personally as a bad guy, but your language places blame on Ukraine ("when Ukrainians did not submit") or on nobody at all, when the simple truth is that every last bit of destruction and death on Ukraine's battlefields is 100% on Putin's shoulders.
|
I think it's fair to say that Putin is the only one who's responsible for any and all of the damage and casualties of this war.
But I also think Ardias didn't take the angle of responsibility, but merely pointed out that, had UA not resisted as it did, the war would've been won by Russia, thus logically resulting in less death and destruction (basically saying Putin's plan wasn't to turn Ukraine into rubble and commit other atrocities). I see validity in that angle, although I'm not entirely convinced of it as it's speculation about an alternate reality. Also it can sound like an argument against self defense, and I'd strongly oppose such an argument. Furthermore, Ukraine obviously did not escalate, that was all Putin. I think it's much more fair to say "but when Russia did not withdraw and started to kill and destroy indiscriminately, of course the damage and casualties from both sides piled up". It's the framing that makes the difference in the impression.
|
Yes, exactly, the framing matters to how the statement is read.
If you say, "Civilians will suffer in any war. Putin wanted this all to happen with little violence, but Ukraine resisted, and now look at the destruction" --- well, that makes it sound like Putin is a reasonable guy and a lot of fault lies with Ukraine. It may not contain strict falsehoods (I don't know how violent or otherwise Putin *wanted* the invasion to be), but it leaves out a key part of the truth, which is that when Putin couldn't achieve his goals through smaller-scale violence, he immediately resorted to full-scale violence and crimes against humanity.
I am trying to explain to Ardias that they are sounding rather like the speaker in the paragraph above, and if they don't mean to convey those things, they may wish to choose different words.
|
The Russians tried to cross the river 3 times and got across on the third. The btg force in the first two tries were rendered more than combat ineffective and the total cost of the crossing is more than one of the beaches at D-Day. We're talking 100 armored vehicles and 1000 or more dead along with how many injured.
The Russians don't use battalion groups they organize into battle tactical groups and then brigades. They organized a little less than 130 on the border at the start and have thrown in less than 100 onto the new eastern offensive. This one action at least reduced their forces by 2 percent.
On the third try they didn't even use a bridge they just trusted their propaganda and drove into the river. 10 tanks have just their turrets sticking out of the water. A tank recovery vehicle made it across the river and then was destroyed by artillery.
Believe it's going to be called the battle of bilohorivka.
|
On May 14 2022 09:37 Sermokala wrote:
The Russians tried to cross the river 3 times and got across on the third. The btg force in the first two tries were rendered more than combat ineffective and the total cost of the crossing is more than one of the beaches at D-Day. We're talking 100 armored vehicles and 1000 or more dead along with how many injured.
The Russians don't use battalion groups they organize into battle tactical groups and then brigades. They organized a little less than 130 on the border at the start and have thrown in less than 100 onto the new eastern offensive. This one action at least reduced their forces by 2 percent.
On the third try they didn't even use a bridge they just trusted their propaganda and drove into the river. 10 tanks have just their turrets sticking out of the water. A tank recovery vehicle made it across the river and then was destroyed by artillery.
Believe it's going to be called the battle of bilohorivka.
So they either crossed the river heavily damaged and are now trapped, or they failed but still being forced to attack...
“Russia has been working on the encirclement of Ukrainian forces,” said William Alberque, director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which is based in London.
“The Ukrainians blew a couple of critical bridges to prevent this. The Russians then created this pontoon bridge, creating a bottleneck with lots of equipment.”
He said the details in the images of the site — which showed severe but concentrated damage — suggested a highly accurate use of heavy artillery guided by drones or nearby ground forces.
Serhiy Haidai, a Ukrainian military official in Luhansk, was quoted in local media as saying the pontoon attack took place on Russian units seeking to cross the river near the town of Bilohorivka and close to the Lysychansk-Bakhmut highway, a key Ukrainian supply route.
“Bilohorivka is now an outpost of Luhansk oblast where Ruscists keep trying to cross the river, but end up feeding the fish,” he said.
Alberque said that although Russia lost a number of armored personnel carriers in the attack, that was unlikely to change the course of the conflict in Kharkiv and Luhansk.
“I think this will significantly affect operations in the region for a while, but it’s not as if Russia is short" of the carriers, he said.
The Siverskyi Donets pontoon attack may instead offer clues as to the tactics being deployed by both sides.
“Ukraine is using geography, they’re using rivers, anything they can to force the Russians into choke points, and then attacking those choke points when they become permissive targets,” Alberque said.
“To have this many vehicles in this small a space this close to the Ukrainians shows incredibly poor discipline from the Russians.”
Source
|
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
On May 14 2022 08:37 Djabanete wrote:
Yes, exactly, the framing matters to how the statement is read.
If you say, "Civilians will suffer in any war. Putin wanted this all to happen with little violence, but Ukraine resisted, and now look at the destruction" --- well, that makes it sound like Putin is a reasonable guy and a lot of fault lies with Ukraine. It may not contain strict falsehoods (I don't know how violent or otherwise Putin *wanted* the invasion to be), but it leaves out a key part of the truth, which is that when Putin couldn't achieve his goals through smaller-scale violence, he immediately resorted to full-scale violence and crimes against humanity.
I am trying to explain to Ardias that they are sounding rather like the speaker in the paragraph above, and if they don't mean to convey those things, they may wish to choose different words.
I don’t read it as that at all.
Ukrainian resistance was more stubborn than anticipated, and hence escalation has happened.
I don’t see any moral/justification element to this observation, it’s just how this has progressed in practical terms.
Putin, as any leader outside of a Hitler type with ideological genocidal intent would ideally have wanted an invasion to proceed as smoothly as possible, with as little expense of resources as possible.
It doesn’t make him a reasonable guy, that’s just the best case scenario in his calculus, and he blatantly has not got his best case scenario, because of Ukrainian resilience.
I think it’s unfair to tag Ardias with that charge. They haven’t been cheerleading for the invasion at all from posts I’ve seen, I’m assuming English isn’t their first language (although bloody better than my Russian), so a small inexactitude in phrasing shouldn’t be jumped upon too vociferously.
|
It kinda gloss over the atrocities commited in occupied cities, where there was little to no fighting.
|
Now Russia is threatening Poland.
|
They think that their propaganda machine is wholly believed and that they can make Ukrainians think that Poland wants to take over western Ukraine. They're intensely worried about a Polish intervention and making Ukraine paranoid about Poland wanting to take over the west is what they think will stop that.
|
Yes, everyone knows full well the imperialistic tendencies of Poland. All we want is the return of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and take all the Ukrainian land up to the Dnieper River along with all of Belarus, Lithuania and Latvia...
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Rzeczpospolita_1619_-_1621.png/592px-Rzeczpospolita_1619_-_1621.png)
|
On May 14 2022 11:36 Erasme wrote:
It kinda gloss over the atrocities commited in occupied cities, where there was little to no fighting.
Indeed. Many of the atrocities against civilians were done the first few days when everyone still thought Russia would win within a week.
|
Russian Federation610 Posts
Wombat nailed it. I could only add that yes, English is indeed my second language (first being Russian ofc), and there is also the thing I've observed in comments of foreigners visiting Russia (though it's probably true to the most of the former USSR) that Russians are sometimes seem to be sort of rude and offensive in their casual conversation while in fact it is just the general way of talking here, more direct and straightforward (and my friend who worked in US kinda agreed with that). In my post I simply described the chain of events, without any kind of moral evaluation of them.
On May 14 2022 11:36 Erasme wrote:
It kinda gloss over the atrocities commited in occupied cities, where there was little to no fighting.
Because as I've already pointed out
On May 12 2022 15:32 Ardias wrote:
Previously I was asked not to discuss moral aspects of this war.
So I abstain from any comments regarding reported war crimes, atrocities etc. The only first-hand account that I have on the matter your mentioned is my friend in Kherson, currently he and his family are doing fine, well, except for the lack of job, since only the most essential stuff like utility services, food stores and markets, gas stations (Russia ship fuel from Crimea) etc. are working now. He has personally heard about suppression of pro-Ukrainian protests and search for former members of Territorial Defence and Ukraine's Security Service, as well as weapon looters (there was a big clash in few first days of war near the Antonov bridge near Kherson, so there was a lot of stuff lying around) but that's it for now.
|
Russian Federation610 Posts
On May 14 2022 09:37 Sermokala wrote:
The Russians tried to cross the river 3 times and got across on the third. The btg force in the first two tries were rendered more than combat ineffective and the total cost of the crossing is more than one of the beaches at D-Day. We're talking 100 armored vehicles and 1000 or more dead along with how many injured.
The Russians don't use battalion groups they organize into battle tactical groups and then brigades. They organized a little less than 130 on the border at the start and have thrown in less than 100 onto the new eastern offensive. This one action at least reduced their forces by 2 percent.
On the third try they didn't even use a bridge they just trusted their propaganda and drove into the river. 10 tanks have just their turrets sticking out of the water. A tank recovery vehicle made it across the river and then was destroyed by artillery.
Believe it's going to be called the battle of bilohorivka.
This is heatly discussed in Russian channels as well, and yeah, even though there are some questions (a lot of destroyed IFVs are BMP-1, which are almost out of use in Russian Army, but are actively used by LDPR and are the most widespread IFV in Ukraine Army, so they are either LPR vehicles, captured vehicles, or some Ukrainian vehicles lost during the battle for the crossing, since per UA reports, they were holding the eastern bank of the river for a few days. Destroyed tanks on the banks are definetly ours, these were T-72s.), the general consensus is that was a big blunder on our side.
Though I'm curious about this part: "10 tanks have just their turrets sticking out of the water"
Didn't see that in the pictures circulating around, only saw 2 wrecks of riverine boats near the recovery vehicles you mentioned. These are supposed to help at laying pontoon bridge. Something like this one.
As for the aftermath - unconfirmed report from our side - that our troops were still fighting with Ukrainians in Belogorovka as of yesterday and most losses were in vehicles, not in manpower.
|
Russian Federation610 Posts
On May 12 2022 21:45 RvB wrote:
Views on the war are certainly coloured by the media consumed and western media is mostly pro Ukraine. But no amount of propaganda changes the facts on the ground as we can observe them. Russia with a superior force in pretty much every imaginable way failed in their first offensive and are now bogged down in their second offensive. Their performance has been worse than the Ukrainian one no matter how you look at it. I don't believe this is due to Russians being dumb. It's due to structural issues such as the massive corruption. Institutions matter and the Russian army has been poorly led for decades.
I won't exactly agree with "superior in every imaginable way". My assessment will be the following:
In the air, sea, heavy SAM and guided/ballistic missile department - definetly yes, both in quality of stuff and in numbers.
In tanks and IFVs - yes, there is our advantage in numbers (though not as overwhelming as in air or sea) and a general parity in quality between mainstay vehicles.
ATGM, MANPADS - after all the NATO supply I'd say that there is parity at least (if not the Ukraine advantage).
Artillery - Russia has the numbers, but Ukraine, I believe, has a higher quality, due to the mass use of UAVs and better trained artillery crews, thanks to Donbass conflict.
Infantry - here where Ukraine has both the quantity and probably quality, since Russian force consist of only professional troops (only LDPR conducted mobilization), while Ukraine made three waves of mobilization already, and they have a lot of Donbass vets (and that conflict was primarily infantry+artillery clashes, hence higher Ukrainian troop quality in that department). And again, mass use of small UAVs for recon and artillery guidance, which Russian army has been slacking on for past years (our UAVs start around the Brigade level, maybe sometimes battalion).
Overall strategic reconnaissance - Ukraine is far ahead with all the NATO support in this area.
Though on a corruption and the generally outdated view on warfare in higher echelons I'll have to agree. As examples of the latter - the lack of UAVs in infantry is due to the general belief that big guns, big bombs and a lot of tanks matter, and that's why boots on the ground are often consider as not too important. Prestige of infantry is low in Russian army (except for airborne and naval infantry, they are considered as elite, and that's why a lot of them took part in city fights (Kherson - 126th Coastal Brigade, Mariupol - 155th Naval Infantry Brigade, Hostomel/Bucha/Irpen - 7th Air Assault Division), since it requires the best infantry). Due to that nobody saw much need to upgrade the infantry with the local recon means.
And about the corruption - the thing with our military production is that to get financing it is better to announce some expensive stuff that will be in low numbers, but costly (and also it's good for PR as wunderwaffe), rather to do some boring stuff like giving all the 400 thousand soldiers good optics for their AKs, or a small quadrocopter per platoon. That's why we rarely employ guided bombs (there are, called KAB-500, but they are quide expensive), because our version of JDAM was bogged down in bureaucracy and seem to never see the light of day (though at least in artillery we have guided shells).
|
On May 14 2022 16:25 Ardias wrote:
This is heatly discussed in Russian channels as well, and yeah, even though there are some questions (a lot of destroyed IFVs are BMP-1, which are almost out of use in Russian Army, but are actively used by LDPR and are the most widespread IFV in Ukraine Army, so they are either LPR vehicles, captured vehicles, or some Ukrainian vehicles lost during the battle for the crossing, since per UA reports, they were holding the eastern bank of the river for a few days. Destroyed tanks on the banks are definetly ours, these were T-72s.), the general consensus is that was a big blunder on our side.
Re: "almost out of use" - given the amount of material losses reportedly suffered thus far, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that they've been brought into use lately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
