Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 172
Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21340 Posts
On July 24 2022 08:22 plasmidghost wrote: If its coming from official US defence sources I don't see why it shouldn't be accurate.I had meant to point out the Russians using 85% of their military in Ukraine so far, but that makes me wonder, how accurate would that statement be? But 85% of current active military is not the same as 85% of potential forces. We know their recruitment is scrapping the bottom of the barrel and they have withdrawn forces from the Finnish border to send to Ukraine. | ||
Gahlo
United States35090 Posts
On July 24 2022 07:15 KwarK wrote: Running out of smart munitions just means you start hitting a bunch of things near your target. You keep firing but more civilians die. Hell, they'd get more inaccurate just from firing off that many rounds before even taking older rounds into account. | ||
r00ty
Germany1027 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![]() That doesn't seem very effective. | ||
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
I wouldn't wanna be in that field while that is going on. | ||
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
According to diplomats, under the terms of the deal: Russia will not target ports while shipments are in transit Ukrainian vessels will guide cargo ships through waters that have been mined Turkey - supported by the United Nations - will inspect ships, to allay Russian fears of weapons smuggling Russian exports of grain and fertiliser via the Black Sea will be facilitated. The deal is valid for 120 days and the United Nations expects it to be renewed unless the war has ended by then. Work is to get underway immediately to establish inspection teams and staffing a Joint Coordination Center (JCC) in Istanbul overseen by members of all four parties to the agreement. Ukrainian ports require about 10 days to prepare, so it will take a few weeks before vessels are moving in and out. "We are looking at a very quick rate of implementation," the official said. Negotiations began in April when U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres raised the idea in separate meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Ukraine. it seems like Ukraine made a deal with Turkey and then Russia made a deal with Turkey; there were no direct Ukrainian-Russian deals/accords. the line with "shipments in transit" is weird. if/when there is no (grain)transit, can russians bomb the ports?. (edit: i would put the recent withdrawal of russian ships from the Black Sea under this deal too) | ||
Manit0u
Poland17187 Posts
On July 24 2022 08:22 plasmidghost wrote: I had meant to point out the Russians using 85% of their military in Ukraine so far, but that makes me wonder, how accurate would that statement be? You have to take into account that Russia hasn't sent their regular army there. Mostly just conscripts and regional forces (people they don't have to put casualty reports for public). At the beginning of conflict Russia had what, 200k troops sent there? With 40k dead you'd assume that at least twice that number are wounded or otherwise incapable of fighting, making it around 120k incapacitated troops so I'd estimate it at about 60%. That's just the troops, not sure about vehicles and other assets. On July 24 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote: Quantity has a quality of its own. I wouldn't wanna be in that field while that is going on. Yeah, but at the same time you don't see any trench lines or burned down armor there. So it seems like an excessive force to saturate an area. We don't really know the context but if it was to say rout a small unit of Ukrainians then it's extremely ineffective (expending thousands of artillery rounds to try and hunt down 20 people or so). | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Poland is gearing up to purchase tanks, howitzers and fighter planes from South Korea as it looks to bolster its armed forces. "We're signing contracts next week," Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said in a tweet on Friday. The agreement includes 48 FA-50 light combat fighter jets, 180 K2 "Black Panther" tanks and an unspecified number of K9 howitzers, wPolityce website reported, quoting Blaszczak. "With this contract, we will significantly increase Poland's security and the strength of the Polish Army. Fast delivery and industry development are key! We reconciled the often divergent interests of soldiers and the arms industry," Blaszczak said in his tweet. Source | ||
Sent.
Poland9097 Posts
There were also some talks about nuclear energy cooperation with Korean companies so maybe our government believes there's something to gain from developing a closer relationship with Korea. | ||
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
On July 24 2022 23:35 Manit0u wrote: You have to take into account that Russia hasn't sent their regular army there. Mostly just conscripts and regional forces (people they don't have to put casualty reports for public). At the beginning of conflict Russia had what, 200k troops sent there? With 40k dead you'd assume that at least twice that number are wounded or otherwise incapable of fighting, making it around 120k incapacitated troops so I'd estimate it at about 60%. That's just the troops, not sure about vehicles and other assets. Yeah, but at the same time you don't see any trench lines or burned down armor there. So it seems like an excessive force to saturate an area. We don't really know the context but if it was to say rout a small unit of Ukrainians then it's extremely ineffective (expending thousands of artillery rounds to try and hunt down 20 people or so). True, if that is the case. I want Russia to fail as quickly as possible as the next guy, but i am just a bit more careful, and a "wait and see" type of guy. There seems to be way too much "Russia will fail basically next week" stuff going on. I don't know the context, so i don't try to use it to make some kind of point. And Russia firing a lot of artillery rounds doesn't mean that they won't be able to keep doing that. I am of the firm opinion that if the west wanted, they could crush Russia with pure industrial might. The west can simply invest a lot more money over a much longer period of time than Russia can. But as long as Russia wants it to, this war will keep going. And i think there are quite a few far too optimistic takes around. | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 25 2022 01:41 Sent. wrote: Nah, we're filling up the space left by the Soviet gear we sent Ukraine. The Abrams tank deal was disappointing in certain aspects so decision was made to buy different tanks instead of going all-in on the American tanks. There were also some talks about nuclear energy cooperation with Korean companies so maybe our government believes there's something to gain from developing a closer relationship with Korea. Yeah, this is it Estonia is also sending older stuff and replacing it with S Korean upgrades. | ||
Ardias
Russian Federation605 Posts
On July 24 2022 23:35 Manit0u wrote: You have to take into account that Russia hasn't sent their regular army there. Mostly just conscripts and regional forces (people they don't have to put casualty reports for public). At the beginning of conflict Russia had what, 200k troops sent there? With 40k dead you'd assume that at least twice that number are wounded or otherwise incapable of fighting, making it around 120k incapacitated troops so I'd estimate it at about 60%. That's just the troops, not sure about vehicles and other assets. Yeah, but at the same time you don't see any trench lines or burned down armor there. So it seems like an excessive force to saturate an area. We don't really know the context but if it was to say rout a small unit of Ukrainians then it's extremely ineffective (expending thousands of artillery rounds to try and hunt down 20 people or so). It's the opposite. Russia sent only regular troops there, while conscripts remained in Russia, since it's legally prohibited to use them outside Russian border. That's why I think referendums on Russia-controlled territories are important, they will allow Kremlin to use conscripts in defence of these territories in accordance with Russian law. | ||
Silvanel
Poland4691 Posts
Poland has already worked with S. Korea in military sector (Krab is built on Korean chassis). Also, Abrams is too heavy to be used in some areas of Poland, so if we want the option to use tanks everywhere we need another type. Judging by the size of the deal, there is probably some tech transfer involved. In my opinion, we will be building a Polish version of K2 and/or K9. Those purchases won't leave our borders. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17187 Posts
On July 25 2022 02:39 Ardias wrote: It's the opposite. Russia sent only regular troops there, while conscripts remained in Russia, since it's legally prohibited to use them outside Russian border. That's why I think referendums on Russia-controlled territories are important, they will allow Kremlin to use conscripts in defence of these territories in accordance with Russian law. Then how come the people reporting back home or captured by the Ukrainians are saying they were basically drafted and sent to the front without even having any training at all? Most of the Russian forces were people conscripted in the LPR/DNR, conscripts from rural areas or forces of other republics (Chechens, Wagner Group etc.). Aside from a few units of their regular troops in the form of VDV, some marines and spetsnaz there weren't really any signs of their regular army. Most pictures we get are those groups of people with random mismatched equipment and very few wearing any modern gear, body armor or even uniform outfits. Unless you want to tell me that regular infantrymen in Russia go into combat wearing sneakers and colorful school backpacks? Maybe there are some regular troops but I think they're being held back and away from the front. There were also reports that Russia didn't want to send people from around Moscow region etc. as they'd have to report casualties on them and it wouldn't sit well with people. | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21340 Posts
On July 25 2022 03:01 Manit0u wrote: Its legal technicalities.Then how come the people reporting back home or captured by the Ukrainians are saying they were basically drafted and sent to the front without even having any training at all? Most of the Russian forces were people conscripted in the LPR/DNR, conscripts from rural areas or forces of other republics (Chechens, Wagner Group etc.). Aside from a few units of their regular troops in the form of VDV, some marines and spetsnaz there weren't really any signs of their regular army. Most pictures we get are those groups of people with random mismatched equipment and very few wearing any modern gear, body armor or even uniform outfits. Unless you want to tell me that regular infantrymen in Russia go into combat wearing sneakers and colorful school backpacks? Russia has a mandatory conscription, those conscripts cannot, legally, be send into Ukraine. LPR/DNR are not official Russian provinces, conscripts there are not bound by such rules. Nor are ad-hoc units Russia is trying to hastily put together by offering people very high monetary incentives. | ||
Artesimo
Germany536 Posts
On July 25 2022 02:39 Ardias wrote: It's the opposite. Russia sent only regular troops there, while conscripts remained in Russia, since it's legally prohibited to use them outside Russian border. That's why I think referendums on Russia-controlled territories are important, they will allow Kremlin to use conscripts in defence of these territories in accordance with Russian law. I think a big problem is that in the media, and subsequently in here, russian forces and DNR and LNR forces keep getting mixed up /bundled together, and then things that are true in regards to some of these 3 get apllied to the others as well. Like DNR and LNR are absolutely scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel while russia faces the problem you hinted at there where they have problems recruiting/getting forces in, without dropping the 'special military operation' act. Its very hard to distinguish between russian forces and russian proxy forces in reportings. | ||
Sent.
Poland9097 Posts
| ||
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
| ||
maybenexttime
Poland5419 Posts
On July 25 2022 03:43 Sent. wrote: Well it is hard to understand why Kremlin is so reluctant to use Russia's core manpower while using ethnic Russians from their puppet states in eastern Ukraine like an 19th century imperialist power would use people from its African or Asian colonies. Because most Russians are couch patriots by design. They don't mind a genocide next door, as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty. | ||
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
On July 25 2022 04:23 maybenexttime wrote: Because most Russians are couch patriots by design. They don't mine a genocide next door, as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty. Also, Russia is what matters to Putin. Russians get angry if lots of Russians die. If lots of people from some puppet state die, that doesn't really impact Russia itself a lot. | ||
| ||