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 June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game.
Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse.
We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off.
We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive.
Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video:
Not in the affected area. Flooding a completely unrelated part of ukraine does not make sense since having the dam would be very valueable in a case where ukraine lands on the east bank.
EDIT: Flushing away a few forward positions that by all accounts are worthless for anything but light operations would also be a waste of the dam and probably even achievable by just opening all the gates.
On June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game.
Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse.
We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off.
We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive.
Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video:
Not in the affected area. Flooding a completely unrelated part of ukraine does not make sense since having the dam would be very valueable in a case where ukraine lands on the east bank.
Russia can now abandon almost the entire Kherson region and thus strengthen other regions. It does make sense.
On June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game.
Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse.
We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off.
We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive.
Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video:
Not in the affected area. Flooding a completely unrelated part of ukraine does not make sense since having the dam would be very valueable in a case where ukraine lands on the east bank.
Russia can now abandon almost the entire Kherson region and thus strengthen other regions. It does make sense.
That is just completely wrong. The raised water level makes a crossing harder, not impossible, you still need troops there and now some of your prepared positions are unusable. It is an advantage for russia, but you blowing it way out of proportion. And eventually the water will be gone and not available to use against a serious assault. Even if it was true that they now could abandon almost the entire region, it still would not make sense to do it well before any serious threat manifests itself. Its still a massive waste of the dam...
On June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game.
Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse.
We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off.
We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive.
Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video:
Not in the affected area. Flooding a completely unrelated part of ukraine does not make sense since having the dam would be very valueable in a case where ukraine lands on the east bank.
Russia can now abandon almost the entire Kherson region and thus strengthen other regions. It does make sense.
That is just completely wrong. The raised water level makes a crossing harder, not impossible, you still need troops there and now some of your prepared positions are unusable. It is an advantage for russia, but you blowing it way out of proportion. And eventually the water will be gone and not available to use against a serious assault. Even if it was true that they now could abandon almost the entire region, it still would not make sense to do it well before any serious threat manifests itself. Its still a massive waste of the dam...
Your argument would be correct if Ukraine was instead the US. Ukraine however has no navy and it's airforce is tiny. The region is now impassable for vehicles. This makes it extremely easy to defend for Russia with minimal effort.
On June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game.
Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse.
We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off.
We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive.
Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video:
Not in the affected area. Flooding a completely unrelated part of ukraine does not make sense since having the dam would be very valueable in a case where ukraine lands on the east bank.
Russia can now abandon almost the entire Kherson region and thus strengthen other regions. It does make sense.
That is just completely wrong. The raised water level makes a crossing harder, not impossible, you still need troops there and now some of your prepared positions are unusable. It is an advantage for russia, but you blowing it way out of proportion. And eventually the water will be gone and not available to use against a serious assault. Even if it was true that they now could abandon almost the entire region, it still would not make sense to do it well before any serious threat manifests itself. Its still a massive waste of the dam...
Your argument would be correct if Ukraine was instead the US. Ukraine however has no navy and it's airforce is tiny. The region is now impassable for vehicles. This makes it extremely easy to defend for Russia with minimal effort.
You don't need a navy to land in an "mostly abandoned" region. As I said, I agree that it helps the defenders, but you are overstating the effects immensely. The region was already pretty well defensible due to having the river, the fact that we have no signs of big departure of troops beforehand as well as the fact that even if what you said were true, delaying the destruction of the damn would still have been the far smarter move as its effects will eventually become undone. They could have simply moved over some troops, and then still blow the dam later when when there was a sign they need it.
Instead in a couple of months down the line, the region is more vulnerable than before, unless you rebuild russian defensive positions, replant mines... Admittedly I have no idea how credible the flood predictions are that WhiteRa tweeted, but as you find there, the russian side of the river is also expected to be heavily affected and there have already been report of mines being washed away. And ukraine will just return to the washed away positions. Its simply not worth it to spend the tactical advantage of the dam in this way, that is the argument. Not that there is no benefit, but that the benefits don't outweigh the cost and opportunity cost.
On June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game.
Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse.
We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off.
We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive.
Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video:
Not in the affected area. Flooding a completely unrelated part of ukraine does not make sense since having the dam would be very valueable in a case where ukraine lands on the east bank.
Russia can now abandon almost the entire Kherson region and thus strengthen other regions. It does make sense.
That is just completely wrong. The raised water level makes a crossing harder, not impossible, you still need troops there and now some of your prepared positions are unusable. It is an advantage for russia, but you blowing it way out of proportion. And eventually the water will be gone and not available to use against a serious assault. Even if it was true that they now could abandon almost the entire region, it still would not make sense to do it well before any serious threat manifests itself. Its still a massive waste of the dam...
Your argument would be correct if Ukraine was instead the US. Ukraine however has no navy and it's airforce is tiny. The region is now impassable for vehicles. This makes it extremely easy to defend for Russia with minimal effort.
You don't need a navy to land in an "mostly abandoned" region. As I said, I agree that it helps the defenders, but you are overstating the effects immensely. The region was already pretty well defensible due to having the river, the fact that we have no signs of big departure of troops beforehand as well as the fact that even if what you said were true, delaying the destruction of the damn would still have been the far smarter move as its effects will eventually become undone. They could have simply moved over some troops, and then still blow the dam later when when there was a sign they need it.
Instead in a couple of months down the line, the region is more vulnerable than before, unless you rebuild russian defensive positions, replant mines... Admittedly I have no idea how credible the flood predictions are that WhiteRa tweeted, but as you find there, the russian side of the river is also expected to be heavily affected and there have already been report of mines being washed away. And ukraine will just return to the washed away positions. Its simply not worth it to spend the tactical advantage of the dam in this way, that is the argument. Not that there is no benefit, but that the benefits don't outweigh the cost and opportunity cost.
The Russian military doesn't follow the same rationale as we do. First and foremost they serve Putin, and Putin serves only himself. This is why the siege of Bakhmut didn't end in 2022, but only after the city fell, when human cost for the Russian army had skyrocketed. Human cost is irrelevant to Putin. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam also doesn't follow conventional reasoning, but only Putin's. He wants to delay the war at all costs, and to him it's irrelevant if the (human or financial) cost outweighs the benefit. He wants a longer war, because that's what serves him best, so any delay is better than no delay. More cost is therefore sometimes to his benefit, if it comes with additional delay. The current situation resulting from the flooding makes Ukraine's efforts harder. Putin is happy about every few months of extra time. Right now his goal is to delay Ukraine's offensive potential until the winter, so that Russia has time to fortify until 2024, and then the whole thing starts all over again. Every year is going to be like the previous one until either one of the armies is defeated. He'll play this game until he keels over.
On June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game.
Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse.
We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off.
We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive.
Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video:
Not in the affected area. Flooding a completely unrelated part of ukraine does not make sense since having the dam would be very valueable in a case where ukraine lands on the east bank.
Russia can now abandon almost the entire Kherson region and thus strengthen other regions. It does make sense.
That is just completely wrong. The raised water level makes a crossing harder, not impossible, you still need troops there and now some of your prepared positions are unusable. It is an advantage for russia, but you blowing it way out of proportion. And eventually the water will be gone and not available to use against a serious assault. Even if it was true that they now could abandon almost the entire region, it still would not make sense to do it well before any serious threat manifests itself. Its still a massive waste of the dam...
Your argument would be correct if Ukraine was instead the US. Ukraine however has no navy and it's airforce is tiny. The region is now impassable for vehicles. This makes it extremely easy to defend for Russia with minimal effort.
You don't need a navy to land in an "mostly abandoned" region. As I said, I agree that it helps the defenders, but you are overstating the effects immensely. The region was already pretty well defensible due to having the river, the fact that we have no signs of big departure of troops beforehand as well as the fact that even if what you said were true, delaying the destruction of the damn would still have been the far smarter move as its effects will eventually become undone. They could have simply moved over some troops, and then still blow the dam later when when there was a sign they need it.
Instead in a couple of months down the line, the region is more vulnerable than before, unless you rebuild russian defensive positions, replant mines... Admittedly I have no idea how credible the flood predictions are that WhiteRa tweeted, but as you find there, the russian side of the river is also expected to be heavily affected and there have already been report of mines being washed away. And ukraine will just return to the washed away positions. Its simply not worth it to spend the tactical advantage of the dam in this way, that is the argument. Not that there is no benefit, but that the benefits don't outweigh the cost and opportunity cost.
The Russian military doesn't follow the same rationale as we do. First and foremost they serve Putin, and Putin serves only himself. This is why the siege of Bakhmut didn't end in 2022, but only after the city fell, when human cost for the Russian army had skyrocketed. Human cost is irrelevant to Putin. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam also doesn't follow conventional reasoning, but only Putin's. He wants to delay the war at all costs, and to him it's irrelevant if the (human or financial) cost outweighs the benefit. He wants a longer war, because that's what serves him best, so any delay is better than no delay. More cost is therefore sometimes to his benefit, if it comes with additional delay. The current situation resulting from the flooding makes Ukraine's efforts harder. Putin is happy about every few months of extra time. Right now his goal is to delay Ukraine's offensive potential until the winter, so that Russia has time to fortify until 2024, and then the whole thing starts all over again. Every year is going to be like the previous one until either one of the armies is defeated. He'll play this game until he keels over.
Putin is not served in any capacity here. I already covered that waiting until there was at leas the hint of needing to blow the dam would have been the move, not spending an advantage before you have to.
I subscribe to the view that Russia is fearful of a breakthrough by Ukraine in the east and in its desperation blew the dam so it can rotate most of its forces to those combat theatres. No vehicles are going to get through that flood for at least a month now.
The soviets and the Nazis did a similar thing in WW2. Also the whole thing about waiting until Ukraine is in the flood zone before flooding it is a bit far fetched. The flood takes hours, days to fully affect the region and its not exactly unknown by Ukraine that this was possible (they warned about it last year.) I don't think there's a high likeliness of large amounts of military units being washed away or trapped between the flood and the Russian forces.
To use a StarCraft analogy, how many times do collapsible rocks and towers ever actually destroy an army?
On June 08 2023 00:33 Zaros wrote: I subscribe to the view that Russia is fearful of a breakthrough by Ukraine in the east and in its desperation blew the dam so it can rotate most of its forces to those combat theatres. No vehicles are going to get through that flood for at least a month now.
The soviets and the Nazis did a similar thing in WW2. Also the whole thing about waiting until Ukraine is in the flood zone before flooding it is a bit far fetched. The flood takes hours, days to fully affect the region and its not exactly unknown by Ukraine that this was possible (they warned about it last year.) I don't think there's a high likeliness of large amounts of military units being washed away or trapped between the flood and the Russian forces.
To use a StarCraft analogy, how many times do collapsible rocks and towers ever actually destroy an army?
Not waiting until they are in the flood zone, but until you actually see preparations for bridging. To stick with your analogy, how many games did you move your army to your backdoor rocks, despite not scouting any attempts to break them down? How many times did you queue up 8 supply depots/pylons to block your rocks within the first 5minutes of the game?
On June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game.
Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse.
We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off.
We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive.
Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video:
Not in the affected area. Flooding a completely unrelated part of ukraine does not make sense since having the dam would be very valueable in a case where ukraine lands on the east bank.
Russia can now abandon almost the entire Kherson region and thus strengthen other regions. It does make sense.
That is just completely wrong. The raised water level makes a crossing harder, not impossible, you still need troops there and now some of your prepared positions are unusable. It is an advantage for russia, but you blowing it way out of proportion. And eventually the water will be gone and not available to use against a serious assault. Even if it was true that they now could abandon almost the entire region, it still would not make sense to do it well before any serious threat manifests itself. Its still a massive waste of the dam...
Your argument would be correct if Ukraine was instead the US. Ukraine however has no navy and it's airforce is tiny. The region is now impassable for vehicles. This makes it extremely easy to defend for Russia with minimal effort.
You don't need a navy to land in an "mostly abandoned" region. As I said, I agree that it helps the defenders, but you are overstating the effects immensely. The region was already pretty well defensible due to having the river, the fact that we have no signs of big departure of troops beforehand as well as the fact that even if what you said were true, delaying the destruction of the damn would still have been the far smarter move as its effects will eventually become undone. They could have simply moved over some troops, and then still blow the dam later when when there was a sign they need it.
Instead in a couple of months down the line, the region is more vulnerable than before, unless you rebuild russian defensive positions, replant mines... Admittedly I have no idea how credible the flood predictions are that WhiteRa tweeted, but as you find there, the russian side of the river is also expected to be heavily affected and there have already been report of mines being washed away. And ukraine will just return to the washed away positions. Its simply not worth it to spend the tactical advantage of the dam in this way, that is the argument. Not that there is no benefit, but that the benefits don't outweigh the cost and opportunity cost.
The Russian military doesn't follow the same rationale as we do. First and foremost they serve Putin, and Putin serves only himself. This is why the siege of Bakhmut didn't end in 2022, but only after the city fell, when human cost for the Russian army had skyrocketed. Human cost is irrelevant to Putin. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam also doesn't follow conventional reasoning, but only Putin's. He wants to delay the war at all costs, and to him it's irrelevant if the (human or financial) cost outweighs the benefit. He wants a longer war, because that's what serves him best, so any delay is better than no delay. More cost is therefore sometimes to his benefit, if it comes with additional delay. The current situation resulting from the flooding makes Ukraine's efforts harder. Putin is happy about every few months of extra time. Right now his goal is to delay Ukraine's offensive potential until the winter, so that Russia has time to fortify until 2024, and then the whole thing starts all over again. Every year is going to be like the previous one until either one of the armies is defeated. He'll play this game until he keels over.
Putin is not served in any capacity here. I already covered that waiting until there was at leas the hint of needing to blow the dam would have been the move, not spending an advantage before you have to.
Only when assuming that Russia has the privilege of waiting for a Ukrainian push in the Kherson region. If Ukrainian troops are already making major advances in the East, and perhaps applying serious pressure on multiple fronts, then the Russian war game changes dramatically. Relieving the Kherson front earlier would then make more sense because it eliminates a temporary worry and allows for an immediate regrouping, which - if the reports are correct - may be desperately needed for Russia right now.
After claiming Bakhmut, the Russian army has one main job, and that is to fortify its defensive lines so much that the Ukrainian army loses enough of its offensive potential and Kiyv must consider "peace talks" (i.e. surrendering the annexed regions to Russia).
More news coming in from the southern front. Hectic day for the UAF, around 42 vehicles destroyed on video from just one small sector near Novodarovka/Novodonetsk (obviously this is just one video so not to fill up the page but if you all want I can post more).
I don't remember the last time so much footage of destroyed UAF equipment was coming in at this rate. Video footage of 5 self-propelled artillery units being taken out in one day is a first, seems they are all coming out in the open for the offensive:
As for the manpower losses estimates vary wildly, An troop carrier can be hit and everyone gets out alive or the opposite. Though with the complete radio silence on the Ukrainian side the little that gets through paints a very grim picture.
This first one is from a pro-Ukraine NGO talking about a group of some 50 volunteers:
Troops already complaining that they were thrown in to die:
While the losses over the last few days have been very high on the Ukrainian side they only represent a small portion of the entire army group accumulated for the offensive towards Melitopol and they haven't even deployed the 'game-changer' western tanks yet, consensus being that they are being saved for when a breakthrough happens. In any case with Russia having air superiority the offensive for now hasn't been able to reach even the first line of Russian defense in the area. Everything points to Ukraine finally going all-in with the long announced offensive though and things are going to get very very hot in the next few days on all parts of the front
This correlates with this claim https://t.me/voenacher/46134 That there were at least six different offensive attempts during today (and probalby including yesterday). Quote: "more than fingers on one hand".
There’s something weird about that dam breaking. I’m a civil engineer and obviously I’m missing a ton of details but it’s very interesting to me the way it seems to have broken.
This is a picture of the dam. There is a main breaking point but then to the right there is another, smaller, breaking point after some structures
You can see it more clearly there. Not only that but notice how the top part of the structures it seems the ceiling collapsed,
That is highly unusual.
This is a screenshot of a simulation of a dam breaking. There is a single point of failure in the middle. That is caused when the dam overflows and water starts pouring from the top. When that happens the middle part is the weakest point and more water starts going there. The anmount of water and pressure accumulated in the point and eroded/starts to destroy it. The more it destroys it the more water can pass through the more speed it carries and so on.
Here is an actual photo of a dam that failed.
Single point of failure that expands outward.
Here is a video of an actual dam failing (notice how it’s overflowing everywhere but again, single point of failure in the middle)
So I find it interesting that there is another point of failure there, and that the top seems to have been blown off…
On June 08 2023 06:41 Lwerewolf wrote: Do explain how Russia has air superiority.
Claiming air superiority is a bit of a stretch for sure, but Russia is able to use their planes in a way that Ukraine isn't; as long range artillery. Basically Russia is able to take off from far within their borders, and then they sortof slingshots their missiles from within their own borders into Ukraine, and turn back around, with little danger to the pilots or planes.
I'm not sure how effective we can pretend this to be, but they keep doing it, so they must be seeing some kind of results from it. They certainly aren't able to operate as anything resembling CAS in the region.
Very heavy fighting all through the night, the UAF sending tons of armor at five points along the contact line near Zaporozhye. Russian air force and the artillery of both sides working all night. For now it seems like the Ukranians managed to take one hilltop but its been under extreme fire from everything. They are burning through their reserves at a high rate but with this rate of losses then need a bigger foothold yesterday.
The soldiers at the front line obviously have more pressing things to take care of than keep all of us informed where they are and what they are doing. Events and pictures that happened over the weekend and start of the week are just now comming to light
It seems the big cats have finally come out to play. When these were taken and if they were abandoned/destroyed in the meantime is anyones guess. In any case we will get a lot more video and photo evidance about what has happened and what is going on right now in the coming days
Edit: This is just the morning update though. Will see how info comes in during the day. Most of the destroyed vehicles are in no mans land, drone recon footage is the most we can get but there is a hell of a lot of it coming in.
On June 08 2023 06:41 Lwerewolf wrote: Do explain how Russia has air superiority.
Claiming air superiority is a bit of a stretch for sure, but Russia is able to use their planes in a way that Ukraine isn't; as long range artillery. Basically Russia is able to take off from far within their borders, and then they sortof slingshots their missiles from within their own borders into Ukraine, and turn back around, with little danger to the pilots or planes.
I'm not sure how effective we can pretend this to be, but they keep doing it, so they must be seeing some kind of results from it. They certainly aren't able to operate as anything resembling CAS in the region.
They are now, with JDAM (UMPK in Russian) bombs. They aren't as refined as US ones, but they work, allowing air support from safe distance (kilometers, maybe tens of kilometers), which forced Ukraine to move their heavy AA closer to the front, where it started to be hunted by guided artillery and Lancets. First S-300 in Kherson and Svatovo regions couple of months prior, now Iris-T.
Meanwhile first photos from Orekhov area were posted. First confirmed image of Leopards, and it seems AFU armored group took a beating similar to Russian Ugledar assault attempts in February, clumping due to minefields, and being struck from above. https://t.me/lost_armour/868?single Active RU air support was also reported.
On June 08 2023 06:41 Lwerewolf wrote: Do explain how Russia has air superiority.
Claiming air superiority is a bit of a stretch for sure, but Russia is able to use their planes in a way that Ukraine isn't; as long range artillery. Basically Russia is able to take off from far within their borders, and then they sortof slingshots their missiles from within their own borders into Ukraine, and turn back around, with little danger to the pilots or planes.
I'm not sure how effective we can pretend this to be, but they keep doing it, so they must be seeing some kind of results from it. They certainly aren't able to operate as anything resembling CAS in the region.
They are now, with JDAM (UMPK in Russian) bombs. They aren't as refined as US ones, but they work, allowing air support from safe distance (kilometers, maybe tens of kilometers), which forced Ukraine to move their heavy AA closer to the front, where it started to be hunted by guided artillery and Lancets. First S-300 in Kherson and Svatovo regions couple of months prior, now Iris-T.
This is what I was talking about with the slingshot method. It's not CAS, but more like air to ground artillery. CAS means staying in the area for an extended period of time and blowing up targets as needed. This is more of a hit and run
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/dc51582fbac8b0d9c5a6bb4483ce8fe3.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0WGtpZk.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8po73eN.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/0K2Fr0L.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7EcZZJI.png)
