EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 529
| 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. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6931 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15328 Posts
That being said, with regards to lying about destroyed targets: 1. The incentives on the Russian side (cash bonuses for destroyed Western equipment) clearly lead to overstated numbers. 2. There are multiple examples of official Russian sources claiming obvious false hits. The infamous combine harvester which Russia reported as the first Leo2 destroyed come to mind. 3. Russia lies so obviously and thoroughly , it's difficult to take anything serious from their side. 4. If the absolute top level in Russia consistently reports absolute fantastic numbers like destroying the Ukrainian airforce or the entire HIMARS fleet like 5 times or destroying Bradleys before they are delivered why should we assume the lower ranks don't? Where is the disconnect? | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On August 10 2023 11:56 Gahlo wrote: It's less about not taking it seriously and more about the wars we expect to fight. Having that much artillery ammo over there makes sense. Not so much here. There's that, and also the fact that US has many other ways of delivering ordnance. A single carrier strike group can carry hundreds of tomahawks, and drop hundreds of tons of bombs every day for days at a time. Artillery generally has the shortest range of all US options for blowing things up, because US doctrine is so heavy on air power. Also you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of US weaponry would be used on strategic targets rather than kindergartens, hospitals and apartment buildings. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On August 10 2023 18:34 zatic wrote: In this I am with zeo. You need to be extremely skeptical with anonymous telegram accounts, "intercepted" communication, etc. - from either side. The information space here is flooded with psyops from both sides. That being said, with regards to lying about destroyed targets: 1. The incentives on the Russian side (cash bonuses for destroyed Western equipment) clearly lead to overstated numbers. 2. There are multiple examples of official Russian sources claiming obvious false hits. The infamous combine harvester which Russia reported as the first Leo2 destroyed come to mind. 3. Russia lies so obviously and thoroughly , it's difficult to take anything serious from their side. 4. If the absolute top level in Russia consistently reports absolute fantastic numbers like destroying the Ukrainian airforce or the entire HIMARS fleet like 5 times or destroying Bradleys before they are delivered why should we assume the lower ranks don't? Where is the disconnect? It's fairly obvious which side is more reliable. According to more reputable Russian claims, four HIMARS have been destroyed. But even that number is completely off the mark. Most likely they're all fully operable, because HIMARS remain hidden throughout most of their use, and they stay on the move practically all the time whenever they actively engage. It's nearly impossible to get a direct hit on them with dumb artillery fire or missiles (especially Russian ones with their extremely low accuracy). The Ukrainian side doesn't benefit much from overreporting numbers, they rely on the truth to win the war because if they get caught with their pants down their support could dry up. Lies won't get them very far. Fortunately they have experienced generals working closely with them on intelligence gathering. This further reduces the likelihood of exaggerations spreading through the ranks. Russian support on the other hand doesn't rely on the truth at all. They only need to add a kernel of truth into every claim, they only need to mention one thing that's accurate and correct, and they can build an entire castle of fabrications around that. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15328 Posts
The Russian loss numbers published by Ukraine are of course overstated. As does any military in the history of military conflict. This is what I would estimate for Ukrainian multipliers on Russian losses: KIA - 2x Planes and helicopters - pretty ridiculous, something like 4-5x Tanks, APV, Artillery - probably the closest to actual with something like 1.5x multiplier It's just important to recall that the truth does not lie in the middle. Ukraine overstates Russian losses, Russia just fabricates complete fantasy. When Ukraine says they shot down 300 Russian planes then that is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Because Russia has 300 planes. When Russia says they destroyed more Leos than Ukraine has, Bradleys before they were ever delivered to Ukraine, and so forth than that is complete fantasy. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On August 10 2023 19:18 zatic wrote: Sorry but this is just wishful thinking. The Russian loss numbers published by Ukraine are of course overstated. As does any military in the history of military conflict. This is what I would estimate for Ukrainian multipliers on Russian losses: KIA - 2x Planes and helicopters - pretty ridiculous, something like 4-5x Tanks, APV, Artillery - probably the closest to actual with something like 1.5x multiplier It's just important to recall that the truth does not lie in the middle. Ukraine overstates Russian losses, Russia just fabricates complete fantasy. When Ukraine says they shot down 300 Russian planes then that is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Because Russia has 300 planes. When Russia says they destroyed more Leos than Ukraine has, Bradleys before they were ever delivered to Ukraine, and so forth than that is complete fantasy. These estimates are completely off the mark, they're impossible. Unless you can provide sources that prove Ukrainian estimates are being exaggerated by this much, I will simply reject your claims. | ||
|
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 10 2023 19:03 Magic Powers wrote: The Ukrainian side ... rely on the truth to win the war because if they get caught with their pants down their support could dry up. -I have bridges to sell to you. The amount of direct lies and false flag operations of Ukraine in this war is astonishing. Just google some discussion on Kramatorsk railroad station strike, for example. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On August 10 2023 19:43 a_ch wrote: -I have bridges to sell to you. The amount of direct lies and false flag operations of Ukraine in this war is astonishing. Just google some discussion on Kramatorsk railroad station strike, for example. The question isn't if there are any exaggerations by the Ukrainian side. The question is if the official numbers are so vastly exaggerated that they effectively create an alternate reality. That needs to be proven. I've never seen good evidence of that. | ||
|
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 10 2023 19:44 Magic Powers wrote: The question isn't if there are any exaggerations by the Ukrainian side. The question is if the official numbers are so vastly exaggerated that they effectively create an alternate reality. That needs to be proven. I've never seen good evidence of that. -yes, I understand you. The example that I brought is exactly on that matter. It was a missile strike on a railroad station in Kramatorsk in april 2022 which had ~50 civilians killed. All major western and ukrainian newsmedia reported, of course, that it was russia. But later the photos of the missile remnants were leaked - and it appears that it was tochka-U, which is decomissioned from RU army, and active in ukrainian. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On August 10 2023 18:34 zatic wrote: In this I am with zeo. You need to be extremely skeptical with anonymous telegram accounts, "intercepted" communication, etc. - from either side. The information space here is flooded with psyops from both sides. That being said, with regards to lying about destroyed targets: 1. The incentives on the Russian side (cash bonuses for destroyed Western equipment) clearly lead to overstated numbers. 2. There are multiple examples of official Russian sources claiming obvious false hits. The infamous combine harvester which Russia reported as the first Leo2 destroyed come to mind. 3. Russia lies so obviously and thoroughly , it's difficult to take anything serious from their side. 4. If the absolute top level in Russia consistently reports absolute fantastic numbers like destroying the Ukrainian airforce or the entire HIMARS fleet like 5 times or destroying Bradleys before they are delivered why should we assume the lower ranks don't? Where is the disconnect? I'd like to add a piece of food for thought to your post. Very rarely are any numbers put out by the Russian MOD taken at face value. There is a very sober line taken by pro-Russian accounts where they are very careful about what they post turning out to be a complete lie and they fact check. Human error exists but these people for the most part want to be seen as the most grounded in reality. As I said before 60% of pro-Russian telegram is just Ukrainian accounts pretending to be Russian. Being seen as a trustworthy channel is everything. There are a lot of people combing through every post trying to find even the slightest weakness in the English sphere. You get blocked, banned and doxxed if you go full 'NAFO troll only on the Russian side' gloating over dead Ukrainians ect. So the quality of discussion and proof-before-posting is much much higher than the avarage pro-Ukraine thread on Reddit. Yes there are lies and clickbait sensationalism but not at the industrial level seen with Ukraine and Western sources, which are never scrutinised. You yourself don't really interact with or read pro-Russian sources directly. You hear about pro-Russian sources and talking points second hand from a pro-Ukraine source, that cherry pick the worst of the worst and amplify those sources and snippits. Warping whatever the first message was. Its easy to see everything Russia does as propaganda when everything you are allowed to see is the worst of the worst. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4557 Posts
On August 10 2023 19:54 a_ch wrote: -yes, I understand you. The example that I brough is exactly on that matter. It was a missile strike on a railroad station in Kramatorsk in april 2022 which had ~50 civilians killed. All major western and ukrainian newsmedia reported, of course, that it was russia. But later the photos of the missile remnants were leaked - and it appears that it was tochka-U, which is decomissioned from RU army, and active in ukrainian. But haven't we seen a lot of decommissioned equipment being brought back in use by Russia? Just the first random though that comes to mind | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On August 10 2023 21:25 0x64 wrote: But haven't we seen a lot of decommissioned equipment being brought back in use by Russia? Just the first random though that comes to mind There's no reason to believe the claim that the Tochka-U isn't in use by Russia. Plenty of evidence exists that they have used some of them during this conflict. My recommendation is to never trust anything that sounds like it could even be vaguely pro-Russian until you have near 100% confirmation from independent sources. The propaganda is almost entirely one-sided. | ||
KwarK
United States42701 Posts
On August 10 2023 21:25 0x64 wrote: But haven't we seen a lot of decommissioned equipment being brought back in use by Russia? Just the first random though that comes to mind You’re over complicating it. Russian trolls would always claim that there were secret photos leaked that show it was actually Ukraine. That’s just a part of their information warfare. They fill the information space with dozens of contradictory assertions so that people can pick their own truth. We’ve all seen this a million times over. Then people like you get forced to come up with explanations because you’ve implicitly bought into the idea that nobody would just say these things. But apply Occam’s Razor for a second. If this had actually happened then it would be huge important news, like finding the memo in which Bush ordered 9/11. You’d have heard about it before now. You’d not only have seen the photos, you’d have seen the analysis of those fragments by multiple parties as the government tried to prove its innocence. Missile striking their own cities would be a big deal and they would be very unlikely to make amateur mistakes like using a missile that Russians don’t even have. The correct response is “no they didn’t”. | ||
|
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 10 2023 21:25 0x64 wrote: But haven't we seen a lot of decommissioned equipment being brought back in use by Russia? Just the first random though that comes to mind -perhaps; I don't know for sure about all types of decomissioned weapons, - but in the case that russia continues using tochka-u, they should be used in numbers, and I've never seen ukraine reporting another usage of it in russian strikes. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On August 10 2023 22:14 a_ch wrote: -perhaps; I don't know for sure about all types of decomissioned weapons, - but in the case that russia continues using tochka-u, they should be used in numbers, and I've never seen ukraine reporting another usage of it in russian strikes. You haven't been looking. Why not? Reports can be found quite easily. Laziness is not a justification for the spreading of propaganda and misinformation. "It appears that the Tochka-U variant of the OTR-21 Tochka, a Soviet tactical ballistic missile fired from a ground vehicle, was used in the attack." The OTR-21 was scheduled to be decommissioned in 2020, but there's no confirmation that this ever happened. Putin planned the invasion of Ukraine years in advance, and thus it would be absurd to argue that he would give the go-ahead to decommission a missile type that would be of practical use for his war efforts in the very near future. Also, they could've just been recommissioned anyway. If you think that's not realistic, take a close look at the extremely old Soviet-era tanks that are currently in use by Russia. "The system was scheduled to be decommissioned by the Russian Armed Forces in 2020 in favour of the 9K720 Iskander,[5] but despite this it is claimed that they are maintained in service.[6]" https://inews.co.uk/news/ukraine-news-missile-kramatorsk-station-attack-precise-strikes-1564669 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTR-21_Tochka | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
ZDF reported on the evidence. Auto-translate: "The Russian Ministry of Defense claims that the Tochka-U type of missile used "will only be used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces." But Russia also uses Tochka-U missiles. Several states of the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine and Belarus, have this type of missile introduced in the 1980s. Although the Russian army officially replaced its arsenal with the newer Iskander, there is several proofs in the Ukraine war that Moscow is still using the Tochka-U. On the first day of the war, for example, according to the aid organization Amnesty International, there was a Russian attack with this type of missile on a hospital in Wuhledar. There are also reports of sightings of Russian Tochka-U missiles in Ukraine. According to the findings of the US think tank Institute for the Study of War, a Russian unit deployed in the Donbass is equipped with it." https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/kramatorsk-rakete-faktencheck-ukraine-krieg-russland-100.html | ||
|
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 10 2023 22:34 Magic Powers wrote: You haven't been looking. Why not? Reports can be found quite easily. "It appears that the Tochka-U variant of the OTR-21 Tochka, a Soviet tactical ballistic missile fired from a ground vehicle, was used in the attack." The OTR-21 was scheduled to be decommissioned in 2020, but there's no confirmation that this ever happened. Putin planned the invasion of Ukraine years in advance, and thus it would be absurd to argue that he would give the go-ahead to decommission a missile type that would be of practical use for his war efforts in the very near future. Also, they could've just been recommissioned anyway. If you think that's not realistic, take a close look at the extremely old Soviet-era tanks that are currently in use by Russia. "The system was scheduled to be decommissioned by the Russian Armed Forces in 2020 in favour of the 9K720 Iskander,[5] but despite this it is claimed that they are maintained in service.[6]" https://inews.co.uk/news/ukraine-news-missile-kramatorsk-station-attack-precise-strikes-1564669 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTR-21_Tochka There is a difference between a claim, and a solid proof. The first article, dated by 8th april 2022 (right after the strike), doesn't even claim any evidence that russia has used tochkas in the early months of the war. The wikipedia article claims two cases of russia using tochka-u (and 6 cases of it being used by ukrainians) - in Kramatorsk, and in Ugledar. The later case links to the amnesty.org website, which doesn't have any solid proof (photo, video of the missile remnants), just a verbal claim. On August 10 2023 22:34 Magic Powers wrote: Laziness is not a justification for the spreading of propaganda and misinformation. I can bet, that since 24.02.2022 I've spent, like, 50 times more than you reading various stuff about this war, including various ukrainian sources. So this one is on you, actually. | ||
|
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 10 2023 22:54 Magic Powers wrote: Some direct evidence exists, too. https://twitter.com/CITeam_en/status/1500475853490343936 ZDF reported on the evidence. Auto-translate: "The Russian Ministry of Defense claims that the Tochka-U type of missile used "will only be used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces." But Russia also uses Tochka-U missiles. Several states of the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine and Belarus, have this type of missile introduced in the 1980s. Although the Russian army officially replaced its arsenal with the newer Iskander, there is several proofs in the Ukraine war that Moscow is still using the Tochka-U. On the first day of the war, for example, according to the aid organization Amnesty International, there was a Russian attack with this type of missile on a hospital in Wuhledar. There are also reports of sightings of Russian Tochka-U missiles in Ukraine. According to the findings of the US think tank Institute for the Study of War, a Russian unit deployed in the Donbass is equipped with it." https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/kramatorsk-rakete-faktencheck-ukraine-krieg-russland-100.html -in the picture the missile is lying somewhere in a grove; it is unclear what it was targeted at, or perhaps has it been intercepted or malfunctioned. Therefore, it is also unclear, who fired it. Even so, my point was that if tochkas still in use, we should see mass evidence of it being fired (according to the same wikipedia article, russia had at least several hundreds of them) | ||
|
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
| ||
| ||
