The Situation in the Ukraine. #12

but...............

Buahahaha.. I can't stop laughing ..omg.. poor TR1...  

I was google search about sosna-u that supposedly will be used in the new armata tanks..
then suddenly notice a thread in the NATO buthurth forums... about the so called "T-72b3" tanks
as the ultimate proof of Russian invasion..  then guess what.. the people claiming it was a B3 were owned big time.. by more educated people about differences between Russian and Ukrainian tanks..  

Long story short.. the so called B3 that most people were claiming was Russian tank..ended
being a T-72BA

What is funny as hell.. is that.. TR1 was claiming..

1)Ukraine do not have T-72 tanks.. oh noo Russian invasion.
2)but then later when proved wrong ,he focus in the B3.. and shows a picture
of what appears to be one.. but with double white lines..  (a classical mark of tanks that belongs to Ukraine army.. )  
-but then later he invent a story ,that the tank originally was in control of the rebels given
by Russia.. but in an ambush somehow they lost the tank.. and rebels get it.. then quickly after
they get the tank.. they paint double lines in the tank.. but guess what? the Ukie army lose the tank again..      And the tank is in near perfect conditions.. it seems that the rebels and the ukies loved so much the tank. ...that both prefered to abandon the tank than to see it destroyed..

@Khepesh quote...
It's not about whether a tank is Russian or not, it is about lying and stating something [that it is "Russian"] without any evidence, and he lied by claiming T-72BA is a B3, and persists in this lie and now wriggles when he sees he is proved wrong.

@AurimasLT quote...
Ok, I must admit that one tank has IR lamp near barrel that is typical for T72BA. In second photo of destroyed tank I do not see such lamp (or it's blown off).

3)SO now we have more and more evidence that Ukraine indeed not only can make T-72s
   but that also can do T-72ba and have them in reserves.. which the rebels have been
   capturing and destroying..  

So now we see one by one all the lies falling , i always knew Putin was not an idiot ,and will
be sending tanks that only they make ,so that later kiev can use it.. as proof of Russian invasion and get more sanctions.. this is more logical ..because really the different between an ugly T-72
vs a more modern one.. as long both have K5 era.. will be next to zero.. protection will be the same.. so no reason to supply T-72b3 to rebels when any other model could do as good.  

Is not surprising Kiev Yak and/or poroshnko have been claiming there have been 12,000 russian army in Ukraine killed.. and that Russia used tactical nukes to take the Lugansk Airport..  
But the best one.. they claiming Russian was supplying armata tanks to the Rebels.. that was reports months ago..     Is like they have a contest of which one who can make the biggest
idiotic statement.  

If you want to have fun about the T-72b3.. not being B3.. at all.. just start reading in the
following link and the next 2 pages..

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236054-Ukraine-discussion-thread-Veer-off-topic-at-own-risk/page6557

Everything began with that photo of a "B3" burned in Ukraine.. the problem was that who
neither was a B3 in the end after careful investigation.. and that it was not a rebel position ,
but an Ukraine position bombed by artillery.. If the uploader claims are correct.. that will be
the ultimate proof that Ukraine do have tanks that looks like B3.  

Honestly ..because US and Kiev wants to demonize Russia.. to justify more sanctions.
i will not be surprised that tanks that looks like Armata "show up" in Ukraine..destroyed..
and kiev claiming proof of Russian invasion and also how obsolete are their tanks. Discrediting
Russia technology and showing "proof" of Russian army invasion .

The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.

The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.

There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.

The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.

Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.

ALso:

http://lostarmour.info/

LostArmor >>>>> You.

@TR1: a question. If the West wants to make a Ukrainain T-72xx looks like Russian T-72B3, can they do it ? Are they able to fake the apperance of Ukie T-72 to make it look like a Russian T-72 ? Or there is no way it can happen ?

TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.

The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.

There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.

The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.

Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.

ALso:

http://lostarmour.info/

LostArmor >>>>> You.

Even if there were B3 in ukraine.. the problem with the theory is that whenever they show..
picture show ,the were in the hands of Ukrainians.. not the Rebels..  with the double white lines..  The bullshit story that you claimed that the Rebels lost the tank..because of heavy fire.. and captured by Ukies.. but again have to abandon it for being hit ,and lost it again and the rebels show the tank in near perfect conditions and Rebels claim is capture from the ukies.. as a trophy not as tank they had before or recovered.  i can recall at least 4x times of T-72s as ultimate evidence of "Russian invasion" and in all of them.. who provide the information says
it was a tank Captured from the Ukies.. in an ambush..  

You were the first idiot.. that were claiming Ukraine do not have t-72.. and proved you wrong.
And this is not mentioning the photoshops that you have posted before of T-72 b3 from your bullshit "Expert" forums. didn't took me a minute to realize the faked composed image. so called experts are nothing but charlatans..  and the same tank again show up months .. later
but with white letters in Russian ,as real evidence of Russian Invasion..

your so called experts friends are clearly fooling you.. using photoshop should disqualify them
for any credible source of info.. and it was you ,who posted it here..

You have show no evidence of T-72b3 from Russian federation in Ukraine ,instead all the evidence points in the direction that Kiev had them ,unless they really have real bad luck..
that whenever they capture one.. they lose it again..  

2 or 3 tanks that were in possession of kiev army.. not the rebels, does not make a Russian invasion..  Just admit defeat.. the fact you and your friends ? claimed Ukraine have no T-72s and proved wrong ,should be more than enough so called experts are just clowns and only trolling.. Many NATO countries are suplying Ukraine with Russian equipment.. just last week Poland told will supply kiev with 300 new T-72 tanks..and you bet they will be upgraded with all the latest shit that france and other nato countries have. this was a major request of Obama.. so using a french equipment as proof Russia send any tank there is not enough evidence since France license their optics to anyone in Europe who wants them.. Ukraine with the help of NATO can perfectly upgrade all their tanks with the latest NATO electronics.. and they are already being supplied with anything NATO have.. aside of NATO tanks because the last thing they want
is the world to see ,is their tanks burned in the battlefield ,and their egos humiliated.

that also should be good for another topic.. to ask why US ,never supply the so called "proven and tested" ABRAM tanks to Ukraine.. and instead Supply T-72s.. what is their fear? that the Rebels massacre their tanks very easily and and not being embarrassed ?

There have been two dozen visually "Russian" tanks between the B89 & B3's seen in Ukraine. Including the alleged platoon filmed by the bald guy from RT. That's less than half a battalion worth of B3/B89
Overall the Losses from the NAF regarding tanks prove that there they may have never had more than 60-80 tanks at maximum.

Compare that with the Ukropian losses of roughly 200 tanks and this becomes peanuts.

About 60-80 tanks among those about half were antiquated pieces of rolling rust (64's notably in dire condition). If this is crazy Russian meddling, that's a lower cost than the already more than the 300 TOW's fired by the al qaeda guys in Syria (about 10 mln USD on current prices).

I don't really care, Kiev needs to understand the value they have right now is exactly lower than corpses, and act accordingly by stoping the ATO and starting to accept that everything has a price, especially a coup d'Etat.

Donbass, 2015

Only thread suitable for this seems to be this one. It's a Mosfilm production from 1978 "Day of Celebration". It's about a family in Torez, filmed in Torez and using Torez residents as extras. I don't expect anybody to watch this film However, the reason I posted it is because from 18:00 there is an extended scene at Saur-Mogila of the Victory Day celebrations there as it was back in the days.

higurashihougi wrote:@TR1: a question. If the West wants to make a Ukrainain T-72xx looks like Russian T-72B3, can they do it ? Are they able to fake the apperance of Ukie T-72 to make it look like a Russian T-72 ? Or there is no way it can happen ?

There is no evidence to suggest any of this took place. The only B3s that appeared were in separatist hands- or captured in the Illavaisk encirclement. Then destroyed or recaptured.
We have never seen them anywhere else, to suggest that this was some Ukraine ruse.
It would beg the question of what so many T-72B3s are doing in the hands of rebels well after the summer offensive- what, did the Ukranians make a bunch of expensive, combat worthy modifications for a ruse, then lost them all?
Further, why not "capture" these fakes somewhere....outside of Illavaisk, where you can actually drag them back to Kiev and display them?


Nah, these are absurd explanations. Russia giving tanks to the rebels and Russian units with T-72B3s operating during the Summer counteroffensive fits the available info well.
There is so much info to support this conclusion, and none to think its some ruse.

Mind you, its not like its one T-72B3 that Ukraine suddenly popped out of nowehere.
The rebels were chock full of T-72Bs (not B3s) before the Ukranian forces in the ATO were EVER seen using T-72s in combat.

Simple logic, the simplest explanation works here.

TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.

The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.

There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.

The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.

Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.

ALso:

http://lostarmour.info/

LostArmor >>>>> You.

What I bolded. As one of my posts from mp.net has been quoted then I presume you mean me in your post? If, so, then I in fact kept my mouth shut about B3 and only posted to show that what was claimed as B3 was not, and made numerous posts about UA having hundreds of T-72, including about two dozen 1989 models. yurasumy posted yesterday about what tanks UA had, what they sold, who to and when, and what they have now and the rate of repair. It is not broken down into model types tho, simply a 64 or 72 with a few exceptions. http://naspravdi.info/analitic/384

Vann7 wrote:
picture show ,the were in the hands of Ukrainians.. not the Rebels..  with the double white lines..

There are picture and videos of T-72B3s destroyed, abandoned, in Ukraine hands, and later in separatist hands.

 The bullshit story that you claimed that the Rebels lost the tank..because of heavy fire.. and captured by Ukies..

Bullshit because you said so? You have already shown you can't even read Otvaga and LostArmor, two premier sources.
And yes, a few were hit and abandoned at the encirclement in Summer 2014.

but again have to abandon it for being hit ,and lost it again and the rebels show the tank in near perfect conditions and Rebels claim is capture from the ukies..

And? Dozens and dozens of vehicles have been captured with no damage on them, or light damage.
Also the T-72B3s captured showed light shell damage, so they were disabled in some way- at least one had marks of autocannon fire or some heavy machine gun. SOmething broke down, crew wasn't able to fix it, they bailed.
SOme were also captured, and there is a video of that as well .

You were the first idiot.. that were claiming Ukraine do not have t-72.. and proved you wrong.

Watch who you are calling an idiot, boy. I have NEVER claimed Ukraine has no T-72s. GO ahead and prove I ever said that, or apologize for making up assertions.
What I did say was Ukraine did not operate T-72s in large numbers or any meaningful way until MUCH later than the Summer fighting.
And no, that one photo of a Ukrainian T-72 behind Poroshenko does not constitute as a rebuttal.

And this is not mentioning the photoshops that you have posted before of T-72 b3 from your bullshit "Expert" forums.

Wrong again. Go ahead and prove anything I posted was photoshop. OTvaga2004 is an excellent Russian forum full of insiders from the Russian tank industry and ex-tankers.
Who the hell are you again?!?

didn't took me a minute to realize the faked composed image.

Go ahead and prove it photoshop master.

but with white letters in Russian ,as real evidence of Russian Invasion..

Try to catch up. I have never seen that tank inside Ukraine. However, given the comments of Russian armed forces personnel on VK, the damage on that tank close to the Ukranian border.....well put 2 and 2 together.
Alone it would mean nothing. In the context of all the other hints and info we have, it seems very likely this tank was part of a Russian Army unit fighting in Ukraine.


The rest of your post warrants no response.

Khepesh wrote:

TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.

The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.

There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.

The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.

Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.

ALso:

http://lostarmour.info/

LostArmor >>>>> You.

What I bolded. As one of my posts from mp.net has been quoted then I presume you mean me in your post? If, so, then I in fact kept my mouth shut about B3 and only posted to show that what was claimed as B3 was not, and made numerous posts about UA having hundreds of T-72, including about two dozen 1989 models. yurasumy posted yesterday about what tanks UA had, what they sold, who to and when, and what they have now and the rate of repair. It is not broken down into model types tho, simply a 64 or 72 with a few exceptions. http://naspravdi.info/analitic/384

No, I meant mp.net in general. You were quite right about that specific tank not being a T-72B3.
It is just funny to see Vann try to argue by using....mp.net which he constantly bashes, while Otvaga is wrong.

Also, that T-72B photo is irrelevant to the whole T_72B3 discussion.
I could care less that some Latvian misidentified a tank on mp.net....but you can see how sad Vann's argument is.

I am well aware of Ukraine's stock of T-72s. After all, it was their number 1 export item, not the Bulat or Oplot or whatever else they cooked up.
Also they refubrished a number of them by Winter 2014, there are photos of a whole line being intended for ATO use.

But in terms of the fighting up till Summer 2014, there is zero combat footage, or post combat footage, with any Ukranian T-72s.
And suddenly the rebs have a whole bunch of them. Hmmmmmmmm.

Plus, we have photos that identify T-64s in Russia, then appearing a few days later in Ukraine....

The whole thing is obvious at this point.

TR1 wrote:

Khepesh wrote:

TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.

The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.

There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.

The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.

Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.

ALso:

http://lostarmour.info/

LostArmor >>>>> You.

What I bolded. As one of my posts from mp.net has been quoted then I presume you mean me in your post? If, so, then I in fact kept my mouth shut about B3 and only posted to show that what was claimed as B3 was not, and made numerous posts about UA having hundreds of T-72, including about two dozen 1989 models. yurasumy posted yesterday about what tanks UA had, what they sold, who to and when, and what they have now and the rate of repair. It is not broken down into model types tho, simply a 64 or 72 with a few exceptions. http://naspravdi.info/analitic/384

No, I meant mp.net in general. You were quite right about that specific tank not being a T-72B3.
It is just funny to see Vann try to argue by using....mp.net which he constantly bashes, while Otvaga is wrong.

Also, that T-72B photo is irrelevant to the whole T_72B3 discussion.
I could care less that some Latvian misidentified a tank on mp.net....but you can see how sad Vann's argument is.

I am well aware of Ukraine's stock of T-72s. After all, it was their number 1 export item, not the Bulat or Oplot or whatever else they cooked up.
Also they refubrished a number of them by Winter 2014, there are photos of a whole line being intended for ATO use.

But in terms of the fighting up till Summer 2014, there is zero combat footage, or post combat footage, with any Ukranian T-72s.
And suddenly the rebs have a whole bunch of them. Hmmmmmmmm.

Plus, we have photos that identify T-64s in Russia, then appearing a few days later in Ukraine....

The whole thing is obvious at this point.

But was Gurkhan, an expert and a poster at Otvaga, wrong on his own blog about the T-72 at Ilovaisk? and to remind http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2014/08/72_29.html
Also, no ukrops T-72 seen at the beginning because they were reserve tanks. They probably never even thought they would need to get them out of storage and that the 64's they had in service, particulary Bulat, would be sufficient. They were wrong so started dragging T-72 out of storage, those that had of course not been captured already by VSN.

There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.

What a nonsense even for your trolling.

Majority of armor came from Ukraine, they seized several military bases with T-64, T-72A and later T-72B. They got from one military base more than 400 vehicle of which over 200-300 were AFV/IFV's.

TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.

The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.

There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.

The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.

Dunno if you remember, but there had been a discussion between us regarding t-64 tank supply. Among other reasons, you said that giving t-64 made sense because of logistics and secrecy. Arguments kinda forgotten when all those t-72s started to pop up

I'm sure that you praise your otvaga gods pretty fiercely, but any particular recorded item must be regarded only as a probability, not as certainty. Now there's information that before maidan, ukraine actually bought some "100 percent russian" weapons in a limited quantity.
It's not completely unlikely that they're buying stuff even now (!), considering that there isn't a hard arms embargo in place, as far as I know.

The clearest thing is that, all these "Russian T-72 pics", no matter true or false, is an attempt to smear and topple the Novo armed forces and to cover the weaknesses of Kyiv forces.

Only individual with subhuman knowledge will refuse to understand that, Russia does not want and does not find it is wise to blalantly and unlimitedly supply weapons to Novo forces. Russian military supply is very limited at best, and much of Novo's heavy weapons were captured from Kyiv forces, including tanks.

Kyiv forces are WEAK and Kyiv current goverment are A BUNCH OF SCUMBAGS. That's why Western propaganga tries its best to emphasize on Russia this, Russia that, in a desperate attempt to legitimize the facist scums in Kyiv.

Werewolf wrote:

There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.

What a nonsense even for your trolling.

Majority of armor came from Ukraine, they seized several military bases with T-64, T-72A and later T-72B. They got from one military base more than 400 vehicle of which over 200-300 were AFV/IFV's.

We don't know that. We know that a lot of AFV's were indeed UA, but key coomponents of the NAF were RU sourced. This is what NAF themselves have said. The basic C²/C³ equipment was RU. This is all I need to know. Russia takes care of Bizniz.

Vann7 wrote:Buahahaha.. I can't stop laughing ..omg.. poor TR1...  

I was google search about sosna-u that supposedly will be used in the new armata tanks..
then suddenly notice a thread in the NATO buthurth forums... about the so called "T-72b3" tanks
as the ultimate proof of Russian invasion..  then guess what.. the people claiming it was a B3 were owned big time.. by more educated people about differences between Russian and Ukrainian tanks..  

Long story short.. the so called B3 that most people were claiming was Russian tank..ended
being a T-72BA

What is funny as hell.. is that.. TR1 was claiming..

1)Ukraine do not have T-72 tanks.. oh noo Russian invasion.
2)but then later when proved wrong ,he focus in the B3.. and shows a picture
of what appears to be one.. but with double white lines..  (a classical mark of tanks that belongs to Ukraine army.. )  
-but then later he invent a story ,that the tank originally was in control of the rebels given
by Russia.. but in an ambush somehow they lost the tank.. and rebels get it.. then quickly after
they get the tank.. they paint double lines in the tank.. but guess what? the Ukie army lose the tank again..      And the tank is in near perfect conditions..  it seems that the rebels and the ukies loved so much the tank. ...that both prefered to abandon the tank than to see it destroyed..  

@Khepesh quote...
It's not about whether a tank is Russian or not, it is about lying and stating something [that it is "Russian"] without any evidence, and he lied by claiming T-72BA is a B3, and persists in this lie and now wriggles when he sees he is proved wrong.

@AurimasLT quote...
Ok, I must admit that one tank has IR lamp near barrel that is typical for T72BA. In second photo of destroyed tank I do not see such lamp (or it's blown off).

3)SO now we have more and more evidence that Ukraine indeed not only can make T-72s
   but that also can do T-72ba and have them in reserves.. which the rebels have been
   capturing and destroying..  

So now we see one by one all the lies falling , i always knew Putin was not an idiot ,and will
be sending tanks that only they make ,so that later kiev can use it.. as proof of Russian invasion and get more sanctions.. this is more logical ..because really the different between an ugly T-72
vs a more modern one.. as long both have K5 era.. will be next to zero.. protection will be the same.. so no reason to supply T-72b3 to rebels when any other model could do as good.  

Is not surprising Kiev Yak and/or poroshnko have been claiming there have been 12,000 russian army in Ukraine killed.. and that Russia used tactical nukes to take the Lugansk Airport..  
But the best one.. they claiming Russian was supplying armata tanks to the Rebels.. that was reports months ago..     Is like they have a contest of which one who can make the biggest
idiotic statement.  

If you want to have fun about the T-72b3.. not being B3.. at all.. just start reading in the
following link and the next 2 pages..



Everything began with that photo of a "B3" burned in Ukraine.. the problem was that who
neither was a B3 in the end after careful investigation.. and that it was not a rebel position ,
but an Ukraine position bombed by artillery.. If the uploader claims are correct.. that will be
the ultimate proof that Ukraine do have tanks that looks like B3.  

Honestly ..because US and Kiev wants to demonize Russia.. to justify more sanctions.
i will not be surprised that tanks that looks like Armata "show up" in Ukraine..destroyed..
and kiev claiming proof of Russian invasion and also how obsolete are their tanks. Discrediting
Russia technology and showing "proof" of Russian army invasion .

There was only 1 T-72B3 which has Thales thermal sight. Could have easily been donated. Ukraine could have stored all of its T-72 tanks in Donetsk for all we know.

1 Ukrainian serviceman KIA and 4 others WIA reported over the past 24 hours.

Flagship Victory wrote:1 Ukrainian serviceman KIA and 4 others WIA reported over the past 24 hours.

Actually sometimes I pray that Porkie or Asswenuts appear on the list...

KoTeMoRe wrote:

We don't know that. We know that a lot of AFV's were indeed UA, but key coomponents of the NAF were RU sourced. This is what NAF themselves have said.  This is all I need to know. Russia takes care of Bizniz.

We know RF supplied arms and some minor numbers of tanks, but to say russia "obviously supplied ALL T-64,T-72A/B and B3 is retarded, not to mention that TR1 posts everything as some holygrail evidence and jerks off to it, while his first post of a B3 was a T-72BA, recently he posted this garbage of Kronet spotted in Ukraine, which was again a bullshit from ukrops with a Fagot engine portrayed as a Kornet remaining parts while a Kornet warhead was undamaged and undetonated, simply just used to smear shit against RF, while ukrops are openly recieving weapons from Nazi Masterlord US.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The basic C²/C³ equipment was RU.

What?

Werewolf wrote:What?

CC or C2 = Command & Control
CCC or C3 = Command, Control & Communication

whir wrote:

Werewolf wrote:What?

CC or C2 = Command & Control
CCC or C3 = Command, Control & Communication

Got it thanks.

Werewolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

We don't know that. We know that a lot of AFV's were indeed UA, but key coomponents of the NAF were RU sourced. This is what NAF themselves have said.  This is all I need to know. Russia takes care of Bizniz.

We know RF supplied arms and some minor numbers of tanks, but to say russia "obviously supplied ALL T-64,T-72A/B and B3 is retarded, not to mention that TR1 posts everything as some holygrail evidence and jerks off to it, while his first post of a B3 was a T-72BA, recently he posted this garbage of Kronet spotted in Ukraine, which was again a bullshit from ukrops with a Fagot engine portrayed as a Kornet remaining parts while a Kornet warhead was undamaged and undetonated, simply just used to smear shit against RF, while ukrops are openly recieving weapons from Nazi Masterlord US.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The basic C²/C³ equipment was RU.

What?

Command and Control/ Command, Control and Commo. If we add EW and various specialties(like the Panstir) total battlefield dominance wasn't far. What would have helped would be Air support. But you can't always get what you want.

Off course all the vehicle pool wasn't Russian. It was Soviet . But yeah saying Russia equipped 10 to 20K people when Ukraine has been doeing that year in year out in 3rd world hells. A bit of a stretch.

On the flip side, we have had various things in Ukraine in the past, from Turkish military grade ammo to Belarussian ATGM control posts (although that one could be from UA stocks). What is important though is that the best Ukraine could muster, is now in scrapyards or resting as "surgical waste". It is a tragedy but that's what Ukrainian chose with their apathy.

Alea Jacta Est.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

We don't know that. We know that a lot of AFV's were indeed UA, but key coomponents of the NAF were RU sourced. This is what NAF themselves have said.  This is all I need to know. Russia takes care of Bizniz.

We know RF supplied arms and some minor numbers of tanks, but to say russia "obviously supplied ALL T-64,T-72A/B and B3 is retarded, not to mention that TR1 posts everything as some holygrail evidence and jerks off to it, while his first post of a B3 was a T-72BA, recently he posted this garbage of Kronet spotted in Ukraine, which was again a bullshit from ukrops with a Fagot engine portrayed as a Kornet remaining parts while a Kornet warhead was undamaged and undetonated, simply just used to smear shit against RF, while ukrops are openly recieving weapons from Nazi Masterlord US.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The basic C²/C³ equipment was RU.

What?

Command and Control/ Command, Control and Commo. If we add EW and various specialties(like the Panstir) total battlefield dominance wasn't far. What would have helped would be Air support. But you can't always get what you want.

Off course all the vehicle pool wasn't Russian. It was Soviet . But yeah saying Russia equipped 10 to 20K people when Ukraine has been doeing that year in year out in 3rd world hells. A bit of a stretch.

The alledged Panzir was rapidly mute after its first claims that it was brought into ukraine, while the chimps still cry about the BUK which we know was ukrainian.