Russian special military operation in Ukraine #14

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

caveat emptor wrote:Where did you find this post? This person is some kind of a deranged pathological liar. Gepard used in Kosovo? Where and by whom?

Posted here to get this reaction. Clearly posted om MoA by a Slovac who is a wee bit confused regarding history.

and i was only to ask if they were os damn good then why all of them were withdrawn from German Army? an dsend to "second class citizens' countries"  like Ukraine or Romania?

limb wrote:
How do people still mistake the Kh-29 for kh-59s here?

It's a kh-29.

There have only been a few kh-59 and kh-35 strikes on ground targets in this war. There are zero kh-69, kh-38, grom glide bombs, drel guided cluster munition glide bombs, KAB-50, KAB-250, LMUR, Hermes or any new Russian guided air launched munition. It's absolutely pathetic. Meanwhile NATO has JSOW, SLAM ER, Taurus KEPD, Kongsberg NSM, and Brimstone in regular use since 2010.

This war makes it look like all the new Russian small-mefdum guided munitions are just MAKS expo models

It's especially stupid to see no Hermes or LMUR being used instead of Russian helicopters having to launch S-8 rockets and Su-34s having to fly on top of targets.

I believe the fact that the Su-34s have only 2 kh-29s, when they can carry 8 of them, shows that Russians severely lack  reserves of even these 80s tech missiles and have to ration them out in tiny amounts.

JohninMK wrote:Anyone wondering how all these Nazis and their families are going to get into the US and probably Canada like after WW2?

You might have seen on the 24th March Biden said "We’ll also welcome 100,000 Ukrainians to the United States with a focus on reuniting families.”

But did you notice the smallprint?

"Orientation checks will be carried out on all potential immigrants before admission to the US and priority will be granted to those applicants with the ability to fit in comfortably with radicalised neo-Nazi and Nazi oriented host communities."

So, 'normal' people are at the bottom of the list.

Another reason why, those on the list, are likely to be very keen to actually live beyond the war, which probably means that 'real' Azov nutters are not actually on that list, just the 'in-crowd'  

d_taddei2 wrote:Poland has entered into discussions with the United States over a possible ‘reunification’ with Western Ukraine, according to Sergey Naryshkin, head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service.

While plans are at an early stage, a report from the agency suggests that Polish troops may enter Ukraine’s western regions for ‘peacekeeping’ purposes. The Polish troops would not act under a NATO mandate, the report says, but rather as part of a ‘coalition of the willing’.

The proposals also include the aim of integrating parts of the Ukrainian military into the Polish military, with the hope that a more Warsaw-oriented command structure may counterbalance Ukraine’s ultranationalist elements.

It is hoped that by confining the action to the western regions of Ukraine, a direct confrontation with Russian forces could be avoided. It is believed that, if these plans were implemented, the remainder of Ukraine would likely disintegrate.

If the plans were to be enacted, they could see Poland reclaim ‘its historical possessions’ in Eastern Europe. Poland’s borders have been highly changeable over its long history (including many bouts of non-existence), and at various points have included parts of modern Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. These proposals would restore much of the territory Poland had following its recreation in the aftermath of the First World War.

If you follow the western media’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, you’ll probably come to one clear conclusion: Things aren’t going to plan for Russia. If you’re embedded into the world of twitter, you’ll probably even think Moscow is losing. There’s enough reason to believe it at face value: An apparent plan to occupy Kyiv and the North of the country seemingly failed, resulting in Russia’s withdrawal, whilst Putin’s forces appear to have suffered more than expected losses and the Black Sea flagship the Moskva has been sunk. This is coupled with reporting which repeatedly assumes that Putin aspired for the war to be swift, short and painless, depicting him as miscalculating, mentally deteriorating and falling into an a quagmire of his own making.

Except that isn’t the case. Whilst it is true indeed that wars never do go according to plan, and always do surmount to unanticipated costs, it is nonetheless also a reality that the western media coverage of the conflict has been nothing short of a blatant war propaganda and psychological warfare campaign, which has coincided with a deliberate campaign to censor the other side of the story. It is ultimately preposterous to assume the media could even contemplate being impartial when given the severity of the conflict, they are under enormous social and political pressure to “take a side” and vest in what they hope to be Putin’s looming failure.

And as a result, it is no surprise that things aren’t really going as badly for Russia as people have been told. The situation in the East of Ukraine is now at a critical juncture. Russia has consolidated a huge salient hanging above Donestk Oblast from the town of Izyum, creating a gulf like pocket around Ukrainian forces below it, who also face Russian forces pushing out from Luhansk. Meanwhile, Russian has simultaneously began to push up from Zaporizhzhia oblast, looking to eventually bypass the entrenched line of Ukrainian soldiers outside of Donestk City. The goal? An overlapping pincer attack and two pronged encirclement from the North and South. If Moscow succeeds in their objectives, a huge bulk of the entire army of Ukraine stands to be trapped in this emerging pocket.

Geography is favouring the Russian advance. The Russian lines in this area are entrenched, unexposed and far beyond Ukraine’s reach, preventing them from staging the kind of counteroffensives they did on Russian forces in the North of the country. This is allowing to Moscow to continually make incremental gains without suffering large scale losses, a sign they have avoided the same mistakes they had previously made in the war. Not only that, but their positioning means they are effectively coming at Ukraine from every single direction, depriving the Ukrainian army from concentrating force in one area, as they previously done towards vulnerable Russian supply lines. This has been coupled with Russian efforts at overwhelming them with artillery fire.

The events in Donbass appear to have caught prominent western military analysts by surprise, who were otherwise quick to affirm an inevitable Russian failure. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) a known pessimist, was forced to concede on April 27th that Russia was making a “sounder pattern of operational movement” in Donbass and was even forced to admit that Ukrainian defenses in the north of the region were disorganized. Although the ISW continues to maintain that a broader Russian encirclement of the Ukrainian army won’t happen, it is difficult to see how Ukraine is going to turn the tide on this situation even with western support because they simply do not have the geographic advantage. Russia is gaining in the region every single day.

This speaks volumes about Russia’s strategy. When Moscow announced that it was withdrawing from the North and focusing on Donbass, this was marketed as a retreat and a failure, but on closer inspection it appears that the assault on this region was carefully planned in a logical sequence of preparatory steps. There is growing evidence that Russia used the previous stages of the war to prepare strategic ground for this one. Some people might have questioned: Why did Moscow not just charge into Donbass straight away? And seemingly went for Kyiv? And that’s a good question, and the answer is because with the highest concentration of Ukrainian forces there, “their best trained troops” as frequently eluded to, Russia would not have had the battlefield advantages or positions to push them back which they do now.

Before Russia proceeded with its current offensive on Donbass, it first undertaken a process of “shaping the battlefield” which involved distracting Ukraine by invading the North of the country (even if there was a hope Kyiv could be quickly encircled). As these multiple axis’ were opened, Russia then proceeded to invade from Crimea and seize Kherson oblast (to prevent a pre-emptive Ukrainian attack on the peninsula) and advanced into Zaporizhzhia (setting up a Southern launchpad). Mariupol was then encircled and cut off. These multiple fronts being opened allowed Russia to then invade Kharkiv and Luhansk Oblasts, which they then developed into a Northern flank with the capture of Izyum.

It is worth noting that at no stage of doing this did Russia attempt to storm through the fortified Ukraine lines surrounding the area of Donestk, the area which was most combat ready and long term prepared for an attack. That area remains relatively unchanged throughout the war. Instead, the bigger picture has been to outflank them from their rear from both the North and South in the view to a strategic encirclement. It is plainly obvious that Russia sees this effort as the defining battle and moment of the war and of course, so does the west, but that’s not what they’ve told their public. They’ve mislead people that these preparatory stages were in fact little more than an aborted operation to quickly seize the entire country and have shifted the goalposts from the reality that Donbass was always one of the biggest prizes.

It seems awfully strange that for a country who is “winning” the west are now severely upping their military aid and also their rhetoric in the anticipation they can make Putin fail, but little do people know such is because the tide on the battlefield is starting to turn against them. Russia suffered a lot of unanticipated losses and resistance along the way, but the narrative they are losing the war and facing defeat is waning thin. Reality is starting to come from. The west are leading Kyiv off a cliff edge by attempting to goad them into a deeper war, and the hubris manifest in the recent speech of Liz Truss is indicative that is them who are more likely to be met with political failure than Putin himself.

kvs wrote:There is no "surprise" in western propaganda fantasy about the war in Ukraine.   They deliberately fixated on Kiev because they
suppressed any discussion of the reason for the war: the Kiev regime ethnic cleansing campaign in the Donbass.   As time goes
on, they cannot maintain the fiction about Russia focusing on Kiev.   But they have succeeded in delinking the Kiev regime forces
concentration in Donetsk from their original purpose.   Supposedly these Kiev regime forces are fighting  and holding off the Russian
invaders.   As if Russia has no other pathway to invade Ukraine.

The western MSM has negative credibility.   It reports every attack by Kiev regime forces on civilian targets as attacks by Russians.
This included the Tochka-U attack on Donetsk City and recent MLRS attacks on Kharkov.   There is zero context and retarded black
and white caricaturization of the conflict.   The Empire of Lies indeed.
 

caveat emptor wrote:I wonder if they will test Koalitsiya at some point? I think it would prove itself as excellent counter battery weapon due it's long range and precision. It could be used to destroy heavy Ukrainian artillery in Donbas while being safe, deep behind front lines.

diabetus wrote:

caveat emptor wrote:I wonder if they will test Koalitsiya at some point? I think it would prove itself as excellent counter battery weapon due it's long range and precision. It could be used to destroy heavy Ukrainian artillery in Donbas while being safe, deep behind front lines.

It might be vulnerable to UAF 2s7 pions, since they seem to have inherited more than Russia did

Dr.Snufflebug wrote:Must add, regarding the above, that even Tupolevs launching strikes in Syria did so with very limited ordnance, far below capacity. And on occasion you'd even see a Su-35 armed with like four FAB-100s only, looks totally mad at a first glance.

kvs wrote:There is no "surprise" in western propaganda fantasy about the war in Ukraine.   They deliberately fixated on Kiev because they
suppressed any discussion of the reason for the war: the Kiev regime ethnic cleansing campaign in the Donbass.  

Belisarius wrote:

limb wrote:
How do people still mistake the Kh-29 for kh-59s here?

It's a kh-29.

There have only been a few kh-59 and kh-35 strikes on ground targets in this war. There are zero kh-69, kh-38, grom glide bombs, drel guided cluster munition glide bombs, KAB-50, KAB-250, LMUR, Hermes or any new Russian guided air launched munition. It's absolutely pathetic. Meanwhile NATO has JSOW, SLAM ER, Taurus KEPD, Kongsberg NSM, and Brimstone in regular use since 2010.

This war makes it look like all the new Russian small-mefdum guided munitions are just MAKS expo models

It's especially stupid to see no Hermes or LMUR being used instead of Russian helicopters having to launch S-8 rockets and Su-34s having to fly on top of targets.

I believe the fact that the Su-34s have only 2 kh-29s, when they can carry 8 of them, shows that Russians severely lack  reserves of even these 80s tech missiles and have to ration them out in tiny amounts.

I've posted this before but, in the face of your nonsense, it doesn't hurt to repeat:

For Military Porn Fans Some (Warranted) Explanations...

... on military porn. We all know that Russian Army is totally demoralized and has collapsed (like two weeks ago, right?) and ran completely out of ammo and equipment. Who knows this better than UK's Defense Minister.


Britain’s Defense Ministry reported Sunday that the Russian forces were trying to compensate for mounting casualties by recalling veterans discharged in the past decade.
I am sure Sandhurst should be proud of its graduates, because this is the only thing they can be proud of in the last 50 years of being reduced to a joke of a military. But while Russia continues to lose and tries "to compensate" for, obviously, a disastrous defeat from annihilating VSU as a functioning real army reduced to a large cauldron in Donbass, and some forces tied around Kiev, fanboys (and not only) who watched too much Hollywood and US military propaganda videos, especially against Iraqi Army, they ask a question after watching this video (and many similar others) from The Sun tabloid:

Actually, the question is legitimate when asked properly. What is the question? It's improper form is this: eew, Russian helicopters do not even use precision guided munitions, they use good ol' NURS S-8 and S-13 unguided rockets, while Western forces use PGMs all the time.
Here is the answer:

1. First, the fact that NATO forces use PGMs all time is a complete BS and 92% of ammunition used in the First Gulf War was good ol' artillery shelling and free falling bombs' flattening whatever could be found by "coalition" recon.


The Gulf War in 1991 marked the first extensive use of precision-guided munitions in warfare. Eight percent of the munitions dropped were PGMs, compared to less than one percent in Vietnam.
In the second campaign in Iraq the number was higher, but that were primarily guided bombs, including for the reason of Iraqi Army of 2003 having very little in terms of any valuable hardware. The birth of the PGMs, actually, goes as far back as Luftwaffe sinking Italian battleship Roma in 1943 by radio-controlled bomb, while Russians already in mid-50s started to deploy first genuine anti-shipping missile (as opposed to merely radio-controlled bomb), as well as fielding one of the first radio-controlled Anti-Tank Guided Missiles such as "Lotos" not to mention legendary 9M14 Malyutka, which still works to this day against many models of tanks.

These all were and are PGMs (precision guided munitions) and it is not that the US was first in this filed, albeit many try to portray it this way. It is simply not true, in fact the United States didn't have indigenous ATGM until 1970, then the US did obtain a decent anti-tank weapon such as TOW, by which time USSR fielded an astounding variety of ATGMs with guidance ranging from wire to IR, to laser. In 1986 the CIA issued a secret report (declassified in 2000) of Russians developing and using artillery laser guided munitions since 1970, and then they were used in Afghanistan.

So, you see, the US doesn't have monopoly on PGMs. And that is what many people still fail to recognize. After all, Russians used TV and laser guided bombs extensively in Afghanistan. So, what gives then? Very simple, tactics, economics and common sense.

2. For anyone who is attentive, even The Sun's video shows that apart from those very deadly even today unguided S-8 (S-13) rocket pods, KA-52s carry (clearly attached)  9K121 Vikhr laser-guided anti-tank weapons, but especially this nasty thing called Ataka, as well as air-to-air Igla missiles. Needless to say then, when you have on-board such a lovely combat informational control system (battle management) as Argument-52 and a superb multi-channel targeting complex, the question is why would you waste a relatively expensive anti-tank missile on something which blows apart easily by S-8, especially when the infantry is present (most of the time) and area coverage matters? Right. Of course, both Mi-28 and Ka-52 are capable of carrying this thing and they do: Hermes.

All of these PGM and even shoot-and-forget weapons have been used already in combat conditions and brand new Hermes has performed superbly. Evidently it is being carried presently in Ukraine too by both lines of combat helis. So, when you hear all those stories about Russian PGMs "performing poorly" anywhere (like Syria), know then--it is an excruciating butt-hurt of fanboys (primarily from the West) who still believe that Saddam's incompetent army was destroyed by PGMs. It was not.  

Here is good ol' Hind of Mi-24/35 variety wipes out Ukrainian Buk and its support vehicles by those very S-8 NURS.

Absolutely no necessity to waste PGM on that. Against infantry it is altogether pure stupidity unless you want to "open" some bunker.  S-8(S-13) do the job just fine. But, of course, if to believe western "experts" Russia is now down to one or two helicopters and a few tanks and has no personnel left, and VSU is about to mount massive counter-offensive and throw those Roosskies out of 404. I hear Rambo is on his way now, he just needs to arm his bow and arrows and the glorious victory for Ukraine will be at hand. But one has to ask inevitable question, it was more than 40 days of operation now, why so few (in fact very few--not counting CGI graphics from computer games presented as a combat footage by Kiev) shot down Russian helis and combat aircraft. There are some, very few. Where are those killing fields littered with burned Russian tanks. I heard Stinger and Javelin are those wunderwaffe, right? Nah, I am screwing with you.

https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/04/for-military-porn-fans-some-warranted.html?m=1

limb wrote:


By pgms I was talking about air launched light cruise missiles and heavy glide bombs with 50-500km range. The vikhr isnt that. We haven't seen the kh-38 or kh-69 being used too. These weapons would be more useful than expensive kalibr.