Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
The Patriot system would have shot down 3 s-34 today ?
Only three. Surely they meant 30.
The level of Murican delusions never stops shocking me, and the only fact that stands behind is that we deal with undereducated thugs with superiority syndrome for most of the cases.
It is normal though, if you listen to western experts the 9x19mm is way more powerful than the 9x18mm, and in terms of energy there is a difference, but anything a 9x19mm will penetrate will normally also be penetrated by the 9x18mm with the right ammo and they both make 9mm holes.
But when talking about 7.62x54mm and 7.62x51mm a few mms doesn't make any difference we are told... equally western 50 cal is 12.7x99mm vs Soviet 12.7x108mm are the same. Funny how higher velocity 9x19mm is better than the 9x18mm but the 7.62x25mm is not better than the western 9mm.
Funny how things work.
SS might claim the Bradley can survive some hits, but BMPs can survive hits too... but if either was as strong as a tank there would be no purpose to the T-15 or B-11 or K-17.
Nothing on the battlefield is 100% safe, not even a T-14.
This is hopefully not true...
NYT wishes...
Russia is not interested in declaring victory, it is interested in having its demands met.
And honestly, as modern 30 mm ammunition can penetrate more than 100 mm, no chance anything lighter than a tank will stand that.
Their new 57mm grenade launcher fires a much bigger much heavier much longer projectile in the APFSDS version and with much more propellant than any version of any 30mm cannon round could manage.
Calling me a nazi Because I said, the Bradley is more survivable than a BMP, you see its that kind of stupid logic that makes people not take you seriously outside of this forum.
Its standard main gun round is a DU round and is filled with ammo and fuel like any other armoured vehicle on the battlefield.
It is essentially a BMP-2 with no amphibious ability any more.
Add on armour packages will change protection in different directions a little but at the end of the day most anti armour weapons designed to deal with previous generation tanks... so 300-500mm penetration weapons will cut right through a Bradley.
The Russians are not idiots and will have worked out which weapons are most suitable to defeat each type of Ukrainian weapon and all the weak points to hit to get a kill or at least immobilise or start a fire to get the enemy to abandon the vehicle.
Modern armour piercing rounds have better penetration than the rounds used when this vehicle was first designed and I rather doubt the Ukies are getting the latest most top secret super heavy armoured version... although that will be the price that is used for the deal I suspect.
Also the BMP was designed with the roll I stated, that is how it was designed and for the very reasons the soviets designed it.
In the west there are the definitions APC and IFV. These definitions equate to the Soviet and Russian BTR and BMP. The Russians coined the term BMP before the west came up with IFV, so BMP as a description for both the Bradley and the various BMP models actually makes sense.
The west was planning to use their BMPs the way the Soviets were planning to use their BMPs... essentially if the enemy has little or no anti armour weapons the troops stay inside the vehicles and use firing ports and the vehicle does the fighting using its fire power and optics. If the enemy has anti armour capacity then the troops dismount and the BMP provides direct fire support from a few hundred metres behind where its optics and weapons are still very effective and powerful.
The Bradley actually had specialised gun port rifles that stayed in the vehicle and came with their own ammo supply for being used from inside the vehicle.
The APC just drops the troops off and retires back a distance and provides fire support with its main gun. The US vehicle being an exposed soldier operating a pintle mounted 50 cal on an M113, while the Soviet vehicle being a BTR-60PB with a 14.5mm HMG and PKT MMG in a turret.
The BTRs armour was not great but better than the two ton truck the western equivalent soldier would be riding in with some protection from small arms and shell splinters and being fully amphibious too... and the turret mounted guns.
To be a battlefield taxi to ferry mass amounts of troops quickly, its gun was just meant to engage soft targets while the infantry was getting out.
Actually the opposite... the BMP-1 had a 73mm gun and the BMP-2 had a 30mm cannon and the BMP-3 had a combination of both types of weapons plus they all had ATGMs specifically so they could deal with enemy equivalent vehicles and enemy tanks.
The BMP wasn't meant to be taking anything other than small arms fire because of its lack of armor protection, the vehicles internal layout
The vehicle was intended to operate near the front lines and needed to be operated properly to survive. On a battlefield where a tank is not safe... Leopard IIs and Challengers have been lost, while Abrams tanks seem to be hidden away not venturing anywhere near the front line for some reason... in such an environment you think a Bradley is going to cut through Russian defences and take back the Donbass?
I don't bootlick, if you cannot tolerate someone saying your precious russian made vehicle is less survivable than an American made one.
If I am wearing a leather jacket and you are topless I could say I was better protected from machine gun fire than you are... but is the difference even relevant when topless guys and guys with leather jackets are being killed on the battlefield fairly routinely on both sides?
I would say a Bradley on the Orc side is no safer than a Soviet era BMP simply because all the weapons the Russians will be using will be capable of destroying either.
AD will down most of these IF they ever come.
One or two might get taken down by russian birds
Would normally agree with you but I rather suspect the Orcs will get very clear instructions on where they can fly to minimise their risk to Russian air defence systems, which means surprise attacks by fighters might be more successful.
The problem is the Russians should never be agreeing to any deal.
They have the means to win this, so if they do some kind of deal then Putin sold out is own people or the russians are much weaker then one thought.
And that is what the NYT is going for... trying to get doomers to doom about Putin betraying them and giving up, when Putin has said no such thing.
This is American bullshit... lap it up bitches.
Videos don't lie, I find the way your reaction hilarious, honestly, it's a riot when a little truth sets you fanboys off so much.
Videos don't lie? Have you seen Star Wars?
Why would you make a deal? why would you place your entire wager on signing a piece of paper?.
They are not making any deal, that is what western sources are claiming. They are open to talks but they are not offering surrender and likely will not accept any terms short of unconditional surrender and a laying down of arms by their opposition.
After a certain point you cannot blame others for fucking you, you can only blame yourself.
Putin has stopped the fucking and is blaming no one. The problem is being resolved in 100 different ways as we speak... on the battlefield, and in the global economy.
Ukraine is not Switzerland which has a population actually devoted to neutrality.
Switzerland seized Russian assets and joined the western sanctions. They are as neutral as Poland in this.
Ukraine has a population that is in significant part pro NATO and pro EU so any neutrality will be just a thinly veiled pro western stance.
And eastern regions of the Ukraine wanted to keep speaking Russian and trading with Russia and Kiev said no and murdered them for it. The deal that Kiev was going to impose on Eastern and Southern regions of the country should be applied to the north and west.
If you don't love it leave. Go to your EU and US and Canada... I am sure they will take you with open arms.
As I said before, no end of hostilities until Russian troops are in Lvov. This problem needs to be solved once and for all.
A collapse of the army and unconditional surrender would lead to Russian and possibly Belarussian and maybe CIS troops moving in to keep the peace... maybe even Turkish troops because they stayed neutral in this... they can keep order while referendums are set up to decide the future of the various regions of the country.
If Putin leves Ukraine with all those deads with no territorial gains he is dead.
He has no reason to accept such terms.
Estonian Interior Minister Lauri Läänemets on readiness to extradite Ukrainians who fled the war to Kiev: We are ready to sign such an agreement and help Ukraine. We have an idea where these people are living in Estonia. We are ready to help deliver them from Estonia to Ukraine if they need it.
That would be interesting because such men being sent to certain death might choose to fight and die in Estonia or EU countries.
Its pure fantasy to think Ukraine will ever de-arm for good, they will never.
They have a choice of course... except when there is no money and no weapons or ammo...
at least 15 F-16s are already operating in Ukraine, seemingly they shot down a couple of Russian aircraft,
Prove it.
Sounds like the Su-34s being shot down story they had recently... maybe instead of Patriots not shooting them down it was F-16s not shooting them down?
