- cross-posted to:
- Ukraine_UA@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- Ukraine_UA@kbin.social
You must log in or # to comment.
Ukrain just said that it is the work of saboteurs in Russia. Noice.
She knows it’s a multi-kill!
How do I stop these images from appearing?
They are getting really obnoxious.
Good riddance?
Russia should not feel safe ANYWHERE. They chose to invade a country for the umpteenth time (like third or fourth for Ukraine alone?) and finally found out. So shit should be exploding near constantly until putin pulls out. Or… putin’s successor does.
And speaking practically? This is immensely useful data for just about every other country. Because THIS is the “near peer” war that everyone is trying to prepare for and all the tactics and technologies used in this are what militaries need to prepare for.
The use of drones in this war is fascinating from afar.
From an American perspective, I keep seeing calls from extremists for a new civil war, and it terrifies me because weaponry like this means shit will go poorly for civilians VERY quickly, even without going nuclear. I imagine that all these kids and young adults who think that playing CoD prepared them for actual war will be in for a big, brief surprise when a drone just deletes them while being operated by some guy in, like, Nevada.
Eh drone is just cost effective version of CAS. I think most modern jets bomber/fighter could carry out precision strikes without you ever seeing or hearing them.
Or going in loud and proud A10 style also works, that shit is scarier lol
Tbh something you can only hear the last second is way scarier 99.9% of the time, because you can’t expect to hear it’s coming. Could happen anywhere any time.
Brrrrrrrt
At least I’d see the A10 before it mows me down.
Or going in loud and proud A10 style also works, that shit is scarier lol
It saves infantry, but not the british infantry. It saves infantry, but not the british infantry.
Or get chased around by explosive FPV drones and Ali-express quadcopters dropping grenades.
And that’s before someone with more resources than Ukraine inevitably makes an airplane load of these things that just automatically go for anything vaguely human shaped.
Maybe AliExpress drones is scarier, the fact that it’s so harmless and so lethal is equally scary 😂😂😂
I take want to see a bunch of Trumpers on mobility scooters waving AR-15s take on the US army. It’ll be hilarious.
The idea of Patrick Swayze screamin WILDCATS and then him, Jennifer Grey, Josh Peck, and whichever Hemsworth it was fighting off hordes of communists with the power of their machismo has ALWAYS been stupid. Even a well trained and well drilled militia won’t have sufficient anti-armor capabilities to handle a few Strykers. It is amazing how much Ukraine fought back in the early days of the war when support was limited. But if they hadn’t gotten all those Javelins and NLAWS they would have had no chance. Even a barely functioning tank or bmp on a ridgeline is still death to infantry without anti-armor capabilities.
But consumer grade drones would potentially be a mild counter to that. It is still incredibly unlikely that duct taping grenades to a drone are going to do anything to even a lightly armored vehicle. But planes/helicopters are INCREDIBLY fragile… and are often next to giant tankers full of fuel. Albeit, the answer to that is likely more computer vision attached to the anti-air defenses.
Same with trenches. Was watching a youtube about the new american APC prototype and it is back on the OICW airburst bullshit. Which is genuinely valuable for taking out entrenched troops. But someone literally building I Did A Thing’s lawn dart drone would have that capability for a fraction of the price.
With respect to grenades from drones… you might be right if the Russian tankers didn’t have the turret hatch open practically all the time because of how little air circulation they get.
They’re so uncomfortable in their tanks they’re dying from a weapon they should be nearly immune to.
I mean, it has already happened. Definitely unmanned (there are articles), I want to say out of combat (I vaguely recall hearing about a video of that), and maybe even in combat.
But it is well worth catching that I Did a Thing video where he drops sharp metal spikes on a car from a drone… if only because a lot of the Ukrainian drones look EERILY similar to that setup (I don’t think Alex has spoken to his analytics the past year). Dropping from even a dozen meters in the air is REALLY hard to aim. Let alone high up enough that people wouldn’t hear the quad rotors.
Which is the reality. Just sealing them up in the depot when people aren’t inside more or less negates the ability to attack them there. Hell, putting a canopy over the tanks already gets you a lot of the way there (and is something you would generally want to do for surveillance reasons anyway). As for getting armor in convoys on the way to a battle? After a while you get used to having people listen (and competent countries can use electronics for that) and everyone buttons up the MOMENT anyone hears or sees a drone coming in low enough to aim a grenade or a brick of C4. Taking out trucks is a lot more effective at that point (and likely still delays the convoy to prevent it from being effective).
As for in combat? My understanding is that driving with the hatch open is less about poor ventilation (although, they have that) and more about the doctrine being that a tank commander needs to be able to see all around them. Which is similarly negated with modern technology and cameras. Maybe you can damage the cameras and sensors but those are already placed in a way to have high survivability if the tank gets hit with an RPG anyway.
Which gets back to what I was saying. A tank on city streets is fucked. Even people with grenades are deadly at that point. But a tank on a ridge or even in an open field supporting an attack (or just shelling a town for daring to protect Josh Peck) will have enough open ground and alert troops supporting it that the drone won’t have any chance of threading the needle and taking out the armor with a grenade or even a brick of C4 taped to it.
The main reason for tank crews(at least the commander) to open their hatches is not for ventilation, but for visibility and situational awareness.
We’ve seen quadcopter drones destroy Abrams tanks operated by the Iraqi army. The truth is that any shaped charge explosive designed to destroy armor is going to go right through the top armor of any armored vehicle, from the leopard one to an Abrams to a t90. They only have a couple of inches on top.
I’m sure russians will achieve that air superiority any day now…
Well, they did get one plane today.
Ayoo
Good. Make Russians be afraid and push them to turn on Putin. Something they should have done 20 years ago.
Slava Ukraini. Now to deliver more of those F-16s for Ukraine.
The heat wave is causing potentially disastrous issues for US infrastructure, but sure, absolutely, let’s go further into debt for another country’s war. Ukraine should absolutely be the priority when it comes to appropriations.
At least it’ll make the chickenhawks happy.
Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets. Assets that were constructed to fight China and Russia at the same time if needed. They were literally built and maintained in waiting for a fight with Russia. Sending them to make Russia weaker lowers the stockpile we need to maintain. The number of dollars sent over isn’t real dollars, it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced). We were literally spending money to keep them ready in case they were needed, and now they’re needed and we no longer have to spend money on them.
We are spending some new money on aid and things, but most of the military stuff is stuff we already had kicking around, not new spending to build new stuff to send over. Also, sure we’ll have to replace some, but we would anyway as technology advances, and it also won’t be to the same level as Russia is weaker.
it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced).
Arguably much of it should be valued at negative monetary value as with Ukraine taking it the US won’t have to pay to decommission it. Especially ammunition gets expensive (tanks you can just dump in a desert somewhere).
Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets.
Err… what? Who paid for those ‘assets’? Those ‘assets’ can’t be liquidated for capital?
Lol, 35 upvotes. Man, this next generation sucks. Not a critical thinker among you.
No, the assets can’t really just be liquidated for capital. They’re military equipment, and they’ve lost value over time anyway so the real value is less than the listed price. What can be done is giving them to another country for promises in the future.
It’s not “another country’s war”
It absolutely is.
And it’s frustrating watching the extent to which our country is neglected in order to pursue ventures like this over, and over, and over again.
Buddy, I hate to break it to you, but our government neglected us long before this war and will continue to neglect us long after.
It’s an entire planet’s war.
Idk tbh. We are all by ourselves over here. I do wish we could at least reconsider military spending in the US. But now they seem damned and determined to fight a war with russia and china.
Personally I like how we are involved in this war. We send equipment which we can then 100% determine the efficacy of. It doesn’t cost any American lives. I do also recognize that our country seems to be crumbling
I understand, unfortunately our country’s democracy is fucking broken and has been catering to corporate interests for the majority of its history. However whether we choose to fund Ukraine or not this will not change, ultimately we need to reform the US government so that the citizens get true representation.
I mean, I get that.
The 98% of voters who choose the party line every time do not give a fuck about anything other than what they’re told by their favorite news broadcast, and the news broadcasts always make the war seem like the most important issue. I just don’t think it should be too much to ask that people take a moment to think about the fact that the neglect of our own people in favor of warmongering (and we are warmongering, even if we don’t have bodies in Russia) has real, tangible negative effects here. And by voting pro-war every two years, all of them are contributing to it, whether they claim to be anti-war or not.
In some ways it’s a great move beyond the human cost, Russian uses up their military personnel, equipment, and resources while NATO and the US commit some of their resources and older equipment to the cause but nothing new and no losses of people beyond the Ukrainians in theory for the most part.
I know many in the US think the Russians are good guys now (Patton is probably doing cartwheels in his grave at the thought, but Nazis are good now too so maybe not) but if there is going to be future conflict, the Russian machine will be spent and tired which will help some.
We can always tax the rich to solve our problems.
It’s not that the money isn’t there, lol. We just choose not to use it.
Putin has been claiming that Ukraine invaded him all along, so now what? “Oh they are invading for realsies.” I’ve been hoping that Ukraine would call him on his bluff.
It ain’t no fun when the bunny’s got the gun.
I’m no fan of Russia
But at the same time I’m no fan of nuclear war either.
The escalation of the war has to stop or else we will all feel the fallout of this war.
I’m pretty much a dove through and through with one exception: you must be able to fight to defend the sovereignty of your country.
It is Russia that started the tension, then the conflict, and then the war. Appeasing a megalomanic and hoping it will make them more measured is delusional.
Then as a peace loving person … why support continued fighting?
Fighting Russia only leads to more war and towards what outcome? Completely defeat, embarrass and throw Russia up against a wall they can’t back out of? They would be forced into a corner where they would eventually use a nuclear option. If they are given the choice between defeat or suicide … they might take themselves and millions of people with them.
I’m all in support of Ukrainian sovereignty and fighting for one’s country … but if it means risking the lives of millions of people around the world … what sense does that make?
If we are capable of financing billions towards violent solutions … why not instead finance billions towards a peaceful resolution?
“If we are capable of financing billions towards violent solutions … why not instead finance billions towards a peaceful resolution?”
Do you want us to spend billions on an ad campaign asking Russia to please stop invading a country? Uh I don’t know if you are history deaf or not but Russia will not stop, unless it is stopped.
Something we Americans should really stick to is the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” line. Russia is a terrorist state, and they have proven time and time again they cannot be reasoned with.
Then as a peace loving person … why support continued fighting?
Pacifism is when I get to kick people and they don’t do anything about it.
why not instead finance billions towards a peaceful resolution?
…MDMA in Moscow’s water supply something along that line?
Russia’s goal is genocide. If you train were to give up, there will be millions of people put to death and sent to concentration camps in Siberia to die. So they really don’t have any other option. We have seen time and time again Russia commit crimes against humanity including to this day the continued operation of the gulag system.
Russia isn’t going to risk the world launching a dozen nukes at them just so they can launch one at Ukraine.
As much as that makes sense and everyone probably agrees … then why are western nations hedging their bets that the other side won’t launch a missile, even as they escalate the fighting.
That is Russian Roulette on a global level if you ask me.
The problem is really alternatives. Give into Russias demands and they will do the same again soon. It will also send a message to China for example and make war more likely in the long run.
What kind of peace agreement would you see possible?
Btw if you’re interested on the topic of the risk of nuclear war related to Ukraine there’s a good video by Lonerbox in which he also explains the logic of the side you’re arguing with here in more detail.
How do you plan to stop the escalation?
I mean… Russian attacks Ukraine with drones every night. Shouldn’t even surprise Russia a bit that they could get attacked, too…
Stop financing the war … if everyone is spending billions on a war machine to just fight -> then there will be endless fighting
if you stop the financing and instead spend a few million on peaceful resolution, negotiation and just simply talking, the fighting will stop and there will be resolutions … it won’t be a simple fix, there will be complications, disputes and wins and losses by both sides (everyone can argue the details about it in whatever way they want) … but the end result will be an end to the fighting.
Otherwise, if everyone keeps wanting to spend billions on fighting … the fighting will never end.
Apart from the other points that have been raised: basically every recent report about Ukrainian troops has gotten a bit in it along the lines of “they’re exhausted and have taken heavy losses, but are in good spirits and willing to fight on”.
Especially if you read what individual soldiers are saying, I get the feeling that this war would not end, even if support to Ukraine where to vanish completely (good luck convincing Poland, the Baltics and Nordics). You’d just get Afghanistan, but the invaders are openly genocidal and don’t give a fuck about civilians at the best of times.
🥱
