Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

the hea said:
A few hundred million doesn't last long in a war on this scale, the frontline is over 1000 km long with constant battles between hundreds of thousands of troops, just the cost for ammunition is massive and when you add in all the equipment to that a couple of hundreds of millions doesn't go far.
When Prighozin whines about a lack of ammunition it doesn't mean they don't have any ammunition at all it just means that they are not getting as much as they used to. They have still had a massive artillery advantage in Bakhmut for the last months.
Russia used approximately 12 million artillery shells in 2022, this year they are trending towards 7 million if the current rate of fire is maintained for the reminder of the year. Compare that to the couple of hundred thousand shells the EU are giving whenever they can get their hands on something and you can understand why people think they are poorly stocked.
Click to expand...

How does this compare to both world wars? Didn’t both parties also run out of stock and ammo at certain points? The frontlines were a lot bigger and many millions of soldiers were in battle for 5 years. I mean you don’t learn about this in school or in history shows. It is incredible how both world wars lasted that long without ever falling without ammo and troops you would think.

Despite the grimness of it all I also find it fascinating how these things work logistically and tactically.
 
wangyu said:
What kind of weapons not yet used (other than nucleair weapons) could Russia use if it deems the Western’s help as a serious enough escalation to justify using them?
Click to expand...
Well, that is an interesting question. Russia is reasonably good at designing advanced weaponry but the problem is: they can't mass-produce it. There are no hundreds of SU-57 fighter jets waiting to be unleashed. There are no hundreds of T-14 Armata tanks waiting to be unleashed (as far as I'm aware).

Maybe someone else knows if the Tu-160 bomber has been used already?
 
wangyu said:
What kind of weapons not yet used (other than nucleair weapons) could Russia use if it deems the Western’s help as a serious enough escalation to justify using them?
Click to expand...

Thermobaric weapons would be the next step up from conventional
 
wangyu said:
How does this compare to both world wars? Didn’t both parties also run out of stock and ammo at certain points? The frontlines were a lot bigger and many millions of soldiers were in battle for 5 years. I mean you don’t learn about this in school or in history shows. It is incredible how both world wars lasted that long without ever falling without ammo and troops you would think.

Despite the grimness of it all I also find it fascinating how these things work logistically and tactically.
Click to expand...
I don't know how many shells where used in the world wars but just like back then the deciding factor in a war of attrition is still to this day the production rates of military equipment and ammunition.
 
Lemoor said:
How are those things estimated?
Click to expand...

I believe its down to information passed down by high ex NATO officials. They know nore or less what NATO capabilities are and what the Soviet Union left behind etc. They won't go to details but if questions are phrased well then one can come out with a decent idea of it all especially I'd every one keep saying the same thing.

Tbh this war would not be possible if Nato was involved. They would swiftly gain air superiority which would make this ammo intensive/almost trench like war impossible. Which is kind of the reason (among other things like piggybacking on the US might) why NATO lack the resources to fight such a war. Its basically asking the US how many chain mail armour it has in its disposal. Its aelrmy is not built for that type of war
 
Last edited:
wangyu said:
How does this compare to both world wars? Didn’t both parties also run out of stock and ammo at certain points? The frontlines were a lot bigger and many millions of soldiers were in battle for 5 years. I mean you don’t learn about this in school or in history shows. It is incredible how both world wars lasted that long without ever falling without ammo and troops you would think.

Despite the grimness of it all I also find it fascinating how these things work logistically and tactically.
Click to expand...

WW2 was a total war, meaning a war in which the state uses and directs all the resources of the nation with the goal of winning the war. Consider what @devilish said earlier about private companies not wanting to open up new factories that are going to be made redundant after the war. That sort of thing didn't happen in WW2, because the state just appropriated it if they needed it. They also re-tooled civilian factories (that were making tractors, cars, etc) into military factories to make trucks, tanks, ammunition, etc. No nation is going to do that to help Ukraine, and I'm sure Ukraine is doing it to some degree themselves already (but I have no real knowledge of that).

I am also sure Russia really doesn't want to do it, because that will really start driving the war home for ordinary Russians. Different scales and different circumstances of course, but it's actually vaguely similar to what Germany did for the first years of WW2. They tried to spare their own civilians (with a lot of caveats, because Nazi Germany) from feeling the effects of the war.

As for numbers, here's a fun fact: The US dropped more tonnage of bombs in the Vietnam War than all countries in WW2 combined. Modern technology is a hell of a thing.
 
wangyu said:
@stefan92 yes makes sense, thanks
@devilish thanks for the reply

I read they lost over 1500 tanks already, that sounds really massive. It is basically NATO fighting Russia with all the help Ukraine gets, in that sense you could say Russia is holding out very well.
If a second front were to open lets say in Macedonia, Chechnya or Georgia surely Russia would not be able to hold Ukraine?!

I remember reading when US troops hastily left and lost Afghanistan the Western powers were on the demise but they really struck back hard now with the Ukraine front while Russia finds it hard to attract real allies.

I think China will think twice before making a move as well.

All in all it looks pretty good (I hope so anyway).
Click to expand...
What on Earth Macedonia has to do with all this? A severe lack of geography knowledge or I am missing something?

Also, NATO is not fighting Russia. They are giving some weapons to Ukraine. But the most modern ones are not given there. A non-nuclear war between Russia and NATO would essentially mean that NATO reaches Moscow in a couple of months.
 
nimic said:
As for numbers, here's a fun fact: The US dropped more tonnage of bombs in the Vietnam War than all countries in WW2 combined. Modern technology is a hell of a thing.
Click to expand...

The US dropped more bombs on Laos than Germany and Japan combined in WWII. And Laos wasn't even involved in the fecking Vietnam war. The country is still struggling to deal with all the unexploded bombs over 50.years on and the deaths keep stacking up.

It's fecking insane.
 
the hea said:
Thermobaric munitions have been used excessively by Russia already.



Click to expand...


I don’t think they’ve been used in any meaningfully extensive ways. If for instance, the US and NATO weren’t protecting Ukraine, the gloves would truly be off and Putin could do what he wants with nukes and thermobarics.
 
Raoul said:
I don’t think they’ve been used in any meaningfully extensive ways. If for instance, the US and NATO weren’t protecting Ukraine, the gloves would truly be off and Putin could do what he wants with nukes and thermobarics.
Click to expand...

Nah, the MLRS launched ones have been used non-stop. The heavy bombs have been used earlier in the war when they could get away with flying bombers into Ukraine, close to the border.

In terms of the original question of escalation, all they got is more meat imo.
 
Revan said:
What on Earth Macedonia has to do with all this? A severe lack of geography knowledge or I am missing something?

Also, NATO is not fighting Russia. They are giving some weapons to Ukraine. But the most modern ones are not given there. A non-nuclear war between Russia and NATO would essentially mean that NATO reaches Moscow in a couple of months.
Click to expand...

My bad I meant Moldova
 
calodo2003 said:
Good article, but doesn’t mention the drugs.

I know I’d sure as shit have to be on something potent if I was on the front lines.
Click to expand...


I'm interested to know what?


I've gone through the lot...

Coke... Nah, sketchy as feck, easier to sneak out the back and find a hooker

Mandy... Nope.... Sleep through the lot then cuddle everyone? Not a great weapon...

Acid... Not a chance.... No point laughing at the opposition while having three discussions in your head at the same time and wondering what being normal is like...m

Weed.....hahaha .. Really? First sketchy and paranoid everyone is after you then not giving a feck if they are or not and wanting to just sit and chat with them all..

Speed.... Nobody does speed anymore.... But if they did they would run the feck away... Quickly....

Heroin/opiates....... Yup, not happening.... And if it did, would you give a feck? Or be ablemtomdo anything about it?....


Ket...... You would fight a war, but not a real one, and not one in your vicinity because you have no concept of where you are or what you are doing.



So... Personally, I don't think drugs aid a soldier in the art of killing.... But definitely more in the art of getting out of there.
 
langster said:
I'm interested to know what?


I've gone through the lot...

Coke... Nah, sketchy as feck, easier to sneak out the back and find a hooker

Mandy... Nope.... Sleep through the lot then cuddle everyone? Not a great weapon...

Acid... Not a chance.... No point laughing at the opposition while having three discussions in your head at the same time and wondering what being normal is like...m

Weed.....hahaha .. Really? First sketchy and paranoid everyone is after you then not giving a feck if they are or not and wanting to just sit and chat with them all..

Speed.... Nobody does speed anymore.... But if they did they would run the feck away... Quickly....

Heroin/opiates....... Yup, not happening.... And if it did, would you give a feck? Or be ablemtomdo anything about it?....


Ket...... You would fight a war, but not a real one, and not one in your vicinity because you have no concept of where you are or what you are doing.



So... Personally, I don't think drugs aid a soldier in the art of killing.... But definitely more in the art of getting out of there.
Click to expand...
Meth like the Nazis did. Tramadol to aid in coming down & pain relief like ISIS does.

Coke if no meth.
 
langster said:
The US dropped more bombs on Laos than Germany and Japan combined in WWII. And Laos wasn't even involved in the fecking Vietnam war. The country is still struggling to deal with all the unexploded bombs over 50.years on and the deaths keep stacking up.

It's fecking insane.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's insane. Few people knew about it.

Between 1964 and 1973, the United States dropped about 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos during 580,000 bombing sorties—equivalent to a planeload of bombs every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years—making Laos the most intensively bombarded country per capita in history when not in war with anyone in particular for it. It's no surprise that there are many anti-Americans in those Southeast Asian countries, even though they typically dislike China.
 
Last edited:
Why did USA bomb Laos? Were they missing the target or is there something else to it?
 
ExoduS said:
Why did USA bomb Laos? Were they missing the target or is there something else to it?
Click to expand...

Anti communism. It was in support of the government against the communist opposition and also the help that communist Vietnam had from the communist laosians through the border
 
That's why in most parts of the world, especially Asia, the war is known as the 2nd Indo-China war, not The Vietnam war as the US likes to call it. Part of the reason it's called the Indo-China war is because the US heavily bombed and attacked other countries than just Vietnam. Cambodia and Laos were absolutely battered and it's estimated up to 300,000 Cambodians and as many as 62000 Laosians died during the conflict, which was supposed to just be between the USA and the North Vietnamese.

It's also estimated that over 20,000 Laotsians have been killed by unexploded bombs and land mines since the war ended.
 
langster said:
That's why in most parts of the world, especially Asia, the war is known as the 2nd Indo-China war, not The Vietnam war as the US likes to call it. Part of the reason it's called the Indo-China war is because the US heavily bombed and attacked other countries than just Vietnam. Cambodia and Laos were absolutely battered and it's estimated up to 300,000 Cambodians and as many as 62000 Laosians died during the conflict, which was supposed to just be between the USA and the North Vietnamese.

It's also estimated that over 20,000 Laotsians have been killed by unexploded bombs and land mines since the war ended.
Click to expand...

And that is why there are so much grudges against american belicism and it is brought up to so many whataboutism/hypocrisy conversations because they had been fecking the entire world for the entirety of the XXth century
 
100k wasted (killed or crippled) over the ruins of some town that used to host 50k people:
That’s all you need to know about Russia. Savages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.