Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Maagge said:
How useful are tanks in this day and age anyway?
Click to expand...
Tanks have been called to be obsolete since their invention. The question isn't if tanks are useful, as the basic concept (protection for the crew, high mobility and massive firepower) will be attractive any time. That said a tank that's designed for massive tank battles like the T-72 isn't suited for urban warfare and similar engagements. The T-14 with its "Afganit" hard-kill systems against incoming missiles etc would perform much much better. But luckily the Russians aren't able to mass produce them (partially due to it relying on components from Italy and France that they can't get after the first sanctions 2014).

For a little view how those work: (Arena is actually the precursor to Afganit)

It would be much harder for all the RPG, Panzerfaust, Javelin, NLAW to destroy a tank with such a system. The most modern designs of all important tanks feature such systems or at least could be equipped with it (Leopard, Merkava, Abrams...)
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
This CNN investigation on the bombing of the pediatric hospital in Mariupol is impressive. It has 2D and 3D mapping details of what happened and where videos were taken in the immediate aftermath. It's even more shocking when you put all pieces together.



When I see the long line of Kremlin mouthpieces spouting their shit time and time again after seeing that investigation, I swear that those deplorables (Nebenzya, Lavrov, Shulgin) all deserve to be lined up on their knees and then receive you-know-what as proper punishment when this will be over.
Click to expand...

Cock sucking?
 
dinostar77 said:
Already posted no doubt, but damn that was powerful. 29 million views already.

Click to expand...


Depends how many of those 29 million are in Russia though and how many of those aren't just youngsters that can be easily quashed by the masses as just 'dumb kids'.
 
MadMike said:
Russia is flying 70s era planes so I don’t see a problem really.
Click to expand...
And the pure existence of active S-300 systems might be a reason why we still haven't seen any reports (except I missed them) of Russia using its strategic bombers. No attacks with Tu-160 or Tu-95, as those are exactly the kind of high flying planes that S-300 would target and destroy in a wide area. The Russian air force is still only flying low-altitude missions to prevent long range radar detection, as they still didn't manage to get rid of all Ukrainian air defense systems. Hopefully it stays this way, as otherwise the option of carpet bombings would exist for Russia.
 
Carolina Red said:
Oh trust me, I’m not saying it’s the tank you want to be in on a battlefield in 2022, but it’s the one they’ve got.
Click to expand...

Tbh I don’t know why anyone would want to be in a tank in 2022 at all. If I can’t be in the artillery (where I served) or airforce, then I’d much… much rather be an infrantry man than in the cavalry.

Missile technology has outpaced armour technology. You’re just a target for jets, helis, other tanks, ATGMs, IEDs… you name it. You’re a target full stop. I’d prefer to be away from the front lines if I can, but if I’m there I’d rather be unseen than be big feck off target everyone can see and hear from afar.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
Would you rather be holding a line / punching through a line with them or without them?

I think the answer to that is still “with”.
Click to expand...
It just seems like you quickly end up a sitting duck with what modern infantry appears to be carrying.
I know feck all about it though.
 
Carolina Red said:
Would you rather be holding a line / punching through a line with them or without them?

I think the answer to that is still “with”.
Click to expand...

What's true for tanks now was true even in WW2, they are most effective in a combined arms assault. None of the great tank battles have happened in a vacuum. They still have a role to play in modern warfare but you have to use them smartly like with anything else.
 
Maagge said:
It just seems like you quickly end up a sitting duck with what modern infantry appears to be carrying.
I know feck all about it though.
Click to expand...
You do, but there’s still a role for a heavily armed mobile bunker… even if a bunker can be eliminated.
sport2793 said:
What's true for tanks now was true even in WW2, they are most effective in a combined arms assault. None of the great tank battles have happened in a vacuum. They still have a role to play in modern warfare but you have to use them smartly like with anything else.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.
 
No one could watch this video and claim that the Russians aren't suffering massive losses. It concerns a convoy 4km long, totally destroyed:

 
Three Russian cosmonauts wear colours of Ukrainian flag as they arrive on space station
The Russian team arrived aboard the International Space Station after launching from Kazakhstan and were wearing space suits of yellow and blue- the colours of Ukraine

1_Three-Russian-cosmonauts-safely-arrivedat-the-International-Space-Station-ISS-on-Friday-docking.jpg
 
sglowrider said:
Did NATO promise Russia never to expand to the east?

Click to expand...


Even the question is wrong! NATO does not "expand". NATO is a defense union, a country has to apply to join, and it may be accepted or it may not. NATO does not force any countries to join.
 
Last edited:
frostbite said:
Even the question is wrong! NATO does not "expand". NATO is a defense union, a country has to apply to join, and it may be accepted or it may not. NATO does not force any countries to join.
Click to expand...
That seems like Russian-style semantics. So it hasn't 'expanded' in recent years, just accepted new members, becoming bigger, with a larger geographic footprint. If only there was a word for that...
 
Jippy said:
That seems like Russian-style semantics. So it hasn't 'expanded' in recent years, just accepted new members, becoming bigger, with a larger geographic footprint. If only there was a word for that...
Click to expand...

"Shrunk"
 
frostbite said:
Even the question is wrong! NATO does not "expand". NATO is a defense union, a country has to apply to join, and it may be accepted or it may not. NATO does not force any countries to join.
Click to expand...

It has expanded. The main problem is the Russian framing of talking about NATO as if it’s a military threat to Russia when it’s clearly not. Putin simply views it has a hinderance to his own plans to expand into Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

As usual, the truth is the opposite of what Putin claims.
 
Raoul said:
It has expanded. The main problem is the Russian framing of talking about NATO as if it’s a military threat to Russia when it’s clearly not. Putin simply views it has a hinderance to his own plans to expand into Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

As usual, the truth is the opposite of what Putin claims.
Click to expand...
Its a military organisation set up to counter Russia. All these countries joined specifically to give them a military counter Russia, so it clearly is. Doesn't justify invading a foreign nation but lets not be willfully blind.
I think with the benefit of hindsight our diplomatic approach to Russia in the 90's was less than perfect. Were allowed admit we aren't perfect without it being a justification of Russia or Putins actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.