Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[Thinker3]

I dont claim russia is great, that is done by americans only. russia is not as strong as NATO, u also claim NATO to be so powerful, so then why scared of directly intervening?

Nukes.

 

[jhungary]

No, not true, if Taliban had lets say with 1/10 ratio 1000 Russian or Chinese Manpads that are advanced enough to beat modern Aircraft counter measures, and 2000 ATGMs also Russian or Chinese that can destroy even Abrams hypothetically speaking, what would have had happened? Unbiased opinion please.

It would NOT have matter.

Bear in mind the entire Afghanistan the Allies launch over 300,000 sorties with only 10+ damage or loss, let's say Taliban have had 1000+ advance Russia or Chinese advance SAM, and let's say those kill rate are 50% (which is very generous by theway) you are looking at 3000+ damage and loss, not really enough to turn the tides.

Also US didn't use Abrams much in Afghanistan. And Armor is not at all important in the entire fight (there were around 10 Armored Brigade deployed in Afghanistan over 20 years)

It would have been the same. The fall of Taliban is a central strike in Kabul, that is what kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and that is done by Northern Alliance with the Help of US Special Force and ISAF Air Force. It won't stop that with 1000 advance Manpads and 2000+ advance ATGM......

 

[The SC]

 

[jhungary]

I dont claim russia is great, that is done by americans only. russia is not as strong as NATO, u also claim NATO to be so powerful, so then why scared of directly intervening?

Why NATO need to directly intervene?

That's the same as why Russia needs to fight NATO directly? Even tho its Russian goal is to roll back on NATO, and you literally cannot achieve that without a direct confrontation with NATO..

Both sides don't want to trigger WW3 and uses proxy force to fight. Only that US and Allies defeated Russian proxy with change and Russia cannot defeat NATO proxy in Ukraine.

Another thing other than that is merely self-soothing.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Why NATO need to directly intervene?

That's the same as why Russia needs to fight NATO directly? Even tho its Russian goal is to roll back on NATO, and you literally cannot achieve that without a direct confrontation with NATO..

Both sides don't want to trigger WW3 and uses proxy force to fight. Only that US and Allies defeated Russian proxy with change and Russia cannot defeat NATO proxy in Ukraine.

Another thing other than that is merely self-soothing.

Russia is nobody. Russia only has a tenth of China's population. Russia is a nothing but a Chinese vassal.

 

[jhungary]

Well I don't know the technicalities of both Stinger and Javelin, but there are many things that can be updated on both of them with time, better IR seekers, better warheads, better optics, better software, better electronics etc.

What is "better IR seekers, better warheads, better optics, better software, better electronics"?

I mean, how would you upgrade that? If you upgrade all of them, that things would not be Stinger or Javelin already, that would have been an entire new weapon system, you may call it Stinger and Javelin, but that wouldn't be the same.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565411570309644290

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565347561249968130

 

[Thinker3]

It would have matter.

Bear in mind the entire Afghanistan the Allies launch over 300,000 sorties with only 10+ damage or loss, let's say Taliban have had 1000+ advance Russia or Chinese advance SAM, and let's say those kill rate are 50% (which is very generous by theway) you are looking at 3000+ damage and loss, not really enough to turn the tides.

Also US didn't use Abrams much in Afghanistan. And Armor is not at all important in the entire fight (there were arund 10 Armored Brigade deployed in Afghanistan over 20 years)

It would have been the same. The fall of Taliban is a central strike in Kabul, that is what kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and that is done by Northern Alliance with the Help of US Special Force and ISAF Air Force. It won't stop that with 1000 advance Manpads and 2000+ advance ATGM......

3000 damage and lost aircraft with 1 or 2 missiles from each launcher, surely they would not have only 2 missiles for each launcher, and you are saying nothing would have changed?
I just said Abrams as a hypothetical example because no other vehicle used in Afghanistan would be more armoured, that means the ATGM's would destroy all other types of vehicles.
US and Northern Alliance may had captured the cities but after that the guerilla war by Taliban with 2000 ATGM's would have caused havoc, and depending on the damage US could tolerate I gave 2 month timeline.

What is "better IR seekers, better warheads, better optics, better software, better electronics"?

I mean, how would you upgrade that? If you upgrade all of them, that things would not be Stinger or Javelin already, that would have been an entire new weapon system, you may call it Stinger and Javelin, but that wouldn't be the same.

How old are you? Everything is updated with time, f 16s is 60s tech but they are upgraded with time, the new blocks of F 16s are still top of the line, and they are still called F 16s, same with other military hardware.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565417643770789889

 

[The SC]

 

[jhungary]

3000 damage and loss aircraft, and you are saying nothing would have changed?
I just said Abrams as a hypothetical example because no other vehicle used in Afghanistan would be more armoured, that means the ATGM's would destroy all other types of vehicles.
US and Northern Alliance may had captured the cities but after that the guerilla war by Taliban with 2000 ATGM's would have caused havoc, and depending on the damage US could tolerate I gave 2 month timeline.

No. And again, that's a very generous count. In reality, if thye have had 1000 advance manpad, you probably have been taken around 100-200 damage and loss. If you look at how many Russian tank and helicopter loss versus how many Manpad and ATGM we had supplied.

The reason why is because you are talking about Air Component being a secondary role, as I said before, the reason why Taliban was kicked out is because of a surgical strike by the NA and USSCOM, even with 3000 damage or loss (Bear in mind the entire ISAF air force is about 10,000 strong) You will still have bomb dropped on location, you are not talking about a general Air War when Taliban Air Force is peer or near peer to the ISAF Airforce.

On the other hand, ATGM is only design to hit slow moving tank, try hitting a APC traveling around 60 Mile per hour instead of a 35 mph tank and you will probably be call god of ATGM if you can do that. It's one thing to have those weapon, it's another thing to know what those weapons is for.

And finally, Afghanistan is not a place you want to deploy ATGM for, it's not like Ukraine, where most of the area are build up where you can hide and maximize your range, if you have 2000 Taliban armed with ATGM, where are you going to put them? With the hilly terrain and open field, they will be sticking out like sore thumb.

 

[Thinker3]

No. And again, that's a very generous count. In reality, if thye have had 1000 advance manpad, you probably have been taken around 100-200 damage and loss. If you look at how many Russian tank and helicopter loss versus how many Manpad and ATGM we had supplied.

The reason why is because you are talking about Air Component being a secondary role, as I said before, the reason why Taliban was kicked out is because of a surgical strike by the NA and USSCOM, even with 3000 damage or loss (Bear in mind the entire ISAF air force is about 10,000 strong) You will still have bomb dropped on location, you are not talking about a general Air War when Taliban Air Force is peer or near peer to the ISAF Airforce.

On the other hand, ATGM is only design to hit slow moving tank, try hitting a APC traveling around 60 Mile per hour instead of a 35 mph tank and you will probably be call god of ATGM if you can do that. It's one thing to have those weapon, it's another thing to know what those weapons is for.

And finally, Afghanistan is not a place you want to deploy ATGM for, it's not like Ukraine, where most of the area are build up where you can hide and maximize your range, if you have 2000 Taliban armed with ATGM, where are you going to put them? With the hilly terrain and open field, they will be sticking out like sore thumb.

I completely disagree, I don't think you are much aware about Afghanistan or Taliban. And what 1000 manpads and 2000 ATGM's in their hand would do.

 

[jhungary]

How old are you? Everything is updated with time, f 16s is 60s tech but they are upgraded with time, the new blocks of F 16s are still top of the line, and they are still called F 16s, same with other military hardware.

Dude, have I talk to you about that before?

You are comparing a $80 million platform to a Javelin/Stringer that cost less than $50,000 to produce.

F-16 produce now is not the same as F-16 back in 1970 (They weren't a 60 tech) you can have a lot of room for update, and it is cost productive.

A $50,000 a piece Javelin? How much update is cost effective? Again, I have already talked about what had Javelin had upgraded over the year. It's not like they made a new weapon out of Javelin. It would have been the same thing, because, again, the principal behind Javelin and Stinger are extremely simple, that's why Ukrainian can use them with minimal training, even if they had not used them before......

I completely disagree, I don't think you are much aware about Afghanistan or Taliban. And what 1000 manpads and 2000 ATGM's in their hand would do.

I fought in Afghanistan.........I know what Taliban is capable of.....What do you know about Taliban?

I mean, you can disagree all you want, if you think 1000 manpads and 2000 ATGM will change the matter, well, then you probably can't stop people laugh at you for this.....

 

[TNT]

Why NATO need to directly intervene?

That's the same as why Russia needs to fight NATO directly? Even tho its Russian goal is to roll back on NATO, and you literally cannot achieve that without a direct confrontation with NATO..

Both sides don't want to trigger WW3 and uses proxy force to fight. Only that US and Allies defeated Russian proxy with change and Russia cannot defeat NATO proxy in Ukraine.

Another thing other than that is merely self-soothing.

So mighty NATO not intervening to avoid WW3 is all good but if russia does the same, not directly attack NATO, that makes russia a pxssy???
Both russia and US have lost to proxies (afd and vietnam). US have the additional honor of losing to taliban in Afghanistan who were not supported by any major power lolz.

 

[Thinker3]

Dude, have I talk to you before?

You are comparing a $80 million platform to a Javelin that cost less than $50,000 to produce.

F-16 produce now is not the same as F-16 back in 1970 (They weren't a 60 tech) you can have a lot of room for update and it is cost productive.

A $50,000 a piece Javelin? How much update is cost effective? Again, I have already talked about what had Javelin had upgraded over the year. It's not like they made a new weapon out of Javelin. It would have been the same thing, because, again, the principal behind Javelin and Stinger are extremely simple, that's why Ukrainian can use them with minimal training, even if they had not used them before......


I fought in Afghanistan.........I know what Taliban is capable of.....What do you know about Taliban?

I mean, you can disagree all you want, if you think 1000 manpads and 2000 ATGM will change the matter, well, then you probably can't stop people laugh at you for this.....

What is wrong with your reasoning? With time new technologies become cheap, same as tech on F 16 is affordable, like wise development in other technologies that can upgrade manpads and ATGMs also become affordable.

Dude, have I talk to you about that before?

You are comparing a $80 million platform to a Javelin/Stringer that cost less than $50,000 to produce.

F-16 produce now is not the same as F-16 back in 1970 (They weren't a 60 tech) you can have a lot of room for update, and it is cost productive.

A $50,000 a piece Javelin? How much update is cost effective? Again, I have already talked about what had Javelin had upgraded over the year. It's not like they made a new weapon out of Javelin. It would have been the same thing, because, again, the principal behind Javelin and Stinger are extremely simple, that's why Ukrainian can use them with minimal training, even if they had not used them before......


I fought in Afghanistan.........I know what Taliban is capable of.....What do you know about Taliban?

I mean, you can disagree all you want, if you think 1000 manpads and 2000 ATGM will change the matter, well, then you probably can't stop people laugh at you for this.....

You fought against Taliban equipped with Aks, some old Snipers and few RPGs, first tell me how was it fighting them?
Secondly imagine you going in blackhawk or Chinook and are hit by SAM out of nowhere, also imagine you sitting in humvee, or MRAP and suddenly are hit by ATGM from a mountain that goes through the armour and boom.