What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

Dude, if NATO really do give a shit, they would have send in a lot more than what they had sent now. Thats what I have always been saying, and many military analyst had also been saying from Day 1 and what Zelenskyy himself have been saying from Day 1.

Look at how much weapon NATO is storing at the moment? And what had been giving to Ukraine?

Germany have 100 Leopard 2 stored (Of the 290 L2 they only uses 188) and about 300 Marauder and Puma stored up, How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

UK had 60 Challenger 2 and 200 Warrior Light Tank stored up since they get rid of those territorial unit. How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

France have 180 Leclerc and 250 AMX 30 AuF 155 SPG stored. How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

US have whooping 450 M1 Abrams since the USMC given up their Armor Regiment, and 250 M270 MLRS from switching to HIMARS, and then around 700 stored M109 and the entire M198 stock (roughly 400) stored in National Guards depot gathering dust. How many of those are sending to Ukraine? None. And they had passed the 40 billion aid package, with President have the right to transfer existing stock to Ukraine, yet NONE of that are transferred.

Bulgaria have 1000 T-72/BMP1/BMP2 stored, how many of those went to Ukraine? 40 T-72....

Poland is probably the leader in this aid package, Of the 1000 T-72 Poland stored, they had transferred 242 to Ukraine.

If NATO really want Ukraine to defeat the Russian, try sending 10% of this list to Ukraine, 10% of the excess article would most likely turn the tide for Ukraine, yet, they are rather this equipment gather dust in depot than put it to Ukrainian Frontline. Don't get me started with Fighter Jet and Bomber.

Only dumbass would think NATO had done even remotely enough to try to help Ukraine.

They gave all the tanks they can give that work. Just because they have thousands of tanks stored doesn't mean all of them are in working condition.
 

Been noticing the uptick of TB2s being used. HARMS are definitely helping to suppress them. Ukrainians should another hundred of them for Ukraine's version of ground attack air force and 5 million apiece, that's cheap. Who knows, maybe A10s could be delivered and sent in as long as Russian air defense is being suppressed in conjunction with SEAD fighter planes.


Ukraine needs another 100. Considering the Russian air defense is being suppressed. Also Tb2s, should have longer range missiles to counter short and medium range platforms.
That how modern day SEAD was done. It's not hard to understand the Ukrainian has been using their drone as a bait to draw out the Russian radar, and when they turn on and try to target the drone, they have Mig-29 armed with HARM and shoot that radar site at a standoff range. I suspect the Russian had lost several radar equipment to this tactic before we knew HARM was in use, notice how the Russian didn't even bother to try and intercept those drones and HIMARS rocket? That tell me they had lost a few systems and not going to be fool to turn them on again. Either way the function of those SEAD mission has completed, now the Russian won't know if they are going to be facing an incoming HARM when they turn on those radar.

Russia needs to step up their game, the only way I can see it turn this tide is to use RuAF, which have largely been an undeciding factor of this war. They will need to use it to fly CAP or Russia could lose air superiority to Ukraine......

They gave all the tanks they can give that work. Just because they have thousands of tanks stored doesn't mean all of them are in working condition.
I am not talking about deep storage, all those tanks i mentioned just pull off the line, I don't know how much you know about tanks. I used to drive one, you don't need 6 months to restore a tank just come off the line. In fact, you can restore a tank that had not been used for 5 years in a month time.

If we counted those stored for a long time, then US would have roughly 1500+ Abrams in long term storage. Getting them all online would take less than a year.
 
I am not talking about deep storage, all those tanks i mentioned just pull off the line, I don't know how much you know about tanks. I used to drive one, you don't need 6 months to restore a tank just come off the line. In fact, you can restore a tank that had not been used for 5 years in a month time.

If we counted those stored for a long time, then US would have roughly 1500+ Abrams in long term storage. Getting them all online would take less than a year.

Sure. But do you think America can out supply China? I don't think so. America may be able to supply 1500 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, but guess what? China can supply 10 times as many anti tank missiles to Russia. It will be America that loses the war.

 
Sure. But do you think America can out supply China? I don't think so. America may be able to supply 1500 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, but guess what? China can supply 10 times as many anti tank missiles to Russia. It will be America that loses the war.

please do not ever quote me again.
 
The president has the right to not join EU. Now Ukrainians will pay with the first forever war in human history. Is it worth it? Ukraine will never join EU anyway.
Nonsense
Ukraine is a parliamentary democracy. Like 99 percent of western style democracies. Means the legislative or parliament makes laws, the executive branch or government does it. The president is not the law making body. He is not above the laws. He may delay however can’t reject the decisions made by parliament.
 
Well trained? I will give you an advice I received from a Msgt many yrs ago: In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules but by forcing him to fight under yours, and cheating is allowed.

Take range, for example...

If you have longer reach, then fight from a distance. It mean if you have better radar that can detect a longer range, then shoot first. If you can air refuel, then put your basing back further from the front line. In both situations, longer reach put you at an advantage and the enemy at a disadvantage. Longer reach or range is a rule and you just force your opponent to fight under your rule. Your ability to see far and fly far prevent the enemy from putting you under his rules.

What happened in Desert Storm, at least from an airpower perspective, was that we knew our air hardware better than the Iraqis knew theirs. Do you understand? Am not talking about knowing the technical ins-and-outs but how to use them in as many scenarios as we could dream up in peacetime, so that if the enemy air force do something maybe we have a response for that maneuver or tactic. We know what we can do better than the Iraqis know what they can do. That advantage is what truly killed the Iraqi military.


Not really. It has been known since the Cold War that the US and allies hold the qualitative edge while the Soviets had the quantitative edge. My first jet was the F-111E at RAF Upper Heyford. The slightly more advanced F-111F was at RAF Lakenheath. During the Cold War yrs, the US had Soviet EE Adolf Tolkachev working for US. Tolkachev passed technical information on many Soviet radars and air defense systems. In every arms negotiation, the Soviets always demanded we removed the F-111s and we always refused but not knowing why they keep demanding. Then from Tolkachev, it turned out that the Soviets had no credible defense against the F-111s flying out of the UK, and the F-111 was 1960s technology.


In the early 1970s, Soviet airborne radars could not spot moving objects close to the ground, meaning they could fail to detect a terrain-hugging bomber or cruise missile. This vulnerability became a major design challenge for Tolkachev and the engineers he worked with; they were pressed to build radars that could “look down” from above and identify low-flying objects moving against the background of the earth. The United States was planning to use low-flying, penetrating bombers to attack the Soviet Union in the event of any war. Tolkachev had joined the Scientific Research Institute for Radio Engineering, later known as Phazotron, in the 1950s as it was expanding into research and development of military radars, which grew in sophistication from simple sighting devices to complex aviation and weapons-guidance systems. It was the only place he had ever worked.

The Iraqi military was Soviet equipped. Sending more weapons that are technologically beyond the rifle or the tank would not have helped the Iraqi military. We had the qualitative edge and there was only so much the Iraqi soldiers could handle from the Soviets. More hardware does not mean more troops to operate. If a squadron have 20 pilots, sending 100 jets does nothing. You cannot train a pilot in a few weeks. Once we shut down Iraqi border radars, the war was on the down slope towards the victory for US.


Am US Air Force. At the two months mark of this war, I asked 'Where was the VKS?' Now, I say the Russian Air Force is a shiddy air force. That is not mockery but a judgement. And it is clear that without a credible air force, the Russian Army is floundering. It is as if the Russian military barely moved since Desert Storm.
You have right to your opinion and as you are a veteran I respect that, but when it comes to Iraq I am not talking about just airforce perspective, no way Iraqi Airforce could take on US Airforce, like I said US military is extremely well trained, if you look at it Ukrainian Airforce is also completely destroyed by Russia, and in the first few days Russian Airforce gained complete Air supremacy, but Russia is taking damage from Manpads and ATGM's, so if Iraq had good Soviet Manpads, ATGMs and SAMs things would have been much different.
 
Dude, if NATO really do give a shit, they would have send in a lot more than what they had sent now. Thats what I have always been saying, and many military analyst had also been saying from Day 1 and what Zelenskyy himself have been saying from Day 1.

Look at how much weapon NATO is storing at the moment? And what had been giving to Ukraine?

Germany have 100 Leopard 2 stored (Of the 290 L2 they only uses 188) and about 300 Marauder and Puma stored up, How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

UK had 60 Challenger 2 and 200 Warrior Light Tank stored up since they get rid of those territorial unit. How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

France have 180 Leclerc and 250 AMX 30 AuF 155 SPG stored. How many of those are given to Ukraine? None

US have whooping 450 M1 Abrams since the USMC given up their Armor Regiment, and 250 M270 MLRS from switching to HIMARS, and then around 700 stored M109 and the entire M198 stock (roughly 400) stored in National Guards depot gathering dust. How many of those are sending to Ukraine? None. And they had passed the 40 billion aid package, with President have the right to transfer existing stock to Ukraine, yet NONE of that are transferred.

Bulgaria have 1000 T-72/BMP1/BMP2 stored, how many of those went to Ukraine? 40 T-72....

Poland is probably the leader in this aid package, Of the 1000 T-72 Poland stored, they had transferred 242 to Ukraine.

If NATO really want Ukraine to defeat the Russian, try sending 10% of this list to Ukraine, 10% of the excess article would most likely turn the tide for Ukraine, yet, they are rather this equipment gather dust in depot than put it to Ukrainian Frontline. Don't get me started with Fighter Jet and Bomber.

Only dumbass would think NATO had done even remotely enough to try to help Ukraine.

If NATO doesnt give a shit then why all the cheerleading? Why not just let russia end it quickly? Why get so many ukranians killed and cities demolished? I guess russia and others are right, NATO is an evil warmongering alliance, destroying world peace. First they hint and letting ukraine join and then leave them to be destroyed by russia and then claim russia is a pxssy. What kind of dumb morons are you ppl?😂 never seen someone go around in circles so much.
 
You have right to your opinion and as you are a veteran I respect that, but when it comes to Iraq I am not talking about just airforce perspective, no way Iraqi Airforce could take on US Airforce, like I said US military is extremely well trained, if you look at it Ukrainian Airforce is also completely destroyed by Russia, and in the first few days Russian Airforce gained complete Air supremacy, but Russia is taking damage from Manpads and ATGM's, so if Iraq had good Soviet Manpads, ATGMs and SAMs things would have been much different.
I highly recommend this book: Firepower: How Weapons Shaped Warfare by Paul Lockhart.


It is a new book (2021), informative, thought provoking, and worth a PERMANENT seat in anyone's bookshelf who is interested in history. Not light reading either at 560 pages, not counting sections for reference sources.

But the book confirmed what I have been trying on this forum, and largely failed, to explain the impact of airpower on warfare. Throughout the history of war and warfare, there are points of no return, meaning a weapon came along and altered the course of warfare irrevocably. If you do not have X weapon, the odds of you losing battles trespassed %50. The spear is one such point, the bow and arrow is another, the horse is another, gunpowder, the ship, and the airplane just to name a few more examples.

The airplane and the submarine are attacks from the 3rd dimension. If you do not have either in their respective fields of battles, you will lose. All the major navies have subs. Those without are nearly terrified of those who have. But Lockhart also pointed out that just because you have X weapon, failure to employ it effectively is just as bad as not having it. And that is what we saw with the VKS in Ukraine. Supposedly, the Ukrainian Air Force numbers about 100+ fighters. The VKS can wield 10x. That mean Russia should have control of Ukraine within a few weeks. Why not? The best analogy I could come up with is that Russia uses the VKS as if a rifleman uses his machine gun like a musket. What is the time distance between the musket and the machine gun, eh? That is how bad I think of the VKS in particular and of the Russian military in general.

So absent effective use of the airplane over Ukraine, from both sides, we now see ground forces fighting close to how WW I soldiers did. The reason I am harsh on the VKS is because of its numerical superiority and Russia's reputation as a military power. It is not Russia compare to US or to the Brits or the Germans or anyone else, but to Ukraine. In a time where we travels thru the air casually over any weekend, there is no acceptable excuse for the sorry performance of the VKS against Ukraine.
 
I highly recommend this book: Firepower: How Weapons Shaped Warfare by Paul Lockhart.


It is a new book (2021), informative, thought provoking, and worth a PERMANENT seat in anyone's bookshelf who is interested in history. Not light reading either at 560 pages, not counting sections for reference sources.

But the book confirmed what I have been trying on this forum, and largely failed, to explain the impact of airpower on warfare. Throughout the history of war and warfare, there are points of no return, meaning a weapon came along and altered the course of warfare irrevocably. If you do not have X weapon, the odds of you losing battles trespassed %50. The spear is one such point, the bow and arrow is another, the horse is another, gunpowder, the ship, and the airplane just to name a few more examples.

The airplane and the submarine are attacks from the 3rd dimension. If you do not have either in their respective fields of battles, you will lose. All the major navies have subs. Those without are nearly terrified of those who have. But Lockhart also pointed out that just because you have X weapon, failure to employ it effectively is just as bad as not having it. And that is what we saw with the VKS in Ukraine. Supposedly, the Ukrainian Air Force numbers about 100+ fighters. The VKS can wield 10x. That mean Russia should have control of Ukraine within a few weeks. Why not? The best analogy I could come up with is that Russia uses the VKS as if a rifleman uses his machine gun like a musket. What is the time distance between the musket and the machine gun, eh? That is how bad I think of the VKS in particular and of the Russian military in general.

So absent effective use of the airplane over Ukraine, from both sides, we now see ground forces fighting close to how WW I soldiers did. The reason I am harsh on the VKS is because of its numerical superiority and Russia's reputation as a military power. It is not Russia compare to US or to the Brits or the Germans or anyone else, but to Ukraine. In a time where we travels thru the air casually over any weekend, there is no acceptable excuse for the sorry performance of the VKS against Ukraine.
I will try to read the book.
Russian Airforce did achieve Air supremacy and completely Destroyed Ukranian Airforce in first few days of war, Russian Airforce and combat helicopters are facing problems from manpads.
 
If NATO doesnt give a shit then why all the cheerleading? Why not just let russia end it quickly? Why get so many ukranians killed and cities demolished? I guess russia and others are right, NATO is an evil warmongering alliance, destroying world peace. First they hint and letting ukraine join and then leave them to be destroyed by russia and then claim russia is a pxssy. What kind of dumb morons are you ppl?😂 never seen someone go around in circles so much.
You probably too naive to understand.

War is good for NATO, NATO need something to show they are still needed, before this, NATO is all but abandoned and nobody care about paying money in defence, instead it gone into "Social Program" or simply gone woke.

This war in all circumstance revitalizes NATO, it makes people who weren't interested in joining NATO thinking about joining, it makes NATO member who does not care about defence care about defence. Before it was all kind of excuse to get to the 2% NATO defence budget mark, now they all wanted to do it ASAP,

If they let either party win, be it Ukraine or Russia, that party is over, nobody cares about defence again, everything going back to what it was before this war, people care about shit because either Russia win and they took Ukraine, game over, Russia got what it wanted and they are going back to blackmail EU with oil and gas, or Ukraine win and Russia no longer a threat and neutered. Either way, you may as well disband NATO.

Keep this war going tho, you put everyone in the back foot, everyone will scare this is going to spill over, everyone would think they are next. NATO needs a bogeyman, they try to sell it on China, but China is too far, and then come Putin the useful idiot. He singles handily did what NATO cannot since 1945, ad no US President can do since Clinton, revitalise NATO and expand with 2 more new member. Maybe more depends on what Kosovo, Georgia and Moldova thinking.

Russia is a puxsy, otherwise why else would they attack the only country that are not in NATO when their goal is to roll back NATO and get the Russian empire back? It's a useful Puxsy for NATO, you need a loud mouth moron to take charge and really go attack someone so other people feel threaten and join NATO, and Putin is that loud mouth moron.
 
I know what weapon upgrade means, you on the other hand, probably don't know, as evidence that you use a fighter jet as an example for upgrade and failed to realise the different between a fighter jet and small arms.


But we are talking about Javelin or NLAW, which is a single use Portable Weapon system. We are not talking about TOW (which could have 4 launcher) or any Multiple Use Rocket. Those are not the weapon the West supplying Ukraine with. If you want to talk about multiple use rocket launcher, that's another topic.
Javelin can fire multiple missiles from one launcher.
 


6 months into war Ukraine has received money, weapons, aid and other relief worth 85 billion euros.


Waste of money for nothing. Germans should be like Mexicans, Brazilians, South Africans and chill. Ukraine is not their country.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom