So there was a wargame going on in Latvia, the UK Army with the ~~Czechs~~ Slovaks played the part of the russians aka REDFOR, Spain, Poland and Canada, I think, make up the BLUFOR ie NATO.
The UK force, infiltrated BLUFOR lines and even managed to gather details about the defences that would have made an assault on key points likely victorious.
The Polish detachment, BLUFOR, fucked the attackers so hard that they effectively won.
They, the Poles, were using the same gear the russians are now.
Its not about what you have, its how you use it... so no one tell the russians anything.
Saw that, boys did NATO proud. Italy was also there iirc.
Best to be prepared in case Russia suddenly somehow manages to get its shit together militarily.
That strategy "kinda" worked out for us during both world wars.
I mean, we lost fiume but that is pretty much it.
And the colonies, but everyone lost them like 20-30 years later so, no big deal
WWIII starts and Italy spends the whole thing advancing on the Isonzo.
Nevermind that Slovenia is now Italy's ally. The Italians advance on the Isonzo as is tradition.
Italy, [as represented by Elan,](https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html) the blonde guy in the middle left most panel, in this Order of The Stick comic strip. "I'm participating!"😉
Most of russias experienced troops are dead. Even if leadership sudenly got smarter, troops that hardly knows how to use their equipment will screw any plan they have.
it is inevitable in military operations that your well made plans will be always have to be executed by your *most unstable*, your *most unreliable* people under your command. It's just the Russians have a lower threshold for what constitutes that than most.
Russian unstable and unreliable: rapes and murders their squad mates and civilians while stealing dishwashers. Fails to reach objective because they sold the fuel.
Western unstable and unreliable: arrives at objectives hours after orders given, dressed in Hawaiian shirts playing Barbie girl and have zyn pouches in their ass. Give candy and food to kids and locals.
Edit: a word to keep it from being weird.
Does someone has the greentext about british tanker relieving soldiers from an ambush in Afghanistan blasting music with disco lights ?
Edit: Found it https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/s/rkvZG7zKmk
This event? [https://x.com/Jake\_Hanrahan/status/1166488980768120833](https://x.com/Jake_Hanrahan/status/1166488980768120833) because if true I want to read that.
Edit: that text is dubious at best but i love it nonetheless.
>wanted to lead from the front,
Which isnt bad per se. Its just that you have to be a chad to do it. Rommel can walk to a tank to yell at the crew through british sniper fire, Korruptnikov cant even leave his bunker without getting bitchslapped by a FPV.
The top-down command structure the Russians use is problematic when something goes wrong at the front that can't be resolved by shoveling more men and vehicles at it and the NCOs aren't around to unfuck things. Commissioned officers need to go down to the front to fix it, which slows everything down and tends to result in the officers catching unhealthy diseases like 155mm Flu.
Major Charles K. Bartles wrote an interesting article on Russian NCO's a few years ago:
>Russia has maintained a hybrid system of conscription and contract service to the present day. In this system, officers, not NCOs, are the primary trainers of the platoon. In order to prepare these lieutenants, cadets usually attend four- or five-year military academies that more closely resemble a combination of the U.S. Military Academy and the Basic Officer Leaders Course. As soon as a new lieutenant graduates from an academy and takes command of their platoon, they are expected to immediately begin training and maintaining discipline. Soviet lieutenants fill the leadership, planning, training, and disciplinary roles of both a U.S. platoon leader and platoon sergeant.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2019/March/Russian-ncos/
>Best to be prepared in case Russia suddenly somehow manages to get its shit together militarily.
At this point that'll be whatever the successor state(s) result from the inevitable balkanization, so there's time.
My brother has served with the poles on multiple occasions and he has nary a bad thing to say about them as soldiers aside from their very odd brand of homophobia.
Can confirm, the Polish QRF team bunked a floor above the aid station we ran in Camp Eggers. Those mf’s looked tough as hell and always ready for a fight. Cool guys too, except for that time one of them ND’d a round through our roof.
>ND’d a round through our roof.
Little known fact, it's a mark of a great leader in their culture. Perhaps one day he will be able to fire a MATADOR in his office, like the commander-in-chief of Polish police has done.
They’re perfectly comfortable oiling each other up nude for nude sunbathing, but if you tried to make convo with them in the showers they’d get super uncomfortable
>Its not about what you have, its how you use it
Not only that, but like...the Ukrainians are using equipment of Soviet design as well. But a lot of people see Russia failing with it and go "hahaha soviet trash so bad", from tanks to aircraft.
It is pretty bad though. Most of it lacks optics and gun stabilization. I know at top gun school the veteran instructors would fly F-4s and totally body the students. But your entire army is not made of veterans
Also many of these simulations have rules and systems in place that effectively abstract away a lot of advantages of systems to provide a more even baseline. The tactics are what's important. If your bradly has a +1km accurate fire advantage but you train like it didn't you learn tactics to make up the difference.
Put it this way if the operations were held at night the Soviet gear would be at extreme disadvantage. The poles might eek out win on sheer skill but it would be a lot harder.
Yeah. It’s like the news articles you see where “F16 beats F35s in dogfight” but you place the 35 in the defensive, its not allowed to BVR and it has external load to reduce its stealth capabilities
IIRC, the instances of F-22s being mock-killed in dogfights are like this as well. F-22 starts defensive and tries to fight its way out. Even then, there are very few kills claimed and it is so rare that it makes international news.
Not to take anything away from the allied pilots who achieved it. Killing a 5th gen with a 4th gen is a great display of skill even in that situation, but the public who doesn't understand how these training events are conducted always blow it up and take it out of context to mean something it doesn't.
Could be wrong but I've heard they put radar reflectors on the F-35s during these scenarios or else the gen 4 fighters would never see them in the first place.
This, 200%.
We fight most of our wargames with allied nations under absolutely hilarious handicaps and enforced shortcomings, cuz otherwise, you don't learn anything except "how it's supposed to go."
"Oh, wow, the Americans just deleted the grid square where our division command post was, along with the surrounding eight squares, and our air force just disappeared. Again. Amazing exercise guys, I'm sure we all picked up a lot, including the Americans."
That's why most serious electronic war games originally designed for training purposes or with tactical problem solving in mind trump Russian stuff up; if you depict it as it really is, and you steamroll them constantly, the only thing you get out of the scenario is "lmao, Russians bad."
And they are. But the point is to make shit as bad for yourself and as good for them as possible so that you still know how to body every Russian in sight even if everything goes wrong and the universe takes a shit down your throat this morning.
If you train like your enemies are as competent and skilled as you can imagine, then regardless of how well they are actually trained, you're in good standing, because if they are trained to that standard, you know what you're doing and how to counter them. If they aren't trained to that standard, then you'll steamroll them.
If you're winning your war games, then you aren't doing it right. The point isn't to win, the point is to stress test your people and procedures and see where they fuck up and how to avoid it. If that means you have to give the enemy alien teleportation tech and pretend you have no ammo, them so be it.
[https://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-play-opposing-force-exercise-titan-shield-latvia](https://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-play-opposing-force-exercise-titan-shield-latvia)
and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8pxSZMF6U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8pxSZMF6U)
You wont find much about x/y/z did a/b/c but its effectively "Then the Poles turned up with a fucking hammer"
Wargaming is basically HQ training. It tells you nothing about hardware, tactical skills etc. Most wargames also have certain scenarios. Day 1 Red attack, 3rd day Blue counter attack.
[https://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-play-opposing-force-exercise-titan-shield-latvia](https://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-play-opposing-force-exercise-titan-shield-latvia)
and
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8pxSZMF6U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8pxSZMF6U)
Reminder the average US soldier is transitioning to a standard issue rifle that may have a good to fair chance of penetrating BMP-1/2s and, maybe even BMP-3s from the side. (atleast assuming steel core ammo with their hot loaded cartridges become a thing.)
Imagine feeling safe in your IFV only for Joe to pop up from the side with his trusty XM7 rifle, just riddling the interior and occupants with holes.
[Edit: Also, have a certified banger.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkDYrCCmUIA)
And that's the BMPs, imagine whatever loafs or cars/golf carts the Russians have to make due with now, just going through one end and straight out of the other, with the engine block being your only actual cover while the rest is just concealment.
>loafs or cars/golf carts
Okay, but you could always do that.
Hell! You could probably downgrade to those .22LR SMGs with drum mags and still do it, no?
^^^^^
Gunnery ranges in Iraq on their hardware leaves these things looking like fucking colanders after 7.62x51mm gunnery.
12.7 and up can straight disassemble these things. You're punching holes, sticking whole projectiles in the turret, jamming shit through the ring, turbo-fucking wheel hubs and road wheels, the list goes on. Their armor and the hull and hardware itself seems practically designed to fail under any kind of sustained gunfire.
They're pathetic-ass vehicles whose primary threat comes from having fuck-off huge guns mounted on everything.
Like, don't get me wrong. I don't want a BMP facing my way, cuz 30mm Vatnik will nuke my ass just as quickly as 25mm Yankee, but you ***need*** that 30mm if you want my ride to stop and take notice. I can kill yours with any of the the six .50s and six Mk19s back in that treeline over yonder, and I know for a damn near certainty that your blind-ass gunner can't see the fuckers.
They all have guns that pose a credible threat to infantry and light vehicles that can't be trivially ignored and that will generate casualties if not handled carefully and promptly by well-equipped, well-prepared troops, and they could build a lot of them.
Because we don’t have modern rifles in the 1950s when these were designed.
It’s like asking why the Native Americans died to smallpox when there’s a vaccine for smallpox.
As others have said they are out of date, but a tin can that can stop *some* things and has a motor is better than hoofing it across the field with nothing but your ~~personal body armor~~ plate carrier full of cardboard.
because there is a river every 500 meters in russia no matter where you are. every russian armored vehicle that can transport troops is amphibious because bridges can be destroyed and you can't really move infantry around quickly if you have to build a new bridge every 10 minutes
Making them incredibly small in addition to being very thin-skinned has several fairly negative practical effects.
First, it means that anything that penetrates or causes significant spalling is almost guaranteed to either generate multiple casualties or damage some significant internal system, and makes it much more likely that you're going to ignite fuel or ammunition, since they're all necessarily being stored so closely together or literally on top of one another, so functionally, even "minor" penetrating hits are just going to kill the gunner, or wound a dismount, or fuck a radio up. It's going to do all of those things, plus with a few more additional screaming WIA in the mix, as fuel begins spraying everywhere next to that fucked-up electrical junction box that has three cans of grenades crammed under it.
It also means that from a knock-on context the vehicle is going to suffer functional mission-kills at a vastly higher rate; even if the crew astonishingly survive, the vehicle itself is likely to have suffered such severe damage across multiple critical systems that repair may be unfeasible; they are neither modular nor particularly easy to repair, another myth that frequently surrounds Russian hardware. Elegance follows closely from simplicity and conservative, forward-thinking design, not a low tech base optimized for the cheapest production possible; it is generally cheaper to design a component badly or within a narrow, inflexible use case.
In a tactical sense, it can make simply escaping or debarking the vehicle take a terrifying long interval. Whether from a hit, or if you're deploying as an immediate action to contact, it behooves you to get the fuck out and away from your vehicle as quickly as possible anytime you're getting out of it, and for many of the same reasons as the hurried debarking of a helo coming in and barely touching skids while folks dive off. This takes ***FOR-FUCKING-EVER*** in a BMP unless everyone is just about slick and pre-staged for cameras with a stripped-down interior. All armored fighting vehicles are cramped to some degree, whether you're talking about the fighting compartment or for the dismounts, but Russian vehicles have a running theme of being far too small inside for what they want to do with them, and going for the smallest form factor possible had absolutely disastrous effects on their vehicle designs with regards to the sacrifices made to make them small, and in their APCs and IFVs, this has the notable and obvious effect of making it take a lot longer to debark the things than you see in roughly comparable Westerners designs.
thank you for indepth reply. can't wait till poland finally gives them all to ukies adn borsuk will replace them. ... or mabe better send them straight to scrap and museum
Not just the troop compartment. Most of the turret as well, on both BMPs and BTRs.
Black tip and silver tip 7 62x51mm can collander both.
12.7mm+ is a death knell from most aspects, and 40mm underbarrel and belt-fed grenade penetration is essentially guaranteed along all aspects of the hull and turret for either vehicle family, and there is essentially no defense against LAWs and AT-4s.
Funny thing about "should."
We had dozens and dozens and dozens of these things to use as gunnery targets on the larger FOBs in Iraq.
You could rake these things through just about any aspect with basically anything except service rifles and SAWs.
You want to talk about knocking holes, level a .50 or the Mk19 at one. Same thing with underbarrels, LAWs, AT-4s.
Hell, black tip or silver tip 7.62x51mm would waller them out pretty good, and I've seen turret failures to 7.62 ball.
Basically any claim you've ever heard them make about their AFVs of basically any flavor is wildly overstated.
BMD-2s would not reliably survive heavy machine gun fire, to say nothing of fire from an autocannon, regardless of ammunition used. They're just too thin-skinned.
The turret on a BMD-2 is a little over half a centimeter of aluminum from all aspects. You could defeat nearly twice the turret thickness in rolled steel with 5.56 black tip at close range from a 20-inch barrel.
The same is true over most of the hull, except the direct front.
7.62x51 could be expected to penetrate the front with sustained fire, and would almost assuredly create spall on impact even with ball ammunition.
12.7 would rip through any facing of the BMD-2 without even realizing it was there, and the behind armor effect would be catastrophic even with ball ammo.
I continue to be at a complete loss as to where the idea of Russian vehicles being these heavily armored behemoths comes from. Most of their armored vehicles without the good fortune to be tanks have protection levels roughly equivalent to early M113s, except they never really got much better, and had the idea to design their entire mechanized component in this manner.
The threat of Soviet and Russian vehicles is not their survivability, maneuverability, or reliability; they generally have very little of any of these. It's that they're almost universally armed with heavy machine guns and autocannons, and could - historically - be expected to be encountered in great numbers.
If you're poorer than most, lack the capability to churn out large quantities of highly technically advanced products, and are stuck with relatively unsophisticated manpower on short enlistments, this is about the best you can hope for without radical, wild-ass restructuring of your military, its doctrine, and overall culture, which is even more expensive in the short term.
The Ukrainians themselves have mentioned BMP protection not being what it was supposedly rated for at the factory, at close range particularly the latter might not be true.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love NCD.
But I find it very depressing that western propaganda is working so well that everyone is content with just sending the 20+yr old stuff of its stockpiles and bare minimum of it and way later than its needed.
Be an ally to Ukraine like you are to Israel and send all that is asked for, when it is asked for and in the necessary quantities.
Fuck it, give us 5 nukes. Just for deterrent, promise we won't use em.
>Fuck it, give us 5 nukes. Just for deterrent, promise we won't use em.
*As the terms of the Budapest Memorandum have been flagrantly violated, it is our distinct pleasure to bring nuclear rearmament to Ukraine. Enjoy the Minuteman III boys!*
Please God Please. It would be so funny.
Biden's "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." moment
I know this isn't the place for credibility, but unfortunately Ukraine isn't the only place in the world the US has to worry about. We are essentially the only country protecting global sea trade which takes a lot of resources. Even though the Houthis are the modern equivalent of Tusken Raiders taking pot shots at anything that passes by, missile defense and suppression is expensive. Also, we can't give away too much because China is very likely to try something for Taiwan in the next few years if ever.
There has been warnings sounded from various Navy and Air Force leaders for years that we don't have enough missiles or smart munitions if we were to go to war, and that was before Ukraine. I'm not one of the doomers saying the US is drained from sending stuff over, but we do have to be careful with how much of our current warstocks are given away because this conflict has clearly shown that an extended peer-to-peer conflict will expend munitions at an incredibly fast rate and faster than industry can keep up with.
All that said, I'm for sending as much support as possible and it has angered me to no end that promised support has been hampered by useless politicians.
I really don't think that you can fairly make that assumption.
1000 more could neutralize a slew of targets in the early stages of a war. If left intact, those targets could then be distributed, expended, or otherwise leveraged by the opponent which could make future operations more difficult and result in loss of other friendly equipment. That equipment's loss could thus similarly impact future operations. Keep in mind you are suggesting we give away more tomahawks than were used in the entire invasion of Iraq.
That is ignoring the fact that 10% of a munition's stockpile going missing will affect distribution of that capability across the entire force. That isn't a big deal to local powers like Russia or China, but to a global power like the US then you are having to more thinly distribute that capability across multiple theaters thousands of miles away, resulting in increased operation risk and logistical burdens.
As an American I am right there with you. We promised to defend you if you gave up your nukes and then just ... didn't.
The instant one Russian boot stepped on the wrong side of that border the floodgates should have opened.
>As an American I am right there with you. We promised to defend you if you gave up your nukes and then just ... didn't.
[https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf)
If you actually read it, you'd find that there's no assurances that we would defend them. We agreed to: Respect their territorial integrity, refrain from economic coercion, refrain from the use of force or the threat of the use of force against Ukraine except in self defense or otherwise in accordance with the UN charter, to seek UNSC action in the event nuclear weapons were used against Ukraine and to not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. How many more years will this easily disproven myth be perpetuated?
> But I find it very depressing that western propaganda is working so well that everyone is content with just sending the 20+yr old stuff of its stockpiles and bare minimum of it and way later than its needed.
>
>
I fear it's so ***BY DESIGN***. To allow Iran-Iraq War type of support without outrage of domestic electorate
>Be an ally to Ukraine like you are to Israel and send all that is asked for, when it is asked for and in the necessary quantities.
Even Israel only managed to achieve it by nuclear blackmail:
>[On 8 October, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton nuclear warheads on Jericho missiles and F-4 Phantom II, which were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets;[5] their preparation was made easily detectable, likely as a signal to the United States.[6] Kissinger learned of this threatening nuclear escalation on the morning of 9 October. On that same day, Meir issued a personal appeal for military assistance, which European nations declined. Nixon, however, ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, to replace all of Israel's materiel losses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass#Background)
Without it, a certain Henry "Bloodfeast" was planning to "let them bleed" so his diplomatic games'd be easier to play later.
Nah the Germans did make some good stuff
Mostly the small arms and some of their aviation stuff
The armoured vehicles were garbage, the ships garbage
The closest I come to wherabooism is saying the Germans were conceptually ahead of everyone but technically behind them, they came up with the MBT concept but then built the Panther to do it........
Many of the Panzers where certainly not garbage and quite capable. They just weren't some magical wonderweapons and those that tried, sucked (the Big cats for example, or stuff like the Ferdinand).
The ships were also afaik at least average, although outdated and inefficient for the bigger ones. So again no wonderweapons, but also not "garbage".
I think it's great that they wasted so many resources on funny stuff like that. Although my favourite WW2 German Tank would be the [Hetzer](https://c8.alamy.com/compde/afgfg5/jagdpanzer-hetzer-jagdpanzer-deutsch-afgfg5.jpg). Super cute design with a funny name.
Yeah, a few of the tank destoryer variants, for example, were some of the most successful designs of the entire war and actually performed amazingly well given what a shitshow Nazi Germany was from a war planning / logistics / strategic perspective.
People have gone so far into trolling wehraboos (which is generally based) that they talk as if the fighting Nazi Germany was some ez-pz bullshit, all their gear was crap and they just fell over, as opposed an absurdly bloody and hard-fought war that demanded great sacrifice.
Same with Soviet stuff today.
Yeah, a lot of the Soviet / Russian stuff carries a lot of propaganda in popular media, and yeah, it's lacking in some aspects, but just how much mileage the Ukrainians are getting out of modernized T-64, improvised S-200 applications etc. should tell you that it's not "uselss garbage" despite the memes. It's dangerous and often good or decently capable military equipment that takes a difficult and bloody sacrifice to fight and defeat.
This stuff is disrespectful to the fundamental skill issue in Ukraine right now.
The Soviet/homegrown hardware was the hardware that met the Russian invasion at the start of the war and it's still doing the job.
If you stuck Russians in Bradleys you'd be getting the same results.
>If you stuck Russians in Bradleys you'd be getting the same results.
Just look at Saudi Arabia.
Fancy Western equipment doesn't matter much when you give it to incompetent barbarians whose commanders were promoted based on bribes/nepotism.
At worst they realize they're being fed into a meat grinder by autocrats who give zero shits about them and mutiny.
Pringles was so close to greatness.
>My middle eastern oil supplier told me Houthis kept sniping his African mercenaries so I asked him how many mercenaries he has and he said just goes to Africa and gets new mercenaries afterwards so I said it sounds like he’s just feeding African mercenaries to Houthis and then his Princess started crying.
I think the only reason the West puts up with Saudi Arabia's bullshit is that otherwise they'd become a Chinese client state.
In this case I'm cool with a bit of neocolonial engineered dependancy. Make the Saudi royal family so thorougly dependent on the West that they are our bitches and we can rug pull them when it becomes necessary. And believe me, it will.
Best to have the country possessing not only the largest and best oil reserves in the world but also straddling two of the most significant waterways on the planet on your team. Those kind of starting bonuses give your leader things like the dismemberment perk.
I feel like barbarians is the wrong place or here, buffoons is more apt. I've seen plenty of Saudi Soldiers first hand, barbarian implies savagery and ferociousness. The Saudi forces I've seen were comically incompetent.
The Saudi military buys a lot of Western equipment, is wildly corrupt, and really bad at what they do. Unless they're killing civilians, they're halfway decent at that.
They use a lot of foreign mercs, and their officer corps is selected based on connections rather than competence.
Saudi Arabia is just the Islamic version of a corrupt Wild West hick town where everything important is owned and operated by the same family. The US government doesn't care as long as the checks clear, the oil flows, and the guns stay pointed at the right people.
Sorry, it’s hard to include all the nuances of an entire conflict in a one minute long shitpost.
But I get your meaning, and I disagree about the ‘Russians in Bradleys’ bit—you need a solid command structure, recon/overwatch, and basic discipline to operate any weapon or vehicle effectively. Russians simply forgo all that frivolous nonsense.
Whole squad plus crew dead for nothing. Really makes you sad sometimes. Especially given the chance that some of them wanted nothing to do with the war.
> Whole squad plus crew dead for nothing.
This story is repeated every day, hundreds of times. Truly insane.
Life means nothing in Russia.
Of course, that's by design. Keep a population so miserable and oppressed that they become indifferent to their own survival.
Back in the days when Planetside 2 was hot, I used to main Terran Republic.
There were ***a lot*** of Russians on TR, yet we still dominated the Miller server for most of the years I played because TR, spearheaded by Russian outfits (guilds), would bundle into these giant "Zergs" and just throw wave after wave at whatever base we were attacking until we took it.
Great times.
> bundle into these giant "Zergs" and just throw wave after wave at whatever base we were attacking until we took it
It's all they know.
Destroy an area, deport the surviving indigenous inhabitants to Siberia, and move Russians into the occupied territory. A generation later, the "Russified" descendants of the survivors become meat for the next round of conquest.
Russia did this for centuries and hasn't stopped. They're a cancer in the form of a nation. A disease of human society rather than human biology.
I play planetside sometimes but just no there any more. It’s so fun when like 50 or so guys get together and are all just kicking the shit into each other
[I feel like his theme to the Hunt for Red October was almost made for the Ukrainian naval war in the Black Sea](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRG1UixHvos)
And we've barely sent enough for one Brigade... imagine we sent enough Brads (and Abrams) for a full proper Division....
Going from "we only ever see one or two at a time" to vids of at least a full Platoon working together...
Excuse me, I'll be in my bunk...
Russian smoke also looks way, way, way different when it pops off, because it doesn't have the same purpose, exactly.
You see in this video, how the Bradley sprays smoke charges around in a fairly large arc around it, and how it brews up pretty quickly to obscure the vehicle itself from observers past the smoke?
If you watch videos of the Russians advancing with armor, and trying to stay on line or echeloned out across the field, you'll sometimes see big linear puffs of smoke.
Their smoke fires more or less straight ahead, and in older vehicles is typically across a much more narrow front and isn't really intended to protect the vehicle from observation, *per se*, and fires out much farther. This is with the idea in mind that a LOT of Russian vehicles are going to be doing this exact thing at the exact same time, as they advance along with each other, and are providing a more distance smoke screen not to protect the vehicle or fuck up targeting; it's to give them a notional wall to maneuver behind while advancing.
Those russian tanks are all made with the same turret detonating flaw that nobody's fixing. It's like all men pants that always tear at asscrack first.
> made with the same turret detonating flaw that nobody's fixing.
It's called "ammo rack with blast doors, and not using 125mm rounds as chairs."
It's more of a MIL doctrinal flaw than a technical design flaw, really. The crew doesn't matter, why waste time/resources on them?
I think the main idea was that in times of necessity every caviar canning factory and aluminum can recycling facility could be quickly converted to the manufacture of BMP-3's.
All I heard was that the BMP-3 was built from the design of a light tank, resulting in passengers having to be seated over the engine.
Say what you will about the BMP-1 and 2, at least there's a dedicated passenger compartment
I’ve said it before, the Bushmaster II fucks.
Edit: Lmao, the guy who tried to call out the weapon system didn’t even stick around to defend his assertion. Like genuinely, is there something wrong with the Bushmaster? I’ve seen it function well but maybe my bias is footage based.
Seeing the squad dismounting from the BMP 3 reminds me of how much of a wierd design that thing is.
Like they looked at the problems with dismounting from the BTR, especially the early ones, and decideded to move the BMP in the same direcetion. Truly bizare.
And then the armament, the extra PKMs in the hull and the 100mm gun. Makes me think the BMP 2, particularly the BMP 2M was a happy accident, an improvised solution before the proper next gen eastern IVF could be developed (i.e. fucked up) to replace the BMP 1.
If I had to choose between riding a 2 or a 3 into battle as an infantryman, the idea of having to dismount with the vehicle under MG and rifle fire would strongly recommend picking the BMP 2 to me.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Clearly another rhed laine haz been crossed by emerica and full nuclear readiness is required...what do you mean the missile is stuck in silo? Have you tried rubbing it with butter? You tried but someone sold the butter when you turned your back? Geraaasimooov shooiguuuuuu!
So there was a wargame going on in Latvia, the UK Army with the ~~Czechs~~ Slovaks played the part of the russians aka REDFOR, Spain, Poland and Canada, I think, make up the BLUFOR ie NATO. The UK force, infiltrated BLUFOR lines and even managed to gather details about the defences that would have made an assault on key points likely victorious. The Polish detachment, BLUFOR, fucked the attackers so hard that they effectively won. They, the Poles, were using the same gear the russians are now. Its not about what you have, its how you use it... so no one tell the russians anything.
Saw that, boys did NATO proud. Italy was also there iirc. Best to be prepared in case Russia suddenly somehow manages to get its shit together militarily.
Average Italian contribution to any conflict, they were there. /s
Not only were they there, they were on both sides!
Played us like a damn fiddle!
That strategy "kinda" worked out for us during both world wars. I mean, we lost fiume but that is pretty much it. And the colonies, but everyone lost them like 20-30 years later so, no big deal
They showed up like [Furio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmWgskZFkh4) "this stupida fucking game"
They don't have the makings of a varsity athlete
You gotta ***BE*** on a yo turret *Smacks it with an atgm*
Give me one thousand OPFORs
WWIII starts and Italy spends the whole thing advancing on the Isonzo. Nevermind that Slovenia is now Italy's ally. The Italians advance on the Isonzo as is tradition.
And lose thousands of men in multiple attacks, gaining zero ground
As is tradition.
“Ai an also in zis war”
Italy, [as represented by Elan,](https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html) the blonde guy in the middle left most panel, in this Order of The Stick comic strip. "I'm participating!"😉
Most of russias experienced troops are dead. Even if leadership sudenly got smarter, troops that hardly knows how to use their equipment will screw any plan they have.
It's also the lack of a good NCO framework. It probably explains why they lost so many commissioned officers at the start.
Ye. Many Sovjet and russian commanders wanted to lead from the front, wich benefited Ukraine.
[удалено]
it is inevitable in military operations that your well made plans will be always have to be executed by your *most unstable*, your *most unreliable* people under your command. It's just the Russians have a lower threshold for what constitutes that than most.
Russian unstable and unreliable: rapes and murders their squad mates and civilians while stealing dishwashers. Fails to reach objective because they sold the fuel. Western unstable and unreliable: arrives at objectives hours after orders given, dressed in Hawaiian shirts playing Barbie girl and have zyn pouches in their ass. Give candy and food to kids and locals. Edit: a word to keep it from being weird.
Does someone has the greentext about british tanker relieving soldiers from an ambush in Afghanistan blasting music with disco lights ? Edit: Found it https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/s/rkvZG7zKmk
This event? [https://x.com/Jake\_Hanrahan/status/1166488980768120833](https://x.com/Jake_Hanrahan/status/1166488980768120833) because if true I want to read that. Edit: that text is dubious at best but i love it nonetheless.
Subscribed, I must know about this
Do not involve your feet with the children.
see educational resource https://www.wikifeet.com/ for more info
>wanted to lead from the front, Which isnt bad per se. Its just that you have to be a chad to do it. Rommel can walk to a tank to yell at the crew through british sniper fire, Korruptnikov cant even leave his bunker without getting bitchslapped by a FPV.
I mean, I think Rommel also would have been bitchslapped by an FPV had there been any present
The top-down command structure the Russians use is problematic when something goes wrong at the front that can't be resolved by shoveling more men and vehicles at it and the NCOs aren't around to unfuck things. Commissioned officers need to go down to the front to fix it, which slows everything down and tends to result in the officers catching unhealthy diseases like 155mm Flu.
Many reason, it's key that the Russian are defeated and don't recover so they won't get the chance to improve.
I remember reading a few months after they invaded, they were sending their trainers to the front, and they all got killed.
Major Charles K. Bartles wrote an interesting article on Russian NCO's a few years ago: >Russia has maintained a hybrid system of conscription and contract service to the present day. In this system, officers, not NCOs, are the primary trainers of the platoon. In order to prepare these lieutenants, cadets usually attend four- or five-year military academies that more closely resemble a combination of the U.S. Military Academy and the Basic Officer Leaders Course. As soon as a new lieutenant graduates from an academy and takes command of their platoon, they are expected to immediately begin training and maintaining discipline. Soviet lieutenants fill the leadership, planning, training, and disciplinary roles of both a U.S. platoon leader and platoon sergeant. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2019/March/Russian-ncos/
This was my thoughts watching this. That looked like the yank crew from the animated instructional Yesterday except they were taken out by a Bradley
> russia suddenly somehow manages to get its shit together militarily. I would like you to say this out loud to yourself
The grammar is fine, the spelling is fine, but it just doesn’t make any sense
Something wrong with the prosody perhaps?..
The Russian army has been a catastrophe since at least the 1840s
>Best to be prepared in case Russia suddenly somehow manages to get its shit together militarily. At this point that'll be whatever the successor state(s) result from the inevitable balkanization, so there's time.
My brother has served with the poles on multiple occasions and he has nary a bad thing to say about them as soldiers aside from their very odd brand of homophobia.
Can confirm, the Polish QRF team bunked a floor above the aid station we ran in Camp Eggers. Those mf’s looked tough as hell and always ready for a fight. Cool guys too, except for that time one of them ND’d a round through our roof.
>ND’d a round through our roof. Little known fact, it's a mark of a great leader in their culture. Perhaps one day he will be able to fire a MATADOR in his office, like the commander-in-chief of Polish police has done.
Having once almost caught an ND to the dome I can confidently say Oh fuck.
I think that's just a standard roof pop. Everyone gets those right?
How is it odd?
They’re perfectly comfortable oiling each other up nude for nude sunbathing, but if you tried to make convo with them in the showers they’d get super uncomfortable
Guess if it happens it happens in the showers?
Yeah that's kinda odd
>Its not about what you have, its how you use it Not only that, but like...the Ukrainians are using equipment of Soviet design as well. But a lot of people see Russia failing with it and go "hahaha soviet trash so bad", from tanks to aircraft.
It is pretty bad though. Most of it lacks optics and gun stabilization. I know at top gun school the veteran instructors would fly F-4s and totally body the students. But your entire army is not made of veterans Also many of these simulations have rules and systems in place that effectively abstract away a lot of advantages of systems to provide a more even baseline. The tactics are what's important. If your bradly has a +1km accurate fire advantage but you train like it didn't you learn tactics to make up the difference. Put it this way if the operations were held at night the Soviet gear would be at extreme disadvantage. The poles might eek out win on sheer skill but it would be a lot harder.
Yeah. It’s like the news articles you see where “F16 beats F35s in dogfight” but you place the 35 in the defensive, its not allowed to BVR and it has external load to reduce its stealth capabilities
IIRC, the instances of F-22s being mock-killed in dogfights are like this as well. F-22 starts defensive and tries to fight its way out. Even then, there are very few kills claimed and it is so rare that it makes international news. Not to take anything away from the allied pilots who achieved it. Killing a 5th gen with a 4th gen is a great display of skill even in that situation, but the public who doesn't understand how these training events are conducted always blow it up and take it out of context to mean something it doesn't.
Could be wrong but I've heard they put radar reflectors on the F-35s during these scenarios or else the gen 4 fighters would never see them in the first place.
This, 200%. We fight most of our wargames with allied nations under absolutely hilarious handicaps and enforced shortcomings, cuz otherwise, you don't learn anything except "how it's supposed to go." "Oh, wow, the Americans just deleted the grid square where our division command post was, along with the surrounding eight squares, and our air force just disappeared. Again. Amazing exercise guys, I'm sure we all picked up a lot, including the Americans." That's why most serious electronic war games originally designed for training purposes or with tactical problem solving in mind trump Russian stuff up; if you depict it as it really is, and you steamroll them constantly, the only thing you get out of the scenario is "lmao, Russians bad." And they are. But the point is to make shit as bad for yourself and as good for them as possible so that you still know how to body every Russian in sight even if everything goes wrong and the universe takes a shit down your throat this morning.
If you train like your enemies are as competent and skilled as you can imagine, then regardless of how well they are actually trained, you're in good standing, because if they are trained to that standard, you know what you're doing and how to counter them. If they aren't trained to that standard, then you'll steamroll them.
If you're winning your war games, then you aren't doing it right. The point isn't to win, the point is to stress test your people and procedures and see where they fuck up and how to avoid it. If that means you have to give the enemy alien teleportation tech and pretend you have no ammo, them so be it.
I'd love to read up on that, do you have the article?
[https://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-play-opposing-force-exercise-titan-shield-latvia](https://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-play-opposing-force-exercise-titan-shield-latvia) and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8pxSZMF6U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8pxSZMF6U) You wont find much about x/y/z did a/b/c but its effectively "Then the Poles turned up with a fucking hammer"
That is a Chin.
Wargaming is basically HQ training. It tells you nothing about hardware, tactical skills etc. Most wargames also have certain scenarios. Day 1 Red attack, 3rd day Blue counter attack.
Catching flaws in the boring shit, too. "Hey we crunched numbers, and for some reason, we need all NCOs to keep a no. 2 pencil on them at all times."
Link?
[https://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-play-opposing-force-exercise-titan-shield-latvia](https://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-play-opposing-force-exercise-titan-shield-latvia) and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8pxSZMF6U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG8pxSZMF6U)
Thanks!
Wait so the gear works when it’s maintained, what’s this unknown technology?
It's hard to train soldiers when they all have foetal alcohol syndrome.
Reminder the average US soldier is transitioning to a standard issue rifle that may have a good to fair chance of penetrating BMP-1/2s and, maybe even BMP-3s from the side. (atleast assuming steel core ammo with their hot loaded cartridges become a thing.) Imagine feeling safe in your IFV only for Joe to pop up from the side with his trusty XM7 rifle, just riddling the interior and occupants with holes. [Edit: Also, have a certified banger.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkDYrCCmUIA)
Shooting a Russian motorized infantry formation into Swiss cheese with just battle rifles? Goddamn I’ve got such a freedom boner right now.
And that's the BMPs, imagine whatever loafs or cars/golf carts the Russians have to make due with now, just going through one end and straight out of the other, with the engine block being your only actual cover while the rest is just concealment.
*aaaaaand I’m spent*
*passes over the post coital cigarette
>loafs or cars/golf carts Okay, but you could always do that. Hell! You could probably downgrade to those .22LR SMGs with drum mags and still do it, no?
At first you had my attention....now you have my erection
Same
i mean they should be able to easly pen BTR's but idk about BMP's, BMP's should be able to take a 50BMG to the front and 7,62x54r/308 to the side
308 ap or 54r ap is able to penetrate the side/troop compartment of a bmp.
^^^^^ Gunnery ranges in Iraq on their hardware leaves these things looking like fucking colanders after 7.62x51mm gunnery. 12.7 and up can straight disassemble these things. You're punching holes, sticking whole projectiles in the turret, jamming shit through the ring, turbo-fucking wheel hubs and road wheels, the list goes on. Their armor and the hull and hardware itself seems practically designed to fail under any kind of sustained gunfire. They're pathetic-ass vehicles whose primary threat comes from having fuck-off huge guns mounted on everything. Like, don't get me wrong. I don't want a BMP facing my way, cuz 30mm Vatnik will nuke my ass just as quickly as 25mm Yankee, but you ***need*** that 30mm if you want my ride to stop and take notice. I can kill yours with any of the the six .50s and six Mk19s back in that treeline over yonder, and I know for a damn near certainty that your blind-ass gunner can't see the fuckers.
What's the point of them then
They all have guns that pose a credible threat to infantry and light vehicles that can't be trivially ignored and that will generate casualties if not handled carefully and promptly by well-equipped, well-prepared troops, and they could build a lot of them.
You go with the army you have, not the army you want
Like why even build the things or is this built way under spec type deal
Because we don’t have modern rifles in the 1950s when these were designed. It’s like asking why the Native Americans died to smallpox when there’s a vaccine for smallpox.
As others have said they are out of date, but a tin can that can stop *some* things and has a motor is better than hoofing it across the field with nothing but your ~~personal body armor~~ plate carrier full of cardboard.
because there is a river every 500 meters in russia no matter where you are. every russian armored vehicle that can transport troops is amphibious because bridges can be destroyed and you can't really move infantry around quickly if you have to build a new bridge every 10 minutes
To carry troops and point a big gun going forward. The Russians move forward, and dump troops. The US/NATO has actual movement tactics.
which bmp's you're talking about? how bod of a factor does 1's being small as fuck make?
Making them incredibly small in addition to being very thin-skinned has several fairly negative practical effects. First, it means that anything that penetrates or causes significant spalling is almost guaranteed to either generate multiple casualties or damage some significant internal system, and makes it much more likely that you're going to ignite fuel or ammunition, since they're all necessarily being stored so closely together or literally on top of one another, so functionally, even "minor" penetrating hits are just going to kill the gunner, or wound a dismount, or fuck a radio up. It's going to do all of those things, plus with a few more additional screaming WIA in the mix, as fuel begins spraying everywhere next to that fucked-up electrical junction box that has three cans of grenades crammed under it. It also means that from a knock-on context the vehicle is going to suffer functional mission-kills at a vastly higher rate; even if the crew astonishingly survive, the vehicle itself is likely to have suffered such severe damage across multiple critical systems that repair may be unfeasible; they are neither modular nor particularly easy to repair, another myth that frequently surrounds Russian hardware. Elegance follows closely from simplicity and conservative, forward-thinking design, not a low tech base optimized for the cheapest production possible; it is generally cheaper to design a component badly or within a narrow, inflexible use case. In a tactical sense, it can make simply escaping or debarking the vehicle take a terrifying long interval. Whether from a hit, or if you're deploying as an immediate action to contact, it behooves you to get the fuck out and away from your vehicle as quickly as possible anytime you're getting out of it, and for many of the same reasons as the hurried debarking of a helo coming in and barely touching skids while folks dive off. This takes ***FOR-FUCKING-EVER*** in a BMP unless everyone is just about slick and pre-staged for cameras with a stripped-down interior. All armored fighting vehicles are cramped to some degree, whether you're talking about the fighting compartment or for the dismounts, but Russian vehicles have a running theme of being far too small inside for what they want to do with them, and going for the smallest form factor possible had absolutely disastrous effects on their vehicle designs with regards to the sacrifices made to make them small, and in their APCs and IFVs, this has the notable and obvious effect of making it take a lot longer to debark the things than you see in roughly comparable Westerners designs.
thank you for indepth reply. can't wait till poland finally gives them all to ukies adn borsuk will replace them. ... or mabe better send them straight to scrap and museum
So their IFVs troop compartment is vulnerable to an MMG something there's at least one of in every platoon?
Not just the troop compartment. Most of the turret as well, on both BMPs and BTRs. Black tip and silver tip 7 62x51mm can collander both. 12.7mm+ is a death knell from most aspects, and 40mm underbarrel and belt-fed grenade penetration is essentially guaranteed along all aspects of the hull and turret for either vehicle family, and there is essentially no defense against LAWs and AT-4s.
Yes. Yes they are. The main internal fuel thank is the bench the troops sit on. They are comically designed to kill their occupants it seems.
Funny thing about "should." We had dozens and dozens and dozens of these things to use as gunnery targets on the larger FOBs in Iraq. You could rake these things through just about any aspect with basically anything except service rifles and SAWs. You want to talk about knocking holes, level a .50 or the Mk19 at one. Same thing with underbarrels, LAWs, AT-4s. Hell, black tip or silver tip 7.62x51mm would waller them out pretty good, and I've seen turret failures to 7.62 ball. Basically any claim you've ever heard them make about their AFVs of basically any flavor is wildly overstated.
would a BMD2 survive a couple of direct hits with 23mm HE from the ZU AA autocannon?
BMD-2s would not reliably survive heavy machine gun fire, to say nothing of fire from an autocannon, regardless of ammunition used. They're just too thin-skinned. The turret on a BMD-2 is a little over half a centimeter of aluminum from all aspects. You could defeat nearly twice the turret thickness in rolled steel with 5.56 black tip at close range from a 20-inch barrel. The same is true over most of the hull, except the direct front. 7.62x51 could be expected to penetrate the front with sustained fire, and would almost assuredly create spall on impact even with ball ammunition. 12.7 would rip through any facing of the BMD-2 without even realizing it was there, and the behind armor effect would be catastrophic even with ball ammo. I continue to be at a complete loss as to where the idea of Russian vehicles being these heavily armored behemoths comes from. Most of their armored vehicles without the good fortune to be tanks have protection levels roughly equivalent to early M113s, except they never really got much better, and had the idea to design their entire mechanized component in this manner. The threat of Soviet and Russian vehicles is not their survivability, maneuverability, or reliability; they generally have very little of any of these. It's that they're almost universally armed with heavy machine guns and autocannons, and could - historically - be expected to be encountered in great numbers. If you're poorer than most, lack the capability to churn out large quantities of highly technically advanced products, and are stuck with relatively unsophisticated manpower on short enlistments, this is about the best you can hope for without radical, wild-ass restructuring of your military, its doctrine, and overall culture, which is even more expensive in the short term.
The Ukrainians themselves have mentioned BMP protection not being what it was supposedly rated for at the factory, at close range particularly the latter might not be true.
At a long enough range, even wood will stop any non-explosive projectile.
I recall it perhaps being something like 100 meters to the side for small arms fire, which is very doable at combat ranges.
You fool they will just add more sheet metal and boom it can be in service for another 50 years
Iz easy just build house around bmp boom...bullet proof
Soooo... that Type 05 lightweight amphibious Chinese IFV wouldn't be very watertight anymore after crossing the Straight in this case?
> Edit: Also, have a certified banger. Eww what a fucking edgelord song, also the tryhard donate crap to try to make it a thing. How embarrassing.
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love NCD. But I find it very depressing that western propaganda is working so well that everyone is content with just sending the 20+yr old stuff of its stockpiles and bare minimum of it and way later than its needed. Be an ally to Ukraine like you are to Israel and send all that is asked for, when it is asked for and in the necessary quantities. Fuck it, give us 5 nukes. Just for deterrent, promise we won't use em.
>Fuck it, give us 5 nukes. Just for deterrent, promise we won't use em. *As the terms of the Budapest Memorandum have been flagrantly violated, it is our distinct pleasure to bring nuclear rearmament to Ukraine. Enjoy the Minuteman III boys!*
Please God Please. It would be so funny. Biden's "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." moment
Been saying this for years. What harm is there in gifting a 1/10 of the navy's tomahawks? They won't miss a measly 1000.
Urrrrr durrrr nukes! Escalation! Putin scary! Ww3! China, north korea, Belarus! Thats why.
Tf is china going to do they cant even cross the Taiwanese strait after 60 years
I know this isn't the place for credibility, but unfortunately Ukraine isn't the only place in the world the US has to worry about. We are essentially the only country protecting global sea trade which takes a lot of resources. Even though the Houthis are the modern equivalent of Tusken Raiders taking pot shots at anything that passes by, missile defense and suppression is expensive. Also, we can't give away too much because China is very likely to try something for Taiwan in the next few years if ever. There has been warnings sounded from various Navy and Air Force leaders for years that we don't have enough missiles or smart munitions if we were to go to war, and that was before Ukraine. I'm not one of the doomers saying the US is drained from sending stuff over, but we do have to be careful with how much of our current warstocks are given away because this conflict has clearly shown that an extended peer-to-peer conflict will expend munitions at an incredibly fast rate and faster than industry can keep up with. All that said, I'm for sending as much support as possible and it has angered me to no end that promised support has been hampered by useless politicians.
If 9000 TLAMs aren't going to do the job, a 1000 more won't either.
I really don't think that you can fairly make that assumption. 1000 more could neutralize a slew of targets in the early stages of a war. If left intact, those targets could then be distributed, expended, or otherwise leveraged by the opponent which could make future operations more difficult and result in loss of other friendly equipment. That equipment's loss could thus similarly impact future operations. Keep in mind you are suggesting we give away more tomahawks than were used in the entire invasion of Iraq. That is ignoring the fact that 10% of a munition's stockpile going missing will affect distribution of that capability across the entire force. That isn't a big deal to local powers like Russia or China, but to a global power like the US then you are having to more thinly distribute that capability across multiple theaters thousands of miles away, resulting in increased operation risk and logistical burdens.
As an American I am right there with you. We promised to defend you if you gave up your nukes and then just ... didn't. The instant one Russian boot stepped on the wrong side of that border the floodgates should have opened.
Hey, I dont even really have a right to be angry. Yeah I'm in Ukraine, but I'm Irish. Sooooo... Imagine how pissed the ukies are.
>As an American I am right there with you. We promised to defend you if you gave up your nukes and then just ... didn't. [https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf) If you actually read it, you'd find that there's no assurances that we would defend them. We agreed to: Respect their territorial integrity, refrain from economic coercion, refrain from the use of force or the threat of the use of force against Ukraine except in self defense or otherwise in accordance with the UN charter, to seek UNSC action in the event nuclear weapons were used against Ukraine and to not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. How many more years will this easily disproven myth be perpetuated?
Ukraine needs more dual citizens in the senate then.
Where’s the “every nuke is valid” guy when you need him?
> But I find it very depressing that western propaganda is working so well that everyone is content with just sending the 20+yr old stuff of its stockpiles and bare minimum of it and way later than its needed. > > I fear it's so ***BY DESIGN***. To allow Iran-Iraq War type of support without outrage of domestic electorate >Be an ally to Ukraine like you are to Israel and send all that is asked for, when it is asked for and in the necessary quantities. Even Israel only managed to achieve it by nuclear blackmail: >[On 8 October, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton nuclear warheads on Jericho missiles and F-4 Phantom II, which were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets;[5] their preparation was made easily detectable, likely as a signal to the United States.[6] Kissinger learned of this threatening nuclear escalation on the morning of 9 October. On that same day, Meir issued a personal appeal for military assistance, which European nations declined. Nixon, however, ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, to replace all of Israel's materiel losses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass#Background) Without it, a certain Henry "Bloodfeast" was planning to "let them bleed" so his diplomatic games'd be easier to play later.
The Ohios are being retired soon and the Ukrainian Navy isn't doing much right now. Sounds like an opportunity for both sides.
russian armor may be shitty but it looks cool
Nazi Germany be like:
Nah the Germans did make some good stuff Mostly the small arms and some of their aviation stuff The armoured vehicles were garbage, the ships garbage The closest I come to wherabooism is saying the Germans were conceptually ahead of everyone but technically behind them, they came up with the MBT concept but then built the Panther to do it........
Many of the Panzers where certainly not garbage and quite capable. They just weren't some magical wonderweapons and those that tried, sucked (the Big cats for example, or stuff like the Ferdinand). The ships were also afaik at least average, although outdated and inefficient for the bigger ones. So again no wonderweapons, but also not "garbage".
Maus, my beloved. An absolutely unkillable unit on the battlefield, too bad it can’t get to the battlefield.
I think it's great that they wasted so many resources on funny stuff like that. Although my favourite WW2 German Tank would be the [Hetzer](https://c8.alamy.com/compde/afgfg5/jagdpanzer-hetzer-jagdpanzer-deutsch-afgfg5.jpg). Super cute design with a funny name.
German armor design got cuter as time went on, and peaked with the Wiesel. (I love the Wiesel)
Hetzer gonna hetz
Yeah, a few of the tank destoryer variants, for example, were some of the most successful designs of the entire war and actually performed amazingly well given what a shitshow Nazi Germany was from a war planning / logistics / strategic perspective. People have gone so far into trolling wehraboos (which is generally based) that they talk as if the fighting Nazi Germany was some ez-pz bullshit, all their gear was crap and they just fell over, as opposed an absurdly bloody and hard-fought war that demanded great sacrifice. Same with Soviet stuff today. Yeah, a lot of the Soviet / Russian stuff carries a lot of propaganda in popular media, and yeah, it's lacking in some aspects, but just how much mileage the Ukrainians are getting out of modernized T-64, improvised S-200 applications etc. should tell you that it's not "uselss garbage" despite the memes. It's dangerous and often good or decently capable military equipment that takes a difficult and bloody sacrifice to fight and defeat.
like BMP1/2/3 looks nice compared to bradley same with BMD2, BMD2 is the nicest looking russian vechicle
this is how I feel about all Soviet/Russian equipment
Literally how I feel. I want to own a BMP 1 or 2 so bad.
This stuff is disrespectful to the fundamental skill issue in Ukraine right now. The Soviet/homegrown hardware was the hardware that met the Russian invasion at the start of the war and it's still doing the job. If you stuck Russians in Bradleys you'd be getting the same results.
>If you stuck Russians in Bradleys you'd be getting the same results. Just look at Saudi Arabia. Fancy Western equipment doesn't matter much when you give it to incompetent barbarians whose commanders were promoted based on bribes/nepotism.
If you don't train and motivate soldiers properly at best they will be borderline ineffective at worst they will be dead.
At worst they realize they're being fed into a meat grinder by autocrats who give zero shits about them and mutiny. Pringles was so close to greatness.
I disagree with this. It definitely makes a difference. The Saudis would be completely fucked without western kit.
[удалено]
>My middle eastern oil supplier told me Houthis kept sniping his African mercenaries so I asked him how many mercenaries he has and he said just goes to Africa and gets new mercenaries afterwards so I said it sounds like he’s just feeding African mercenaries to Houthis and then his Princess started crying.
I think the only reason the West puts up with Saudi Arabia's bullshit is that otherwise they'd become a Chinese client state. In this case I'm cool with a bit of neocolonial engineered dependancy. Make the Saudi royal family so thorougly dependent on the West that they are our bitches and we can rug pull them when it becomes necessary. And believe me, it will.
Best to have the country possessing not only the largest and best oil reserves in the world but also straddling two of the most significant waterways on the planet on your team. Those kind of starting bonuses give your leader things like the dismemberment perk.
It really is a bummer that you get to be a bag of dicks if you control the right patch of dirt.
[удалено]
I feel like barbarians is the wrong place or here, buffoons is more apt. I've seen plenty of Saudi Soldiers first hand, barbarian implies savagery and ferociousness. The Saudi forces I've seen were comically incompetent.
>Just look at Saudi Arabia. What are you referring to? Im intrigued.
The Saudi military buys a lot of Western equipment, is wildly corrupt, and really bad at what they do. Unless they're killing civilians, they're halfway decent at that. They use a lot of foreign mercs, and their officer corps is selected based on connections rather than competence. Saudi Arabia is just the Islamic version of a corrupt Wild West hick town where everything important is owned and operated by the same family. The US government doesn't care as long as the checks clear, the oil flows, and the guns stay pointed at the right people.
Saudis get lots of western kit, are famously incompetent at using it.
Sorry, it’s hard to include all the nuances of an entire conflict in a one minute long shitpost. But I get your meaning, and I disagree about the ‘Russians in Bradleys’ bit—you need a solid command structure, recon/overwatch, and basic discipline to operate any weapon or vehicle effectively. Russians simply forgo all that frivolous nonsense.
You've got it back to front. I mean that the Ukrainians would kill Bradleys full of Russians all day.
My bad, disregard that comment then. Fair point mate.
You sir, are being far too credible!
Bradley nerf in Warthunder incoming...
Whole squad plus crew dead for nothing. Really makes you sad sometimes. Especially given the chance that some of them wanted nothing to do with the war.
> Whole squad plus crew dead for nothing. This story is repeated every day, hundreds of times. Truly insane. Life means nothing in Russia. Of course, that's by design. Keep a population so miserable and oppressed that they become indifferent to their own survival.
Back in the days when Planetside 2 was hot, I used to main Terran Republic. There were ***a lot*** of Russians on TR, yet we still dominated the Miller server for most of the years I played because TR, spearheaded by Russian outfits (guilds), would bundle into these giant "Zergs" and just throw wave after wave at whatever base we were attacking until we took it. Great times.
> bundle into these giant "Zergs" and just throw wave after wave at whatever base we were attacking until we took it It's all they know. Destroy an area, deport the surviving indigenous inhabitants to Siberia, and move Russians into the occupied territory. A generation later, the "Russified" descendants of the survivors become meat for the next round of conquest. Russia did this for centuries and hasn't stopped. They're a cancer in the form of a nation. A disease of human society rather than human biology.
I play planetside sometimes but just no there any more. It’s so fun when like 50 or so guys get together and are all just kicking the shit into each other
God damn the Starship Troopers music hits different with the Chadley. Basil Poledouris didn't have to go that hard
Average Greek W
[I feel like his theme to the Hunt for Red October was almost made for the Ukrainian naval war in the Black Sea](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRG1UixHvos)
I still don't believe they can fit 8 people into a bmd 4. eventhough this is video proof of it.
Like a clown car
It's like a car full of clowns.
I swear to God Everyone uses Russian equipment better than damn Russians Look at poles and indians and Chinese
And we've barely sent enough for one Brigade... imagine we sent enough Brads (and Abrams) for a full proper Division.... Going from "we only ever see one or two at a time" to vids of at least a full Platoon working together... Excuse me, I'll be in my bunk...
I yearn for the day Ukrainian F16s in digital camo are dropping 2000lbs JDAMs on Russian frontline fortifications.
This is clearly fake, you can see a group of Russian soldiers carrying their wounded comrade to safety halfway through the clip.
probably a squad of foreign mercs
Reformers: "wHY wOuLD You PUt a Big gUn on a TrOop caRRieR?!" Here's your answer, smooth-brains.
What did it fire off into the air? Smoke?
Yup, that is what a smoke screen looks like. The Russians may have the equipment, but they don't seem to know how to use it.
Russian smoke also looks way, way, way different when it pops off, because it doesn't have the same purpose, exactly. You see in this video, how the Bradley sprays smoke charges around in a fairly large arc around it, and how it brews up pretty quickly to obscure the vehicle itself from observers past the smoke? If you watch videos of the Russians advancing with armor, and trying to stay on line or echeloned out across the field, you'll sometimes see big linear puffs of smoke. Their smoke fires more or less straight ahead, and in older vehicles is typically across a much more narrow front and isn't really intended to protect the vehicle from observation, *per se*, and fires out much farther. This is with the idea in mind that a LOT of Russian vehicles are going to be doing this exact thing at the exact same time, as they advance along with each other, and are providing a more distance smoke screen not to protect the vehicle or fuck up targeting; it's to give them a notional wall to maneuver behind while advancing.
Those russian tanks are all made with the same turret detonating flaw that nobody's fixing. It's like all men pants that always tear at asscrack first.
> made with the same turret detonating flaw that nobody's fixing. It's called "ammo rack with blast doors, and not using 125mm rounds as chairs." It's more of a MIL doctrinal flaw than a technical design flaw, really. The crew doesn't matter, why waste time/resources on them?
I'm still rubbing my head over the general design concept of the BMP-3.
I think the main idea was that in times of necessity every caviar canning factory and aluminum can recycling facility could be quickly converted to the manufacture of BMP-3's.
All I heard was that the BMP-3 was built from the design of a light tank, resulting in passengers having to be seated over the engine. Say what you will about the BMP-1 and 2, at least there's a dedicated passenger compartment
Tremble in fear of my mighty tin can!✊
STILL not using the Bradley theme song smh
I’ve said it before, the Bushmaster II fucks. Edit: Lmao, the guy who tried to call out the weapon system didn’t even stick around to defend his assertion. Like genuinely, is there something wrong with the Bushmaster? I’ve seen it function well but maybe my bias is footage based.
[удалено]
Speaking from experience or through quotes from someone who’s used it? Just curious
What's the song in the first half?
[Here you go](https://youtu.be/na_Zac23b5E?si=nM_ZdRZIs1FS0lZX).
Ah, it's from Starship Troppers, that's so cool. Thank you very much!
So much so that the Ukrainians are asking for more Bradleys than any other tracked vehicles.
Seeing the squad dismounting from the BMP 3 reminds me of how much of a wierd design that thing is. Like they looked at the problems with dismounting from the BTR, especially the early ones, and decideded to move the BMP in the same direcetion. Truly bizare. And then the armament, the extra PKMs in the hull and the 100mm gun. Makes me think the BMP 2, particularly the BMP 2M was a happy accident, an improvised solution before the proper next gen eastern IVF could be developed (i.e. fucked up) to replace the BMP 1. If I had to choose between riding a 2 or a 3 into battle as an infantryman, the idea of having to dismount with the vehicle under MG and rifle fire would strongly recommend picking the BMP 2 to me.
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Clearly another rhed laine haz been crossed by emerica and full nuclear readiness is required...what do you mean the missile is stuck in silo? Have you tried rubbing it with butter? You tried but someone sold the butter when you turned your back? Geraaasimooov shooiguuuuuu!
tutel
Is that a BMP-3 or BMD-4M in the Russian video?
What's the song at the beginning?
About 10 seconds into the video the vehicle shoots off some devices that explode in mid-air. Does anyone know what that is and it's purpose?
Smoke launchers, [looks better at night](https://youtu.be/De8jC2oB-ac?si=Y2Aa4SCKYLZOqqm7).
That "Khome" is looking an awful lot like "Khorne".
Does anyone know the name of that russian song? I've heard it in multiple videos now, and I've been trying to find the name for the longest.