Ukrain just said that it is the work of saboteurs in Russia. Noice.
She knows it’s a multi-kill!
How do I stop these images from appearing?
They are getting really obnoxious.
Good riddance?
Russia should not feel safe ANYWHERE. They chose to invade a country for the umpteenth time (like third or fourth for Ukraine alone?) and finally found out. So shit should be exploding near constantly until putin pulls out. Or… putin’s successor does.
And speaking practically? This is immensely useful data for just about every other country. Because THIS is the “near peer” war that everyone is trying to prepare for and all the tactics and technologies used in this are what militaries need to prepare for.
The use of drones in this war is fascinating from afar.
From an American perspective, I keep seeing calls from extremists for a new civil war, and it terrifies me because weaponry like this means shit will go poorly for civilians VERY quickly, even without going nuclear. I imagine that all these kids and young adults who think that playing CoD prepared them for actual war will be in for a big, brief surprise when a drone just deletes them while being operated by some guy in, like, Nevada.
Eh drone is just cost effective version of CAS. I think most modern jets bomber/fighter could carry out precision strikes without you ever seeing or hearing them.
Or going in loud and proud A10 style also works, that shit is scarier lol
Brrrrrrrt
At least I’d see the A10 before it mows me down.
Tbh something you can only hear the last second is way scarier 99.9% of the time, because you can’t expect to hear it’s coming. Could happen anywhere any time.
Or going in loud and proud A10 style also works, that shit is scarier lol
It saves infantry, but not the british infantry. It saves infantry, but not the british infantry.
Or get chased around by explosive FPV drones and Ali-express quadcopters dropping grenades.
And that’s before someone with more resources than Ukraine inevitably makes an airplane load of these things that just automatically go for anything vaguely human shaped.
Maybe AliExpress drones is scarier, the fact that it’s so harmless and so lethal is equally scary 😂😂😂
I take want to see a bunch of Trumpers on mobility scooters waving AR-15s take on the US army. It’ll be hilarious.
The idea of Patrick Swayze screamin WILDCATS and then him, Jennifer Grey, Josh Peck, and whichever Hemsworth it was fighting off hordes of communists with the power of their machismo has ALWAYS been stupid. Even a well trained and well drilled militia won’t have sufficient anti-armor capabilities to handle a few Strykers. It is amazing how much Ukraine fought back in the early days of the war when support was limited. But if they hadn’t gotten all those Javelins and NLAWS they would have had no chance. Even a barely functioning tank or bmp on a ridgeline is still death to infantry without anti-armor capabilities.
But consumer grade drones would potentially be a mild counter to that. It is still incredibly unlikely that duct taping grenades to a drone are going to do anything to even a lightly armored vehicle. But planes/helicopters are INCREDIBLY fragile… and are often next to giant tankers full of fuel. Albeit, the answer to that is likely more computer vision attached to the anti-air defenses.
Same with trenches. Was watching a youtube about the new american APC prototype and it is back on the OICW airburst bullshit. Which is genuinely valuable for taking out entrenched troops. But someone literally building I Did A Thing’s lawn dart drone would have that capability for a fraction of the price.
With respect to grenades from drones… you might be right if the Russian tankers didn’t have the turret hatch open practically all the time because of how little air circulation they get.
They’re so uncomfortable in their tanks they’re dying from a weapon they should be nearly immune to.
We’ve seen quadcopter drones destroy Abrams tanks operated by the Iraqi army. The truth is that any shaped charge explosive designed to destroy armor is going to go right through the top armor of any armored vehicle, from the leopard one to an Abrams to a t90. They only have a couple of inches on top.
The main reason for tank crews(at least the commander) to open their hatches is not for ventilation, but for visibility and situational awareness.
I mean, it has already happened. Definitely unmanned (there are articles), I want to say out of combat (I vaguely recall hearing about a video of that), and maybe even in combat.
But it is well worth catching that I Did a Thing video where he drops sharp metal spikes on a car from a drone… if only because a lot of the Ukrainian drones look EERILY similar to that setup (I don’t think Alex has spoken to his analytics the past year). Dropping from even a dozen meters in the air is REALLY hard to aim. Let alone high up enough that people wouldn’t hear the quad rotors.
Which is the reality. Just sealing them up in the depot when people aren’t inside more or less negates the ability to attack them there. Hell, putting a canopy over the tanks already gets you a lot of the way there (and is something you would generally want to do for surveillance reasons anyway). As for getting armor in convoys on the way to a battle? After a while you get used to having people listen (and competent countries can use electronics for that) and everyone buttons up the MOMENT anyone hears or sees a drone coming in low enough to aim a grenade or a brick of C4. Taking out trucks is a lot more effective at that point (and likely still delays the convoy to prevent it from being effective).
As for in combat? My understanding is that driving with the hatch open is less about poor ventilation (although, they have that) and more about the doctrine being that a tank commander needs to be able to see all around them. Which is similarly negated with modern technology and cameras. Maybe you can damage the cameras and sensors but those are already placed in a way to have high survivability if the tank gets hit with an RPG anyway.
Which gets back to what I was saying. A tank on city streets is fucked. Even people with grenades are deadly at that point. But a tank on a ridge or even in an open field supporting an attack (or just shelling a town for daring to protect Josh Peck) will have enough open ground and alert troops supporting it that the drone won’t have any chance of threading the needle and taking out the armor with a grenade or even a brick of C4 taped to it.
The reason that aircraft are particularly vulnerable is… they are particularly vulnerable. Even an A-10 is not meant to stand up to sustained small arms fire and grenades. So you don’t need a direct hit through an open hatch anymore and just dropping even two or three grenades from twenty meters up is probably going to take a plane or chopper out of commission for a few days.
I think you’re underestimating just how loud a tank is, you aren’t likely to hear a drone over it, and during combat operations you probably aren’t shutting down the tank when you could be fired on at any time.
Crew comfort, keeping the tank sealed and the crew inside the tank has historically been an issue. Famously its the reason that the British Challenger tanks have tea pots inside… the crews kept hopping out to have a cuppa.
Grenade like munitions get the job done and Ukrainian’s have proven on the battlefield that they’re vastly more accurate than artillery.
You don’t need to trust me on this, there are dozens of videos of drones taking out Russian tanks by dropping explosives through the top hatch on combat footage subs.
Russia is uniquely incompetent and were not at all prepared for a “near peer” war.
But drones are incredibly easy to detect, once you put the effort in. Yes, tanks are loud. But a high pitched drone rotor is still going to make noise. And microphones connected to a raspberry pi that can run a few filters can extract that noise. At which point someone on support yells “Button up” and everyone closes their hatches… and the troops around the tanks become mush. And, as time goes on (and people realize this threat), that gets integrated into the senor suite of the armor themselves.
Similarly, Western tanks have a lot more climate control so that they may even want to stay buttoned up while part of a convoy and the like. But, if not, that is where the sensors come into play.
At the end of the day? There is likely at least one example of someone an Abrams out of combat by going full Matthew McConoughey with a metal pole into the… turbine. The reality is that this is so unlikely as to not be a factor and is largely avoided through other practices (because if you are close enough to leap out of a helicopter and drive a spike into something… you are close enough to throw anti-tank grenades or fire a shit ton of RPGs).
It is just that russia continue to not employ even decent practices.
Also, just as an aside. No, a grenade dropped by a drone is not more accurate/precise than artillery. Again, dropping shit from a dozen meters in the air (likely closer to two dozen if you don’t want to be immediately spotted) is not precise in the slightest. Whereas modern artillery tend to have very advanced ti-83 calculators coupled with electronics in the fins (!) to help guide them down.
Where drone mounted grenades do have the advantage is that the pilot is usually very close by (assuming consumer drone and not a military drone where they are in Vegas) and can potentially respond to direct feedback from the boots on the ground. And they are likely part of said boots’ unit to the degree that there is very little delay between wanting a grenade and getting a grenade.
I’m sure russians will achieve that air superiority any day now…
Well, they did get one plane today.
Ayoo
Good. Make Russians be afraid and push them to turn on Putin. Something they should have done 20 years ago.
Slava Ukraini. Now to deliver more of those F-16s for Ukraine.
The heat wave is causing potentially disastrous issues for US infrastructure, but sure, absolutely, let’s go further into debt for another country’s war. Ukraine should absolutely be the priority when it comes to appropriations.
At least it’ll make the chickenhawks happy.
Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets. Assets that were constructed to fight China and Russia at the same time if needed. They were literally built and maintained in waiting for a fight with Russia. Sending them to make Russia weaker lowers the stockpile we need to maintain. The number of dollars sent over isn’t real dollars, it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced). We were literally spending money to keep them ready in case they were needed, and now they’re needed and we no longer have to spend money on them.
We are spending some new money on aid and things, but most of the military stuff is stuff we already had kicking around, not new spending to build new stuff to send over. Also, sure we’ll have to replace some, but we would anyway as technology advances, and it also won’t be to the same level as Russia is weaker.
it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced).
Arguably much of it should be valued at negative monetary value as with Ukraine taking it the US won’t have to pay to decommission it. Especially ammunition gets expensive (tanks you can just dump in a desert somewhere).
Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets.
Err… what? Who paid for those ‘assets’? Those ‘assets’ can’t be liquidated for capital?
Lol, 35 upvotes. Man, this next generation sucks. Not a critical thinker among you.
No, the assets can’t really just be liquidated for capital. They’re military equipment, and they’ve lost value over time anyway so the real value is less than the listed price. What can be done is giving them to another country for promises in the future.
In some ways it’s a great move beyond the human cost, Russian uses up their military personnel, equipment, and resources while NATO and the US commit some of their resources and older equipment to the cause but nothing new and no losses of people beyond the Ukrainians in theory for the most part.
I know many in the US think the Russians are good guys now (Patton is probably doing cartwheels in his grave at the thought, but Nazis are good now too so maybe not) but if there is going to be future conflict, the Russian machine will be spent and tired which will help some.
No losses of people, beyond THOSE people…kinda? Maybe? Theoretically?
Shame.
There would be a lot more dead Ukrainians if the West hadn’t supplied them with weapons. Particularly artillery, ammunition and air defense.
Prolonging a proxy war saves lives. Got it.
We can always tax the rich to solve our problems.
It’s not that the money isn’t there, lol. We just choose not to use it.
It ain’t no fun when the bunny’s got the gun.
I’m no fan of Russia
But at the same time I’m no fan of nuclear war either.
The escalation of the war has to stop or else we will all feel the fallout of this war.
I’m pretty much a dove through and through with one exception: you must be able to fight to defend the sovereignty of your country.
It is Russia that started the tension, then the conflict, and then the war. Appeasing a megalomaniac and hoping it will make them more measured is delusional.
Then as a peace loving person … why support continued fighting?
Fighting Russia only leads to more war and towards what outcome? Completely defeat, embarrass and throw Russia up against a wall they can’t back out of? They would be forced into a corner where they would eventually use a nuclear option. If they are given the choice between defeat or suicide … they might take themselves and millions of people with them.
I’m all in support of Ukrainian sovereignty and fighting for one’s country … but if it means risking the lives of millions of people around the world … what sense does that make?
If we are capable of financing billions towards violent solutions … why not instead finance billions towards a peaceful resolution?
“If we are capable of financing billions towards violent solutions … why not instead finance billions towards a peaceful resolution?”
Do you want us to spend billions on an ad campaign asking Russia to please stop invading a country? Uh I don’t know if you are history deaf or not but Russia will not stop, unless it is stopped.
Something we Americans should really stick to is the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” line. Russia is a terrorist state, and they have proven time and time again they cannot be reasoned with.
Then as a peace loving person … why support continued fighting?
Pacifism is when I get to kick people and they don’t do anything about it.
why not instead finance billions towards a peaceful resolution?
…MDMA in Moscow’s water supply something along that line?
Russia’s goal is genocide. If you train were to give up, there will be millions of people put to death and sent to concentration camps in Siberia to die. So they really don’t have any other option. We have seen time and time again Russia commit crimes against humanity including to this day the continued operation of the gulag system.
deleted by creator
Stop financing the war … if everyone is spending billions on a war machine to just fight -> then there will be endless fighting
if you stop the financing and instead spend a few million on peaceful resolution, negotiation and just simply talking, the fighting will stop and there will be resolutions … it won’t be a simple fix, there will be complications, disputes and wins and losses by both sides (everyone can argue the details about it in whatever way they want) … but the end result will be an end to the fighting.
Otherwise, if everyone keeps wanting to spend billions on fighting … the fighting will never end.
So you want Ukraine to just capitulate? Just to satisfy your “peace at any cost” desires? Because Russia sure isn’t going to.
So the answer is to fight Russia at all cost and completely defeat Russia? So the result would be sending billions more into the Ukrainian war machine (where global armaments companies can make a huge profit) … Ukraine fights its way to the Russians and completely defeats them … then what? … it would force the Russians to use nuclear options … and no nuclear armed nation would tolerate that and now we have nuclear weapons being exchanged … and do you think everyone would just quietly and logically agree to launch one nuclear weapon for every one the other side sends?
The whole scenario of fighting at all cost just leads to one thing … more war … and more war leads to nuclear fallout
Disagree with me all you want … I have no love for Russia … I have no love for war … I support Ukrainian independence … there are political options that support these views … I also value my life, your life and the lives of millions of people all over the world to say that I would rather see peaceful options to this conflict than to see a never ending fight that is slowly leading us all to nuclear war.
You need to understand some history, and the bigger picture.
Ukraine isn’t Putin’s endgame. He wants to rebuild the USSR, which means after taking Ukraine he’s coming for the Baltics and parts of Poland and Romania, and we now know his playbook: cause political instability in the area, replace the locals with Russians, then claim they need to be “liberated” from “Western Nazis”; that’s what he’s already done several times, and is also why Moldova need to be seriously concerned about Transnistria (I’m sure they already are).
The history you need to understand is that of appeasement. It was tried with Hitler. But it didn’t stop his lust for more and more, and the millions of deaths from WWI and WWII were the results. Giving Ukraine to Russia increases the chance of nuclear war; it doesn’t decrease it.
So Putin must be stopped in Ukraine. And he must be pushed completely out of Ukraine including Crimea because otherwise he’ll just regroup and try again later. Which he might still do anyway, but he’ll have had to deal with the fallout of the huge cost of the Ukraine invasion for zero benefit and the Russian reputation and economy in tatters. But appeasement doesn’t work and doesn’t stop wars.
We don’t need to completely defeat Russia. We just need to push them out of Ukraine and hold them back. What Russians do in their own country is their business. And when they’re ready to rejoin the civilised world we should be equally ready to welcome them back. We also need to strengthen our entire eastern flank: not aggressively sabre-rattling, just enough to make Putin think twice about launching an invasion or starting any funny business there.
There’s a similar problem on the horizon with China, and Taiwan isn’t Xi’s endgame.
Main sources: Vlad Vexler, Peter Zeihan, China Uncensored.
Not disagreeing with the general point but please note that China Uncensored is Falun Gong-affiliated and should really not trusted in anything they say about China. (I say this as someone who is very critical of China)
And Peter Zeihan… I don’t know that guy just rubs me the wrong way. Also lots of right wing associations afaik.
Vlad Vexler is cool tho.
deleted by creator
No, the president of Ukraine has asked Putin repeatedly to stop the war and withdraw. Tucson has refused and has ignored any offers to do so. He in fact gave a speech last year claiming that Ukraine is not a real country. He has authored a study to resurrect the Soviet Union by reconquering every country that was part of the USSR, including Poland and East Germany.
If Ukrainian were capitulate today, we would see Russian soldiers invading Poland and Germany. That’s their goal. In fact their goal is to stretch Russia all the way to the Atlantic coast.
There were Nazi appeasers back in the day as well.
You are no better.
I definitely have no love for Nazis … either ones in the past or the ones who exist now … but Nazi Germany didn’t have nuclear weapons back then. I would rather look for a peaceful resolution to any situation with any entity, fascist or not, if they were pointing a loaded shotgun at my face.
If you appease the Nazis/Russians, all you tell them is that doing what they did was okay, and that they can do it again and again.
Invade, treaty, break treaty and invade again. Rinse and repeat.
Sometimes they have to be told no and be told very loudly that “you’ve gone too far”. Just like the playground bullies they are. This is that moment.
You, and people like you, were part of the problem when the Nazis were invading their neighbors. You’re part of the problem now.
Shame on you.
deleted by creator
Russia isn’t going to risk the world launching a dozen nukes at them just so they can launch one at Ukraine.
As much as that makes sense and everyone probably agrees … then why are western nations hedging their bets that the other side won’t launch a missile, even as they escalate the fighting.
That is Russian Roulette on a global level if you ask me.
The problem is really alternatives. Give into Russias demands and they will do the same again soon. It will also send a message to China for example and make war more likely in the long run.
What kind of peace agreement would you see possible?
Btw if you’re interested on the topic of the risk of nuclear war related to Ukraine there’s a good video by Lonerbox in which he also explains the logic of the side you’re arguing with here in more detail.
Apart from the other points that have been raised: basically every recent report about Ukrainian troops has gotten a bit in it along the lines of “they’re exhausted and have taken heavy losses, but are in good spirits and willing to fight on”.
Especially if you read what individual soldiers are saying, I get the feeling that this war would not end, even if support to Ukraine where to vanish completely (good luck convincing Poland, the Baltics and Nordics). You’d just get Afghanistan, but the invaders are openly genocidal and don’t give a fuck about civilians at the best of times.
🥱
