Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[NAVY 6,740]

Is FuckYourOwnFaceistan already taken? Seems like a good fit for Ruzzia 

[Gatorubet 30,189]

1 minute ago, NAVY said:

Is FuckYourOwnFaceistan already taken? Seems like a good fit for Ruzzia 

VictimizedBullystan was taken? 

[MillerEP 30,448]

I like PutinCanGoFuckHimselfastan.

[Pescado_Rojo 19,416]

Warcrimea

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

2 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Warcrimea

9 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

I like PutinCanGoFuckHimselfastan.

PutinIsShortistan

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,877]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

 

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by NeverMarryAStripper

[Bevo 13,570]

WERNATOSBITCHISTAN

or

Brokeistan

Edited March 13, 2023 by Bevo

[MillerEP 30,448]

 

[Parliament 14,249]

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

 

Do we have a "emergency reserve" of shells we could tap?  Our are we just empty?

[Handcruser 2,805]

Do we have a "emergency reserve" of shells we could tap?  Our are we just empty?

We have our stock. Question is - do we want to deplete that? To what level?

[statsman 5,456]

We would never send US troops into conflict with the ammo restrictions Ukraine has. 
 
Ukraine can’t produce ammo. They are wholly dependent on US and NATO. 
 
The proposed US defense budget for next year is 3% higher than this year. Given 6% inflation, that represents a cut. 
 
 This war will be won this year, or not at all. Politics will get I. The way. 
 
The US, in my opinion, should dramatically increase defense spending right now, with a big part of the increase being armament production, if it wants Ukraine to win. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by statsman

[SL Xpress 7,513]

9 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Do we have a "emergency reserve" of shells we could tap?  Our are we just empty?

We're far from empty, but I'd argue we've already been tapping into our emergency reserve as it is.

I've been meaning to make a longer post on it for a week or so, but the tl:dr version of it is that neither the US nor Europe are geared to produce a bunch of artillery shells, and ramping up that production takes a lot of time and work. We went all in on investing in technology and expertise that allows us to establish air superiority and to use mobility, initiative down the chain of command, and special forces force multipliers to defeat the enemy. And, of course, all the wars have been very much asynchronous warfare following the Chinese invasion of Korea. 

The war in Ukraine does not allow for the establishment of air superiority by either side, and in any event Soviet/Russian doctrine has always relied heavily on artillery shelling as a principle part of conducting warfare, mostly because of its cheap cost. Especially with the way they conduct it, which is laying out squares and simply bombarding from one square to the next indiscriminately rather than relying on adjusting fire or precision of any kind. 

The Ukraine defense minister has said that the Ukraine army can be effective in launching 360,000 shells per month. That would be the ideal. They've asked for about 60% of that, or 250,000 shells per month. My guess is they know they won't get that amount, but maybe it would help get something closer to it than farther away.

US industry produces about 14,000 155mm shells per month. The pentagon has already indicated plans to increase that to 40k per month this summer, and to eventually get it to 90k per month in a couple of years. That's not actually for Ukraine. That's simply to replenish the loss in reserves from supplying Ukraine. It's also an acknowledgement that artillery is more important than Western doctrine has made it out to be in conditions that are less than ideal for establishing air superiority. 

Europe's production is even more stymied. There has been talk to increase European 155mm shell production to 25,000 per month, and it's been a struggle. The latest talks led by badass Estonia, are talking about creating a separate funding of $1 billion Euros dedicated to purchasing shells and expanding production. The way they're trying to frame it is that this would be a voluntary fund, so that countries that are against its creation would not have to fund it, but it would still allow the other countries to band together within the EU framework to get it done. That has hair all over it because that sets a precedent, but it's slowly but steadily moving forward. But while getting the funding mechanism in place is the hardest part, the logistics also have hair all over it, because the way the European defense industry works is that different parts of its production are located in multiple countries, for political purposes. I don't know exactly how that works specifically in regards to 155mm shells, because I'm not a subject matter expert. I'm simply relaying what I'm reading from people who are. 

Estonia has put forward a proposal to send 1 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine right now, but that hasn't gone anywhere so far. 

Bottom line, the west doesn't have the production capacity to meet Ukraine's needs in this regard, and there's not a lot of hope on the horizon for it to get better. 

And believe it or not, that's the tl:dr version of it. Well, at least my version. I'm obviously not so good with the tl:dr thing. 

[KYHorn 17,017]

Interesting thread on the evolving relationship between Prigozhin and Putin, and Shoigu and Gerasimov.

 

[SL Xpress 7,513]

1 minute ago, statsman said:

We would never send US troops into conflict with the ammo restrictions Ukraine has. 
 
Ukraine can’t produce ammo. They are wholly dependent on US and NATO. 
 
The proposed US defense budget for next year is 3% higher than this year. Given 6% inflation, that represents a cut. 
 
 This war will be won this year, or not at all. Politics will get I. The way. 
 
The US, in my opinion, should dramatically increase defense spending right now, if it wants Ukraine to win. 

We'd never need the artillery shell use Ukraine is utilizing. 

We have aircraft, missiles, and helicopters - and armed drones - to do all the heavy lifting, way more effectively, that the Ukrainians are using artillery for. 

And we'd use the mobility of our forces to destroy the means of the enemy to effectively fire artillery back. 

There was no way for the US or Europe to foresee this level of artillery shell usage. Not based on past experience. It's not how the western countries - the US specifically - would carry out their mission. 

[statsman 5,456]

10 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

We'd never need the artillery shell use Ukraine is utilizing. 

We have aircraft, missiles, and helicopters - and armed drones - to do all the heavy lifting, way more effectively, that the Ukrainians are using artillery for. 

And we'd use the mobility of our forces to destroy the means of the enemy to effectively fire artillery back. 

There was no way for the US or Europe to foresee this level of artillery shell usage. Not based on past experience. It's not how the western countries - the US specifically - would carry out their mission. 

Ok. So, the war they’re in is not the war we’re prepared to supply. That’s our problem, given the public support we’ve expressed. 
 
Putin is betting we won’t be in this for the long haul, and he could be right. We need to take action now to get our budget on a wartime footing. Russia’s is. 

[BamaATL 16,593]

30 minutes ago, statsman said:

Ok. So, the war they’re in is not the war we’re prepared to supply. That’s our problem, given the public support we’ve expressed. 
 
Putin is betting we won’t be in this for the long haul, and he could be right. We need to take action now to get our budget on a wartime footing. Russia’s is. 

This isn't remotely how we'd do it if pressed.  Artillery is an archaic weapon system in the modern landscape of warfare.  How would we do it:

1.  A coordinated naval and air attack.  We'd sink their navy, not a little of it, all of it, probably about at the same time or within minutes, including their entire submarine fleet.  About the same time, we would launch massive coordinated strikes on their anti-air, leaving ground forces entirely exposed.  A cruise missile barrage this likes of which have never been seen.

2.  Shortly after the air defense destruction, we'd down their air force; again, not a little bit of it, all of it, with fighter aircraft and once the space is clear bombers.

3.  Shortly there after, we'd launch air sorties with ground destruction in mind.  The most dangerous place to be on earth would be a tank or mobility artillery for the Russians, as they have but minutes to live.  

After that, for ground forces it would be guys with machine guns against armored carriers and tanks.  

TL;DR give them all the dumb shells we can, we have time to replenish it as we choose to, and most likely it's stuff we'd never use.  The only stuff to worry about even keeping a stockpile of is precision, like excalibur, that can be used for ground support if we ever needed it.  

Russia's budget compared to ours is at best 1/10th (big emphasis on at best).  This doesn't include the inherent corruption they have which creates huge losses.  Realistically, theirs is comparative to 1/20th of our budget.  (US 2023 defense budget is $806.7 billion, pre-war Russia budget at best $80 billion).  Even in a fully militarized economy they couldn't even begin to compete.  

Now raising defense spending for other reasons....could make some sense.  But worrying about the US spending being on par with Russia, not an issue.  

 

[statsman 5,456]

I’m trying not to overthink this-

Ukraine needs ammunition and armament. 
 
Ukraine cannot produce or buy ammunition and armament. 
 
Ukraine needs for Uncle Sam to give them ammunition and armament. If the US doesn’t, Ukraine loses. 
 
Now, that analysis is simple. The hard part is- getting the needed ammunition and armament to Ukraine. Counting on German promises is a bad plan. Counting on Swiss cooperation is a bad plan. Counting on NATO to pull together out of shared benefit is a bad plan. Am I wrong to see this as binary- Ukraine gets what they need to win, this year, or they don’t?

[RDCanecutter 26,401]

43 minutes ago, statsman said:

I’m trying not to overthink this-

Ukraine needs ammunition and armament. 
 
Ukraine cannot produce or buy ammunition and armament. 
 
Ukraine needs for Uncle Sam to give them ammunition and armament. If the US doesn’t, Ukraine loses. 
 
Now, that analysis is simple. The hard part is- getting the needed ammunition and armament to Ukraine. Counting on German promises is a bad plan. Counting on Swiss cooperation is a bad plan. Counting on NATO to pull together out of shared benefit is a bad plan. Am I wrong to see this as binary- Ukraine gets what they need to win, this year, or they don’t?

Well, there's another way to give Ukraine arty superiority other than just sending shells.

There's also blowing the fuck out of Russian artillery. We started helping with that with the HIMARS.

I'm sure we'll continue with a combo of the two methods.

It'd be nice if it got to the point that the Russian artillerists would rather shoot it out with AKs against the rear-area goon squad than get within a mile of their doomed guns.

[Deej 76,756]

21 hours ago, Superhero said:

Hate to break it to you. When one of your team dies, they don't need the ammo or grenades anymore. You scavenge so you can fight another day.

 

That must be terrifying. You're in the dark, thinking that you're safe, and a grenade drops next to you. Those guys will have PTSD one day afraid to close their eyes.

[Dahobbs 17,527]

2 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

We're far from empty, but I'd argue we've already been tapping into our emergency reserve as it is.

I've been meaning to make a longer post on it for a week or so, but the tl:dr version of it is that neither the US nor Europe are geared to produce a bunch of artillery shells, and ramping up that production takes a lot of time and work. We went all in on investing in technology and expertise that allows us to establish air superiority and to use mobility, initiative down the chain of command, and special forces force multipliers to defeat the enemy. And, of course, all the wars have been very much asynchronous warfare following the Chinese invasion of Korea. 

The war in Ukraine does not allow for the establishment of air superiority by either side, and in any event Soviet/Russian doctrine has always relied heavily on artillery shelling as a principle part of conducting warfare, mostly because of its cheap cost. Especially with the way they conduct it, which is laying out squares and simply bombarding from one square to the next indiscriminately rather than relying on adjusting fire or precision of any kind. 

The Ukraine defense minister has said that the Ukraine army can be effective in launching 360,000 shells per month. That would be the ideal. They've asked for about 60% of that, or 250,000 shells per month. My guess is they know they won't get that amount, but maybe it would help get something closer to it than farther away.

US industry produces about 14,000 155mm shells per month. The pentagon has already indicated plans to increase that to 40k per month this summer, and to eventually get it to 90k per month in a couple of years. That's not actually for Ukraine. That's simply to replenish the loss in reserves from supplying Ukraine. It's also an acknowledgement that artillery is more important than Western doctrine has made it out to be in conditions that are less than ideal for establishing air superiority. 

Europe's production is even more stymied. There has been talk to increase European 155mm shell production to 25,000 per month, and it's been a struggle. The latest talks led by badass Estonia, are talking about creating a separate funding of $1 billion Euros dedicated to purchasing shells and expanding production. The way they're trying to frame it is that this would be a voluntary fund, so that countries that are against its creation would not have to fund it, but it would still allow the other countries to band together within the EU framework to get it done. That has hair all over it because that sets a precedent, but it's slowly but steadily moving forward. But while getting the funding mechanism in place is the hardest part, the logistics also have hair all over it, because the way the European defense industry works is that different parts of its production are located in multiple countries, for political purposes. I don't know exactly how that works specifically in regards to 155mm shells, because I'm not a subject matter expert. I'm simply relaying what I'm reading from people who are. 

Estonia has put forward a proposal to send 1 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine right now, but that hasn't gone anywhere so far. 

Bottom line, the west doesn't have the production capacity to meet Ukraine's needs in this regard, and there's not a lot of hope on the horizon for it to get better. 

And believe it or not, that's the tl:dr version of it. Well, at least my version. I'm obviously not so good with the tl:dr thing. 

 

1 hour ago, statsman said:

I’m trying not to overthink this-

Ukraine needs ammunition and armament. 
 
Ukraine cannot produce or buy ammunition and armament. 
 
Ukraine needs for Uncle Sam to give them ammunition and armament. If the US doesn’t, Ukraine loses. 
 
Now, that analysis is simple. The hard part is- getting the needed ammunition and armament to Ukraine. Counting on German promises is a bad plan. Counting on Swiss cooperation is a bad plan. Counting on NATO to pull together out of shared benefit is a bad plan. Am I wrong to see this as binary- Ukraine gets what they need to win, this year, or they don’t?

There are other, large, significant sources of artillery shells that aren't in the West. If fact, those sources are more significant than western production (e.g., South Korea and Africa). 

[statsman 5,456]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

There are other, large, significant sources of artillery shells that aren't in the West. If fact, those sources are more significant than western production (e.g., South Korea and Africa). 

That’s great, but we’ve got to get them there. They need them there, right now, because as the WSJ article explains- good Ukrainian troops are dying, and they aren’t fighting as effectively as they could, because they lack the ammunition. They are rationing it. 
 
And “we’ve” got to get it to them, because we announced our support. Their loss is our loss, now, and this would be a really crappy time to lose to Russia, for lots of reasons. 

[Brisketexan 105,083]

8 minutes ago, statsman said:

That’s great, but we’ve got to get them there. They need them there, right now, because as the WSJ article explains- good Ukrainian troops are dying, and they aren’t fighting as effectively as they could, because they lack the ammunition. They are rationing it. 
 
And “we’ve” got to get it to them, because we announced our support. Their loss is our loss, now, and this would be a really crappy time to lose to Russia, for lots of reasons. 

I'm, like, 90% sure that we've got some ships and such.  And some planes.  And there are trains from all the major european ports. 

[KYHorn 17,017]

Haven't found much confirmation of this, but worth tracking moving forward.

https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/03/russian-assets-seized-at-the-baikonur-cosmodrome

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by KYHorn

[Scheiss Meister 8,407]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

This isn't remotely how we'd do it if pressed.  Artillery is an archaic weapon system in the modern landscape of warfare.  How would we do it:

1.  A coordinated naval and air attack.  We'd sink their navy, not a little of it, all of it, probably about at the same time or within minutes, including their entire submarine fleet.  About the same time, we would launch massive coordinated strikes on their anti-air, leaving ground forces entirely exposed.  A cruise missile barrage this likes of which have never been seen.

2.  Shortly after the air defense destruction, we'd down their air force; again, not a little bit of it, all of it, with fighter aircraft and once the space is clear bombers.

3.  Shortly there after, we'd launch air sorties with ground destruction in mind.  The most dangerous place to be on earth would be a tank or mobility artillery for the Russians, as they have but minutes to live.  

After that, for ground forces it would be guys with machine guns against armored carriers and tanks.  

TL;DR give them all the dumb shells we can, we have time to replenish it as we choose to, and most likely it's stuff we'd never use.  The only stuff to worry about even keeping a stockpile of is precision, like excalibur, that can be used for ground support if we ever needed it.  

Russia's budget compared to ours is at best 1/10th (big emphasis on at best).  This doesn't include the inherent corruption they have which creates huge losses.  Realistically, theirs is comparative to 1/20th of our budget.  (US 2023 defense budget is $806.7 billion, pre-war Russia budget at best $80 billion).  Even in a fully militarized economy they couldn't even begin to compete.  

Now raising defense spending for other reasons....could make some sense.  But worrying about the US spending being on par with Russia, not an issue.  

 

That model worked 30 years ago against Iraq, and again later against Afghanistan and a sanctions weakened Iraq.  The assumptions behind that model aren't playing out in Ukraine, and will most assuredly be challenged if we face Russia or China, or another near peer adversary.  Remember, after the adoption of air to air missiles, fighters would never need guns.  Until Vietnam proved otherwise.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but don't count on it being that simple.

[statsman 5,456]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm, like, 90% sure that we've got some ships and such.  And some planes.  And there are trains from all the major european ports. 

Right now, that’s not the problem. Right now, the problem is that there isn’t enough to load onto those ships. 

[BamaATL 16,593]

11 minutes ago, statsman said:

That’s great, but we’ve got to get them there. They need them there, right now, because as the WSJ article explains- good Ukrainian troops are dying, and they aren’t fighting as effectively as they could, because they lack the ammunition. They are rationing it. 
 
And “we’ve” got to get it to them, because we announced our support. Their loss is our loss, now, and this would be a really crappy time to lose to Russia, for lots of reasons. 

I get the frustration on this, I wish Ukrainians could wipe them off the field and out their country quickly and with minimal loss, but that just isn't where we are.  There are a couple of things going on here that are always important to consider.   The first is, the Ukrainians are gearing up for an offensive, in order to do so, rationing ammo is a good idea given what they have to work with.  Playing to a virtual stalemate while doing so will pay long term dividends.   You sure as hell don't want to run out of ammo in the middle of an offensive.  The second is that the west has been playing a bit of a game when it comes to weaponry and ammo.  The goal is to give them enough to win, but not enough trigger WW3.  That's the real shitty part, it isn't that we can't give them enough to win quickly, it's that we are being careful to give them enough, and no more.  Now you can certainly argue what is right and wrong on that, but it is what is going on. (There is also an argument to be made that the goal has also been to make the Russians bleed, not just in terms of manpower, but also equipment and weapons.  If this was the goal, it has been very successful, the Russians military force is degraded by 50% at this point by my guess.  The horrible downside of this is that its goals will have been realized in Ukrainian blood, both civilian and military.)  

I was trying to find a guess or info as to how much dumb 155mm artillery ammo we have stockpiled, and I didn't find anything.  I would presume that this would be considered classified.  What I was able to find indicated that prior to 2018 our production could have been approximately 100k per year.  Since then, budgetary spending for was allocated to be up to 180k per year (that doesn't mean it happened).  These shells have a shelf life of no more than 20 years.   Essentially, if all that were to hold true, prior to this conflict production would have been 2.4 million shells over that 20 year period.  It's been reported that we have allocated 1.1 million of these to Ukraine during this conflict, thus leaving us 1.3 million.  However, this wouldn't take into account practice shots for our people, or arms deals we have made for allies.  This also wouldn't account for last year or more recent ramp ups.  In short, I would guess our stocks are low, but I'd also presume that our production level will more than make up for it, and quickly if need be.  

[BamaATL 16,593]

13 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

That model worked 30 years ago against Iraq, and again later against Afghanistan and a sanctions weakened Iraq.  The assumptions behind that model aren't playing out in Ukraine, and will most assuredly be challenged if we face Russia or China, or another near peer adversary.  Remember, after the adoption of air to air missiles, fighters would never need guns.  Until Vietnam proved otherwise.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but don't count on it being that simple.

Against Russia, not wrong, they are rust with paint, virtually no innovation save Wile Coyote shit.  

 

[Parliament 14,249]

6 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I get the frustration on this, I wish Ukrainians could wipe them off the field and out their country quickly and with minimal loss, but that just isn't where we are.  There are a couple of things going on here that are always important to consider.   The first is, the Ukrainians are gearing up for an offensive, in order to do so, rationing ammo is a good idea given what they have to work with.  Playing to a virtual stalemate while doing so will pay long term dividends.   You sure as hell don't want to run out of ammo in the middle of an offensive.  The second is that the west has been playing a bit of a game when it comes to weaponry and ammo.  The goal is to give them enough to win, but not enough trigger WW3.  That's the real shitty part, it isn't that we can't give themIn  enough to win quickly, it's that we are being careful to give them enough, and no more.  Now you can certainly argue what is right and wrong on that, but it is what is going on. (There is also an argument to be made that the goal has also been to make the Russians bleed, not just in terms of manpower, but also equipment and weapons.  If this was the goal, it has been very successful, the Russians military force is degraded by 50% at this point by my guess.  The horrible downside of this is that its goals will have been realized in Ukrainian blood, both civilian and military.)  

I was trying to find a guess or info as to how much dumb 155mm artillery ammo we have stockpiled, and I didn't find anything.  I would presume that this would be considered classified.  What I was able to find indicated that prior to 2018 our production could have been approximately 100k per year.  Since then, budgetary spending for was allocated to be up to 180k per year (that doesn't mean it happened).  These shells have a shelf life of no more than 20 years.   Essentially, if all that were to hold true, prior to this conflict production would have been 2.4 million shells over that 20 year period.  It's been reported that we have allocated 1.1 million of these to Ukraine during this conflict, thus leaving us 1.3 million.  However, this wouldn't take into account practice shots for our people, or arms deals we have made for allies.  This also wouldn't account for last year or more recent ramp ups.  In short, I would guess our stocks are low, but I'd also presume that our production level will more than make up for it, and quickly if need be.  

In short, war is hard.  It's hard and it sucks.  Just the way it is.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

16 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

Haven't found much confirmation of this, but worth tracking moving forward.

That will get Russia attacking Kazakhstan, because that’s fucking humiliating.  They can’t ignore that.  

[BamaATL 16,593]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

That will get Russia attacking Kazakhstan, because that’s fucking humiliating.  They can’t ignore that.  

They got fucking foreclosed on, that's hilarious.  

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

15 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

They got fucking foreclosed on, that's hilarious.  

I would love to see the evening Russian state TV shows spin this.  

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

43 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

Haven't found much confirmation of this, but worth tracking moving forward.

https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/03/russian-assets-seized-at-the-baikonur-cosmodrome

 

[KYHorn 17,017]

Different clip from last page. Similar situation.

Probably not indicative of offensive locations, but interesting.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by KYHorn

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,732]

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,732]

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,732]

 

[Parliament 14,249]

Why would Saudi Arabia buy oil from Russia?  They already have so much.  Makes no sense...

[Scheiss Meister 8,407]

37 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Why would Saudi Arabia buy oil from Russia?  They already have so much.  Makes no sense...

Buy cheap, blend with theirs, sell at their price.  Saudi helps Russia dodge sanctions and makes a profit while they're at it.  Saudis are bastards.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Scheiss Meister
Oh good Lord. There, their, they're.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

If Russia follows through and tries to fuck with the price of aluminum, I expect Elmo to start up more tweeting about how Ukraine should stop the war.

[Pato del Muerto 52,487]

Hide your catalytic converters. 

[PTINS 3,466]

5 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

We're far from empty, but I'd argue we've already been tapping into our emergency reserve as it is.

The Ukraine defense minister has said that the Ukraine army can be effective in launching 360,000 shells per month. That would be the ideal. They've asked for about 60% of that, or 250,000 shells per month. My guess is they know they won't get that amount, but maybe it would help get something closer to it than farther away.

Thanks for the info!

Re: 360,000 shells/month. By my way of thinking, that translates to 360,000 targets, ~ 100,000 hits, casualties or mobile targets, plains, trains, & automobiles, tanks, artillery pieces, APC's, Ammo dumps, HQ, etc.

What is a reasonable expectation of shells fired to targets hit? When I saw this I immediately thought of M777 howitzers and smart 155 mm shells delivered within 10 feet of the target. Theses must be but a small part of the total.

I guess across a 500 mile front, that translates to 24 shells/per mile/per day.  Staggering numbers when you think about it.

I'll hang up and listen. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by PTINS
typo

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

[AUS-97HORN 11,757]

5 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

"This unit appears to be a BTR-50PU command&staff subvariant, adopted in 1958, however it is unclear for what role it will be used now.

 

uh.....

 

target practice?

[BamaATL 16,593]

For those interested in how a Russian ground force would fare against the US (and why the US doesn't need dumb artillery), I suggest watching this

 

[BamaATL 16,593]

RPG's on drones mind you, not anti tank weapons

Orikhiv to Melitopol is about 40km and would cut the rails

 

[KYHorn 17,017]

8 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

RPG's on drones mind you, not anti tank weapons

Orikhiv to Melitopol is about 40km and would cut the rails

 

More context

 

 

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

Russian KIA and POW at the end of the 3rd vid:

 

 

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30,189]

I just finished watching a series called Age of Tanks on Netflix.    Episode four talks about the T 14 tank built by Russia. They talk about how amazed the world was that Russia secretly built the first modern tank in decades with a turret that is totally automated with no tankers inside.  The show mention that Putin wanted 2000 delivered by 2022. (2017 show)
As it turns out, the Russian miracle tank is a piece of shit that has design and mechanical problems so daunting that only 100 tanks have been made. The episode started out discussing the use of the T 72 tank in the first Chechnya invasion, and how the Chechnya’s wiped out numerous T 72 tank battalions with RPGs from 2d and 3rd floor buildings.    We know see Ukraine mounting RPG‘s on drones and taking out T 72 tanks again.
Russia and the T-62 tanks from the 1960s and the armored personnel carriers from the 1950s is not going to defeat Ukraine anytime soon.   
Ukraine needs to keep training new troops on modern western equipment, and gathering all of their kit for an all fronts offensive sometime later this spring.  I am increasingly convinced that Russia simply does not have enough armor in reserve to do much to stop it.

[Nivek 16,923]

The armata has the quality engineering of the Iranian Stealth fighter.