User Controls
Military Genius Zelensky wants Ukrainians to throw molotovs at Russian tanks
-
2023-07-07 at 11:37 AM UTC
Ukrainians are using new infantry-intensive tactics that their commanders developed with NATO, after 3 weeks of failed classical attacks that only led to mass loss of equipment, demoralisation and retreats.
https://twitter.com/narrative_hole/status/1677264491845677056
Now they attack continuously using small tactical groups of infantry, knowing that Russians are much more averse to manpower losses.
As soon as close combat becomes imminent, Russians retreat and let artillery work on Ukrainian infantry sitting on the abandoned positions, which usually ends with Ukrainians suffering losses and fleeing.
However several such attacks can gradually push Russians to a new line, where the same meat assaults are repeated. This is how in 2 weeks Russians were pushed back 3 miles on the Vremevsky bridgehead.
NATO and Ukrainian commanders believe that in 2 weeks they will be able to overcome the Russian buffer zone and begin storming the main defense line.
On top of it, these tactics force Russian artillery to spend ammo stocks faster than they’re able to replenish them, and In just two weeks they may approach depletion.
Of course, these are meat tactics that lead to massive infantry looses, but it’s something Ukraine is willing to do - and it looks better to take losses for small advances than for no success at all as happened at the start of the offensive.
Basically continued waves of humans causes the Russian defences to eventually exhaust themselves. -
2023-07-07 at 11:45 AM UTCbut I thought Russia was eating 200k dead from using human wave attacks :(
-
2023-07-07 at 11:57 AM UTCMEAT TACTICS
MEAT ASSAULTS
it's like that time my friends all met at the "meet house" and I thought it was the "meat house" because the dudes there were all meaty buff guys that liked to GET TUFF so I thought they were meat heads and the house was named after them
No it was just a house where they meet and i'm insane -
2023-07-07 at 11:57 AM UTCyou should've brought stakes for the meatup
-
2023-07-07 at 12:03 PM UTCHUman meat tactics, the meatgrinder, a meat-offensive, a meat-defensive. Meat on retreat, meat casualty, meat atrocities of war
I feel like i've seen this in a pink floyd video
read the noseThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-07-07 at 12:34 PM UTC
-
2023-07-07 at 2:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump https://twitter.com/narrative_hole/status/1677264491845677056
Basically continued waves of humans causes the Russian defences to eventually exhaust themselves.
till the russians bring in inciendary and/or cluster munition. -
2023-07-07 at 2:18 PM UTCAP mines are pretty much just cluster munitions with a longer lifespan
-
2023-07-07 at 2:22 PM UTC
-
2023-07-07 at 2:41 PM UTCThe logical way to deal with breakthroughs nowadays is with air power, cos it can get to where it is needed quickly.
So Ukrainians are pretty much like WW1 Stormtroopers trying to infiltrate trenches in order to take on the combined arms of the 21st Century Red Army.
Ernst Junger never had to face anything like that. -
2023-07-08 at 2:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump The logical way to deal with breakthroughs nowadays is with air power, cos it can get to where it is needed quickly.
So Ukrainians are pretty much like WW1 Stormtroopers trying to infiltrate trenches in order to take on the combined arms of the 21st Century Red Army.
Ernst Junger never had to face anything like that.
air power is only good for slow moving targets like tanks and IFVs that can be seen from a great distance with IR, out of MANPADS range.
air power is absolutely useless against troops on foot bearing MANPADS and RPGs. -
2023-07-08 at 2:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny air power is only good for slow moving targets like tanks and IFVs that can be seen from a great distance with IR, out of MANPADS range.
air power is absolutely useless against troops on foot bearing MANPADS and RPGs.
it's standoff scissors - paper - rock
air power is the cheapest way to deliver large amounts of ordinance IF it can be used to deliver weapons uncontested
if the enemy has credible air defence, though, you have to factor in the chance of losing aircraft and air crews (pilots are notoriously expensive to train).
if, like earlier in the war, the enemy has both cheap low-altitude weapons like AA guns and MANPADs and high-altitude interceptors like the S-x00s, it's too risky to try to deliver strikes with aircraft so they fall back on drones and long-range missiles. there's also the option of using standard artillery or rocket artillery but the drawback there is that their range is nowhere near what high-altitude bombers or cruise missiles can achieve.
if they have only expensive interceptors the enemy can be encouraged to waste those munitions on much cheaper decoys, or if they only have shorter-range MANPADs and AA guns they will be unable to engage high-altitude bombers -
2023-07-08 at 2:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra it's standoff scissors - paper - rock
air power is the cheapest way to deliver large amounts of ordinance IF it can be used to deliver weapons uncontested
if the enemy has credible air defence, though, you have to factor in the chance of losing aircraft and air crews (pilots are notoriously expensive to train).
if, like earlier in the war, the enemy has both cheap low-altitude weapons like AA guns and MANPADs and high-altitude interceptors like the S-x00s, it's too risky to try to deliver strikes with aircraft so they fall back on drones and long-range missiles. there's also the option of using standard artillery or rocket artillery but the drawback there is that their range is nowhere near what high-altitude bombers or cruise missiles can achieve.
if they have only expensive interceptors the enemy can be encouraged to waste those munitions on much cheaper decoys, or if they only have shorter-range MANPADs and AA guns they will be unable to engage high-altitude bombers
it depends on your definition of "cheap".
in this context, in the steeps and flat plains of ukraine getting bombers up there to drop tons of unguided bomb over vast wheatfields might not be "cheap" under certain calculation because what ? a plane load of ordnances to kill between 15-70 combatants ?
is that cheap ?
have you ever truly try to fathom the scale and fire-to-hit ratio ? remember early in the SMO where the russian side as firing like 50-60K shells a day and the ukrainian losses was like 500-600 ? thats like 100 shells for each ukrainian loss.
ever ponder how much is 60k shells per day is ?
now try calculate how many sorties are needed to destroy an entire batallion spreaded out into platoons moving towards the frontline. -
2023-07-08 at 3:06 PM UTCstatistically I think the US marines expend around 2,000 cartridges per kill in Afghanistan and Iraq; modern tactics tend to favour using an overwhelming volume of munitions to control an area and kill the enemy while minimising losses. enfilade and defilade aren't really important in the face of fire team tactics nowadays
assuming a plane load of ordinance only kills 50 or so combatants on average, what do you think would be the more cost-effective way to do it? keep in mind using infantry or armor runs the risk of significant losses of your own, whereas if you have air superiority the only real cost is fuel, maintenance and the munitions themselves -
2023-07-08 at 4:02 PM UTCA plane load of ordinance to kill 50 enemy soldiers is a massive bargain.
-
2023-07-09 at 1:07 PM UTC
First annual NAFO summit was held in Vilnius yesterday.
https://twitter.com/The_Real_Fly/status/1677847458343256064 -
2023-07-09 at 1:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra statistically I think the US marines expend around 2,000 cartridges per kill in Afghanistan and Iraq; modern tactics tend to favour using an overwhelming volume of munitions to control an area and kill the enemy while minimising losses. enfilade and defilade aren't really important in the face of fire team tactics nowadays
afghan is/was different. lots of caves, mountains, natural protected hideouts and against sparsely stationed militia that made remote strikes difficult and ineffective.assuming a plane load of ordinance only kills 50 or so combatants on average, what do you think would be the more cost-effective way to do it? keep in mind using infantry or armor runs the risk of significant losses of your own, whereas if you have air superiority the only real cost is fuel, maintenance and the munitions themselves
takes a lot of efforts and materiel.
sending a bomber up there doesnt just mean sending A bomber. modern bombing and those that russians do in this SMO entails sending an entourage of planes per sorty.
just the other day they lost 4 planes in one single incident. so thats just the bare minimum. one bomber, one fighter escort, one recovery and an EW suit, so I imagine sending an actual bomber would entail sending 2 fighters and perhaps an equal number of EW and recovery plane.
the thing is unguided bombs that are dropped from a plane is only good against static, big objects like factory and buildings where high blast saturation is ideal, like against azovstahl plant.
not sure it would be cost effective on wheatfields with just a few personels per square KM.
what type of bomb do you propose and whats your recomended plane for delivery ?
so the most cost effective means would be what the russians are already doing; good old fashioned artillery strikes. -
2023-07-09 at 1:34 PM UTC
-
2023-07-09 at 1:54 PM UTCThe most effective way to kill and maim them all is to ship them free jabs.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2023-07-09 at 4:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny afghan is/was different. lots of caves, mountains, natural protected hideouts and against sparsely stationed militia that made remote strikes difficult and ineffective.
I was talking about small arms, assault rifles, just as a general reference not a direct comparison. most of the munitions fired are meant to restrict the enemy's movement and overwhelm them so that they can be killed without being able to accurately return fire.
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny takes a lot of efforts and materiel.
sending a bomber up there doesnt just mean sending A bomber. modern bombing and those that russians do in this SMO entails sending an entourage of planes per sorty.
just the other day they lost 4 planes in one single incident. so thats just the bare minimum. one bomber, one fighter escort, one recovery and an EW suit, so I imagine sending an actual bomber would entail sending 2 fighters and perhaps an equal number of EW and recovery plane.
sure, but in comparison to cruise missiles for example, the delivery, targeting and EM suppression systems don't need to be built into every munition. if you can reasonably guarantee that the planes won't be attacked the savings are huge.
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny the thing is unguided bombs that are dropped from a plane is only good against static, big objects like factory and buildings where high blast saturation is ideal, like against azovstahl plant.
not sure it would be cost effective on wheatfields with just a few personels per square KM.
what type of bomb do you propose and whats your recomended plane for delivery ?
thermobaric glide bombs from heavyweight bombers, maximising the volume of bombs per plane. thermobarics can kill people over wide areas because the power of the shockwave causes lungs to collapse, and they work by burning the oxygen out of the air so men in cover like trenches can simply suffocate depending on circumstances. they may not penetrate heavy armor but they can effectively disable equipment by damaging external mechanisms like wheels and treads, sensors, loaders etc.
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny so the most cost effective means would be what the russians are already doing; good old fashioned artillery strikes.
in terms of pure cost to deploy and fire sure, but they're limited by range and the fact that the enemy has comparable pieces which restricts where you can move them - even with superiority in accuracy and the volume of munitions you can throw at the enemy, you'll still suffer attrition from counterbattery fire and vital enemy infrastructure will be kept out of their range as much as possible
