User Controls
Military Genius Zelensky wants Ukrainians to throw molotovs at Russian tanks
-
2023-02-22 at 1:04 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:05 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:07 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:08 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:10 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:11 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:25 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:35 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:37 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 1:41 PM UTCHow
...by doing the calculations, research etc etc.
Chinaman still doesn't understand "Engrish" -
2023-02-22 at 1:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Wariat https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-tried-to-launch-satan-ii-missile-while-biden-was-in-kyiv/ar-AA17Ngt5
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-2-21-23/h_e06ab944d1d129af8f8006a4a540f71e
story comes from two anonymous US officials who can't even agree on when the test supposedly occurredRussia carried out a test of an intercontinental ballistic missile that appears to have failed around the time President Joe Biden was in Ukraine on Monday, according to two US officials familiar with the matter.
…
CNN initially reported the apparent test occurred while Biden was in Ukraine, based on information from sources. After this story was first published, one of the officials said the test occurred just before Biden was in the country. The second source had told CNN that the test was on Monday without providing any more specific timing.
SARMAT II's already been tested a few times though so I dunno -
2023-02-22 at 2:01 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 2:03 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 2:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-2-21-23/h_e06ab944d1d129af8f8006a4a540f71e
story comes from two anonymous US officials who can't even agree on when the test supposedly occurred
SARMAT II's already been tested a few times though so I dunno
there are more than 1 type of test. -
2023-02-22 at 2:05 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 2:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny doctrines arent universal dogma and different doctrines apply to different theaters. in continental ground war, yea, perhaps.
but how about intercontinental warfare with the US like the old cold war days ? did their doctrine favored artilleries and missiles ?
direct war with the US would immediately go nuclear. in terms of strategic weapons the US initially favoured bombers and (to a lesser extent) submarines, Russia favoured ICBMs. both sides eventually adopted submarines more and more (they're probably the most effective part of the US nuclear triad), the US has largely neglected it's ground-based 'deterrent' in favour of stealth aircraft, and Russia has largely abandoned long-range bombers in favour of more advanced missiles like the hypersonics.
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i dont really understand why bombers were used. are those missiles exclusively for bombers ?
pretty sure they can be mounted on lighter fighters but only in small numbers. I can't remember specific numbers but the modernised Tu-160s can carry and fire something like 24 X-101 missiles at once, would save a lot of airtime and maintenance to make use of them considering they're flying way outside the range of any anti-air
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i understand those are old s-300s, buks and tochka Os, which russians definitely have an answer to by now.
I think the problem is that when planes get radar checked they don't know for sure what's locking onto them, which forces them down into the range of MANPADs and AA guns. S-200s and 300s can still potentially kill modern fighters, Tochkas are surface-to-surface -
2023-02-22 at 2:25 PM UTC
-
2023-02-22 at 2:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra direct war with the US would immediately go nuclear. in terms of strategic weapons the US initially favoured bombers and (to a lesser extent) submarines, Russia favoured ICBMs. both sides eventually adopted submarines more and more (they're probably the most effective part of the US nuclear triad), the US has largely neglected it's ground-based 'deterrent' in favour of stealth aircraft, and Russia has largely abandoned long-range bombers in favour of more advanced missiles like the hypersonics.
hypersonics are still mostly submarine launched.
and so like i said, russia do not have doctorines that favor one type or armament over the others. it all depends on the kind of warfare that are being fought.
before trump nuclear war was almost unimaginable. then trump came in and decided to play "loose cannon with nukes" character and now with biden dont be surprised if nuclear war broke out for no reason at all.
i mean if he can blow up civilian infrastructure of allies what he cant do to his proclaimed enemies might shock you.pretty sure they can be mounted on lighter fighters but only in small numbers. I can't remember specific numbers but the modernised Tu-160s can carry and fire something like 24 X-101 missiles at once, would save a lot of airtime and maintenance to make use of them considering they're flying way outside the range of any anti-air
doesnt it cost alot more to fly an actual bomber than to fly multiple smaller fighter-bombers.I think the problem is that when planes get radar checked they don't know for sure what's locking onto them, which forces them down into the range of MANPADs and AA guns. S-200s and 300s can still potentially kill modern fighters, Tochkas are surface-to-surface
i didnt know combat planes fly lower when getting radar checked. -
2023-02-22 at 3:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra
i wasnt joking when i said this vid was sponsored by nissan.
anyway this proves nothing. so he did a promotional video, whatever he was promoting. none of this have anything to do with his effectiveness as a commander in combat operations or as a leader of his people.
did he sent out waves after waves of his men into the halal meat grinder according to braniggans doctrine ? did he sent his assault troops further than his supply lines could keep up ?
did he commited the biggest retreat in the history of organized military. -
2023-02-22 at 9:51 PM UTC
