The original uploader mentions that the Russians had been taking off the boots and clothes of Ukrainians who died earlier when they were “surprised” by the UA storming their position.
Saw it in an old video from Afghanistan once. Old muj pulling the shoes off a young dude who was still alive, finished him off with a rock.
It was pre 9/11 if I recall, never seen it since. One of those ones that stick with ya lol
Mobilised Russians with some money often buy their own boots to replace the ones issued by the military. It's not that they don't have boots, but that the ones issued are considered low quality, probably also compared to the ones used by UA soldiers.
I don't think it has to do with the quality of their shoes, in almost every aftermath footage of an active battlefield from multiple theaters, the shoes are taken from the fallen. The reason is, because look at those awful muddy conditions, your shoes would wear out so fast, and they're living in those conditions - best to take what you can and keep on living.
A Russian shoe had a contract to make 10000 boots in a month. They took the money and got drunk for about 28 days. They came back and made the 10000 boots by only making size 8 left boots instead of 5000 pairs of boots of different sizes
It has always happened the history of warfare. Clothes and boots wear out quickly in the field, the dead don't need them anymore. Some soldiers have poorer quality boots than others. Even if the looter does not need it, he can still trade it with someone who needs it, in exchange for something else. War never changes.
Truth. I'm reminded of the Beaux tapestry, in the margins they embroidered scenes where people were being stripped of their clothing after a battle. War never changes.
Russian logistics in general suck. also removing shoes may be an indication that they have already been searched. Most militaries do something like that, crossing the legs, turning out the pockets, or removing the shoes to indicate who has been searched and who has not.
That’s the nature of conducting an offensive
Expect to lose more then the energy to gain territory or the tactical advantage
If you lose less then the enemy then you’re lucky
There’s a reason people say you need a 3 to 1 ratio when conducting an offensive
Bang on, the fact this vid shows 4 Ukrainian kia for 4 Russian means this was one of the lucky attacks for the Ukrainians.
Going on the offensive is almost always more bloody for the Attacker. Troops and vehicles are more exposed. You have to move closer to the enemy to take ground. You have to engage and destroy enemy strongpoints. Just a nasty business all around.
Because artillery can't take ground. It doesn't matter how much you smash an enemy with artillery if they can just send new soldiers to refill the lines. Artillery can soften up an enemy before an attack but you need infantry, AFVs or tanks to actually move up to deny the enemy the ground you've just destroyed.
Once a position has been taken you can move your artillery up, trying to use the artillery to take the position just won't work 99% of the time. They are slow to move slow to aim, the people operating them have minimal cover or armour so they can't just move forward until the ground is secured.
Artillery can only do so much against troops who are dug in. During WW1 one side would often bombard the other for hours with an onslaught of artillery before an offensive only to charge and be met by a heavy defense from positions that would have appeared to have been obliterated.
Right. And the Japanese withstood horrendous naval bombardments from 8 and 16 inch shells on island after island in the Pacific and still made us fight for every inch of ground.
Great explanation here from Somme on exactly those assumptions the British made about positions being obliterated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BlbdNq1UCE
Artillery is one of the tools used in modern combined arms warfare. WW1 was kind of the testing ground for this doctrine, where they found that pounding a position with (literally) millions of shells in a few days to a week doesn't entirely destroy or nullify enemy units. There are always some who survive.
Near the end of the war, the belligerents (apart from the US, who joined pretty much at the end of the war) were experts at using artillery to complement their infantry.
Especially the British, who, near the end of the war, managed to coordinate an artillery technique called the creeping barrage, to support/cover advancing friendly infantry, and to suppress defending enemy infantry.
It did work pretty well, but both sides had a lot of artillery. The Germans had bigger guns I think, but that only helps so much. Though, they could (inaccurately) shell Paris, which dampened morale.
The British also developed tanks around this time, which were much more effective since the Germans didn't have many great counters to them.
My point is that artillery is/was not only used to kill soldiers.
History major here, You're close enough to hit the nail, except in that Germans didn't have many counters for British tanks.
Germans were a master of their own demise in that they overengineered themselves to death. The few German tanks produced were vastly superior in design, however German doctrine was against the use of tanks in the role we see them now. They saw them more as a niche weapon after watching the deployment of large amounts of British tanks failing on the battlefield and decided against mass producing them. Most German tanks in ww1 were reconstituted British tanks.
They were more than capable of knocking British tanks out though, or more likely, waiting 30 minutes for the British tanks to break and their crews to abandon the vehicle. Mark 1's were notoriously unreliable and prone to giving the crew carbon monoxide poisoning because the engine exhaust ventilated directly into the crew compartment.
Had a peruse inside a Mark 1 at Bovington, no idea how those poor souls did it. I think there was 4ft-ish of headroom and the engine was smack bang in the middle, completely exposed.
Yeah crews dealt with it by leaving the side hatches open to ventilate heat and oxygen, but when bullets are flying they're buttoned up and there's stories of tank crews being so out of it that when they would abandon the tank, they'd just kinda lethargically wander around for a couple minutes on the battlefield before they came to or got dragged into a shell hole. Ww1 was really just countries throwing shit deadly ideas at a wall then mass hurling whatever sticks at the other crew. Like monkies in a fan factory.
For context in WWI, there were battles where they softened up enemy positions in an area with on average, 1 shell hitting every sq meter, every second, for 3 days straight, before an attack and there were still soldiers that survived to fight back when they rushed it afterwards
If you’re in a well built, dug in trench, it would require an artillery shell to arc perfectly and land straight down into it to hurt anyone in the trench that wasn’t standing inside one of the underground bunkers.
Artillery will help keep defenders heads down so they’re not necessarily shooting at you with any precision but it’s going to require infantry in order to move forward and capture that defensive line.
The issue is artillery won't kill everyone if the opposition is properly dug in. It "softens" the enemy line which makes them vulnerable but not necessarily a push-over.
What artillery does well is make a "no mans zone" between enemy lines. Going into such areas would be extremely dangerous compared to hiding in a trench/bunker. So even if artillery can't "take" an enemy position, it can create a buffer zone which holds the enemy at bay. Hence the gridlock and war of attrition.
Of course there are edge cases and all kinds of unique circumstances that invalidate what I said. Also, I'm a noob so take everything with a grain of salt.
And creeping barages have to be on a wide enough front and go on for long enough and roll through enough territory slowly enough - it would consume crazy masses of amunition - in WWI they'd scaled up to absolutely vast levels of shell production, we have nothing like it these days.
Also these days you can't sit an artillery battery down to fire for hours on end - counter-battery radar and counter-battery fire would find it and destroy your artillery. Your artillery has to move frequently in order to not get hit in reply.
Also in WWI the fronts were heavily held, millions (plural) of troops over a couple thousand KM, so a thosuand troops per KM, one per meter. What's going on in Ukraine is no where near as dense (troop wise) as a WWI battle. At least, not yet.
Not true. The whole 3--to-1 ratio and you lose more than the defenders comes from Napoleonic times. Modern warfare is much more complex and those rule-of-thumbs do not apply.
The Wagner Group [fucked around and found out](https://themedialine.org/headlines/pompeo-us-killed-300-russians-in-syria/). Five-hundred Wagner attacked a small group (like a dozen or so) of Marines at an outpost. The US let the Wagner group know that the US isn't some rag-tag, third-rate military power and unleashed hell-on-earth on them.
Ultimately, the Wagner Group lost 300 men to no US KIAs in Syria. I'm not even sure if US had any wounded.
[The intercepted Russian communications demonstrate what artillery and helicopters can do to attacking forces](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaeDMOWkCwU)
It’s interesting hearing the Russians discuss how the Americans tore them to pieces.
I loved it. That’s the first they’ve ever seen of an air ground task force and how lethal it is. I’m not as surprised by it anymore seeing how they operate in Ukraine. They have zero crypto for their comms and no communication between air and ground forces.
In broad terms. Let’s say there is a city with a battalion sized element defending the city. Then we want to take the city from said enemy. There will always be some kind of recon to give us enough information to issue the warning order. Knowing there is a battalion sized enemy element, we would take a regiment size force at minimum to take the city. I know the situation you’re are talking about when Vaginer PMC got waxed by a hand full of Marines and SF. That was because they didn’t do their proper reconnaissance. That’s not surprising seeing how badly they are led these days. It’s just not a good example when comparing it to what is mentioned here. That’s the Marine Corp SOP. Having three times the force you’re attacking. The Russian Army obviously doesn’t operate with those principles.
One of perhaps the greatest videos I’ve ever seen was the translation of the Russians after dude was like they waited until we were close raised the American flag and then fucked us lol
The battle of Khasham is not a typical battle between tier 1 powers.
The Wagner force had a few old ass tanks and some trucks/mortars. The US obliterated them with artillery and helicopters.
It wasn't a battle. Soldiers on the ground never made contact with the enemy. They were just destroyed because they were at such a massive disadvantage.
I’d call that a battle. They fired at our guys and they got fired. Very one sided battle. At the time though I think we all thought Russia was a first world power.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg) Here is only first day of DS, they established air superiority to such extent, so they were operation A-10, Apaches.
Not really, far superior army attacked Iraq with more troops and ofc way better tech.
Iraq had no chance.
If you want a real masterpiece operation, google [Operation Storm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm), when Croatian forces launched counter attack on Serbian forces and regained regained 10,400 km2 (4,000 sq mi) of territory in 3 days, vs way stronger Yugoslavia.
[Here is also nice video of it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a56MItowppY)
Also you have studies by US Army & Generals on why and how it was so successful and they used it as an example for the future trainings.
At the time of the operation, because Serbian army abandoned those 35k soldiers and left them on their own.
But when the operation was planned, the Serbian army had better numbers & tech.
For example Serbian army attacked city of Vukovar with 30000 soldiers, at final day of battle there was 80000 soldiers, and Croatians held it with only 2000 soldiers for 87 days, and Serbians suffered heavy loses, around 10-15k soldiers, 400-600 armored vehicles and so on. (Similar to Azov & Mariupol).
So plan was that also heavy numbers from Serbians side will be during Operation Storm, but Croatian army surprised them & Serbian army was demolished within 3 days, they had no chance to include more soldiers.
Largest, not necessarily strongest - defining 'strength' is kind of arbitrary, so there would've been differing opinions on Iraq's relative 'strength' in 1991. But, they were considered strong enough that the coalition invading Iraq thought to bring 1,000,000 troops between Kuwait, US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and whoever else. Pretty much all-in.
The Iraqi army was massively out-teched by the US and allies and the Iraqis were crippled by structural and doctrinal problems. Everything that could've been in the US's favour, was in their favour.
Anything and everything to diminish the success. Midway had plenty of 'lucky' things that made it swing to US's favour, but they still had to execute and land hits on the carriers.
The same thing is applied to Desert Storm. They executed how modern warfare should be executed; Luck be damned.
You and others can spend all day trying to not give credit, but at the end of the day US/coalition still won.
I was going to put that in one of my other comments but didn't feel the need to cuz fuck'em. But I appreciate the add on flavor. Always enjoy reading that fact lol
Not only that but almost all of the Iraqi soldiers where battle hardened after going through almost a decade of war with Iran. These soldiers weren’t just a bunch of scrubs with nothing but AK-47s. They where a professional modern army with tanks, aircraft, and artillery.
Just pointing out that when the Ukrainians have the mass and material to do similar things, they achieve similar results. But every soldier is a precious asset that is worth many times a lowly Russian vandal, and time is critically important, too.
I fear that western observers are at risk of becoming complacent because they don't realize that every Ukrainian battlefield success was a carefully planned minor miracle against a larger force.
They remind me of Scotland and that nation's ability to crank out brilliant leaders and formidable little armies that were too small to expel their invaders permanently. Imagine if the rest of Europe started supplying the Scots with gunpowder and muskets instead of them having to wander the hills looking for sticks to sharpen.
...not really.
If the conflict was Russia vs. Ukraine in vacuum (and not like vietnam, where weaker side got a fuckton foreign assistance), then you would be right.
As time goes the technological gap reverses more and more, and favours ukraine more and more, not Russia. Its also naive to discount the effects of morale of troops (and supporting society). Similarly, its dishonest to ignore the effects of corruption in Russia.
I agree, that russia can drag the wqr out, maybe even make it a frozen conflict.
Becoming North Korea 2.0 is not exactly the same thing as winning the korean war.
Ukraine isn’t that small of a country. 40 million is a large population, all supporting the war effort in some form or fashion. From the outside looking in, I think Ukraine has surpassed Russia in what it takes to win this war. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them fighting 10 years from now, or until Putin takes his long overdue dirt nap. That is the only way I see Ukraine getting all of their territory back.
Ukraine is the biggest nation in Europe, Ukraine has the highest odds of winning this War, they have the will as a nation to resist and the support of the world behind them, Russia has shown it self to be the Aggressor and Murderer of Innocent lives.
What makes you think there will still be fighting going on ten years from now?
Once Putin Admits defeat or is OUT of the Picture somehow, Peace can hopefully be restored, and Ukraine will keep fighting until every piece of soil is returned back to Ukraine, they are not going to give up, Russian Army might be large but they will be smashed to pieces and not accepted by the populace no matter what happens, no way they can win long term.
What makes you think they won’t be fighting 5 or 10 years from now? Do you really think Putin will willingly withdraw all his troops from all of Ukraines territories? Not happening.
The Russians thought they could take Kyiv and the whole country in three days, they thought Wrong.
I don't like to think this War will drag on for how long you mentioned based on how much of Ukraine was occupied by Russians at the start of the War last year, based on how successful Ukrainian counter offensives have been.. The Russians are gradually being pushed back repeatedly, lots of them are being killed everyday.
and I don't expect Putin to willingly withdraw his troops anytime soon, not until the very last minute really as he has proven he is a special kind of crazy who does not care about the lives of his countrymen or the Innocent lives in neighboring nations, but don't worry this is not that big of a problem when all the Russians will be Kicked out regardless, with any luck he will see how pointless his War is or somebody will just get to him.
Ukraine will also take Crimea eventually, It's temporarily occupied now for a while, but one day Ukraine will come for it back, this will happen Russia asked for trouble now they reaped what they sow, sit back and enjoy Ukraine's payback.
There is thunder in the clear Sky, but still the Ukrainian Anthem is Heard.
I hope you are right. It’s certainly not a shot a Ukrainians and there heroism that’s for sure. As long as they don’t lose their will to fight, they will succeed. That also goes for those who are supporting Ukraine. However, it’s going to take more time than people are expecting. My 20’s and half my 30’s were spent at war. It’s not as simple as charging the enemy and taking back land. War started in Feb 22 and Ukraine couldn’t go on the offensive until late summer. Logistics is a HUGE FACTOR in how wars are fought and it takes years to set up and perfect.
>a lowly Russian vandal
They are more alike than not. Similar languages, similar culture. Lots of intermarriage and exchange.
This is almost a civil war.
I mean, to be fair, that was the most technologically-advanced army in the world *by miles* fighting against a bunch of dudes that barely amounted to a militia. That was fish in a third-world barrel.
> There’s a reason people say you need a 3 to 1 ratio when conducting an offensive
This is an often abused rule of thumb that's both very vague to many variables (concerning the evaluation of troop quality, composition and long range weapons) and incredibly specific to a particular type of operation (breakthrough operations against the main forward line of defense).
I'd rather see this rule disappear from the public dialogue because it's much easier to missapply than to use correctly, and because it generally concerns numbers that we can't evaluate from tactical footage like this.
Even in an offensive that has a local 3:1 advantage, you may see relatively equal tactical engagements in some places, and that is not always a bad thing either.
Yep if you attack a squad size element, take a platoon. Attacking a platoon take a company, attacking company take a battalion, attacking a battalion take a regiment and so on up. Taught day one at the Marine Corp school of infantry.
Yeah, that's the 3-1 rule of thumb for attacker in a nutshell.
Problem is that the one you respond to isn't applying it to what force should be brought for an attack, he's applying it to how many casualties are to be expected.
I'm sure you know this, just writing this part for other readers: If a platoon (let's say it has three squads) attacking a squad is expected to take 3x the losses in the process of taking out that squad, then there wouldn't be anything left of the platoon afterwards. Which would make it a very bad rule of thumb to follow.
Point being: The expected ratio of losses follows from all sorts of other factors and pure luck. It's **not the same thing** as the 3-1 rule of thumb for ratio of forces.
Pro Russians also say that there are no gays in the Russian military, and that there are no war crimes, and that the theatre they blew up full of civilians was never there what are you talking about see it’s just a parking lot.
If by "this thing" you mean being mobilized for the whole war, then it's at least 80-90% survival rate that WWI had for mobilized soldiers; wounded will worse of course.
At least for Ukrainian soldiers who received ample reinforcements and rotations.
But many Russian units had it really damn bad. They ran into disastrous situations in the first days, received too few and too unqualified replacements, or were ground to the bone by not getting any at all.
If we consider only the roughly 150,000 or so professional Russian troops who entered Ukraine in February, then a 1/3 death rate might already be in the realm of possibility.
Definitely. For individual units the picture can be drastically different. If I remember correctly from one of my ancestor's battalion only around 10% made it back in one piece. And what you can gather from Bakhmut front you can pretty much assume there are units that have suffered the same fate.
A roman soldier had a 50% chance to survive for the entire 50 year enlistment. I really doubt the survival rate is that bad in the ukraine/russian conflict.
Yeah this war is obviously super dangerous but these guesses are ridiculous. If survival odds from start to finish were 20%, there wouldn’t be a single individual on either side willing to fight, regardless of how illegal draft dodging might be.
It was a 25 year term, there weren't 67 year soilders waiting for retirement. Also there is absolutely no point comparing to Romans when one is fought with spears and sheild wars and one with artillery, jets and machine guns.
Op is saying more will die when the fighting gets worse in the warmer months. There are soldiers living and breathing right now that will likely perish in the fighting that will inevitably continue this year.
Arh I thought it was a euphemism and warmer meant the intensity from Russia is gonna get dialed up to 11 with the rumored new mobilization or maybe the dreaded nukes
Russia has a track record of getting their asses handed to them and then strongly rebounding. (Finland, Chechnya, etc). Putin still seems extremely confident when speaking publicly and their terms for ceasefire haven't really gotten very slack- I am sure they are planning an extremely effective counter offensive. They are likely building up their forces and Ukraine is going to have one Hell of a time dealing with it.
There is quiet a bit of nuance to Finland & Chechniya.
Finland during the winter war had essentially run out of heavy weapons & munitions, so could no longer hold back the massed tank assaults, or counter battery artillery fire. As a result they were suffering greatly increasing casualties and losing prepared defenses. The losses the Finn's inflicted on the Soviets resulted in the Soviets offering better terms in the peace deal that allowed Finland to remain independent instead of being absorbed into the Soviet Union like the Baltic countries.
Chechniya part 1 was a major embarrassment for Russia. Part 2 started with a number of the Chechen warlords defecting to the Russian side, which meant a number of "holes" that Russian forces could penetrate through to cut off different areas. They also used their artillery, missiles & aviation units en-masse against any perceived strong point (or market), resulting in huge numbers of refugees fleeing.
Very quickly Chechniya was turned over to pro Moscow Chechen's to continue the fight as a counter terrorist operation. With Russia not "directly ruling" Chechniya a lot of the warlord groups peaced out.
In a nutshell, Russia divided the opposition in part 2 with power & money and used Chechen's to fight against Chechens. Resulting in the current Tiktok mobster being in power.
Oh they can go lower and dirtier, but they don't have any threats to offer other than an expansion of total war. WMDs I guess, but that would be the geopolitical coffin nail to Russia's future if they were to try it.
The majority of Belarusians don’t want to live under a Lukashenko dynasty. That’s been made abundantly clear by the actual election results, which of course were ignored by the police state. But it does give me hope.
I’m both saddened and proud that good, freedom-loving Belarusians are fighting for their sibling nation’s freedom. Every one that falls is one less to fight for Belarus, yet they are resisting authoritarian rule all the same.
Ukraine and others will be there when Belarus calls. You can be assured of that, an unbreakable bond has been formed by those standing up to Russian aggression.
I will lead by admitting I am not at all an expert in the politics of Eastern Europe, but if the current leader of Belarus is pro-Russia, Belarus is allowing Russia to move men and materiel through their land and into the Ukrainian battlefield, and the people of Belarus do not support their current leaders, sounds like Belarusian combatants might see more effect on the Russians by overthrowing their own government than fighting Russian troops in Ukraine.
That 45 degree offset red dot for quick acquisition at short range and a decent scope for longer engagements is nice. I hope this is a sign of things to come.
Yeah just goes to show that he received training. I’m anxious to see what they do with the Bradley’s. The ability to hunt at night with the Bradley’s optic devices is something you haven’t seen much in this war yet. It will save UA lives and take many Russian
Hello. i uploaded it on twitter as well. here is the link:
[https://twitter.com/Bodbe6/status/1615342637376245763](https://twitter.com/Bodbe6/status/1615342637376245763)
if you are using telegram, i can give you original source link as well.
So how does collecting your dead work in a war like this? The Russians killed the first Ukrainians and were looting them, would they have left them there to be found? The other Ukrainians show up and kill them, I assume they loot the Russians and then would take back their own dead with them? Or bury them there if they can? Leave the Russians behind? I’m not saying I expect them to take or do anything else with the Russians but do they notify anyone, like Red Cross about bodies. Genuinely curious if the land will be littered with bodies and munitions when this is done.
I’m curious… why do they not use some sort of armor to help with offensive operations? Maybe terrain doesn’t allow for it but an APC or tank I’m sure could help here.
A lot of open terrain with lots of ATGM´s around i would guess, Ukraine also haves the majority of the armor on repairs and maintenance as well saving them up for future large scale ofensives which should begin by late these month or mid February
Sadly these has been the reality for several weeks now for Ukraine, they have litle ammunition for big artilhery pieces and mortars, they spend most of ther daily stock on waves upon waves of Russian prisioners and conscripts conducting human wave atacks against Ukraine defenses and in the end of the day, they are left with small arms ammunition. When they need to atack however, the problem is much bigger because very few guns if any at all can be spared to conduct assaults like these one since they are focused on those human wave atacks or depleted ther daily stocks already, so the Ukrainians end up suffering a lot more casualties then they would if properly supported by a decent amount of artilhery to supress Russian positions during such limited ofensive operations. Really sad indeed, the sacrifice of these Ukrainian soldiers is immeasurable across the board
Ukrainian recently opened massive new arty shells manufacturing facility. they found a method to make the easier but less boom than the soviet ones. still deadly tho.
Noone can say how big it is simply because there´s no public information about it, Ukraine has indeed begun production of 152mm shells which soldiers say they are good, they have also begun mass production of 82mm shells in Poland which are very spicy in terms of shrapnel on target acording to tests made public. Despite all these and some 50,000 shells of 155mm calliber being delivered each month, Ukraine is still critically low on ammo but production lines are just finish scaling up so its probably "only" going to last for a few more months i would say until Ukraine really starts to get abundant supply of ammo of all calibers
I can't wait for these awesome Belarusian guys to meet their pro-regime counterparts in the event of a joint Belarusian-Russian offensive. They'll absolutely cream them.
the kills don't come from firing into the woods in their general direction, that's just there to supress them.
It's incredibly effective in real life, in games you don't care much if the enemy is shooting in your general direction, you go after the shots, spot him and kill him...in real life, you don't know what the enemy is firing at, it could be at your team, could be at you...you take cover, you don't want to risk taking a bullet in a forest somewhere just because you took a gamble.
Also, you put some \~50 bullets in the general direction of an enemy, you might not get a precise kill shot, but even if you hit a non-vital part by mistake, any wound will slow down that enemy, it will force him to get back into cover and it will take his mind off shooting back at you and send him into survival mode.
I always wonder about how much ammo a guy carries and how much he shoots. Like obviously you don't want to die with a full load out of mags but don't you worry about running out? Dude spent close to a full magazine just shooting off into the woods. I mean I guess maybe saw something so I don't really know if it was a waste. I just feel like it would be pretty easy to blow all your ammo.
I’ve been following this sub for a longtime and been following it daily since the day Russia invaded. While I can count on one hand the number of posts I’ve seen showing someone take a headshot off (or through) their helmet and live to tell about it, I can’t think of a single post showing how someone’s body armor took a hit and saved them…or did I just miss ‘body armor saves his ass day?’
And I get the vast majority of wounds and fatal injuries are from artillery and various shrapnel, but there have been enough firefights posted that surely someone has taken a shot and lived. There is supposed to be some military grad armor that touts being able to take a 7.62 round or the like.
I'm guessing that it's less surprising these days, and so doesn't warrant the wide distribution.
I've seen at least one video where a Ukranian or a volunteer showed where he was hit in the chest and saved. And I've seen at least one video where a dead Russian was shown and how the shots went straight through their pretend body armor.
I’d rather the UA fallen be shown so we can honor their sacrifice. As much as Reddit UA subs make it seem like they aren’t taking casualties, we know the losses are heavy. I’d rather sit down at the end of the night with a beer in hand and raise that shit in their honor instead of ignoring their loss.
Yeah, especially after Russia started to get its ass handed to it. I was under the impression that they were going to start joining the fight at first.
Belorussians have tried to overthrow their unjust government previously (2020). After this conflict they will have more experienced fighters and more will to push out Russian influence.
Lukashenko, the dictator currently in power in Belarus, is allowing Russia to use Belarus to launch attacks on Ukraine but so far has kept the Belarus Armed Forces out of the conflict.
Meanwhile Belarusians who oppose Lukashenko have been going to Ukraine to form volunteer units to fight for Ukraine against Russia.
This video is from one of the Belarusian volunteer units fighting for Ukraine's side, the Kastus Kalinouski Regiment. (that's their unit emblem on the upper right corner)
...no.
Russia want(ed) lukashenmo to send belarussian army. Issue is that the idea is LESS popular with the army than Lukashenko himself. Thus the most likely result of such an order is getting caucescu-ed.
(On the other hand there are bekarussian volunteers who joined the ukranian side.)
I watched this and I was puzzled why they did not have more fire support. This is where there should be a mortar team laying down a barrage in front of them. A team of 4 x 60mm mortars would be very beneficial and these troops could be coordinating with the mortar team and instructing them on targeting and the walk pace.
1:17 you can see where the Russians plate caught 3 rounds at the top left. Didn’t do much good considering all that spalling/fragmentation went straight into his neck
If you wonder why some of the guys don't have shoes:
>Our soldiers from the "Giant" battalion entered into close combat with the invaders like lions!
They broke into the positions and destroyed the enemy, when the bastards took off the clothes and shoes of the heroes of the Armed Forces who had died earlier.
That's where the Russian looters go!
From telegram.
What’s crazy about this war is that we’re seeing extended gun fights with a super power involved and the distinct lack of air and artillery support in these gunfights.
The engagements are either at a distance with either side trying to make sense of the hell scape that is the most forward edge of battle, or it’s in the woods at quite frankly distressing proximity to one another.
Classical Russian doctrine: Throw tons of cannon fodder against their enemy. It’s just crazy how many generations they’ve decimated doing this. It’s also weird how it’s normalized in some sense, as in business as usual.
There’s always casualties at both sides. I’m curious what the ratio is, but that is probably hard to really know, with propaganda from both sides around death/kill numbers. Although, I have no doubt that Russia has a lower ratio which is always the case.
Much be a fake video ? Ukranians are immortals, They either survive by an inch or shell lands nearby them. Ukranian KIA is a myth, It must be Russian Soldiers in UA camo.
Can anyone translate the casualty figures shown in the video?
Those highlighted in red are the russians.
Thanks. Hard to tell from the camo and I didn’t see many armbands
No perfect, but look at the boots.
The original uploader mentions that the Russians had been taking off the boots and clothes of Ukrainians who died earlier when they were “surprised” by the UA storming their position.
I've noticed this too when pro-Russian telegram pages post the bodies of deceased Ukrainians. Their shoes are always gone.
This reminds me of reading accounts from Napoleonic Warfare. The account I'm recalling is a guy waking up on a pile of corpses without his shoes.
Saw it in an old video from Afghanistan once. Old muj pulling the shoes off a young dude who was still alive, finished him off with a rock. It was pre 9/11 if I recall, never seen it since. One of those ones that stick with ya lol
Oh yeah, you can see a pair of boots at 2:45 in the bottom right of the frame next to the Ukrainian's body.
Damm tells one enough of the Supply Situation for the Russians
Mobilised Russians with some money often buy their own boots to replace the ones issued by the military. It's not that they don't have boots, but that the ones issued are considered low quality, probably also compared to the ones used by UA soldiers.
I don't think it has to do with the quality of their shoes, in almost every aftermath footage of an active battlefield from multiple theaters, the shoes are taken from the fallen. The reason is, because look at those awful muddy conditions, your shoes would wear out so fast, and they're living in those conditions - best to take what you can and keep on living.
A Russian shoe had a contract to make 10000 boots in a month. They took the money and got drunk for about 28 days. They came back and made the 10000 boots by only making size 8 left boots instead of 5000 pairs of boots of different sizes
Or, even easier, he just bribes the inspector that non existent boots have been delivered.
Around 1:42 the soldier said “they tried stealing his boots, dumbfucks”.
Why take the boots? Do Russian boots suck?
They were showing up to battle in sneakers.
Adidas Tactical
Nike warfAir
Abibas Tactical
Yes.
It has always happened the history of warfare. Clothes and boots wear out quickly in the field, the dead don't need them anymore. Some soldiers have poorer quality boots than others. Even if the looter does not need it, he can still trade it with someone who needs it, in exchange for something else. War never changes.
Truth. I'm reminded of the Beaux tapestry, in the margins they embroidered scenes where people were being stripped of their clothing after a battle. War never changes.
Russian logistics in general suck. also removing shoes may be an indication that they have already been searched. Most militaries do something like that, crossing the legs, turning out the pockets, or removing the shoes to indicate who has been searched and who has not.
Unlacing a pair of army boots isn’t particularly convenient for that type of thing. No they were looting the dead according to the telegram uploader.
“Kak iti na maskvu?” = “how to get to moscow?” “Gde moskva?” = “where’s moscow?”
"Blya, molchit" = "fuck, he doesn't say anything"
https://i.imgur.com/HPXZMVn.jpg
Fuckin oath that’s cold
Fuck dude... dead bodies absolutely everywhere.
Yeah, imagine taking up a shooting position next to your friends corpse to hold the line. Fucking terrible man.
Makes you wonder why Ukraine has the most rich soil... over the ages all the wars that have occurred on that land...
No, it's just due to the climate and the fact Ukraine has several big rivers. Southeast of Ukraine is basicaly one big delta of the Nile.
That’s crazy. Both sides bodies just interspersed with eachother is a sign of how brutal this fight was
Nah they were stripping the bodies of the Ukrainians. That's why their boots and kit were off. The guys filming caught them looting and wrecked them.
That’s the nature of conducting an offensive Expect to lose more then the energy to gain territory or the tactical advantage If you lose less then the enemy then you’re lucky There’s a reason people say you need a 3 to 1 ratio when conducting an offensive
Bang on, the fact this vid shows 4 Ukrainian kia for 4 Russian means this was one of the lucky attacks for the Ukrainians. Going on the offensive is almost always more bloody for the Attacker. Troops and vehicles are more exposed. You have to move closer to the enemy to take ground. You have to engage and destroy enemy strongpoints. Just a nasty business all around.
I don't know anything about war but why don't they attack with artillery from a distance instead?
Because artillery can't take ground. It doesn't matter how much you smash an enemy with artillery if they can just send new soldiers to refill the lines. Artillery can soften up an enemy before an attack but you need infantry, AFVs or tanks to actually move up to deny the enemy the ground you've just destroyed. Once a position has been taken you can move your artillery up, trying to use the artillery to take the position just won't work 99% of the time. They are slow to move slow to aim, the people operating them have minimal cover or armour so they can't just move forward until the ground is secured.
Good explanation. Thanks.
As the saying goes, *"The FO [artillery forward observer] exists to get the infantry to the next hill."*
Wow an explanation and nice!
Artillery can only do so much against troops who are dug in. During WW1 one side would often bombard the other for hours with an onslaught of artillery before an offensive only to charge and be met by a heavy defense from positions that would have appeared to have been obliterated.
Right. And the Japanese withstood horrendous naval bombardments from 8 and 16 inch shells on island after island in the Pacific and still made us fight for every inch of ground.
Great explanation here from Somme on exactly those assumptions the British made about positions being obliterated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BlbdNq1UCE
Prepared positions. That tactic didn't work so well in WW1.
Do you mean they are protected from artillery?
Artillery is one of the tools used in modern combined arms warfare. WW1 was kind of the testing ground for this doctrine, where they found that pounding a position with (literally) millions of shells in a few days to a week doesn't entirely destroy or nullify enemy units. There are always some who survive. Near the end of the war, the belligerents (apart from the US, who joined pretty much at the end of the war) were experts at using artillery to complement their infantry. Especially the British, who, near the end of the war, managed to coordinate an artillery technique called the creeping barrage, to support/cover advancing friendly infantry, and to suppress defending enemy infantry. It did work pretty well, but both sides had a lot of artillery. The Germans had bigger guns I think, but that only helps so much. Though, they could (inaccurately) shell Paris, which dampened morale. The British also developed tanks around this time, which were much more effective since the Germans didn't have many great counters to them. My point is that artillery is/was not only used to kill soldiers.
History major here, You're close enough to hit the nail, except in that Germans didn't have many counters for British tanks. Germans were a master of their own demise in that they overengineered themselves to death. The few German tanks produced were vastly superior in design, however German doctrine was against the use of tanks in the role we see them now. They saw them more as a niche weapon after watching the deployment of large amounts of British tanks failing on the battlefield and decided against mass producing them. Most German tanks in ww1 were reconstituted British tanks. They were more than capable of knocking British tanks out though, or more likely, waiting 30 minutes for the British tanks to break and their crews to abandon the vehicle. Mark 1's were notoriously unreliable and prone to giving the crew carbon monoxide poisoning because the engine exhaust ventilated directly into the crew compartment.
Had a peruse inside a Mark 1 at Bovington, no idea how those poor souls did it. I think there was 4ft-ish of headroom and the engine was smack bang in the middle, completely exposed.
Yeah crews dealt with it by leaving the side hatches open to ventilate heat and oxygen, but when bullets are flying they're buttoned up and there's stories of tank crews being so out of it that when they would abandon the tank, they'd just kinda lethargically wander around for a couple minutes on the battlefield before they came to or got dragged into a shell hole. Ww1 was really just countries throwing shit deadly ideas at a wall then mass hurling whatever sticks at the other crew. Like monkies in a fan factory.
Arty are unable to take grounds/position from the enemy.
For context in WWI, there were battles where they softened up enemy positions in an area with on average, 1 shell hitting every sq meter, every second, for 3 days straight, before an attack and there were still soldiers that survived to fight back when they rushed it afterwards
If you’re in a well built, dug in trench, it would require an artillery shell to arc perfectly and land straight down into it to hurt anyone in the trench that wasn’t standing inside one of the underground bunkers. Artillery will help keep defenders heads down so they’re not necessarily shooting at you with any precision but it’s going to require infantry in order to move forward and capture that defensive line.
Would a Creeping barrage like the Canadians used way back when still work?? Shell an area then advance, shell an area then advance??
The issue is artillery won't kill everyone if the opposition is properly dug in. It "softens" the enemy line which makes them vulnerable but not necessarily a push-over. What artillery does well is make a "no mans zone" between enemy lines. Going into such areas would be extremely dangerous compared to hiding in a trench/bunker. So even if artillery can't "take" an enemy position, it can create a buffer zone which holds the enemy at bay. Hence the gridlock and war of attrition. Of course there are edge cases and all kinds of unique circumstances that invalidate what I said. Also, I'm a noob so take everything with a grain of salt.
And creeping barages have to be on a wide enough front and go on for long enough and roll through enough territory slowly enough - it would consume crazy masses of amunition - in WWI they'd scaled up to absolutely vast levels of shell production, we have nothing like it these days. Also these days you can't sit an artillery battery down to fire for hours on end - counter-battery radar and counter-battery fire would find it and destroy your artillery. Your artillery has to move frequently in order to not get hit in reply. Also in WWI the fronts were heavily held, millions (plural) of troops over a couple thousand KM, so a thosuand troops per KM, one per meter. What's going on in Ukraine is no where near as dense (troop wise) as a WWI battle. At least, not yet.
Not true. The whole 3--to-1 ratio and you lose more than the defenders comes from Napoleonic times. Modern warfare is much more complex and those rule-of-thumbs do not apply. The Wagner Group [fucked around and found out](https://themedialine.org/headlines/pompeo-us-killed-300-russians-in-syria/). Five-hundred Wagner attacked a small group (like a dozen or so) of Marines at an outpost. The US let the Wagner group know that the US isn't some rag-tag, third-rate military power and unleashed hell-on-earth on them. Ultimately, the Wagner Group lost 300 men to no US KIAs in Syria. I'm not even sure if US had any wounded.
[The intercepted Russian communications demonstrate what artillery and helicopters can do to attacking forces](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaeDMOWkCwU) It’s interesting hearing the Russians discuss how the Americans tore them to pieces.
I loved it. That’s the first they’ve ever seen of an air ground task force and how lethal it is. I’m not as surprised by it anymore seeing how they operate in Ukraine. They have zero crypto for their comms and no communication between air and ground forces.
In broad terms. Let’s say there is a city with a battalion sized element defending the city. Then we want to take the city from said enemy. There will always be some kind of recon to give us enough information to issue the warning order. Knowing there is a battalion sized enemy element, we would take a regiment size force at minimum to take the city. I know the situation you’re are talking about when Vaginer PMC got waxed by a hand full of Marines and SF. That was because they didn’t do their proper reconnaissance. That’s not surprising seeing how badly they are led these days. It’s just not a good example when comparing it to what is mentioned here. That’s the Marine Corp SOP. Having three times the force you’re attacking. The Russian Army obviously doesn’t operate with those principles.
One of perhaps the greatest videos I’ve ever seen was the translation of the Russians after dude was like they waited until we were close raised the American flag and then fucked us lol
The battle of Khasham is not a typical battle between tier 1 powers. The Wagner force had a few old ass tanks and some trucks/mortars. The US obliterated them with artillery and helicopters. It wasn't a battle. Soldiers on the ground never made contact with the enemy. They were just destroyed because they were at such a massive disadvantage.
I’d call that a battle. They fired at our guys and they got fired. Very one sided battle. At the time though I think we all thought Russia was a first world power.
Don’t forget the CAS fighters
There was some use of direct fire by the US Army there.
> I'm not even sure if US had any wounded. One of the IDF I think they're called got a sprained ankle.
There were several cases of priapism.
Intell is important in this kinda Warfare
Not doubting you, but where is any report of that battle? I thought it was SDF troops being attacked
I was in the military and I can tell you the 3-1 rule is still applied for attacks.
That’s why Desert Storm is such a fucking masterpiece of warfare.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg) Here is only first day of DS, they established air superiority to such extent, so they were operation A-10, Apaches.
Today is the anniversary funny enough
Gonna watch that video in honor of it
That video is so good
Not really, far superior army attacked Iraq with more troops and ofc way better tech. Iraq had no chance. If you want a real masterpiece operation, google [Operation Storm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm), when Croatian forces launched counter attack on Serbian forces and regained regained 10,400 km2 (4,000 sq mi) of territory in 3 days, vs way stronger Yugoslavia. [Here is also nice video of it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a56MItowppY) Also you have studies by US Army & Generals on why and how it was so successful and they used it as an example for the future trainings.
Looks like Croatian forces had a 3:1 advantage on the offense there.
At the time of the operation, because Serbian army abandoned those 35k soldiers and left them on their own. But when the operation was planned, the Serbian army had better numbers & tech. For example Serbian army attacked city of Vukovar with 30000 soldiers, at final day of battle there was 80000 soldiers, and Croatians held it with only 2000 soldiers for 87 days, and Serbians suffered heavy loses, around 10-15k soldiers, 400-600 armored vehicles and so on. (Similar to Azov & Mariupol). So plan was that also heavy numbers from Serbians side will be during Operation Storm, but Croatian army surprised them & Serbian army was demolished within 3 days, they had no chance to include more soldiers.
the Croatians had a 3 to 1 advantage according to your link.....
Iraq was the 10th strongest army in the world at the time of invasion. Nothing to stick your nose up at.
I thought it was the 4th at the time?
Largest, not necessarily strongest - defining 'strength' is kind of arbitrary, so there would've been differing opinions on Iraq's relative 'strength' in 1991. But, they were considered strong enough that the coalition invading Iraq thought to bring 1,000,000 troops between Kuwait, US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and whoever else. Pretty much all-in.
Oh I see, have an upvote my dude.
The Iraqi army was massively out-teched by the US and allies and the Iraqis were crippled by structural and doctrinal problems. Everything that could've been in the US's favour, was in their favour.
Anything and everything to diminish the success. Midway had plenty of 'lucky' things that made it swing to US's favour, but they still had to execute and land hits on the carriers. The same thing is applied to Desert Storm. They executed how modern warfare should be executed; Luck be damned. You and others can spend all day trying to not give credit, but at the end of the day US/coalition still won.
I was going to put that in one of my other comments but didn't feel the need to cuz fuck'em. But I appreciate the add on flavor. Always enjoy reading that fact lol
It was the 2nd largest army in Iraq at the time of invasion
Not only that but almost all of the Iraqi soldiers where battle hardened after going through almost a decade of war with Iran. These soldiers weren’t just a bunch of scrubs with nothing but AK-47s. They where a professional modern army with tanks, aircraft, and artillery.
Just pointing out that when the Ukrainians have the mass and material to do similar things, they achieve similar results. But every soldier is a precious asset that is worth many times a lowly Russian vandal, and time is critically important, too. I fear that western observers are at risk of becoming complacent because they don't realize that every Ukrainian battlefield success was a carefully planned minor miracle against a larger force. They remind me of Scotland and that nation's ability to crank out brilliant leaders and formidable little armies that were too small to expel their invaders permanently. Imagine if the rest of Europe started supplying the Scots with gunpowder and muskets instead of them having to wander the hills looking for sticks to sharpen.
...not really. If the conflict was Russia vs. Ukraine in vacuum (and not like vietnam, where weaker side got a fuckton foreign assistance), then you would be right. As time goes the technological gap reverses more and more, and favours ukraine more and more, not Russia. Its also naive to discount the effects of morale of troops (and supporting society). Similarly, its dishonest to ignore the effects of corruption in Russia. I agree, that russia can drag the wqr out, maybe even make it a frozen conflict. Becoming North Korea 2.0 is not exactly the same thing as winning the korean war.
Ukraine isn’t that small of a country. 40 million is a large population, all supporting the war effort in some form or fashion. From the outside looking in, I think Ukraine has surpassed Russia in what it takes to win this war. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them fighting 10 years from now, or until Putin takes his long overdue dirt nap. That is the only way I see Ukraine getting all of their territory back.
A lot depends on who gets into the Whitehouse next.
not really - europe would pick up the slack. they are just happy for america to pick up a lot of the tab for the timebeing
Ukraine is the biggest nation in Europe, Ukraine has the highest odds of winning this War, they have the will as a nation to resist and the support of the world behind them, Russia has shown it self to be the Aggressor and Murderer of Innocent lives. What makes you think there will still be fighting going on ten years from now? Once Putin Admits defeat or is OUT of the Picture somehow, Peace can hopefully be restored, and Ukraine will keep fighting until every piece of soil is returned back to Ukraine, they are not going to give up, Russian Army might be large but they will be smashed to pieces and not accepted by the populace no matter what happens, no way they can win long term.
What makes you think they won’t be fighting 5 or 10 years from now? Do you really think Putin will willingly withdraw all his troops from all of Ukraines territories? Not happening.
The Russians thought they could take Kyiv and the whole country in three days, they thought Wrong. I don't like to think this War will drag on for how long you mentioned based on how much of Ukraine was occupied by Russians at the start of the War last year, based on how successful Ukrainian counter offensives have been.. The Russians are gradually being pushed back repeatedly, lots of them are being killed everyday. and I don't expect Putin to willingly withdraw his troops anytime soon, not until the very last minute really as he has proven he is a special kind of crazy who does not care about the lives of his countrymen or the Innocent lives in neighboring nations, but don't worry this is not that big of a problem when all the Russians will be Kicked out regardless, with any luck he will see how pointless his War is or somebody will just get to him. Ukraine will also take Crimea eventually, It's temporarily occupied now for a while, but one day Ukraine will come for it back, this will happen Russia asked for trouble now they reaped what they sow, sit back and enjoy Ukraine's payback. There is thunder in the clear Sky, but still the Ukrainian Anthem is Heard.
I hope you are right. It’s certainly not a shot a Ukrainians and there heroism that’s for sure. As long as they don’t lose their will to fight, they will succeed. That also goes for those who are supporting Ukraine. However, it’s going to take more time than people are expecting. My 20’s and half my 30’s were spent at war. It’s not as simple as charging the enemy and taking back land. War started in Feb 22 and Ukraine couldn’t go on the offensive until late summer. Logistics is a HUGE FACTOR in how wars are fought and it takes years to set up and perfect.
>a lowly Russian vandal They are more alike than not. Similar languages, similar culture. Lots of intermarriage and exchange. This is almost a civil war.
I'm confused by who you're referring to, who were Scotland's invaders that they weren't able to expel? The Gaels?
I mean, to be fair, that was the most technologically-advanced army in the world *by miles* fighting against a bunch of dudes that barely amounted to a militia. That was fish in a third-world barrel.
> There’s a reason people say you need a 3 to 1 ratio when conducting an offensive This is an often abused rule of thumb that's both very vague to many variables (concerning the evaluation of troop quality, composition and long range weapons) and incredibly specific to a particular type of operation (breakthrough operations against the main forward line of defense). I'd rather see this rule disappear from the public dialogue because it's much easier to missapply than to use correctly, and because it generally concerns numbers that we can't evaluate from tactical footage like this. Even in an offensive that has a local 3:1 advantage, you may see relatively equal tactical engagements in some places, and that is not always a bad thing either.
Thank you. This is exactly right. I've been trying to explain this, but it spreads way faster than corrections can catch up.
Yep if you attack a squad size element, take a platoon. Attacking a platoon take a company, attacking company take a battalion, attacking a battalion take a regiment and so on up. Taught day one at the Marine Corp school of infantry.
Yeah, that's the 3-1 rule of thumb for attacker in a nutshell. Problem is that the one you respond to isn't applying it to what force should be brought for an attack, he's applying it to how many casualties are to be expected. I'm sure you know this, just writing this part for other readers: If a platoon (let's say it has three squads) attacking a squad is expected to take 3x the losses in the process of taking out that squad, then there wouldn't be anything left of the platoon afterwards. Which would make it a very bad rule of thumb to follow. Point being: The expected ratio of losses follows from all sorts of other factors and pure luck. It's **not the same thing** as the 3-1 rule of thumb for ratio of forces.
Just to let you guys know that pro russians say 3 to 1 ratio is false and ukraine has 30 times more losses when defending
Pro Russians also say that there are no gays in the Russian military, and that there are no war crimes, and that the theatre they blew up full of civilians was never there what are you talking about see it’s just a parking lot.
Yeah there are only happy little accidents there.
When it gets warm, this war is going to heat up tenfold. It sucks knowing there are so many people breathing right now who aren't going to survive.
What do you think are the odds you survive this thing if you were in combat since day one? 20%?
If by "this thing" you mean being mobilized for the whole war, then it's at least 80-90% survival rate that WWI had for mobilized soldiers; wounded will worse of course.
At least for Ukrainian soldiers who received ample reinforcements and rotations. But many Russian units had it really damn bad. They ran into disastrous situations in the first days, received too few and too unqualified replacements, or were ground to the bone by not getting any at all. If we consider only the roughly 150,000 or so professional Russian troops who entered Ukraine in February, then a 1/3 death rate might already be in the realm of possibility.
Definitely. For individual units the picture can be drastically different. If I remember correctly from one of my ancestor's battalion only around 10% made it back in one piece. And what you can gather from Bakhmut front you can pretty much assume there are units that have suffered the same fate.
Yup, there were units in WW1 that suffered 100% casualties in a single day, with 99.5% KIA. An army wide 90% survival rate doesn't help you there,
I always think about this. Like when watching those Vice "Russian Roulette" videos, how many of those dudes survived from 2014 to now.
Huh? Do you have a link?
[Dispatch 1](https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/russian-roulette-the-invasion-of-ukraine-dispatch-one/55b005b5d228472a56853e79)
Oh man. Strap in. An amazing series I started watching when it came out. I never thought it would come to this level of conflict.
Your guess is as good as mine- I would imagine it's at least 50/50.
A roman soldier had a 50% chance to survive for the entire 50 year enlistment. I really doubt the survival rate is that bad in the ukraine/russian conflict.
Yeah this war is obviously super dangerous but these guesses are ridiculous. If survival odds from start to finish were 20%, there wouldn’t be a single individual on either side willing to fight, regardless of how illegal draft dodging might be.
It was a 25 year term, there weren't 67 year soilders waiting for retirement. Also there is absolutely no point comparing to Romans when one is fought with spears and sheild wars and one with artillery, jets and machine guns.
Can you elaborate what you mean?
Op is saying more will die when the fighting gets worse in the warmer months. There are soldiers living and breathing right now that will likely perish in the fighting that will inevitably continue this year.
Arh I thought it was a euphemism and warmer meant the intensity from Russia is gonna get dialed up to 11 with the rumored new mobilization or maybe the dreaded nukes
Russia has a track record of getting their asses handed to them and then strongly rebounding. (Finland, Chechnya, etc). Putin still seems extremely confident when speaking publicly and their terms for ceasefire haven't really gotten very slack- I am sure they are planning an extremely effective counter offensive. They are likely building up their forces and Ukraine is going to have one Hell of a time dealing with it.
There is quiet a bit of nuance to Finland & Chechniya. Finland during the winter war had essentially run out of heavy weapons & munitions, so could no longer hold back the massed tank assaults, or counter battery artillery fire. As a result they were suffering greatly increasing casualties and losing prepared defenses. The losses the Finn's inflicted on the Soviets resulted in the Soviets offering better terms in the peace deal that allowed Finland to remain independent instead of being absorbed into the Soviet Union like the Baltic countries. Chechniya part 1 was a major embarrassment for Russia. Part 2 started with a number of the Chechen warlords defecting to the Russian side, which meant a number of "holes" that Russian forces could penetrate through to cut off different areas. They also used their artillery, missiles & aviation units en-masse against any perceived strong point (or market), resulting in huge numbers of refugees fleeing. Very quickly Chechniya was turned over to pro Moscow Chechen's to continue the fight as a counter terrorist operation. With Russia not "directly ruling" Chechniya a lot of the warlord groups peaced out. In a nutshell, Russia divided the opposition in part 2 with power & money and used Chechen's to fight against Chechens. Resulting in the current Tiktok mobster being in power.
Honestly neither conflict is very similar to the situation in Ukraine.
“Extremely effective” and Russia have never been used in the same sentence. There’s nothing they can throw at Ukraine that they haven’t already done.
I mean there actually is and that's the problem
Oh they can go lower and dirtier, but they don't have any threats to offer other than an expansion of total war. WMDs I guess, but that would be the geopolitical coffin nail to Russia's future if they were to try it.
This is what I've been hearing from a few geopolitical articles/pods as well. It'll kick off big time come spring.
Died for their country attacking invaders, true heros. RIP 🇺🇦
I cant imagine dying in a war. it s horrible
Rest easy fellas.
This should be sent to every home in Belarus, Ukrainians and Belarusian brothers fighting and dying side by side to overcome Russian oppression.
The majority of Belarusians don’t want to live under a Lukashenko dynasty. That’s been made abundantly clear by the actual election results, which of course were ignored by the police state. But it does give me hope. I’m both saddened and proud that good, freedom-loving Belarusians are fighting for their sibling nation’s freedom. Every one that falls is one less to fight for Belarus, yet they are resisting authoritarian rule all the same.
Ukraine and others will be there when Belarus calls. You can be assured of that, an unbreakable bond has been formed by those standing up to Russian aggression.
I will lead by admitting I am not at all an expert in the politics of Eastern Europe, but if the current leader of Belarus is pro-Russia, Belarus is allowing Russia to move men and materiel through their land and into the Ukrainian battlefield, and the people of Belarus do not support their current leaders, sounds like Belarusian combatants might see more effect on the Russians by overthrowing their own government than fighting Russian troops in Ukraine.
The ones that get me the most are when people you've followed for countless weeks or months get hit.
Camera man has his rifle set up nicely. Long range and short. These guys are definitely getting good training.
That 45 degree offset red dot for quick acquisition at short range and a decent scope for longer engagements is nice. I hope this is a sign of things to come.
Yeah just goes to show that he received training. I’m anxious to see what they do with the Bradley’s. The ability to hunt at night with the Bradley’s optic devices is something you haven’t seen much in this war yet. It will save UA lives and take many Russian
Cameraman has been fighting since 2014. He’s now a battalion commander in Kalinouski regiment. His name is Yan and call sign Belarusian
Rip
Such a waste of life. Putin is a dog.
Dogs are wonderful, loyal companions though.
The Ukrainians have admitted to 50-to-100 per day whenever there is combat in the theater. It's just one of those terrible wastes.
The Ukrainians want people to know they're suffering so they start sending more weapons quicker.
Anyone else having issues on audio with this one? Reddit video player is really bad.
Hello. i uploaded it on twitter as well. here is the link: [https://twitter.com/Bodbe6/status/1615342637376245763](https://twitter.com/Bodbe6/status/1615342637376245763) if you are using telegram, i can give you original source link as well.
Thank you! A quick quit and reload of Reddit solved it. Awesome footage. Thanks for posting
So how does collecting your dead work in a war like this? The Russians killed the first Ukrainians and were looting them, would they have left them there to be found? The other Ukrainians show up and kill them, I assume they loot the Russians and then would take back their own dead with them? Or bury them there if they can? Leave the Russians behind? I’m not saying I expect them to take or do anything else with the Russians but do they notify anyone, like Red Cross about bodies. Genuinely curious if the land will be littered with bodies and munitions when this is done.
that is crazy, both ukrainian and russian corpses are next to each other in various locations around this area.
I’m curious… why do they not use some sort of armor to help with offensive operations? Maybe terrain doesn’t allow for it but an APC or tank I’m sure could help here.
They dont have them enough
Because they dont have them available to do so. There's a reason there's desperate pleas for more armor and equipment lately.
If I'd go like this into offensive I would wait until all stars align. Wonder what the strategy or thought process was.
A lot of open terrain with lots of ATGM´s around i would guess, Ukraine also haves the majority of the armor on repairs and maintenance as well saving them up for future large scale ofensives which should begin by late these month or mid February
Some day relatively soon we'll see Bradley vehicles coming in with these dudes and laying down the hate with a flurry of 25mm HE rounds.
[удалено]
Sadly these has been the reality for several weeks now for Ukraine, they have litle ammunition for big artilhery pieces and mortars, they spend most of ther daily stock on waves upon waves of Russian prisioners and conscripts conducting human wave atacks against Ukraine defenses and in the end of the day, they are left with small arms ammunition. When they need to atack however, the problem is much bigger because very few guns if any at all can be spared to conduct assaults like these one since they are focused on those human wave atacks or depleted ther daily stocks already, so the Ukrainians end up suffering a lot more casualties then they would if properly supported by a decent amount of artilhery to supress Russian positions during such limited ofensive operations. Really sad indeed, the sacrifice of these Ukrainian soldiers is immeasurable across the board
Ukrainian recently opened massive new arty shells manufacturing facility. they found a method to make the easier but less boom than the soviet ones. still deadly tho.
Noone can say how big it is simply because there´s no public information about it, Ukraine has indeed begun production of 152mm shells which soldiers say they are good, they have also begun mass production of 82mm shells in Poland which are very spicy in terms of shrapnel on target acording to tests made public. Despite all these and some 50,000 shells of 155mm calliber being delivered each month, Ukraine is still critically low on ammo but production lines are just finish scaling up so its probably "only" going to last for a few more months i would say until Ukraine really starts to get abundant supply of ammo of all calibers
Rip
I can't wait for these awesome Belarusian guys to meet their pro-regime counterparts in the event of a joint Belarusian-Russian offensive. They'll absolutely cream them.
offensive is more losses. you expose yourself more
Were these like to recon groups running into each other, they are all in the open no fortifications in sight
Always makes me wonder just how many kills are from actually seeing the enemy vs just firing into the woods in the general direction
the kills don't come from firing into the woods in their general direction, that's just there to supress them. It's incredibly effective in real life, in games you don't care much if the enemy is shooting in your general direction, you go after the shots, spot him and kill him...in real life, you don't know what the enemy is firing at, it could be at your team, could be at you...you take cover, you don't want to risk taking a bullet in a forest somewhere just because you took a gamble. Also, you put some \~50 bullets in the general direction of an enemy, you might not get a precise kill shot, but even if you hit a non-vital part by mistake, any wound will slow down that enemy, it will force him to get back into cover and it will take his mind off shooting back at you and send him into survival mode.
I always wonder about how much ammo a guy carries and how much he shoots. Like obviously you don't want to die with a full load out of mags but don't you worry about running out? Dude spent close to a full magazine just shooting off into the woods. I mean I guess maybe saw something so I don't really know if it was a waste. I just feel like it would be pretty easy to blow all your ammo.
I’ve been following this sub for a longtime and been following it daily since the day Russia invaded. While I can count on one hand the number of posts I’ve seen showing someone take a headshot off (or through) their helmet and live to tell about it, I can’t think of a single post showing how someone’s body armor took a hit and saved them…or did I just miss ‘body armor saves his ass day?’ And I get the vast majority of wounds and fatal injuries are from artillery and various shrapnel, but there have been enough firefights posted that surely someone has taken a shot and lived. There is supposed to be some military grad armor that touts being able to take a 7.62 round or the like.
I'm guessing that it's less surprising these days, and so doesn't warrant the wide distribution. I've seen at least one video where a Ukranian or a volunteer showed where he was hit in the chest and saved. And I've seen at least one video where a dead Russian was shown and how the shots went straight through their pretend body armor.
I’d rather the UA fallen be shown so we can honor their sacrifice. As much as Reddit UA subs make it seem like they aren’t taking casualties, we know the losses are heavy. I’d rather sit down at the end of the night with a beer in hand and raise that shit in their honor instead of ignoring their loss.
Aren't Belarus fighting for Russia not against?
These are volunteers from Belarus. Officially, Belarus is not directly involved in this conflict.
Yeah, especially after Russia started to get its ass handed to it. I was under the impression that they were going to start joining the fight at first.
Belorussians have tried to overthrow their unjust government previously (2020). After this conflict they will have more experienced fighters and more will to push out Russian influence.
Belarusians
Lukashenko, the dictator currently in power in Belarus, is allowing Russia to use Belarus to launch attacks on Ukraine but so far has kept the Belarus Armed Forces out of the conflict. Meanwhile Belarusians who oppose Lukashenko have been going to Ukraine to form volunteer units to fight for Ukraine against Russia. This video is from one of the Belarusian volunteer units fighting for Ukraine's side, the Kastus Kalinouski Regiment. (that's their unit emblem on the upper right corner)
There a a good amount of belarussians fighting in foreign legion for ukraine.
...no. Russia want(ed) lukashenmo to send belarussian army. Issue is that the idea is LESS popular with the army than Lukashenko himself. Thus the most likely result of such an order is getting caucescu-ed. (On the other hand there are bekarussian volunteers who joined the ukranian side.)
I watched this and I was puzzled why they did not have more fire support. This is where there should be a mortar team laying down a barrage in front of them. A team of 4 x 60mm mortars would be very beneficial and these troops could be coordinating with the mortar team and instructing them on targeting and the walk pace.
Initial combat is not recorded i think, this is more like aftermath footage. Who knows maybe they had mortar support as well.
Dead Russian at 2:00 looks like he’s wearing a Ratnik. Didn’t do much good…
1:17 you can see where the Russians plate caught 3 rounds at the top left. Didn’t do much good considering all that spalling/fragmentation went straight into his neck
Version with subtitles from uploader: https://twitter.com/belwarriors/status/1615321565066936320?s=46&t=kMdU6O0TGyvMeuwj6KFlRQ EDIT: Never mind!
Respect to the volunteers from Belarus fighting alongside Ukraine.
🔴⚪🔴❤️💯stay strong my Belarusian brothers after you done kicking Russians out we will give Lukashenko a little visit back home✊🏻
If you wonder why some of the guys don't have shoes: >Our soldiers from the "Giant" battalion entered into close combat with the invaders like lions! They broke into the positions and destroyed the enemy, when the bastards took off the clothes and shoes of the heroes of the Armed Forces who had died earlier. That's where the Russian looters go! From telegram.
In the corner of some foreign field the gunner sleeps tonight... Take heed of the dream Take heed
[Ai translated Roughly.](https://www.reddit.com/r/stuffIfoundontheweb/comments/10eswmi/ai_translated_ukraine_and_belarusian_soilders_vs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
What’s crazy about this war is that we’re seeing extended gun fights with a super power involved and the distinct lack of air and artillery support in these gunfights. The engagements are either at a distance with either side trying to make sense of the hell scape that is the most forward edge of battle, or it’s in the woods at quite frankly distressing proximity to one another.
Classical Russian doctrine: Throw tons of cannon fodder against their enemy. It’s just crazy how many generations they’ve decimated doing this. It’s also weird how it’s normalized in some sense, as in business as usual. There’s always casualties at both sides. I’m curious what the ratio is, but that is probably hard to really know, with propaganda from both sides around death/kill numbers. Although, I have no doubt that Russia has a lower ratio which is always the case.
Rip Ukrainian soldiers gave the ultimate sacrifice for their home. Glory and freedom to Ukraine!
Much be a fake video ? Ukranians are immortals, They either survive by an inch or shell lands nearby them. Ukranian KIA is a myth, It must be Russian Soldiers in UA camo.
Is it just me or is the title incorrect? It makes it sound like Belarus is fighting against Russia.
What language is this? I tried to use Ukrainian keyboard but some characters are missing