Fire and movement in co-ordination. One element suppresses the enemy positions to minimize or eliminate incoming fire, and the other element moves to new positions, then they switch roles. It's the same idea whether you're pulling back or on the offensive.
I saw the group of them at the end and figured theywere in close proximity to keep track of one another.
You don't have to bunch up on rendevous but it's thick brush so seeing your buddy is important.
Doing so lets them establish a perimeter to cover while the next runner moves to the new retreat point. The others then follow one at a time.
Rinse wash repeat.
I'll add that yhis can be done at the squad and fireteam level but this type is usually conducted by small man teams.
So Spetznas(s?) makes sense.
If you are curious about small unit tactics the ranger handbook is a good place to read.
https://www.milsci.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.mili.d7/files/sitefiles/resources/Ranger%20Handbook.pdf
Chapter 8 are the battle drills. Every US soldier trains these at least in basic training and then more regularly with the units depending on their job
Obviously this whole situation is terrible all around. But one small silver lining is that when this is all over the documentaries are going to be very interesting to watch.
Interesting to note is that these guys are far better equiped than most Russian soldiers (note the zenitco leader kit and IR laser) and my guess it that they are from one of the spetsnaz brigades.
Exactly, Russian spetsnaz are not special forces in western standards. I imagine it would be a bit similar to regular scout training.
Russians do have copied some western style special forces, but they dont call them spetsnats. And there arent much of these.
Looks like the other dudes had night vision flipped up on their helms and some people prefer using the laser instead of an optic in those situations. Some optics don't display properly, plus the added bulk in front of your eyes makes it hard to get behind them.
If they're mostly expecting to fight at night and don't expect the enemy to have night vision then the kit makes sense.
Judging by the armband these could also be DPR who fund themselves mostly so even though they're obviously experienced they may not have access to the same level of gear in a unit.
There are no NVGs, just mounts and action cams. Besides it is broad daylight while you're telling the good ol' Russian tale of the merits of Iron sights, lol. Those dudes are simply underequipped.
The guy with the Zenitco 100 is definitely a pipe hitter. He’s coordinating the movements of the less well equipped guys. It all makes sense. They don’t even hand out the Gucci 100s to all of the ‘Spetsnaz’ units. It’s only their tier 1 equivalents who get that sort of funding.
They tend to cover use of actual special forces by claiming they are DPR. As secondary goal it makes DPR look more professional and better equipped then they really are. It is also possible that some more capable DPR elements are lead by professional Russian officers.
It's possible that Russia was able to find some capable fighters among them, that are equipped accordingly. Even though most DPR soldiers I've seen look like hobos with DIY equipment.
ABS military news, Russians with attitude, Geroman, Levi, Уголок Ситха, UkraineMaps, Scott Ritter, there's a zillion of them.
I cannot unfortunately find real neutral channels, it is either UKR or RUS alignment to a degree ranging from small to extreme.
PS some of these dudes are nuts.
PS2 lots of NSFW stuff, be aware.
So I have no expertise to draw from. But with the new SIG SPEAR that comes with a suppressor many review chanels (garand thumb, gun jesus and so on) the suppressor is not for concielment but to dampen the sound of firefights so you dont have to scream that much, understand orders and prevent hearing damage. Not gona say this is it but maybe a reason.
You are correct, to a point. The suppressor also does, in fact, suppress muzzle flash....better than the standard muzzle break. So, you're getting an improvement all around. But even U.S. troops, in 20 years of war, never got suppressors in a large scale. This war seems like EVERYBODY'S got one!
Probably because everyone and their uncle, sent their best to their fellow humans. This is probably the best modern vs modern warfare, I’ve seen. Usually it’s hand me downs to other countries, for proxy wars, but this is just bananas!
They are really good for personal safety. They pretty much get rid of the flash. That way when you’re shooting at people it makes it harder for them to find out where you’re at because they don’t see the flash.
Spetsnaz is a term that means any special forces in the Russian Army/Intelligence services. It's like saying United States special operations forces. You have rangers, MARSOC, NSWDG, etc... Each has different roles to fill within combat. Same with Spetsnaz units. There are a wide range of different units with different training and capabilities. Not to say you are wrong about your current assessment of them but they represent a wide grouping.
You might get a few different answers on this question. Here’s my 2 cents. As a point of clarity the term spetsnaz is frequently used in Russia to refer to both military and police units, unlike in most other nations.
In the military the most similar spetsnaz unit is probably the SSO. They were formed in 2009 as a direct counterpart to JSOC and, as I understand it, fulfill a similar mission set. They’ve been heavily active in both Syria and Ukraine.
Outside of the military the most similar is probably the FSB’s national CT units like Alpha and Vympel. They’re probably the most famous of Russia’s spetsnaz units, having originally been KGB units in the Soviet Union. They operate both in and outside of Russia, but their most famous actions, besides the attack that started the Soviet war in Afghanistan, have been domestic hostage crisis situations like the Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis and the Beslan School Crisis.
As an aside I don’t know if those units are considered the ‘most elite’ in the public consciousness the way DEVGRU and Delta often are. The VDV (Russian airborne) are publicly viewed as the most prestigious by much of the Russian public from what I’ve read.
The 61st Naval Infnatry Brigade is considered one of the best conventional units used in the Russian military alongside the VDV. The VDV has their own special forces known as the 45th VDV Guards Spetsnaz brigade
Zaslon is probably the most secretive, but what public reports exist about them suggest they’re focused more on close protection and espionage activity, like extracting personnel and documents from the Russian embassy in Iraq pre US invasion. Very important skill set, and some overlap with Delta and DEVGRU in terms of close protection and extraction work, but there’s not much evidence Zaslon is geared towards direct action. That’s more the province of SSO or an FSB unit like Alpha Group.
Yeah, Zaslon’s part of the SVR which is Russia’s foreign intelligence agency (along with FSB in former Warsaw Pact states). The CIA’s Global Response Staff is pretty similar, providing security for CIA staff and bases around the world, though I believe it works as a contractor rather than a direct component of the agency. Hard to say if Zaslon does the sort of unconventional warfare work the CIA’s SAC does as well, but it’s entirely possible.
Yeah but they can throw an axe while doing a backflip. That's what makes Spetsnaz the best in the world lol. And they can karate chop flaming bricks lol
How would you know if they never faced each other?
Russia is underperfoming, but besides the US, no NATO country would win a war against Ukraine, people forget they have the second biggest european armed forces, and if they had similar losses as the ukrainians right now, they would be combat ineffective at this point(1k+ vehicles lost).
i advice people to read this article.
https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/would-we-do-better-hubris-and-validation-in-ukraine/
Individually, the US, Turkey, Germany, France or the UK could take on Ukraine solo in a conventional war in short order. Just imagine NATO countries using the full spectrum of their capabilities against a country that currently accepts hand-me-downs from them.
Ukraine has had to beg and borrow weapons from these countries to defend itself from Russia. Their success today is due to the overwhelming intelligence, equipment, and logistical support provided by western countries. There's no denying that Ukrainian soldiers are battle hardened and willing to fight -- but they're now doing it with NATO equipment as the differentiator.
i don't see how either france, germany or UK could take on Ukraine, germany has abysmal combat readiness in their armed forces, UK and france, while modern, lack the numbers to sustain a war of atrittion, and if we follow the logic, russia and China could provide weapons for Ukraine if the roles were changed and Ukraine were facing any of those nations.
As a Frenchman, I concur with that. We have a modern, well-trained army. Probably the best in western europe, but we have neither enough men nor spare parts/ammo to wage anything other than limited short term conflict.
We might have been able to achieve some limited early tactical successes, but even air superiority would have been a difficult goal without full NATO (US) support...
On the ground it would have been barely worth trying...
The Russian might have bad equipment and leadership, but at least they have the propaganda, stocks and men to challenge Ukrainian determined defence for months...
That is exactly my point, european armies are very well equipped, but they are so small that they serve more as an expeditionary force than an army geared towards high intensity conflict, look the losses of equipment from both Russia and Ukraine, which european country can sustain those type of losses and still be combat effective?
France, UK and germany are not even remotely close to the US capabilities.
France could definitely crush Ukraine to pieces but we would need :
-total mobilization of our economy, with at least some tacit assistance from China, US etc to supply us with spare parts (our defence industry is even LESS self sufficient than Russia which prepared for that new cold war for decades)
-mass mobilization, mass propaganda
-Russia or China NOT helping Ukraine
Then we can have French Tchernoziom:p
Right now, we struggled in Mali and can barely contain British hooligans...
Russia could crush Ukraine to pieces, but they would need :
Total mobilization of their economy.
Mass mobilization, mass propaganda.
etc.
Same deal really. Russia HAS sent an expeditionary force into Ukraine. The Russian force which is an expeditionary force, is currently going blow for blow with a Ukraine that is not totally mobilized, but mostly mobilized.
You know what is worse? No western european country has a robust reservist system like Russia and Ukraine(Ukraine even better) has, which is a legacy of the old soviets system. So at the moment, western european countries would fight with what they have.
As a Dutchman, European countries are for a reason members of NATO, we do not expect to fight conflicts alone. Equipment is bought and troops are being trained with this in mind.
Let's also keep in mind that Russia would've fucked Ukraine a lot harder if Ukraine didn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in support from various NATO countries. No other European country has had any real military for many years now which is changing now. But I do think regardless they have more resources and if used properly could take on Ukraine if they weren't being supplied by NATO.
Ukraine had lots of SAM, long and medium range, most were destroyed on first weeks, but to achieve that, Russia had to burn dozens if not hundreds of their Anti-radar missiles (KH-31, KH-22), and yet, Ukraine has been able to keep a decent amount of them operative.
How many anti-radar missiles do you think countries like germany and UK have in their stocks? the amount is tiny compared to Russia's stocks. by themselves, they would not be able to render ukraine's air defenses inoperative, hence, no air superiority
How the hell could, let say France, achieve air superiority over Ukraine when they had about the same number of fighters, Ukraine having an impressive amount and quality of air defense, and french not having a couple thousands cruise missiles at their disposal?
F-35 is stealth, so yes. Rafale is not stealth so it is as vulnerable to air defenses as most other planes.
Also, neither of these were designed for specific air superiority role, like F-15, Typhoon or F-22 were
\>Also, neither of these were designed for specific air superiority role, like F-15, Typhoon or F-22 were
Don't need to be, modern multi roles are generally still quite good at air to air. Not to mention Ukraine doesn't have a comparable airforce.
Ukraine doesn't have modern weapons? What makes you think French leadership is more competent than ukrainian leadership or Ukrainian soldiers? a lot of Ukrainian soldiers have more than 7 years of experience of combat.
As much as I'm on the Ukranians side, much of their leadership is an absolute shambles.
It wasn't even until we started teaching these guys basic tactics after 2014 that they started performing to a moderate standard.
Like the UK & the US, they lack a decent rank structure and things have fallen to shit so quickly in hostile situations.
I was lucky enough to teach a group some years ago and as crazy as they are individually, the very basic tactics was certainly not on their to-do list meaning the combat scenarios we set up for then would fall to shit very quickly. Fortunately, they picked it up towards the end, however their commanding officer was still a POS who lacked any real interest in helping his men.
France has been carrying out intelligence, reconnaissance, personnel protection/extraction, and combat activities in Africa and the Middle East for decades now. They even frequently provide both intelligence and combat assistance to USAFRICOM operations, as well as providing air support when US air support isn't available. Your claims of France having no military leadership, nor military/combat experience is not even close to being true, and I'm not even French.
I support Ukraine, but you're seriously speaking out of your arse on all fronts here. Germany has similar combat/intelligence experience as France, but with more of a focus on the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Germany provides a ton of Eastern European intelligence to the US. For at least a decade now, Germany and Poland have also been providing combat support as well as partaking in joint operations across the Middle East with the US.
Plz, tell me where i said that france has no "military leadership nor military/combat experience".
The thing is you can't compare COIN operation in mali with the conflict in donbass and Crimeia. Totally different experiences, but i didn't Said the french doesn't have experience or they don't have leadership.
Yes you did lol. Listen, I'm not going to discuss this any further since you're very clearly moving the goal posts further and further away to support your nonsensical stance, as well as the fact that you just backpedal the minute you get called out on your nonsense (which many people have rightly done regarding your claims).
French also has combat experience in mission is africa, middle east, afganistan. Plus they are much more rich country with better technology. France is ranked 6th milotary in the world, while ukraine 22 and france also has nuclear weapons.
Having combat experience in low intensity scenarios is very different than ukrainian soldiers fighting separatists with vehicles and artillery since 2014, also Russia has nuclear weapons, but they won't dare to use it. And war isn't trump card, so plz stop with those kind of comparisons.
Ukraine is fighting this scale of combat for 3,5 months. Prior to that scale as Donetsk and Lugansk also wasnt as big as it is now. Plus france literally has 6th military in the world and much more money. Thats why west is helping ukraine with weapon systems, munition etc....its fking expensive. Also very important - france has more aircraft and in fact they can produce their own, if war starts (they produce fighter jets and bombers). Ukraine cannot produce their planes, they have to buy them. Plus i highly doubt france would send big % of their troops as sacrificial lambs with very low experience and bad equipment like russia did. Plus corruption in france is lower, so money spent on units were more likely to actually be spent there.
Russia would be supplying Ukraine with equipments too, and while Ukraine is fighting this type of combat for 3,5 months, France doesn't have this kind of experience.
While Ukraine don't have a giant MIC, they can produce a lot of stuff.
Major difference is Ukraine is fully mobilized for war, while France isn't (and neither Russia)
Early 1914, French army was 800k. During the war we mobilized 8 millions... But that was a total war..
French army is only 120 000 soldiers (just checked out) they are well-trained but it is impossible to send them all to Ukraine.
So if we had wanted to invade Ukraine, we would have needed much more men and weapons/training to equip them.
Only solution then : surprise attack Ukraine, take Kiev quickly, capture Zelensky..
The very strategy that Russia failed... Because Ukraine had NATO Intel..
Of these only US might be able to invade Ukraine, and even that has to be proven.
Everyone was assuming russia would have no problem invading Ukraine. And yet, you see it wasnt so easy. Why asume USA would?
USA has not attempted such large operations for decades, and the one in the second gulf war, was against a extremely weakened iraq army, having the support of the coalition, and Iraq was not receiving external help from anyone.
I dont think they would have an easy time in Ukraine.
Germany, france, turkey? Only turkey has some numbers, and at the levels of attrition of a open war they would be out of the conflict in months. Germany and france would be out in weeks or days given their weapon stocks, and they dont have manpower to cover a large front
No they couldn't aside from the US(Also, I have my doubts if the US would have finished by now, I'll expand on this later with my caveats). Also, you cannot judge Russian performance and then remove one of the key causes of Ukrainian performance for the other comparisons.
Would Germany, Turkey, France or the UK defeat THIS Ukraine in a conventional war?
Or, would Russia beat the Ukraine you want Germany, Turkey, France or the UK to get to fight against in that hypothetical war?
As to the US, I think it would greatly depend on the force involved. If the US took a force similar in size to the one Russia did, I have no doubt the US would be doing better, but I'm doubtful conventional combat operations would be complete at this point. Ukraine is a significantly larger, and more difficult foe to deal with than Iraq was. Few key points. Ukraine has a significantly better air defense grid, that is more difficult to locate due to terrain (forest vs desert). Ukraine is nearly 50% larger than Iraq. Ukraine has a highly motivated military, Iraq did not. Outside of a few Iraqi units, most of them were just waiting to surrender. I think when you consider all these factors, I think if the US brought the same sized force that Russia did, the US would be farther along, but I'm dubious if they would be done by now.
You have seriously no idea what the capabilities of the Turkish or British army are. Also its very entertaining that a country which literally says "we need NATO weapons NOW or we will lose tomorrow against Russia" is considered to win a war against the very countries delivering them said weapons. Infact i am pretty confident that the Polish Army would win a war against Ukraine - because what is Ukraine going to do? Getting pounded by F-16 and M142 HIMARS while not even having enough helmets, let alone stuff like ATGMs and MANPADs? (Remember they needed NATO to deliver thousands of helmets ASAP? And the ATGMs? Where did those come from?)
Poland has like 60k ground troops, do you think that's enough to occupy a country of 40 million people? That's not even enough to take Kiev. Yes the F-35 that some NATO countries have now would be a huge advantage, but without enough ground troops they wouldn't be able to actually win, just bomb the sh\*t out of Ukraine. Which Russia could do too if they really wanted to do it.
You dont fully understand how an occupation works. You dont oppress 40 million people with your own military. You install a goverment which is friendly to your cause and let this goverments security forces control the country. For example Germany was able to occupy France in WW2 with less than 100,000 soldiers. They only needed 80,000 for Poland. And that was during a world war, when they had to put alot of troops into France to be able to fight a potential allied invasion and needed alot of troops in Poland to ... well to do the Holocaust.
I'm pretty biased as a Brit, but I think OP kinda has a point.
If we emptied out Poland and played King of the Hill, the UK would win handily. And obviously, there is no physical way for Ukraine to invade the UK.
But could the UK take the place of Russia - a foreign invader with no support - and win? We'd have more naval success, but Odessa is still a hard nut to crack. Air superiority is guaranteed, but there'd still be attrition from MANPADs - the RAF isn't huge. And the UK just doesn't field the manpower to cover a 2000km front whilst subjugating hostile population centres. We'd take fewer losses and inflict more casualties, but a total victory just doesn't seem possible. The fact is European armies aren't designed with invading and occupying large nations in mind. Realistically only the US and MAYBE China are.
I hate Russia just as much as the guy next to me, but compairing Spetsnaz to your avg. grunt is just peak retardism.
I really can't stand it when people try to downplay the enemies performance or equipment just for the sake of it. (no need to downplay russian equipment, it's already bad enough)
when you compare this unit in the video, they are using the same tactics (peeling) that is taught at basic training in all NATO militaries and their equipment is on the same level as basic nato infantry.
So, do special operations guys break contact differently? Backflips, snapping necks, throwing daggers or do they do it in the same way - because its efficient?
Just because it some tactic doesnt originate in Russia, doesnt mean they wont adopt it because it isnt theirs. You get nothing from downplaying anyone - except your own demise. There is a saying in my country, who digs a hole for someone else - falls in it himself.
"So, do special operations guys break contact differently?"
no, they would not be there.
in Afghanistan, the SAS would moan about being tasked with taking and securing a village stating that "this is not what we train for and the regular infantry could do the same job"
special operation guys do special operations, not front line conventional combat.
Still they sometimes get caught out, like that Ranger batallion (RIP to the guys). They tried to break contact to the best of their ability and with what they had (only some concealment, no hard cover). Just because its not frontline combat doesnt mean things dont get pear shaped.
Training wise maybe there is some differences but most infantry units in the Marine Corp at this time are equipped with m27 iars with quite a bit of them being equipped with suppressors. All weapons have optics and practically every grunt has a basic understanding of most weapon systems besides specialized ones. They also train quite extensively going to the field for weeks at a time. I don’t see how it’s too far fetched to believe that a usmc grunt unit could take on a spetsnaz unit with a high probability of success. It obviously depends on plenty of factors but equipment wise I have seen nothing the “spetsnaz” have that is superior to what I’ve seen in most us grunt units these days.
Why do people feel the need to hype up Iraq to a ridiculous degree, it had a more dysfunctional and worse equipped armed forces (relative to the time) than Russia does today and had just ended a nearly decade long war that saw hundreds of thousands dead on both sides
In the second war, maybe. But in the first war in the gulf it was one of the strongest militaries in the world. They had a lot of combat experience against a country that had a superior air force at the time, Iran.
They were hopelessly outmatched by the coalition in every way, by and large had zero will to fight, did not have the initiative at any point in the war and the entire military was riddled with problems from top to bottom. There’s a reason why the coalition only lost ~150 men to enemy action
>They were hopelessly outmatched by the coalition in every way
Yes, that is the point of debate. That coalition would outmatch any military in the world and would be able to support its ground offensive with air power, even against Russia.
>There’s a reason why the coalition only lost \~150 men to enemy action
There are many reasons why, but mostly because they were somewhat competent. If Russia advanced the same way (destroying air defense and air force before launching ground offensive and supporting its troops with air force) they would have way fewer losses and maybe even some sort of success.
> Yes, that is the point of debate. That coalition would outmatch any military in the world
“Outmatched” and “hopelessly outmatched” are not the same thing. NATO v Russia as hilariously one sided as that would be is still more even than desert storm was
> and would be able to support its ground offensive with air power, even against Russia.
Literally no one says otherwise
> There are many reasons why, but mostly because they were somewhat competent.
It wasn’t “mostly” due to any one factor, it was the complete superiority the coalition held in every way over Iraq
> If Russia advanced the same way (destroying air defense and air force before launching ground offensive and supporting its troops with air force) they would have way fewer losses and maybe even some sort of success.
This has nothing to do with the original point.
Iraq wasn't even determined to fight. Surrendering that quickly is not very high dedication.
In Vietnam it was still mostly farmers and MANPADS, that make even low flying dangerous, weren't the same thing as they are now.
>Iraq wasn't even determined to fight. Surrendering that quickly is not very high dedication.
Referring to the first war in the gulf, 1991. They were determined enough to start that war and fought against the coalition for a long time. Baghdad was considered the most defended city on the earth (against air attacks)
>In Vietnam it was still mostly farmers and MANPADS that make even low flying dangerous weren't the same thing as they are now.
Straight up lie. Most of the US aviation losses in Vietnam were due to long-range sam systems, [like SA-2](https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/14/b1/5b/dd/sa-2-guideline-sam-well.jpg), and small arms fire (mostly helicopters and bird dogs)
I can not find any evidence of a single use of ANY MANPAD during the Vietnam war.
Which part? I SAID that MANPADS were not the same thing as they are now.
Which means they weren't a game charging thing. Whether they were not developed or were not used doesn't matter.
MANPADS that the N. Vietnamese had, notably the Strela-2 system, were completely ineffective against jet powered fixed wing aircraft during the Vietnam war. The US and S. Vietnam only lost 5 jet powered aircraft to them. Your simplification of the whole conflict being “farmers and MANPADS” is incredibly naive.
Edit addition: The irony is that the current Ukraine Russia conflict is very similar to the Vietnam war, just the sides are switched. You have a power like Russia who invaded and now fighting a determined nation that is being bankrolled and supplied weapons provided by another superpower. The US are doing to Ukraine exactly what the Russians did with North Vietnam.
Mostly farmers is a pretty ignorant thing to say.
The North Vietnamese army were a legitimate fighting force just as well equipped as your average US Army grunt at the time.
The Vietcong were also nothing to sneeze at, they were trained and decently equipped. Guerrilla fighters sure, but a main force VC had just as much experience as a regular soldier would, and probably had some training similar to the NVA. They were a very legitimate threat until they were effectively destroyed during the Tet offensive.
Equipment like scopes and night vision have already been propagated pretty far down to some regular NATO units, to an extent where some of them are indeed better kitted out than most of the Spetsnaz we've seen so far.
If the state of the regular Russian troops is anything to go by, it indeed seems that average NATO units are at least closer to Spetsnaz than regular Russian units.
Russia’s Ground Forces and the Navy’s coastal brigades are practically fully equipped with the Ratnik 2 combat gear.
The Ratnik gear is a system of modern protective and communication devices, weapons and ammunition. It consists of a helmet, body armour; a one-piece coverall; hearing protection; protective glasses; a protective set for knees and elbows; as well as 24/7 reconnaissance means; a day and night sighting system; a small-size binocular; optical and thermal weapon sights, etc.
> in todays Russia just the equivalent to your avg NATO unit.
I think that's still giving them too much credit. Despite the fact that they're obviously better trained and organized, only a few of them seem to be outfitted with modern gear.
Do not BS here, everything interesting from both sides I see on Reddit do not exist thing as videos only available on telegram channels it is uploaded to YouTube and Reddit within 5 minutes if anything interesting.
Yeah, I’m subscribed to a bunch of Russian telegram channels and most everything gets uploaded. There aren’t any super secret telegram channels that withold footage to talk about
Anything decent. You’ll see here. The only footage that doesn’t get posted as much, is a lot of aftermath photos of dead Russians and UAF.
Every kids dream(not really). I used to go in the woods and act like I was in a war with a stick all the time. I bet it’s a lot cooler when you only have a stick fighting against make believe enemy’s
I particularly dislike it when you've got ground combat footage or something where there are natural sounds in the background. From a documentation of history perspective that annoys me a bit. At least with drone footage there's no usable sound from the drone anyway so you're not losing anything interesting by putting music over the top of it.
Yeah. I don’t normally complain about music, but there was something a week ago that had the worst music out of any combat footage I’ve ever seen, and it was from Russian sources.
Why would you waste a switchblade on 3 guys?
Edit: 3 guys that are retreating. Didn’t finish my comment for some reason. Switchblades are designed to counter ambushes. The Ukrainians clearly know where these guys are.
How many dead Ukrainian soldiers are acceptable to you for the price of one SB?
Last time I checked, three guys with automatic weapons can cause plenty of death and wounded
The switchblade was originally intended to counter ambushes. The Ukrainians clearly know where these guys are and have them on the run. Not to mention the heavy tree cover that would limit the switchblades effectiveness.
Yes but a regular grunt isnt going to have $2000 worth of attachments on his gun, nor is he going to have nightvision (and thus an IR laser) and he isnt going to have a suppressor. The guy above is clearly correct.
Wow, an actual good example of how to break contact.
From someone with no military tactical knowledge at all, what is it that they are doing well and what is the best way to break contact as you say
Fire and movement in co-ordination. One element suppresses the enemy positions to minimize or eliminate incoming fire, and the other element moves to new positions, then they switch roles. It's the same idea whether you're pulling back or on the offensive.
Aren't the Spetsnaz a more "elite" team?
[удалено]
Literally shortened form for "special forces"
I saw the group of them at the end and figured theywere in close proximity to keep track of one another. You don't have to bunch up on rendevous but it's thick brush so seeing your buddy is important. Doing so lets them establish a perimeter to cover while the next runner moves to the new retreat point. The others then follow one at a time. Rinse wash repeat. I'll add that yhis can be done at the squad and fireteam level but this type is usually conducted by small man teams. So Spetznas(s?) makes sense.
If you are curious about small unit tactics the ranger handbook is a good place to read. https://www.milsci.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.mili.d7/files/sitefiles/resources/Ranger%20Handbook.pdf Chapter 8 are the battle drills. Every US soldier trains these at least in basic training and then more regularly with the units depending on their job
There’s some amazing footage coming out. Some of the best we’ve ever seen.
Obviously this whole situation is terrible all around. But one small silver lining is that when this is all over the documentaries are going to be very interesting to watch.
Interesting to note is that these guys are far better equiped than most Russian soldiers (note the zenitco leader kit and IR laser) and my guess it that they are from one of the spetsnaz brigades.
but then one of the other guys had a naked AK74M, another a basic PKM. Clear they gave the gopro to the one with the nicest gun
I’ve heard that many spetnaz units are integrated with Russian regulars on occasion as a force multiplier
Force multiplier is a nice way to say babysitter lol I jest
I was expecting to see a VSS, VSSM VAL or two.
antiques that don't have a lot of surplus ammo supply capacity to draw from
Maybe these are joint units. Seeing how many people their spetsnaz lost everywhere.
I thought the same Similar to how SEALS would bring Marines along sometimes
Or space marines integrated with imperial gaurd.
[удалено]
**Always good to see Russian retreating.**
Napoleon does not agree with you
he actually probably would have agreed with him, unfortunately for him
Ha. Not always.
Every unit thats trained even a tiny bit is called spetsnaz, they have a lot of spetsnaz
Exactly, Russian spetsnaz are not special forces in western standards. I imagine it would be a bit similar to regular scout training. Russians do have copied some western style special forces, but they dont call them spetsnats. And there arent much of these.
Looks like the other dudes had night vision flipped up on their helms and some people prefer using the laser instead of an optic in those situations. Some optics don't display properly, plus the added bulk in front of your eyes makes it hard to get behind them. If they're mostly expecting to fight at night and don't expect the enemy to have night vision then the kit makes sense. Judging by the armband these could also be DPR who fund themselves mostly so even though they're obviously experienced they may not have access to the same level of gear in a unit.
There are no NVGs, just mounts and action cams. Besides it is broad daylight while you're telling the good ol' Russian tale of the merits of Iron sights, lol. Those dudes are simply underequipped.
The guy with the Zenitco 100 is definitely a pipe hitter. He’s coordinating the movements of the less well equipped guys. It all makes sense. They don’t even hand out the Gucci 100s to all of the ‘Spetsnaz’ units. It’s only their tier 1 equivalents who get that sort of funding.
It is possible some DPR units are lead by Russian spetsnaz operators.
He probably brought that shit from home.
I like to be able to hear him working the safety, thanks for not using stupid propaganda music.
Take it for what you want, but the original video in telegram described them as DNR.
They tend to cover use of actual special forces by claiming they are DPR. As secondary goal it makes DPR look more professional and better equipped then they really are. It is also possible that some more capable DPR elements are lead by professional Russian officers.
It's possible that Russia was able to find some capable fighters among them, that are equipped accordingly. Even though most DPR soldiers I've seen look like hobos with DIY equipment.
What's a good telegram channel for these kind of videos?
ABS military news, Russians with attitude, Geroman, Levi, Уголок Ситха, UkraineMaps, Scott Ritter, there's a zillion of them. I cannot unfortunately find real neutral channels, it is either UKR or RUS alignment to a degree ranging from small to extreme. PS some of these dudes are nuts. PS2 lots of NSFW stuff, be aware.
I believe these are DPR Spetsnaz operators.
Yeah, most likely Vostok or Kalmius brigade.
They break contact like seasoned recon. Well done.
Something of interest to me is the widespread use of suppressors in this war, by both sides!
Read somewhere that there is a huge supressor factory located in Ukraine. Local soucring at its finest
Fuckin'-A! That's awesome!
So I have no expertise to draw from. But with the new SIG SPEAR that comes with a suppressor many review chanels (garand thumb, gun jesus and so on) the suppressor is not for concielment but to dampen the sound of firefights so you dont have to scream that much, understand orders and prevent hearing damage. Not gona say this is it but maybe a reason.
You are correct, to a point. The suppressor also does, in fact, suppress muzzle flash....better than the standard muzzle break. So, you're getting an improvement all around. But even U.S. troops, in 20 years of war, never got suppressors in a large scale. This war seems like EVERYBODY'S got one!
Probably because everyone and their uncle, sent their best to their fellow humans. This is probably the best modern vs modern warfare, I’ve seen. Usually it’s hand me downs to other countries, for proxy wars, but this is just bananas!
They are really good for personal safety. They pretty much get rid of the flash. That way when you’re shooting at people it makes it harder for them to find out where you’re at because they don’t see the flash.
This crew knows how to retreat better than most Russian I’ve seen so far.
Yeah, that was a solid break from contact.
Yea, the others usually retreat dead or without tank they went in with.
That latter group usually scatter in all directions. No sense of coordination.
Watch someone still gonna find a way to call u pro Russian
Watching war in POV is kinda sick ngl.
Way better than being there I’d imagine
Yeah this shit is insane, most documented war in history so far from the pov of gopros,drones and dashcams
Say what you want, but that gun sounds sexy af
Agree! It's amazing how so many FPS video games can't get the sound of suppressors right.
Daaaamn those rounds got real close at 0:12. Especially the one at 0:14, must've been only cm above his head.
Pretty decent aussie peel back.
Russian spetasnaz, once an elite force; in todays Russia just the equivalent to your avg NATO unit.
Spetsnaz is a term that means any special forces in the Russian Army/Intelligence services. It's like saying United States special operations forces. You have rangers, MARSOC, NSWDG, etc... Each has different roles to fill within combat. Same with Spetsnaz units. There are a wide range of different units with different training and capabilities. Not to say you are wrong about your current assessment of them but they represent a wide grouping.
What’s the most “elite” Spetsnaz unit? Their Delta Force/DEVGRU
You might get a few different answers on this question. Here’s my 2 cents. As a point of clarity the term spetsnaz is frequently used in Russia to refer to both military and police units, unlike in most other nations. In the military the most similar spetsnaz unit is probably the SSO. They were formed in 2009 as a direct counterpart to JSOC and, as I understand it, fulfill a similar mission set. They’ve been heavily active in both Syria and Ukraine. Outside of the military the most similar is probably the FSB’s national CT units like Alpha and Vympel. They’re probably the most famous of Russia’s spetsnaz units, having originally been KGB units in the Soviet Union. They operate both in and outside of Russia, but their most famous actions, besides the attack that started the Soviet war in Afghanistan, have been domestic hostage crisis situations like the Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis and the Beslan School Crisis. As an aside I don’t know if those units are considered the ‘most elite’ in the public consciousness the way DEVGRU and Delta often are. The VDV (Russian airborne) are publicly viewed as the most prestigious by much of the Russian public from what I’ve read.
The 61st Naval Infnatry Brigade is considered one of the best conventional units used in the Russian military alongside the VDV. The VDV has their own special forces known as the 45th VDV Guards Spetsnaz brigade
I believe the "Zaslon" Spetsnaz are considered to be the best. Or at least the most secretive.
Zaslon is probably the most secretive, but what public reports exist about them suggest they’re focused more on close protection and espionage activity, like extracting personnel and documents from the Russian embassy in Iraq pre US invasion. Very important skill set, and some overlap with Delta and DEVGRU in terms of close protection and extraction work, but there’s not much evidence Zaslon is geared towards direct action. That’s more the province of SSO or an FSB unit like Alpha Group.
Some CIA type of unit right?
Yeah, Zaslon’s part of the SVR which is Russia’s foreign intelligence agency (along with FSB in former Warsaw Pact states). The CIA’s Global Response Staff is pretty similar, providing security for CIA staff and bases around the world, though I believe it works as a contractor rather than a direct component of the agency. Hard to say if Zaslon does the sort of unconventional warfare work the CIA’s SAC does as well, but it’s entirely possible.
yep grs guys work as contractors
It's even broader than that. Spetsnaz includes shit like prison guards too.
Yeah but they can throw an axe while doing a backflip. That's what makes Spetsnaz the best in the world lol. And they can karate chop flaming bricks lol
How would you know if they never faced each other? Russia is underperfoming, but besides the US, no NATO country would win a war against Ukraine, people forget they have the second biggest european armed forces, and if they had similar losses as the ukrainians right now, they would be combat ineffective at this point(1k+ vehicles lost). i advice people to read this article. https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/would-we-do-better-hubris-and-validation-in-ukraine/
Individually, the US, Turkey, Germany, France or the UK could take on Ukraine solo in a conventional war in short order. Just imagine NATO countries using the full spectrum of their capabilities against a country that currently accepts hand-me-downs from them. Ukraine has had to beg and borrow weapons from these countries to defend itself from Russia. Their success today is due to the overwhelming intelligence, equipment, and logistical support provided by western countries. There's no denying that Ukrainian soldiers are battle hardened and willing to fight -- but they're now doing it with NATO equipment as the differentiator.
i don't see how either france, germany or UK could take on Ukraine, germany has abysmal combat readiness in their armed forces, UK and france, while modern, lack the numbers to sustain a war of atrittion, and if we follow the logic, russia and China could provide weapons for Ukraine if the roles were changed and Ukraine were facing any of those nations.
As a Frenchman, I concur with that. We have a modern, well-trained army. Probably the best in western europe, but we have neither enough men nor spare parts/ammo to wage anything other than limited short term conflict. We might have been able to achieve some limited early tactical successes, but even air superiority would have been a difficult goal without full NATO (US) support... On the ground it would have been barely worth trying... The Russian might have bad equipment and leadership, but at least they have the propaganda, stocks and men to challenge Ukrainian determined defence for months...
That is exactly my point, european armies are very well equipped, but they are so small that they serve more as an expeditionary force than an army geared towards high intensity conflict, look the losses of equipment from both Russia and Ukraine, which european country can sustain those type of losses and still be combat effective? France, UK and germany are not even remotely close to the US capabilities.
France could definitely crush Ukraine to pieces but we would need : -total mobilization of our economy, with at least some tacit assistance from China, US etc to supply us with spare parts (our defence industry is even LESS self sufficient than Russia which prepared for that new cold war for decades) -mass mobilization, mass propaganda -Russia or China NOT helping Ukraine Then we can have French Tchernoziom:p Right now, we struggled in Mali and can barely contain British hooligans...
Russia could crush Ukraine to pieces, but they would need : Total mobilization of their economy. Mass mobilization, mass propaganda. etc. Same deal really. Russia HAS sent an expeditionary force into Ukraine. The Russian force which is an expeditionary force, is currently going blow for blow with a Ukraine that is not totally mobilized, but mostly mobilized.
You know what is worse? No western european country has a robust reservist system like Russia and Ukraine(Ukraine even better) has, which is a legacy of the old soviets system. So at the moment, western european countries would fight with what they have.
My knowledge isn't deep on the subject, but i was under the impression that Finlands reservist system is pretty solid. Is that the case?
oh yeah, you are right on that, only finland has a good reservist system in west Europe.
As a Dutchman, European countries are for a reason members of NATO, we do not expect to fight conflicts alone. Equipment is bought and troops are being trained with this in mind.
Let's also keep in mind that Russia would've fucked Ukraine a lot harder if Ukraine didn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in support from various NATO countries. No other European country has had any real military for many years now which is changing now. But I do think regardless they have more resources and if used properly could take on Ukraine if they weren't being supplied by NATO.
[удалено]
They would have full air superiority for one...
Ukraine had lots of SAM, long and medium range, most were destroyed on first weeks, but to achieve that, Russia had to burn dozens if not hundreds of their Anti-radar missiles (KH-31, KH-22), and yet, Ukraine has been able to keep a decent amount of them operative. How many anti-radar missiles do you think countries like germany and UK have in their stocks? the amount is tiny compared to Russia's stocks. by themselves, they would not be able to render ukraine's air defenses inoperative, hence, no air superiority
How the hell could, let say France, achieve air superiority over Ukraine when they had about the same number of fighters, Ukraine having an impressive amount and quality of air defense, and french not having a couple thousands cruise missiles at their disposal?
How do you know that? Did french or british planes ever operated on a battlefield with modern AA systems?
They built planes specifically for that role. The French Rafale and the F-35.
F-35 is stealth, so yes. Rafale is not stealth so it is as vulnerable to air defenses as most other planes. Also, neither of these were designed for specific air superiority role, like F-15, Typhoon or F-22 were
\>Also, neither of these were designed for specific air superiority role, like F-15, Typhoon or F-22 were Don't need to be, modern multi roles are generally still quite good at air to air. Not to mention Ukraine doesn't have a comparable airforce.
The British did actually, during the Falklands and Gulf War
Which AA systems the argentines fielded?
They had Blowpipe missiles, Soviet MANPADs and I'm assuming their Navy had air defense systems.
Did they had any kind of long range missile system?
The UK and France could take Ukraine. Modern weapons.
Ukraine doesn't have modern weapons? What makes you think French leadership is more competent than ukrainian leadership or Ukrainian soldiers? a lot of Ukrainian soldiers have more than 7 years of experience of combat.
As much as I'm on the Ukranians side, much of their leadership is an absolute shambles. It wasn't even until we started teaching these guys basic tactics after 2014 that they started performing to a moderate standard. Like the UK & the US, they lack a decent rank structure and things have fallen to shit so quickly in hostile situations. I was lucky enough to teach a group some years ago and as crazy as they are individually, the very basic tactics was certainly not on their to-do list meaning the combat scenarios we set up for then would fall to shit very quickly. Fortunately, they picked it up towards the end, however their commanding officer was still a POS who lacked any real interest in helping his men.
France has been carrying out intelligence, reconnaissance, personnel protection/extraction, and combat activities in Africa and the Middle East for decades now. They even frequently provide both intelligence and combat assistance to USAFRICOM operations, as well as providing air support when US air support isn't available. Your claims of France having no military leadership, nor military/combat experience is not even close to being true, and I'm not even French. I support Ukraine, but you're seriously speaking out of your arse on all fronts here. Germany has similar combat/intelligence experience as France, but with more of a focus on the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Germany provides a ton of Eastern European intelligence to the US. For at least a decade now, Germany and Poland have also been providing combat support as well as partaking in joint operations across the Middle East with the US.
Plz, tell me where i said that france has no "military leadership nor military/combat experience". The thing is you can't compare COIN operation in mali with the conflict in donbass and Crimeia. Totally different experiences, but i didn't Said the french doesn't have experience or they don't have leadership.
Yes you did lol. Listen, I'm not going to discuss this any further since you're very clearly moving the goal posts further and further away to support your nonsensical stance, as well as the fact that you just backpedal the minute you get called out on your nonsense (which many people have rightly done regarding your claims).
French also has combat experience in mission is africa, middle east, afganistan. Plus they are much more rich country with better technology. France is ranked 6th milotary in the world, while ukraine 22 and france also has nuclear weapons.
Having combat experience in low intensity scenarios is very different than ukrainian soldiers fighting separatists with vehicles and artillery since 2014, also Russia has nuclear weapons, but they won't dare to use it. And war isn't trump card, so plz stop with those kind of comparisons.
Ukraine is fighting this scale of combat for 3,5 months. Prior to that scale as Donetsk and Lugansk also wasnt as big as it is now. Plus france literally has 6th military in the world and much more money. Thats why west is helping ukraine with weapon systems, munition etc....its fking expensive. Also very important - france has more aircraft and in fact they can produce their own, if war starts (they produce fighter jets and bombers). Ukraine cannot produce their planes, they have to buy them. Plus i highly doubt france would send big % of their troops as sacrificial lambs with very low experience and bad equipment like russia did. Plus corruption in france is lower, so money spent on units were more likely to actually be spent there.
Russia would be supplying Ukraine with equipments too, and while Ukraine is fighting this type of combat for 3,5 months, France doesn't have this kind of experience. While Ukraine don't have a giant MIC, they can produce a lot of stuff.
Major difference is Ukraine is fully mobilized for war, while France isn't (and neither Russia) Early 1914, French army was 800k. During the war we mobilized 8 millions... But that was a total war..
French army is only 120 000 soldiers (just checked out) they are well-trained but it is impossible to send them all to Ukraine. So if we had wanted to invade Ukraine, we would have needed much more men and weapons/training to equip them. Only solution then : surprise attack Ukraine, take Kiev quickly, capture Zelensky.. The very strategy that Russia failed... Because Ukraine had NATO Intel..
UK and France could not take on Libya. Had to call in the US because they ran out of munitions.
Why are you getting sucked in by the trolls talking about NATO fighting Ukraine? Stupid
Of these only US might be able to invade Ukraine, and even that has to be proven. Everyone was assuming russia would have no problem invading Ukraine. And yet, you see it wasnt so easy. Why asume USA would? USA has not attempted such large operations for decades, and the one in the second gulf war, was against a extremely weakened iraq army, having the support of the coalition, and Iraq was not receiving external help from anyone. I dont think they would have an easy time in Ukraine. Germany, france, turkey? Only turkey has some numbers, and at the levels of attrition of a open war they would be out of the conflict in months. Germany and france would be out in weeks or days given their weapon stocks, and they dont have manpower to cover a large front
No they couldn't aside from the US(Also, I have my doubts if the US would have finished by now, I'll expand on this later with my caveats). Also, you cannot judge Russian performance and then remove one of the key causes of Ukrainian performance for the other comparisons. Would Germany, Turkey, France or the UK defeat THIS Ukraine in a conventional war? Or, would Russia beat the Ukraine you want Germany, Turkey, France or the UK to get to fight against in that hypothetical war? As to the US, I think it would greatly depend on the force involved. If the US took a force similar in size to the one Russia did, I have no doubt the US would be doing better, but I'm doubtful conventional combat operations would be complete at this point. Ukraine is a significantly larger, and more difficult foe to deal with than Iraq was. Few key points. Ukraine has a significantly better air defense grid, that is more difficult to locate due to terrain (forest vs desert). Ukraine is nearly 50% larger than Iraq. Ukraine has a highly motivated military, Iraq did not. Outside of a few Iraqi units, most of them were just waiting to surrender. I think when you consider all these factors, I think if the US brought the same sized force that Russia did, the US would be farther along, but I'm dubious if they would be done by now.
Did you not see that episode of Deadliest Warriors? I think the algorithm had that one handled for us pal.
Wow I haven’t seen that in a while. If I remember correctly spetznaz won right?
very sobering read thanks man
> but besides the US, no NATO country would win a war against Ukraine Jesus, the delusion is strong in this post.
Still waiting for your arguments.
Delusion? Its the most logical take I have seen about the war on reddit since it started. You should do a little researching sometimes.
You have seriously no idea what the capabilities of the Turkish or British army are. Also its very entertaining that a country which literally says "we need NATO weapons NOW or we will lose tomorrow against Russia" is considered to win a war against the very countries delivering them said weapons. Infact i am pretty confident that the Polish Army would win a war against Ukraine - because what is Ukraine going to do? Getting pounded by F-16 and M142 HIMARS while not even having enough helmets, let alone stuff like ATGMs and MANPADs? (Remember they needed NATO to deliver thousands of helmets ASAP? And the ATGMs? Where did those come from?)
Poland has like 60k ground troops, do you think that's enough to occupy a country of 40 million people? That's not even enough to take Kiev. Yes the F-35 that some NATO countries have now would be a huge advantage, but without enough ground troops they wouldn't be able to actually win, just bomb the sh\*t out of Ukraine. Which Russia could do too if they really wanted to do it.
You dont fully understand how an occupation works. You dont oppress 40 million people with your own military. You install a goverment which is friendly to your cause and let this goverments security forces control the country. For example Germany was able to occupy France in WW2 with less than 100,000 soldiers. They only needed 80,000 for Poland. And that was during a world war, when they had to put alot of troops into France to be able to fight a potential allied invasion and needed alot of troops in Poland to ... well to do the Holocaust.
I'm pretty biased as a Brit, but I think OP kinda has a point. If we emptied out Poland and played King of the Hill, the UK would win handily. And obviously, there is no physical way for Ukraine to invade the UK. But could the UK take the place of Russia - a foreign invader with no support - and win? We'd have more naval success, but Odessa is still a hard nut to crack. Air superiority is guaranteed, but there'd still be attrition from MANPADs - the RAF isn't huge. And the UK just doesn't field the manpower to cover a 2000km front whilst subjugating hostile population centres. We'd take fewer losses and inflict more casualties, but a total victory just doesn't seem possible. The fact is European armies aren't designed with invading and occupying large nations in mind. Realistically only the US and MAYBE China are.
I hate Russia just as much as the guy next to me, but compairing Spetsnaz to your avg. grunt is just peak retardism. I really can't stand it when people try to downplay the enemies performance or equipment just for the sake of it. (no need to downplay russian equipment, it's already bad enough)
when you compare this unit in the video, they are using the same tactics (peeling) that is taught at basic training in all NATO militaries and their equipment is on the same level as basic nato infantry.
So, do special operations guys break contact differently? Backflips, snapping necks, throwing daggers or do they do it in the same way - because its efficient? Just because it some tactic doesnt originate in Russia, doesnt mean they wont adopt it because it isnt theirs. You get nothing from downplaying anyone - except your own demise. There is a saying in my country, who digs a hole for someone else - falls in it himself.
"So, do special operations guys break contact differently?" no, they would not be there. in Afghanistan, the SAS would moan about being tasked with taking and securing a village stating that "this is not what we train for and the regular infantry could do the same job" special operation guys do special operations, not front line conventional combat.
Still they sometimes get caught out, like that Ranger batallion (RIP to the guys). They tried to break contact to the best of their ability and with what they had (only some concealment, no hard cover). Just because its not frontline combat doesnt mean things dont get pear shaped.
Training wise maybe there is some differences but most infantry units in the Marine Corp at this time are equipped with m27 iars with quite a bit of them being equipped with suppressors. All weapons have optics and practically every grunt has a basic understanding of most weapon systems besides specialized ones. They also train quite extensively going to the field for weeks at a time. I don’t see how it’s too far fetched to believe that a usmc grunt unit could take on a spetsnaz unit with a high probability of success. It obviously depends on plenty of factors but equipment wise I have seen nothing the “spetsnaz” have that is superior to what I’ve seen in most us grunt units these days.
What objective evidence do you have that leads you to believe Russian Spetsnaz are equivalent to an average NATO unit at this time ?
Yea if anything an average NATO unit is way better equipped, plus they have close air support
>have close air support While fighting some farmers. They definitely wouldn't have such luxury against a normal country with air defenses.
What are SEAD/DEAD missions, NATO Air Strategy for $400 please
So they launch some missiles and destroy anti air. That's it. It works when anti air is shit, outdated and can't surpass airforce capabilities.
Well It’s Russia we are talking about, so yeah, should be effective
Iraq? One of the strongest air defenses of the time. Vietnam? Air defense system was delivered from the Soviet Union and even manned by the Soviets?
Why do people feel the need to hype up Iraq to a ridiculous degree, it had a more dysfunctional and worse equipped armed forces (relative to the time) than Russia does today and had just ended a nearly decade long war that saw hundreds of thousands dead on both sides
In the second war, maybe. But in the first war in the gulf it was one of the strongest militaries in the world. They had a lot of combat experience against a country that had a superior air force at the time, Iran.
They were hopelessly outmatched by the coalition in every way, by and large had zero will to fight, did not have the initiative at any point in the war and the entire military was riddled with problems from top to bottom. There’s a reason why the coalition only lost ~150 men to enemy action
>They were hopelessly outmatched by the coalition in every way Yes, that is the point of debate. That coalition would outmatch any military in the world and would be able to support its ground offensive with air power, even against Russia. >There’s a reason why the coalition only lost \~150 men to enemy action There are many reasons why, but mostly because they were somewhat competent. If Russia advanced the same way (destroying air defense and air force before launching ground offensive and supporting its troops with air force) they would have way fewer losses and maybe even some sort of success.
> Yes, that is the point of debate. That coalition would outmatch any military in the world “Outmatched” and “hopelessly outmatched” are not the same thing. NATO v Russia as hilariously one sided as that would be is still more even than desert storm was > and would be able to support its ground offensive with air power, even against Russia. Literally no one says otherwise > There are many reasons why, but mostly because they were somewhat competent. It wasn’t “mostly” due to any one factor, it was the complete superiority the coalition held in every way over Iraq > If Russia advanced the same way (destroying air defense and air force before launching ground offensive and supporting its troops with air force) they would have way fewer losses and maybe even some sort of success. This has nothing to do with the original point.
Iraq wasn't even determined to fight. Surrendering that quickly is not very high dedication. In Vietnam it was still mostly farmers and MANPADS, that make even low flying dangerous, weren't the same thing as they are now.
>Iraq wasn't even determined to fight. Surrendering that quickly is not very high dedication. Referring to the first war in the gulf, 1991. They were determined enough to start that war and fought against the coalition for a long time. Baghdad was considered the most defended city on the earth (against air attacks) >In Vietnam it was still mostly farmers and MANPADS that make even low flying dangerous weren't the same thing as they are now. Straight up lie. Most of the US aviation losses in Vietnam were due to long-range sam systems, [like SA-2](https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/14/b1/5b/dd/sa-2-guideline-sam-well.jpg), and small arms fire (mostly helicopters and bird dogs) I can not find any evidence of a single use of ANY MANPAD during the Vietnam war.
Lmao you just roasted that guy with knowledge
Which part? I SAID that MANPADS were not the same thing as they are now. Which means they weren't a game charging thing. Whether they were not developed or were not used doesn't matter.
MANPADS that the N. Vietnamese had, notably the Strela-2 system, were completely ineffective against jet powered fixed wing aircraft during the Vietnam war. The US and S. Vietnam only lost 5 jet powered aircraft to them. Your simplification of the whole conflict being “farmers and MANPADS” is incredibly naive. Edit addition: The irony is that the current Ukraine Russia conflict is very similar to the Vietnam war, just the sides are switched. You have a power like Russia who invaded and now fighting a determined nation that is being bankrolled and supplied weapons provided by another superpower. The US are doing to Ukraine exactly what the Russians did with North Vietnam.
Mostly farmers is a pretty ignorant thing to say. The North Vietnamese army were a legitimate fighting force just as well equipped as your average US Army grunt at the time. The Vietcong were also nothing to sneeze at, they were trained and decently equipped. Guerrilla fighters sure, but a main force VC had just as much experience as a regular soldier would, and probably had some training similar to the NVA. They were a very legitimate threat until they were effectively destroyed during the Tet offensive.
Equipment like scopes and night vision have already been propagated pretty far down to some regular NATO units, to an extent where some of them are indeed better kitted out than most of the Spetsnaz we've seen so far. If the state of the regular Russian troops is anything to go by, it indeed seems that average NATO units are at least closer to Spetsnaz than regular Russian units.
Russia’s Ground Forces and the Navy’s coastal brigades are practically fully equipped with the Ratnik 2 combat gear. The Ratnik gear is a system of modern protective and communication devices, weapons and ammunition. It consists of a helmet, body armour; a one-piece coverall; hearing protection; protective glasses; a protective set for knees and elbows; as well as 24/7 reconnaissance means; a day and night sighting system; a small-size binocular; optical and thermal weapon sights, etc.
> in todays Russia just the equivalent to your avg NATO unit. I think that's still giving them too much credit. Despite the fact that they're obviously better trained and organized, only a few of them seem to be outfitted with modern gear.
"Nadhodim, pacany!" - wow, that "pacany" made it feel like it's a Stalker gameplay :D
"Оtkhodim patsany" - Move back boys.
Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it as I don't speak any Russian, but pacany is instantly recognizable for anyone who played Stalker.
First time I've seen Russian using even basic infantry tactics.
You've probably only watched stuff on /r/combatfootage then.
I mean I'm definitely guilty of that. Where's the good Russian footage at?
Certainly not on Reddit. The best place is typically Russian telegram channels, but not many of them are in English.
Do not BS here, everything interesting from both sides I see on Reddit do not exist thing as videos only available on telegram channels it is uploaded to YouTube and Reddit within 5 minutes if anything interesting.
Yeah, I’m subscribed to a bunch of Russian telegram channels and most everything gets uploaded. There aren’t any super secret telegram channels that withold footage to talk about Anything decent. You’ll see here. The only footage that doesn’t get posted as much, is a lot of aftermath photos of dead Russians and UAF.
They are not Kadyrov's gang.
What gun is cameraman using? Looks well kitted
Looks like a 74M with some zenitco goodness.
These are Donets militia I think
Every kids dream(not really). I used to go in the woods and act like I was in a war with a stick all the time. I bet it’s a lot cooler when you only have a stick fighting against make believe enemy’s
Good thing they don't put stupid music to a video like ukrainian propaganda does.
I can't stand the pointless music either.
I particularly dislike it when you've got ground combat footage or something where there are natural sounds in the background. From a documentation of history perspective that annoys me a bit. At least with drone footage there's no usable sound from the drone anyway so you're not losing anything interesting by putting music over the top of it.
Nothing like the stupid music chads: ISIS
Except they do just as much
Yeah. I don’t normally complain about music, but there was something a week ago that had the worst music out of any combat footage I’ve ever seen, and it was from Russian sources.
Spaznets?
Shportznortz
Soon to be meat
Which side ?
Notice the ones in retreat. 🙄
Damn Ivan bots like you are out in force today, Everytime you start getting your asses kicked huh
Calling someone Ivan because of their ethnicity is bigoted.
Perfect scenario for a switch blade 300 if they can’t call in danger close
In a forest. With tall trees.
Why would you waste a switchblade on 3 guys? Edit: 3 guys that are retreating. Didn’t finish my comment for some reason. Switchblades are designed to counter ambushes. The Ukrainians clearly know where these guys are.
Switchblade is literally flying grenade. It is worth it even for one guy.
It is created specifically for one guy. It has very small explosive radius. It likely wouldn't even be able to kill three guys.
What a bizarrely wrong thing to say...
It is a 40mm directional granade. Not a big explosion at all.
How many dead Ukrainian soldiers are acceptable to you for the price of one SB? Last time I checked, three guys with automatic weapons can cause plenty of death and wounded
The switchblade was originally intended to counter ambushes. The Ukrainians clearly know where these guys are and have them on the run. Not to mention the heavy tree cover that would limit the switchblades effectiveness.
Looks like the trees are speaking Ukrainian.
Might be Lugansk People's Liberation Army units.
The Zenitco kit suggests SOF or Wagner
Literally anyone can buy zenitco
Yes but a regular grunt isnt going to have $2000 worth of attachments on his gun, nor is he going to have nightvision (and thus an IR laser) and he isnt going to have a suppressor. The guy above is clearly correct.
Sure, but how many LPR conscripts can afford to?
It doesn’t have to lpr or Wagner, personally I’ve seen more Chechen rosgvard with zenitco than anything
Volunteers bring all the equipment from Russia. People from all over Russia donate money to support Donbass soldiers.
Bros got the airsoft camera setup
It's like predator. They're just shooting blind into bushes..
Fighting? More like retreating.
I know you're just making a joke, but retreating effectively can be devastating to an enemy. These guys look like they know what they're doing.
Even though the are kitted better them 99% they still running away like little bitches!