Russian special military operation in Ukraine #21

flamming_python wrote:There's a meltdown in progress it seems. The US Helsinki Commission may need to be evac'd for 10km around just to be on the safe side.

Another empty-headed Murkan idiot discovering the side-effects from Copium addiction.  

Who could have guessed that being exceptional could be so torturous?  

flamming_python wrote:

There's a meltdown in progress it seems. The US Helsinki Commission may need to be evac'd for 10km around just to be on the safe side.

Shit !! Looks like we found Zelensky's cocaine provider. Give that man some pills, anything you have, he is clearly in need of some chemicals inside his blood.

flamming_python wrote:https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/15596

The UN said that Russia may not have violated the agreement on the export of Ukrainian grain by shelling the port of Odessa. The words of an unnamed representative of the organization are quoted by The New York Times.

According to the official, "technically, Russia may not have violated the deal, since it did not commit to avoid attacks on those parts of Ukrainian ports that are not directly used for grain exports."

Yea, you got that right unnamed cuck

Russia made that agreement just to bomb that port and piss them off even more. Now it happened that agreement has value.

Arestovich denied his own statement yesterday about the encirclement of Russian troops in the north of the Kherson region

The day before, he said that more than a thousand Russians are in a tactical encirclement in the village of Vysokopole and will soon be defeated. Naturally, all this turned out to be complete nonsense.

“Our people there are not quite successful and experience a certain lack of strength to close this story,” Arestovich is forced to admit, “Not everything there is favorable for ours.”

----

So no kherson offensive?

Any news from Seversk?

Arkanghelsk wrote:
So no kherson offensive?

Ukraine always lies? Ukraine always lies? Ukraine always lies? etc. etc.

caveat emptor wrote:

sepheronx wrote:That would also mean a large formation that would be easy to spot. Ukraine constantly sending soldiers and equipment to Kherson and they all get hit by artillery and they flee. Tons of drones and planes flying over the area too.
There won't be a large offensive. They don't have the manpower nor the equipment to do it.  At best they will just continue to hit with artillery.

I would agree with you, but they don't care about the soldiers. And they need virtual victories to keep the money and weapons flowing.

Good

Win-win for everyone

Isos wrote:

flamming_python wrote:https://i.servimg.com/u/f31/18/75/82/84/indexp10.jpg
There's a meltdown in progress it seems. The US Helsinki Commission may need to be evac'd for 10km around just to be on the safe side.

Shit !! Looks like we found Zelensky's cocaine provider. Give that man some pills, anything you have, he is clearly in need of some chemicals inside his blood.

Wait, those were consecutive tweets?  

Jesus...

The SMO demonstrates the reality of massive combined arms war

In the Nagornoh Karabakh war, we saw wide scale mobilization and mass fires , in 1 month of combat 3000 Azeris and 4000 Artsakh and Armenian KIA, with hundreds of equipment destroyed

Along with close to 11,000 wounded in 1 month

In Ukraine, we see hundreds and thousands of equipment destroyed

In Ukraine , full mobilization, and 70-100 thousand KIA with numbers unaccounted for and bodies left in fields

In Russia, no mobilization, around 4000+ KIA with hospitals not overwhelmed and CASEVAC and MEDEVAC functioning easily

Only the side with strong organic air defense, army PVO , and Long range fires can win

Maneuver is a very small part of the wars

In reality we saw attrition as the main factor, a period of intense and sustained fire, inflicting hundreds of dead and even thousands per day

So in near peer conflicts, we must assume 2 things

The winner must endure casualties, and also have an industry cranking out missiles like Russia does with no sign of slowing down

It is a compounding military equation, and you see that with time, the weaker side exponentially takes casualties and destruction

Also time is not a true variable in these wars

In Russia - USA war, mobilization would be needed for both sides, and the numbers of dead would be in the high thousands per day

Society and industry of America is not ready for it

You can see even in proxy war, paltry numbers of weapons shipped, and time lapse of deliveries of 20 or 30 units

Yes Ukraine holds its positions, but they are Rotating flesh and blood , from one brigade to the next, drafting every last man in Ukraine

Russia will win, and will kill up to 250,000 Ukrainians, wiping out the army

That's how it will end

Russia Informs Turkey It Had "Nothing To Do" With Odessa Port Attack

by Tyler Durden
Saturday, Jul 23, 2022 - 08:24 PM

Update(1524ET): While the White House and European allies, along with the Ukrainian government, were lock-step in condemning as outrageous a series of reported Russian airstrikes on the port of Odesa the morning after the grain export deal was signed in Istanbul, the Kremlin is apparently denying it was behind the attack:

Turkey's defense minister said on Saturday that Russian officials had told Ankara that Moscow had "nothing to do" with strikes on Ukraine's Odesa port.

"In our contact with Russia, the Russians told us that they had absolutely nothing to do with this attack and that they were examining the issue very closely and in detail," Defence Minister Hulusai Akar said in a statement.

"The fact that such an incident took place right after the agreement we made yesterday really worried us," he added.

Ukraine for its part, has said it is still preparing agricultural exports despite the threat of more strikes. Key infrastructure at Odesa port was not damaged, according to local officials.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/odessa-port-rocked-airstrikes-hours-after-ukraine-grain-export-deal-signed

Singular_Transform wrote:

limb wrote:

Any civil engineers here who can explain how much time would ut take to fix the bridge so tanks can go through it?

How deep is the dniepr there? Can tanks snorkel through some points.

It is not one bridge, but two paralell bridge.
The bridge has two kind of section, one is close to the shore, with simple vertical beams under the road, other is the three long spand box support section.

The box supported long spand section received hits, means the bridge load  bearing capability degraded by the width of the sum of the holes.

It is relativly easy to calculate the value.


The simiples quick fix is to install a metal frame  structure onto the current bridge roads, self supporting that can stand independently of the concrete structure bellow.

If they push it then it is a matter of weeks to install it, most likelly the military has pre-fabricated sections for this exact purpose.


And by the shape of the middle section it is stronger than neccessary, means it has lot of allowance for extra structures.

If there is an independent metal structure on the top of it htne it will be  extremly hard to damage it with missiles.

Do you think the shockwaves cause fractures in the vertical beams which reduce load bearing? We see holes, but for some reason they didn't show internal damage inside the holes, but its probaby minor.


PSA for the fags here worshipping guided artillery  munitions(including me):
Guidance kits reduce explosive amount. HIMARs guided rounds also have extended range, futher reducing explosive power. This means that for very tough structures, they're suboptimal.

Everything comes at a price.

Also, regarding russia not destroying bridges on the dniepr. I would forgive this. In serbia, bridges were destroyed by NATO aircraft with laser guided free fall or gliding bombs, which have much more explosive mass than cruise missiles, at the expense of much lower range. The only reason NATO could destroy those bridges, is because they could get close, since serbs had ancient AA, with barely any optically or IR guided SAMs, and serbs didn't have AWACs support.

For russia to destroy dneipr bridges, it would need to send flights of Su-34s, Su-30s, Su-24s, etc, carrying KAB-1500 bombs. This would incure at least half a dozen aircraft in losses due to optically guided SAM ambushes.

The russian air force has judged that it isn't worth it.

The RuAF isn't incompetent or incapable. In fact, it rpobably is more competent than the army and navy. It however is incredibly risk averse. Could they be doing more? Yes? With low losses? Yes. However, good enough in terms of causaulties for the RuAF isn't enough. It needs perfection. So far, less tha 15 aircraft shot down by enemy fire: 1 Su-35, 3-4 Su-34s, 1-2 Su-30s, 5-7 Su-25s.

Pods are the poor man's answer to having dedicated vehicles for each munition weight class. And like most el cheapo solutions they are false economy: a heavy duty truck fitted with sophisticated fire direction capabilities for long range BM is supposed to moonlight as an old Ural firing unguided Grad rockets. Rolling Eyes

The more I think about it the less the concept makes sense. The supposed allure of self-reloadable MLRS like M270 is that they can load pods from the ground without assistance. Yeah, but what about the part where you're just making up yet another security headache - you now need to guard a few pods from attack. At least with a transloader the launcher merely has to meet them halfway, 10 minutes reload and after you both go on your merry way.

Thats like saying detachable mags are inferior to internal rifle magazines, which is retarded. Loading rockets individually on an MLRS is like loading rifle rounds one by on into a rifle, rather than putting a detachable mag in. Modular rocket pods for MLRS aren't replacements for reload vehicles. They're there to make reloading faster.

The russians already have the Uragan-1M, so they're trying to procure MLRS with modular pods, you're just coping.

limb wrote:

For russia to destroy dneipr bridges, it would need to send flights of Su-34s, Su-30s, Su-24s, etc, carrying KAB-1500 bombs. This would incure at least half a dozen aircraft in losses due to optically guided SAM ambushes.

The russian air force has judged that it isn't worth it.

Destroying bridges crossing the Dnepr is only in the interest of the loosing side.

I remember a discussion here saying Quatar and other arab countries are getting their money only thanks to oil/gas. And someone here said they invested massively in western companies.

They better watch how the west is taking russians assets illegaly against the law. Soon when China will dominate totally and their oil and gas reserve will be coming to an end they will quickly become terrorist sponsoring states and will get their investement seized in the west too.

Mir wrote:

limb wrote:

For russia to destroy dneipr bridges, it would need to send flights of Su-34s, Su-30s, Su-24s, etc, carrying KAB-1500 bombs. This would incure at least half a dozen aircraft in losses due to optically guided SAM ambushes.

The russian air force has judged that it isn't worth it.

Destroying bridges crossing the Dnepr is only in the interest of the loosing side.

If you destroy enemy supply lines, they win-

Suntzuevich

Mir wrote:

limb wrote:

For russia to destroy dneipr bridges, it would need to send flights of Su-34s, Su-30s, Su-24s, etc, carrying KAB-1500 bombs. This would incure at least half a dozen aircraft in losses due to optically guided SAM ambushes.

The russian air force has judged that it isn't worth it.

Destroying bridges crossing the Dnepr is only in the interest of the loosing side.

Yes and no.

Ukraine will destroy them anyways if the russians get to close, and Ukraine is using these bridges to send supplies over, if the bridges are going to be blown up anyways you may has well slow supplies down for your enemy by destroying them, Russia isn't capturing those bridges in one piece

limb wrote:
If you destroy enemy supply lines, they win-

Suntzuevich

Quite true but you will find these supply lines in the rear behind enemy lines - not on the front line.
This particular bridge is on the front line for now. The only reason to destroy this bridge now is to stop the enemy from advancing.

The earlier question somewhere on why the Russians did not blow these bridges early in the campaign is simple. The Russians will need these bridges soon to cross the Dnepr and only from that point onward will they become a vital part of the Russian's supply route.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Yes and no.

Ukraine will destroy them anyways if the russians get to close, and Ukraine is using these bridges to send supplies over, if the bridges are going to be blown up anyways you may has well slow supplies down for your enemy by destroying them, Russia isn't capturing those bridges in one piece

Ukraine failed to destroy this bridge and they may struggle to destroy any of these bridges in future - but we'll see.

Ukrainians are very unhappy with how easily they are destroyed by Russian artillery: https://t.me/ice_inii/760

flamming_python wrote:https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/15596

The UN said that Russia may not have violated the agreement on the export of Ukrainian grain by shelling the port of Odessa. The words of an unnamed representative of the organization are quoted by The New York Times.

According to the official, "technically, Russia may not have violated the deal, since it did not commit to avoid attacks on those parts of Ukrainian ports that are not directly used for grain exports."

Yea, you got that right unnamed cuck

Mir wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Yes and no.

Ukraine will destroy them anyways if the russians get to close, and Ukraine is using these bridges to send supplies over, if the bridges are going to be blown up anyways you may has well slow supplies down for your enemy by destroying them, Russia isn't capturing those bridges in one piece

Ukraine failed to destroy this bridge and they may struggle to destroy any of these bridges in future - but we'll see.

They haven't even tried to destroy them because there is no need to as of now, why are you making false accusations.

JohninMK wrote:Russia Informs Turkey It Had "Nothing To Do" With Odessa Port Attack

by Tyler Durden
Saturday, Jul 23, 2022 - 08:24 PM

Update(1524ET): While the White House and European allies, along with the Ukrainian government, were lock-step in condemning as outrageous a series of reported Russian airstrikes on the port of Odesa the morning after the grain export deal was signed in Istanbul, the Kremlin is apparently denying it was behind the attack:

   Turkey's defense minister said on Saturday that Russian officials had told Ankara that Moscow had "nothing to do" with strikes on Ukraine's Odesa port.

   "In our contact with Russia, the Russians told us that they had absolutely nothing to do with this attack and that they were examining the issue very closely and in detail," Defence Minister Hulusai Akar said in a statement.

   "The fact that such an incident took place right after the agreement we made yesterday really worried us," he added.

Ukraine for its part, has said it is still preparing agricultural exports despite the threat of more strikes. Key infrastructure at Odesa port was not damaged, according to local officials.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/odessa-port-rocked-airstrikes-hours-after-ukraine-grain-export-deal-signed

Considering the target that was destroyed it is obvious that Russia had nothing to do with this incident. NATzO mass media consumers
will lap up whatever intellectual excrement is given to them. Motive is never a consideration when it comes to Russia. It is Pavlov's
dogs level of reflex about "ebil Rosshians doing ebil".