Russian special military operation in Ukraine #42

tonight in Artemovsk ... pretty fiery i must say. Grad incendiary rockets turned nazi part of Artemovsk into Phosphorus Vegas So Wagner is out of ammo? :d


https://t.me/z_arhiv/21004

I doubt Wagner is out of ammo, I am inclined to agree with Mark Sleboda that this is a disinformation stunt.

Wagner have essentially finished the bulk of their work in Artemovsk, so they are taking a break and going elsewhere.

ucmvulcan wrote:

Backman wrote:Why was Nagasaki and Hiroshima habitable after being nuked? This whole idea that a city would be inhabitable for years from tactical nukes is scare mongering bullshit. Serbia has more issues with cancers from depleted uranium shells than Nagasaki or Hiroshima does from being nuked.

Russia should take this into account.

Very low yield weapons compared to today.  Atom bombs can do colossal damage, spark firestorms, cause those too close to the epicenter to get cancers.  Hydrogen bombs are several magnitudes more destructive.  

Hydrogen bombs have the least long term radiation release on a power output basis. It is the fission core that produces the isotope contamination but it is not as bad as fission reactor meltdown contamination. That the central parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not turn into radiation exclusion zones is a testament to this.

Regardless, limited use of nuclear weapons will not occur like in Japan. If NATzO or Russia uses them, then there will be escalation. Japan was made an example to threaten the USSR and the rest of the non-compliant world. The lunatics running the NATzO asylum for some reason think that they have the same advantage as in 1945.

I suspect that the only one leaving Artemovsk (Bakhmut) will be Prigozhin himself.

Wagner gas su-24 and su-25 that provide close in support and some times get shot down.

Wagner might operate forward air strips for Su-25s to refuel, but not Su-24s.

Russian air force strikes from out of range witg rockets fired in the air making their su-25 and ka-52 just dumb bm-21 with bad guidance.

Area targets are easier to engage with a good scatter of rockets, for point targets they can use onboard gun and gunpods as well as guided missiles.

Now the gliding bombs helps a lot since 2 or 3 months ago but before that it was just dumb rockets fired in a general direction and some kh-29 here and there. Nothing helpfull.

You are not getting it... when enemy troops are marching across an open field a guided bomb even with a glide kit will only impact one place in that field and might take out 4-5 enemy troops if they are properly spaced out even with a direct hit and modern guidance.

A volley of 40 unguided rockets landing spread out all over the field will be much more effective despite carrying less actual explosive content.

There is a reason not every soldier on a battlefield carries a sniper rifle.

When you see how small the territory of ukros in Bakmut is, some 100 fab-500 could decimate their positions there to help Wagner take the city yet russian air force is still not doing its job leading to more deads than needed on both sides.

Your belief in the effectiveness of air power is sad.

Over 20 years in Afghanistan and superior western air power failed to destroy the enemy... did they just need some glide bombs too?

Agree , how many times was encirclement almost complete , but either commander was replaced or troops withdrawn ?

If the intention was to take territory then completing the encirclement would be a priority... if the intention was to grind then leave it open and let them feed more troops and weapons and ammo into the kill zone and keep on killing.

They were lobbing rockets as they were maintaining low altitude in flight to avoid Ukrainian AD.

They were lobbing rockets because the targets were area targets of moving men or vehicles so a fixed target coordinate would be useless in about 5 minutes because the target is moving...

In comparison an area where the enemy are moving towards can have rockets fired towards it to arrive as the enemy move through that area... high precision guided bombs would not make any sense in such a situation, but a volley of well spread out HE rockets would give a good coverage of fragments and death.

It is impossible that Russia will leave bakhmut at this point.
Either it is just psyop, or it is just that wagner will be replaced by someone else (Chechens, other groups, or regular army).

He said they were withdrawing to take a break and would be replaced by regular troops... no empty vacuum for the Orcs to move in to.

Of all the forces there I think they deserve a break.

When ukr counter offensive is around the corner, it is the worst time this internal conflict could happen.

What internal conflict... it is likely they were tasked with taking the area and by the 10th perhaps they have done this and can be withdrawn to rest and prepare for their next job...

There are some other things where I expected a more severe response; the confirmed delivery of Uranium depleted shells and the Nordstream incident. In essence warranted a response but lacks convincing evidence who was responsible and therefore retaliation is difficult. But accidents on the seabed can happen everywhere...

To be fair the NS bombing was a ploy by the US to ensure the Germans don't change sides under stress next winter when it gets really cold and gas is in very short supply, so really it only damages the EU, but if the Orcs start using DU rounds then we will see Russia respond, but in the interrum that they are moving tactical nukes into Belarus which is a very significant step that some EU officials got rather upset about, but with US tactical nukes in about 7 European countries... what can they really say?

This better not be the beginnings of a pullback. But just like Izyum, just like Kherson, it was hard to believe it would happen until it did. If anything like this happens here, then I'll have to assume that this war is all theatre. From both sides. It literally makes no sense.

Pulling back made sense at that time and the potential that they might need to fall back in some places during a heavy Ukrainian offensive is possible and likely and preparation for that where they remove civilians from harms way makes sense because then they can hammer the advancing Orcs without worrying about collateral damage.

They probably have a crate of spiked rounds ready when they withdraw. The crates themselves may be booby trapped.

They can check for booby traps, but I would just use it as explosive for demolitions rather than as ammo because it is probably quite unreliable.

Dismantling the ammo and using the explosives and detonators and recycling the metals for other things would be safest.

Gonzalo Lira kidnapped again by the Kiev regime.

Anyone surprised?

But i think some people high up will be looking into a way for this guy to go...

Having tantrums on the internet to force head office to do what you want them to do would get you fired in any job on the planet... in a war it should get you shot.

He is certainly helping Kiev.

Why was Nagasaki and Hiroshima habitable after being nuked? This whole idea that a city would be inhabitable for years from tactical nukes is scare mongering bullshit. Serbia has more issues with cancers from depleted uranium shells than Nagasaki or Hiroshima does from being nuked.

Most of the cancer deaths from both cities were covered up and not really well reported at the time because they really were not well understood at the time either.

Well into the 1950s and 60s officials would go a view nuclear tests and troops were lined up to give them the experience of what a nuclear explosion looked like... many of which started dying of cancer soon after.

KVS Regardless, limited use of nuclear weapons will not occur like in Japan. If NATzO or Russia uses them, there will be escalation

Nato has already escalated to the max. They were trying to do terrorist attacks on Russian civil nuclear plants and shelling the Zaporezia plant. And hitting the Kremlin

Backman wrote:Anyway, what would the US really do if Russia used a small nuke on west Ukraine?

Nuke Russia back? No.

Gather conventional US and Nato forces in Poland to join the fight in Ukraine? No. Not after Russia just showed it was willing to use nukes. And once they used one, using another is that much easier. Like on Nato formations in Ukraine. Once the ice is broken on nukes, Russia could just use nukes as needed on these Nato formations.

Sanctions? Yes. Who cares.

Naval blockade? Maybe.

USA wouldn't do shit even if Russia used 2MT nukes on Norway or Denmark

Cold War is long over and even back then that whole Article 5 thing was wobbly as hell when it came to nuclear retaliation

Unless USA mainland was affected it was all hot air

Firebird wrote:Wipe the DECISION MAKERS off the map - whether in the Pukraine or elsewhere...

And have them replaced with more competent ones? That would be retarded

Wipe their followers off the map and problem of decision makers solves itself

Firebird wrote:...But the place itself is half Russian, and then a mixture of Nazis, idiots, and assorted bellends...

I haven't seen a single Russian there and if there are any they are all loyal to Ukraine

Firebird wrote:...Killing millions of Russians is NOT what is needed.

Yes it is if they are Nazis

Russians didn't take out the trash in 1946 and they got what they deserved, they must not repeat the same mistake twice because this time it will be permanent

The way I see it, escalation wise, we are going to get to the same place that we would have, if Russia used nukes anyway.

Battlefield nukes should be used if it is central/west Ukrainian steppe. Russia has enough farm land. Start things off in the steppe anyway. Keep it away from cities.

They already do. Kinzhal is nuke tipped. A conventional bunker busting warhead would be crushed at hypersonic impact speeds; it has to use a solid tungsten impactor leaving minimal volume for a bursting charge - only a nuke can provide the punch to demolish the cavernous Soviet deep bunkers in one shot.

No-ones going to use nukes. Sober yourselves up

PapaDragon wrote:

Backman wrote:Anyway, what would the US really do if Russia used a small nuke on west Ukraine?

Nuke Russia back? No.

Gather conventional US and Nato forces in Poland to join the fight in Ukraine? No. Not after Russia just showed it was willing to use nukes. And once they used one, using another is that much easier. Like on Nato formations in Ukraine. Once the ice is broken on nukes, Russia could just use nukes as needed on these Nato formations.

Sanctions? Yes. Who cares.

Naval blockade? Maybe.

USA wouldn't do shit even if Russia used 2MT nukes on Norway or Denmark

Cold War is long over and even back then that whole Article 5 thing was wobbly as hell when it came to nuclear retaliation

Unless USA mainland was affected it was all hot air

Rather then go so big, probably best to roll through Lithuania so access to Kaliningrad is secured. It will also shut Latvia and Estonia up nicely and have Finland agreeing to neutrality after article 5 turns out to be a joke.

flamming_python wrote:No-ones going to use nukes. Sober yourselves up

I really wish the neocons and eastern Europeans would sober up. Those NATO chihuahuas are insane.

No-ones going to use nukes. Sober yourselves up

Nobody on the US side is going to sober up. We will get to that point anyway. It is better for Russia to use small battlefield nukes in the middle of nowhere in Ukraine than it is to have nukes going off in major cities between the US and Russia.

Unless USA mainland was affected it was all hot air

They are so insane and irrational who knows what they are capable of.

During the cold war all Soviet citizens were called Russians in the US... even now they probably think the Ukrainians are Russians which is why they are so keen for this conflict because it is Russians killing Russians as far as they are concerned...

When their money is worthless and no one will accept it they will find only trade can work and who in the rest of the world wants to buy hedge funds?

Most of western economies are smoke and mirrors.

I don’t get the nuke discussion. Russia does not have offensive nuclear doctrine; and we are miles away from the Russian state being in jeopardy. Right now, to me it looks like the last year embodied the absolute destruction of both the Ukraine military as well as effectively draining NATO in terms of equipment, ammunition, capabilities and eroding the value and trust of the alliance. And there is absolutely no way that they can recover from this given the economic situation. They heavily depend on the US dollar printer that is running out of paper fast. They’re done. It’s inevitable. It’s not if but when.

Even then, what do you want to nuke. A couple of Western tanks? A couple of infantry guys in a trench? A Toyota pick up traveling through the mud? They have much cheaper and more conventional weapons for that. You can buy thousands of Lancets for that money.

Some guys just desperately want to see mushrooms, making me think they are actually on mushrooms and stopped thinking rationally.

Nukes are a deterrent but have become much less effective due to the effectiveness of conventional weaponry, getting more range, more accuracy, cheaper to manufacture, available on larger volume, etc.,

Thinking you can use nukes in the middle of nowhere (in Ukraine) and believing it will not have any effect elsewhere would just need to look at Chernobyl and what effect the fallout had on Europe and the Scandinavian countries. Enjoy your cancer!

Arrow wrote:Mir Chernobyl did not have such a big impact on the environment.  I'm not a fan of the use of nuclear weapons, but a tactical nuke releases very little radioactive fallout.  Hundreds of kilograms or tons of fission products were released in Chernobyl.  Hiroshima released 1 kg and the tactical load will release maybe a few hundred grams.  There are many myths about radiation and nuclear weapons.

In terms of nuclear weapons Chernobyl can be considered rather small but is still by far the worst nuclear accident - so far and it had consequences.

Although it is difficult to compare releases between the Chernobyl accident and a deliberate air burst nuclear detonation, it has still been estimated that about four hundred times more radioactive material was released from Chernobyl than by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki together. However, the Chernobyl accident only released about one hundredth to one thousandth of the total amount of radioactivity released during nuclear weapons testing at the height of the Cold War; the wide estimate being due to the different abundances of isotopes released.

Contamination from the Chernobyl accident was scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions, much of it deposited on mountainous regions such as the Alps, the Welsh mountains and the Scottish Highlands, where adiabatic cooling caused radioactive rainfall. The resulting patches of contamination were often highly localized, and localised water-flows contributed to large variations in radioactivity over small areas. Sweden and Norway also received heavy fallout when the contaminated air collided with a cold front, bringing rain.  There was also groundwater contamination.

Rain was deliberately seeded over 10,000 square kilometres (3,900 sq mi) Belarus by the Soviet Air Force to remove radioactive particles from clouds heading toward highly populated areas. Heavy, black-coloured rain fell on the city of Gomel. Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that the Belarusian SSR received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union. However, the 2006 TORCH report stated that up to half of the volatile particles had actually landed outside the former USSR area currently making up of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. An unconnected large area in Russian SFSR south of Bryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukrainian SSR. Studies in surrounding countries indicate that more than one million people could have been affected by radiation.

mnztr wrote:I really wish the neocons and eastern Europeans would sober up. Those NATO chihuahuas are insane.

Their bark is worse than their bite. The only danger is that those disciples of the neo-cons are so eager to please their masters in Washington, that they will take their countries and populations into the war on their behalf. But then if their populations would be ready to follow them, is their problem to decide upon.

Arrow wrote:They must at least take over the Donbass.

Sure, but no-one ever said when though. You rush matters prematurely.
Especially as the war won't end when Russia liberates the Donbass, it will in fact probably expand.

While it has not yet been liberated, the Ukraine will continue pouring in troops there to their tactical disadvantage, and the Kremlin has a better guarantee of domestic support for the operation.

kvs wrote: Hydrogen bombs have the least long term radiation release on a power output basis.    It is the fission core that produces the isotope contamination but it is not as bad as fission reactor meltdown contamination.   That the central parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not turn into radiation exclusion zones is a testament to this.

Hydrogen bombs were only tested in 1952 (USA) and 1953 (SSSR) and were not used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the fireball of a nuclear detonation does not touch the ground (an air explosion) the only radiation is the radiation during the explosion and the radioactive materials from the bomb itself. There is no radiation of military value. If the fireball touches the ground (a ground explosion) and sucks op hundreds or even thousands of tons of soil, debris etc into the radioactive fireball it will fall down and contaminate a certain area depending on yield, atmospheric conditions etc.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were low yield air burst with (for nuclear weapons...) little contamination. The Japanese would think otherwise....

Sincerely

I suspect that the only one leaving Artemovsk (Bakhmut) will be Prigozhin himself.

If the whole sh... were true he would be staying in Artemovsk.