Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 1437 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,501
12,614
146
The reason Russia is using them (IMO) is because they are incapable of serious maneuver warfare and they (correctly) think Ukraine will not retaliate due to western sensibilities.

But seriously the main reason the US should oppose chemical weapons is it decreases our battlefield advantage. Once chemicals are introduced our troops have to get into MOPP gear, and those are slow, hot, and cumbersome. The US Army moves fast.

I don’t think there is anything morally different between killing someone with gas or killing them by blowing them up. The only question is advantage.
Can confirm, everything sucks in MOPP4. Everything a human can do, sucks.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,863
38,084
136
Yep, nonzero chance a bunch of them are bleeding from the ears and leaking clear stuff from the nose.

With that many bodies inside, if there was a breach featuring frag it would mean a handful of those guys caught all or most of it. I bet a couple never got out. Maybe that's why so many were able to run for it.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,412
27,622
136
To strike the Russians.
Fire begets fire. Russians are using chemical weapons, Ukraine must be supplied in equal measure.
The U.S. once had the largest, most advanced chemical warfare arsenal in the world. It was a pain in the ass to maintain, let alone deploy. It was also a pain in the ass to get rid of it. In fact, we're still figuring out how to get rid of portions of it, thirty years after we decided to do so because it's a pain in the ass.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,644
7,140
136
I have a love/hate affair with MOPP. Hated it when we drilled for attacks, loved it when I sat in a bunker MOPP'ed up, listening to myself breath, sirens blaring outside, thinking over and over how a SCUD was going to hit the base with chem/bio when we shifted over from Desert Shield to Desert Storm. Was bad luck when I TDY'd to Saudi and the transition from Shield to Storm was shifting gears into full on Oh Shit This Is It Here We Go. At first our detachment thought it was safe there until it wasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,863
38,084
136
The U.S. once had the largest, most advanced chemical warfare arsenal in the world. It was a pain in the ass to maintain, let alone deploy. It was also a pain in the ass to get rid of it. In fact, we're still figuring out how to get rid of portions of it, thirty years after we decided to do so because it's a pain in the ass.

Not sure about some others, but I know we finished incinerating our entire VX stockpile in 2022. Huzzah. One of those things that never should have been invented. Brits did it by accident I think.

Probably some other things still to handle, but that was the big one for me. Still blows my mind we could see ourselves desperate enough to use it. The deadliest nerve agent known to man, at the mercy of the wind ? And talk about stress! Taking VX agent laden rockets apart for disposal sounds like a really shitty job.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
I will respond to the statement that US airpower will win the war vs Russia. Well, this is very much absurd because air power is not how wars are won. If it were so, US would have won in Syria because they bombed that country so much, same goes for Lybia and Afghanistan. And none of those countries had the very advanced anti-aircraft weaponry of Russia - some say, one of the best. There is S-400, S-500 and now even S-550. Even if these anti-aircraft systems were not available, using airpower alone will not win the war. And we have little ability to assume that US is capable of massive ground war operations that Russia does. Have you seen the front of this war? How big it is? NATO countries cannot fathom this type of war. Yes, NATO is good with air and navy but ground war is how wars are won ultimately. Air and navy help, no doubt.

And, please be reasonable: there is a range and capability of aircraft. So that means that they need to be deployed somewhat close to the front in order to be useful (unless long range bombers). Why would Russia let NATO operate these airfields? Would they not blow up these airfields with their large arsenal of missiles?

Now let's see what is happening on the ground war. Once again I feel for the Ukrainians, their great country is being ruined through warfare. Someone asked earlier how this war should end ... well, the only good way is through negotiations. I don't think it is very reasonable to ask Russia to go to 2014 borders after all the fighting has taken place. If in 2022, when the Turks (who I do not trust) supposedly had the Russians and Ukrainians negotiating, the peace deal was signed then maybe Ukraine might have been able to get much of the land back (except Crimea). But not now I think. In fact, the longer this war goes on, Ukraine will lose most land sorry to say. Russia I think has eyes on Kharkov, which is huge and a big loss for Ukraine.

Russian missiles and drones are going on regularly now. Nikolaiv and Kharkov under big bombardments. The Russians are capable of operating on this giant front and firing from so many angles - once again, due to large industrial military capacity. No shortage of shells or ammo or anything else. If there was shortage, they would be conserving shells but they are not. They are doing more bombardments.

Some news from the fighting:

"Ukrainian military had 50 combat engagements with Russian forces near Terny of Donetsk region, Bilohorivka of Luhansk region, Vyyimka, Spirne, Bohdanivka, Klischiyivka of Donetsk region, Novokalynove, Berdychi and Netaylove of Donetsk region, Heorhiyivka, Novomykhaylivka, Staromayorske of Donetsk region and Robotyne of Zaporizhzhia region, - General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine says in the evening report"

"At Kherson direction Russian army shelled Nikopol of Dnipropetrovsk region, Kherson city, Zmiyivka, Krynky, Tyahynka of Kherson region, - General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine says in the evening report"

"At Novopavlivka direction Russian army shelled Heorhiyivka, Paraskoviyivka, Kostyantynivka, Vuhledar of Donetsk region. Russian aviation conducted airstrikes at Krasnohorivka and Urozhayne of Donetsk region, - General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine says in the evening report"

"At Bakhmut direction Russian army shelled Bohdanivka, Kalynivka, Chasiv Yar of Donetsk region. Russian aviation conducted airstrikes at Slovyansk, Verkhnokamyanske and Hryhorivka of Donetsk region, - General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine says in the evening report"

Many many more so you can see, the Russian side is escalating the war and the Ukrainians can merely react.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Mahboi and kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,863
38,084
136
I have a love/hate affair with MOPP. Hated it when we drilled for attacks, loved it when I sat in a bunker MOPP'ed up, listening to myself breath, sirens blaring outside, thinking over and over how a SCUD was going to hit the base with chem/bio when we shifted over from Desert Shield to Desert Storm. Was bad luck when I TDY'd to Saudi and the transition from Shield to Storm was shifting gears into full on Oh Shit This Is It Here We Go. At first our detachment thought it was safe there until it wasn't.

I'm surprised by the love then. Being all MOPPed up at the begining of DesertShield = a robust amount of suck. It was August/September.
:persevere:

Awfully decent of the bear to wait until January I thought.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,863
38,084
136
"Well, this is very much absurd because air power is not how wars are won. If it were so, US would have won in Syria because they bombed that country so much, same goes for Lybia and Afghanistan. And none of those countries had the very advanced anti-aircraft weaponry of Russia - some say, one of the best. There is S-400, S-500 and now even S-550."


So funny. This guy could do standup.

Delusions about Russian money and tech aside, your views on air power seem to confirm what a moron you are. Did you not finish school or something? Homeschooled by idiots maybe? I guess your Afghanistan fetish blocks out WWII and Desert Shield? That is some affliction. No one talks shit about American air power, no one that's been on the receiving end.

Russia is the one that bombed Syria into oblivion, they used WWII tactics because they wanted to kill more than ISIS and because they don't really have precision bombs like we do. Hate to burst your fiction filled bubble, but it was the Russian VKS that tried to wipe Aleppo off the map. Try being honest for a change? Here, let's practice: Russian missiles have routinely under-performed or outright failed. S-400 can't hit HIMARS. S-500 is too expensive. Kinzhal is a joke that was taken out by 20 yr old interceptors. So, enlighten us, why is it Putin is having these world class designers arrested for treason if they're doing such a good job? How is that record of shitty fail somehow better than Patriot, who just took out Putin's fabled Zircon? GTFO here


I think someone's still very butthurt about a dozen or so Americans turning ~300 Russians into fingerpaint in 2018, Khasham Syria. I'd say Conoco Philips and America won, while Russia lost. Syria just made the Arab world hate Russia even more. Bombing hospitals tends to do that I noticed.
 
Last edited:

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,388
3,118
146
I will respond to the statement that US airpower will win the war vs Russia. Well, this is very much absurd because air power is not how wars are won. If it were so, US would have won in Syria because they bombed that country so much, same goes for Lybia and Afghanistan. And none of those countries had the very advanced anti-aircraft weaponry of Russia - some say, one of the best. There is S-400, S-500 and now even S-550. Even if these anti-aircraft systems were not available, using airpower alone will not win the war. And we have little ability to assume that US is capable of massive ground war operations that Russia does. Have you seen the front of this war? How big it is? NATO countries cannot fathom this type of war. Yes, NATO is good with air and navy but ground war is how wars are won ultimately. Air and navy help, no doubt.

And, please be reasonable: there is a range and capability of aircraft. So that means that they need to be deployed somewhat close to the front in order to be useful (unless long range bombers). Why would Russia let NATO operate these airfields? Would they not blow up these airfields with their large arsenal of missiles?

Come on man, this is just stupid.

US airpower would be complemented by Ukrainian ground power. Properly supplied and with the USAF pummeling the Russians this might be a rout in rather short order.

S-400 has been proven to be hilariously overhyped, and S500/550 aren't available in sufficient numbers, nor is there much indication they perform better than S-400 in the real world. Russia struggles to intercept small volleys of Storm Shadow launched from ancient fencers at obvious targets. You really think this AD network that regularly loses AD assets to cheap drones would shut down F22/F35/B2 and waves of LRASM/JASSM/MALD along with jamming, Tomahawk, etc?

Why do US strikes have to be based from anywhere near Ukraine? Never heard of drop tanks and midair refuelling? Also if Russia has these endless stocks of missiles why can't they even blow up Ukrainian airfields?

Russia is struggling with Ukraine when they're supplied with inadequate amounts of cold war castoffs and you think they could handle unrestrained US airpower, laughable.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,605
34,391
136
Old enough to remember watching Storm Shadow/SCALP overflying a totally helpless S-400 battery in Crimea on its way to smoke targets at an airfield.

Yeah, the Russians would get worked over hard by American air power. Ask the Serbs and Iraq who both possessed substantial air defense how things worked out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
Here is the thing, Russia is now realizing that it is actually in a war with the West to a certain degree. This is not a SMO anywhere. So if you are asking why don't they blow up Ukrainian targets, well, they are now getting serious. This is why you are seeing an increase in bombardments in so many different areas. The Ukrainians can only react to Russia and that is a losing battle. Russia is setting the stage for battle, Ukraine just reacts - this is understandable given the severe equipment and manpower shortage of Ukraine.

As for US airpower hurting Russia, well, once again, this is not the way to win wars. It can destroy countries but the war is not won this way. The West and ISIS destroyed much of Syria but was the war won, as in, removal of Assad? The answer is no.


"The current consensus is that the S-550 will be a mobile system focusing on strategic defense. It is expected to shield against intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs] that ascend high into space before unleashing nuclear destruction at velocities up to twenty times the speed of sound.

Russian insiders have been hinting at a “space attack” or “space defense” function, which could encompass tasks such as intercepting low-Earth orbit spacecraft like the US military’s X-37B. This is apart from kinetic anti-satellite missions. Intriguingly, no naval variant is planned, unlike the S-500.

The S-500, already applauded for its advanced ballistic missile defense [BMD] capabilities, uses the 77N6-N series missile. This missile, according to US intelligence, is competent against medium-range and some intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs]."


Yeah that old drone got through, so what? There are big areas to cover and Ukraine is using a lot of drones now. Some do get through. No system is going to stop all incoming attacks, not even the Patriot systems. Ask Saudi Arabia how they Patriots did against the Houthi attacks.

From the article: Drones and missiles can be detected by radar, but they tend to have small radar signatures and can fly close to the ground, sharply reducing the detection range and thus opportunities to fire on them from far away. They also are easy to maneuver, allowing them to hit the coverage gaps between radars and Patriot batteries. And drones and cruise missiles are often cheaper than a $2 million or $3 million Patriot missile, meaning the supply of Patriots can be depleted much faster than the bevy of drones launching attacks.

I will say that US airpower is superior to Russia's so that is why Russia has spent many decades improving their air defenses. Different approach to warfare.
 
Last edited:

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
Important things are industrial output rather than speculating about one defense system vs another.

Russia produces three times as many artillery as all of Western world together. Russia fires 10,000 shells per day while Ukraine fires 2,000. Since this is the average, across the front, some places the ratio might be worse for Ukraine. That is why Ukraine is defending and reacting. Russia is setting the pace.

Since this is largely a artillery war, more shells means more chance to win. Throwing lots of drones at Russia will make Russian people more angry and make them turn towards Putin.

I see that India and China were mentioned. Realize this, China knows the West will come after it once they finish Russia so China has incentive to help Russia. India on the other hand, wants to play with all sides. That is all I will say on this for now.
 
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,501
12,614
146
I have a love/hate affair with MOPP. Hated it when we drilled for attacks, loved it when I sat in a bunker MOPP'ed up, listening to myself breath, sirens blaring outside, thinking over and over how a SCUD was going to hit the base with chem/bio when we shifted over from Desert Shield to Desert Storm. Was bad luck when I TDY'd to Saudi and the transition from Shield to Storm was shifting gears into full on Oh Shit This Is It Here We Go. At first our detachment thought it was safe there until it wasn't.
Yup, MOPP is hot trash right up until you need that warm embrace of a hermetic seal. We learned that shit in basic with tear gas, I can't imagine what one would feel knowing there's some eyeball melting, pore bleeding, lung dissolving bullshit mist floating around outside.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,863
38,084
136
Old enough to remember watching Storm Shadow/SCALP overflying a totally helpless S-400 battery in Crimea on its way to smoke targets at an airfield.

Yeah, the Russians would get worked over hard by American air power. Ask the Serbs and Iraq who both possessed substantial air defense how things worked out.

This. Only a pisshead laughs at or dismisses American SEAD. Baghdad was the most heavily defended city in the world at that time wasn't it? And Iraq had the world's 6th largest air force. Didn't matter.

If not air power, how else do you get a military of that size and dispersion to die or surrender in that amount of time, en masse? Pretty funny to hear people try to act smart about Russia eating shit for two years, pretend America and Friends cleaning the clocks of huge armies either never happened or was riddled with failure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,863
38,084
136
Important things are industrial output rather than speculating about one defense system vs another.

Russia produces three times as many artillery as all of Western world together. Russia fires 10,000 shells per day while Ukraine fires 2,000. Since this is the average, across the front, some places the ratio might be worse for Ukraine. That is why Ukraine is defending and reacting. Russia is setting the pace.

Since this is largely a artillery war, more shells means more chance to win. Throwing lots of drones at Russia will make Russian people more angry and make them turn towards Putin.

I see that India and China were mentioned. Realize this, China knows the West will come after it once they finish Russia so China has incentive to help Russia. India on the other hand, wants to play with all sides. That is all I will say on this for now.


No speculation, we're talking established performance in the field. Of course your dishonest ass won't acknowledge the difference, just shocking. Btw, the US has been smacking down satellites since 2008, from destroyers mind you. Russia dispenses speculation about it's weapons decades after Western analogs are already proven, ahahaha. I do enjoy dispelling these silly myths of yours though, thanks again.

Yes well Russia needs barrels to fire those shells with too, is also running out of vehicles. I wouldn't worry about it too much, as the AFU has been demonstrating (with gusto) that drones kill almost everything, and can be used in lieu of artillery. You should be more worried about money, how just the EU alone towers over Russia economically. Russia is on borrowed time with income and ability to make vehicles, the West doesn't have that problem, at all. Ukraine isn't targeting Russian civilians like Russia does with Ukrainians, and Putin is already in power. It's ok, I'm sure a lot of that nonsense sounded better in your head...

China is making Russia it's bitch, just deal with it. Xi is more afraid of the West now than he was before after he saw what sanctions have done to Russia. China can't weather that, not even close. They import over 80% of their food and energy; 30ish days of American naval pressure closing down the right sea routes and China goes tits up, starts to not care about anything other than stopping famine and unrest from ripping it apart. India stopped buying Russian low sulfur crude 2 months ago. If you think that's insignificant, well, that would be you staying in character now wouldn't it?

Seriously, just stop. It's like your IQ drops with every post. Soon you'll be a potato.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and Leeea

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,863
38,084
136
I think it's time to start talking about taking St. Petersburg from Ruzzia and giving it back to Finland.

I'd rather St. Petersburg start that talk, though Russia being de-Putinized is probably a prerequisite.

Kaliningrad should come first, IMO. Those folks could use some autonomy for sure, and who needs these Russian assholes on our lake?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,388
3,118
146
Here is the thing, Russia is now realizing that it is actually in a war with the West to a certain degree. This is not a SMO anywhere. So if you are asking why don't they blow up Ukrainian targets, well, they are now getting serious. This is why you are seeing an increase in bombardments in so many different areas. The Ukrainians can only react to Russia and that is a losing battle. Russia is setting the stage for battle, Ukraine just reacts - this is understandable given the severe equipment and manpower shortage of Ukraine.

As for US airpower hurting Russia, well, once again, this is not the way to win wars. It can destroy countries but the war is not won this way. The West and ISIS destroyed much of Syria but was the war won, as in, removal of Assad? The answer is no.


"The current consensus is that the S-550 will be a mobile system focusing on strategic defense. It is expected to shield against intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs] that ascend high into space before unleashing nuclear destruction at velocities up to twenty times the speed of sound.

Russian insiders have been hinting at a “space attack” or “space defense” function, which could encompass tasks such as intercepting low-Earth orbit spacecraft like the US military’s X-37B. This is apart from kinetic anti-satellite missions. Intriguingly, no naval variant is planned, unlike the S-500.

The S-500, already applauded for its advanced ballistic missile defense [BMD] capabilities, uses the 77N6-N series missile. This missile, according to US intelligence, is competent against medium-range and some intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs]."


Yeah that old drone got through, so what? There are big areas to cover and Ukraine is using a lot of drones now. Some do get through. No system is going to stop all incoming attacks, not even the Patriot systems. Ask Saudi Arabia how they Patriots did against the Houthi attacks.

From the article: Drones and missiles can be detected by radar, but they tend to have small radar signatures and can fly close to the ground, sharply reducing the detection range and thus opportunities to fire on them from far away. They also are easy to maneuver, allowing them to hit the coverage gaps between radars and Patriot batteries. And drones and cruise missiles are often cheaper than a $2 million or $3 million Patriot missile, meaning the supply of Patriots can be depleted much faster than the bevy of drones launching attacks.

I will say that US airpower is superior to Russia's so that is why Russia has spent many decades improving their air defenses. Different approach to warfare.

I think your head is dense enough to be fissile.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,863
38,084
136
Come on man, this is just stupid.

US airpower would be complemented by Ukrainian ground power. Properly supplied and with the USAF pummeling the Russians this might be a rout in rather short order.

S-400 has been proven to be hilariously overhyped, and S500/550 aren't available in sufficient numbers, nor is there much indication they perform better than S-400 in the real world. Russia struggles to intercept small volleys of Storm Shadow launched from ancient fencers at obvious targets. You really think this AD network that regularly loses AD assets to cheap drones would shut down F22/F35/B2 and waves of LRASM/JASSM/MALD along with jamming, Tomahawk, etc?

Why do US strikes have to be based from anywhere near Ukraine? Never heard of drop tanks and midair refuelling? Also if Russia has these endless stocks of missiles why can't they even blow up Ukrainian airfields?

Russia is struggling with Ukraine when they're supplied with inadequate amounts of cold war castoffs and you think they could handle unrestrained US airpower, laughable.

Speaking of my favorite DARPA nurtured stealth naval weapon, I saw that Lockheed Martin and Navy are on track getting LRASM swarm certified. Rapid Dragon is going to be one mean mfer.

Yet another system that would clean Russia's clock should Putin ever get stupid enough to attack NATO. I hope we sell loads to our allies.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,610
49,170
136
Important things are industrial output rather than speculating about one defense system vs another.

Russia produces three times as many artillery as all of Western world together. Russia fires 10,000 shells per day while Ukraine fires 2,000. Since this is the average, across the front, some places the ratio might be worse for Ukraine. That is why Ukraine is defending and reacting. Russia is setting the pace.

Since this is largely a artillery war, more shells means more chance to win. Throwing lots of drones at Russia will make Russian people more angry and make them turn towards Putin.

I see that India and China were mentioned. Realize this, China knows the West will come after it once they finish Russia so China has incentive to help Russia. India on the other hand, wants to play with all sides. That is all I will say on this for now.
‘After they finish Russia’ as if the war here isn’t 100% Russia’s choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea