Russian-Ukrainian Conflict News

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Members,

Ukraine and Russia share the largest fleet of the formidable Mi-26. Bust is there any sighting of the type in action during the Ukrainian conflict?

Best,

TCViP

I've seen some video early on in the conflict of Mi-26 in Russian service at a helicopter forward operating base. However, it was taken over the border in Belarus. Not seen any in Ukraine whatsover.

As for Ukraine I think they had a number in service post-independence but long since grounded due to spares availability. Suspect if you had a long look at Ukrainian airports you might find a neglected example or 2 on the edges unless they've all been scrapped.
 
Given the increasing tendency for some to post Ukrainian war situation posts that are only tangentially, if at all, linked to the treads in question we have decided to re-open this thread for such posts.

Note however that it is for NEWS ONLY.

  • Opinions, rants and the like will not be accepted nor will 'mud slinging'/arguments or the like.
  • Anything which is just propaganda style videos, unless showing something technically interesting (e.g first use of a T-14 or Su-57 in combat caught on video) are also not accepted.
  • If you have doubts about the suitability of your post, contact the moderators first to get advice.
  • Offering clarity about a news article is acceptable but must be done in a civilised, polite manner and preferably with facts.
  • Any posts in other threads that could be construed as news get moved to the thread or deleted as deemed necessary.
  • Posts in this thread will be policed ruthlessly and warnings/bans for offenders applied.
 
Last edited:
This isn't a bad resource for checking the situation.

 
ATACMS shells with a strike range of 300 km are already on their way to Ukraine!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HHSudZYi_U

This is a deceptive headline at best. There is no indication that the US has decided to supply ATACMS to Ukraine.
The closest you get is the statement attributed to Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) that there is bipartisan support in Congress for sending such missiles. However, we have Administration sources stating as recently as July 22 that they are not willing to send ATACMS.

Slotkin Statement in a CNN report (July 28).

Jake Sullivan on ATACMS (July 22)
 
This is a deceptive headline at best. There is no indication that the US has decided to supply ATACMS to Ukraine.
The closest you get is the statement attributed to Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) that there is bipartisan support in Congress for sending such missiles. However, we have Administration sources stating as recently as July 22 that they are not willing to send ATACMS.

Slotkin Statement in a CNN report (July 28).

Jake Sullivan on ATACMS (July 22)
The source has been reliable in the past, I guess we must watch this space.

A lot of simple hover drones being used to guide artillery.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Olvb82pnbM
 
Last edited:
As reliable as last one about Almaz-Antey arrests
 
The source has been reliable in the past, I guess we must watch this space.

Unless the source claims access to internal US Administration decision-making processes, I think it' s much more sensible to believe the public statements by the National Security Advisor who says it's not happening. Nothing much has changed in the last week that would support a change of policy.
 
Unless the source claims access to internal US Administration decision-making processes, I think it' s much more sensible to believe the public statements by the National Security Advisor who says it's not happening. Nothing much has changed in the last week that would support a change of policy.
Is bipartisan support nothing?

View: https://twitter.com/proudukraine/status/1554052335894253568?s=20&t=AaJmQDwOjBZMO5axYl82Cw


1659370499436.png

You will note that Oryx actually added 6 tanks (with photos) in the past 24 hours, 1 more than the official number, because they are playing catch up and still counting tanks destroyed a while ago.

View: https://twitter.com/Rebel44CZ/status/1553849920704184322
 
Is bipartisan support nothing?

It's not going to compel the Administration to change its policy. Also, "bipartisan support" doesn't mean they have enough votes to pass legislation. It just means at least one Republican also supports the idea.
 
Giving Ukraine ATACMS would be raising the stakes WAY higher. I was surprised there has been any talk of doing so at all.
 

AUG. 1, 2022

Today, the Department of Defense (DoD) announces the authorization of a Presidential Drawdown of security assistance valued at up to $550 million to meet Ukraine's critical security and defense needs. This authorization is the Biden Administration's seventeenth drawdown of equipment from DoD inventories for Ukraine since August 2021.

Capabilities in this package include equipment the Ukrainians are using effectively to defend their country such as:

1. 75,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition;

2. Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS).
 
If I understand this right, Russia would have lost 53% of their total inventory of 1'768 tanks?

If it was really so, it would mean that Putin is already on the brink of defeat. While it's a desirable outcome, it is kind of hard to believe.

Then I also have a hard time imagining that the total tank inventory of Russia would be only 1'768. Those numbers must have a very restrictive definition.
 

Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine
AUGUST 1, 2022
In total, the United States has committed approximately $8.8 billion in security assistance to
Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden Administration, including approximately $8.1 billion
since the beginning of Russia’s unprovoked and brutal invasion on February 24.
On August 1, the Department of Defense announced our seventeenth Presidential Drawdown of
equipment valued at up to $550 million in additional security assistance for Ukraine.
United States security assistance committed to Ukraine includes:
- Over 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft systems;
- Over 6,500 Javelin anti-armor systems;
- Over 20,000 other anti-armor systems;
- Over 700 Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems;
- 126 155mm Howitzers and up to 486,000 155mm artillery rounds;
- 72,000 105mm artillery rounds;
- 126 Tactical Vehicles to tow 155mm Howitzers;
- 22 Tactical Vehicles to recover equipment;
- 16 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and ammunition;
- Four Command Post vehicles;
- Two National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
- 20 Mi-17 helicopters;
- Counter-battery systems;
- Hundreds of Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles;
- 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers;
- Over 10,000 grenade launchers and small arms;
- Over 59,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition;
- 75,000 sets of body armor and helmets;
- Approximately 700 Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems;
- Laser-guided rocket systems;
- Puma Unmanned Aerial Systems;
- Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels;
- 26 counter-artillery radars;
- Four counter-mortar radars;
- Four air surveillance radars;
- Two harpoon coastal defense systems;
- 18 coastal and riverine patrol boats;
- M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel munitions;
- C-4 explosives, demolition munitions, and demolition equipment for obstacle clearing;
- Tactical secure communications systems;
- Thousands of night vision devices, thermal imagery systems, optics, and laser rangefinders;
- Commercial satellite imagery services;
- Explosive ordnance disposal protective gear;
- Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment;
- Medical supplies to include first aid kits;
- Electronic jamming equipment;
- Field equipment and spare parts;
- Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment.
 
If it was really so, it would mean that Putin is already on the brink of defeat. While it's a desirable outcome, it is kind of hard to believe.
As is the estimate of 41,000 Russian dead. That's like three times their losses in Afghanistan, and approaching US losses in Viet Nam, both ten-year wars. I'm not saying it's impossible or even wrong, it's just... unbefrickenlievable. The US losses in Iraq/Afghanistan over nearly 20 years were, what, less than 8,000? In recent decades war has seemed to become a pretty low-loss process for the bigger, more powerful side. Ukraine has switched that up, it seems.
 
As is the estimate of 41,000 Russian dead. That's like three times their losses in Afghanistan, and approaching US losses in Viet Nam, both ten-year wars. I'm not saying it's impossible or even wrong, it's just... unbefrickenlievable. The US losses in Iraq/Afghanistan over nearly 20 years were, what, less than 8,000? In recent decades war has seemed to become a pretty low-loss process for the bigger, more powerful side. Ukraine has switched that up, it seems.
At the risk of being castigated for offering an opinion, neither Afghanistan nor Vietnam were open conflicts with continuous fighting and well-defined front-lines, where both sides were continuously aware of the enemy position, or able to hit them. The majority of the time was spent trying to find the enemy. 99% of the time in Iraq and Afghanistan was a counter insurgency operation against an enemy that mainly targeted civilians, not coalition troops, and sporadically at that.

To find a comparable conflict you have to go back to either the Korean War, and the stated losses here are low by comparison.

As regards tanks, plenty have been taken out of storage, at least 4 train-loads of T-62Ms alone. Many have been taken out by Stugna-Ps alone. I can't even count the number of videos there's been of Stugna-Ps.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbWNIGRewag

1659519273143.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cjc
If it was really so, it would mean that Putin is already on the brink of defeat. While it's a desirable outcome, it is kind of hard to believe.
As is the estimate of 41,000 Russian dead. That's like three times their losses in Afghanistan, and approaching US losses in Viet Nam, both ten-year wars. I'm not saying it's impossible or even wrong, it's just... unbefrickenlievable. The US losses in Iraq/Afghanistan over nearly 20 years were, what, less than 8,000? In recent decades war has seemed to become a pretty low-loss process for the bigger, more powerful side. Ukraine has switched that up, it seems.

By the way - the opponent casualties numbers given by the Russian ministry of defense are likely over estimated (as all such numbers are). But even if only half of those ~900 claimed yesterday really were wounded or killed on the day before the losses are still devastating. In 1967, at the very hight of the Vietnam war, U.S. casualties, dead and wounded, were at maximum about 200 per day. We see a multiple of those on the Ukrainian side each and every day.

This is not sustainable. The Ukrainian government should have given up the uneven fight months ago.
 

In 1967, at the very hight of the Vietnam war, U.S. casualties, dead and wounded, were at maximum about 200 per day. We see a multiple of those on the Ukrainian side each and every day.
This is not sustainable. The Ukrainian government should have given up the uneven fight months ago.
The North Vietnamese government didn't give up on the uneven fight. They soaked up the losses and lasted long enough for the war with the US to reach a negotiated end, with North Vietnamese government and territory intact. And then, a few years later after the US had withdrawn, the North Vietnamese started a new war, and quickly won. So I'm unclear why the Ukrainians should have rolled over months ago when they're fighting for their very existence.
 
At the risk of being castigated for offering an opinion, neither Afghanistan nor Vietnam were open conflicts with continuous fighting and well-defined front-lines, where both sides were continuously aware of the enemy position, or able to hit them. The majority of the time was spent trying to find the enemy. 99% of the time in Iraq and Afghanistan was a counter insurgency operation against an enemy that mainly targeted civilians, not coalition troops, and sporadically at that.
While all true... the American and Russian people were appalled and exhausted by their losses in Nam and Afghanistan respectively, leading to massive anti-war movements. The current war is expending Russians at a rate many times faster. You'd think there'd be certain responses to that.
 

In 1967, at the very hight of the Vietnam war, U.S. casualties, dead and wounded, were at maximum about 200 per day. We see a multiple of those on the Ukrainian side each and every day.
This is not sustainable. The Ukrainian government should have given up the uneven fight months ago.
The North Vietnamese government didn't give up on the uneven fight. They soaked up the losses and lasted long enough for the war with the US to reach a negotiated end, with North Vietnamese government and territory intact. And then, a few years later after the US had withdrawn, the North Vietnamese started a new war, and quickly won. So I'm unclear why the Ukrainians should have rolled over months ago when they're fighting for their very existence.

The quote was taken in its entirety from the source but I do agree with it.

Your point is certainly true, I think though that in Ukraine's case the numbers advantage is not on its side as it ultimately was for North Vietnam.
 

Your point is certainly true, I think though that in Ukraine's case the numbers advantage is not on its side as it ultimately was for North Vietnam.
Population of Ukraine today is about twice that of North Vietnam back then. And the North Vietnamese weren't fighting for the survival of their nation, but to conquer another. So I'm unconvinced that that argument is directly comparable. Neither the US back then nor Russia today were/is fighting to survive, but for political power, so both of the Big Guys are in it for purely "optional" reasons. In these scenarios, the only country that didn't have a choice is Ukraine. That would seem to make a difference in how hard the country will fight and how willing to accept losses it will be.

Anyway, interesting analysis of a recent event:

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yM_HIwqKKDU
 
While all true... the American and Russian people were appalled and exhausted by their losses in Nam and Afghanistan respectively, leading to massive anti-war movements. The current war is expending Russians at a rate many times faster. You'd think there'd be certain responses to that.
Well, you first have to have the right to be appalled/protest.


I would also add that official Soviet deaths in Afghanistan were ~14k, NATO estimates were 26k. And there is an interesting balance between losses from the Moscow region in this war, and losses from Dagestan, Tuva and Buryatia. People who can be ignored more easily.

I would also add that 11% of the deaths and 17% of the wounded in Vietnam were caused by mines and boobytraps, i.e. without direct contact with the enemy, such was the nature of the war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
Folks, please keep to news and try to keep opinions and tangential discussions to a minimum.
 

The Ukrainian military has endangered Ukrainian civilians by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in residential areas - including in schools and hospitals - as it has sought to repel the Russian invasion, Amnesty International said today.

Ukraine’s tactics have violated international humanitarian law as they’ve turned civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom