Rapier108 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Screenshot.

---

Do we have a comparable system?

---

Nothing even close.

Our best ICBM, the LGM-118 Peacekeeper, was retired and the Minuteman IIIs were de-MIRVed in a treaty with the Russians, who have never honored it whatsoever. They've added more MIRVs to their missiles, built new missiles to carry even a higher number of MIRVs, and then built this thing.

Without its nukes, Russia is at best a second rate power and they know this, which is why they are trying to reach a Soviet level of nuke deployment.

---

Strap it to a Falcon 9 and let it fly

wangus12 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Screenshot.

---

Do we have a comparable system?

---

Nothing even close.

Our best ICBM, the LGM-118 Peacekeeper, was retired and the Minuteman IIIs were de-MIRVed in a treaty with the Russians, who have never honored it whatsoever. They've added more MIRVs to their missiles, built new missiles to carry even a higher number of MIRVs, and then built this thing.

Without its nukes, Russia is at best a second rate power and they know this, which is why they are trying to reach a Soviet level of nuke deployment.

---

Strap it to a Falcon 9 and let it fly

---

Falcon 9 is too slow to be a ICBM. You need a rapid launch because the faster the missile is far away from the silo, the better. An ICBM is no good if it gets caught on/near the ground by an incoming warhead.

Also, Falcon 9 is liquid fueled, while most ICBMs are solid fueled which means they can sit for long periods of time in the silo and can be launched on command. Ivan's latest toy is likely liquid fueled as they still like to use storable liquid fuel on their biggest ICBMs, but it also means more maintenance and if a leak develops, a good chance of a nice big kaboom.

The upcoming LGM-35 Sentinel will replace our Minuteman III ICBMs, but it will still only carry 1 warhead, although it is likely capable of carrying more.

It turns out Ukraine has not received additional fighters.

It has, however, received a supply of parts and components which have allowed it to return a significant number of busted jets to combat service.

FIGHTERS

one MEEN Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Some of the jokes I heard over there about America and Russia were eye-opening. Another one was, "When the Americans went to space, they spent millions of dollars to develop a special pen that could write in zero-gravity conditions. The Russians just used a pencil."

---

And such was a point of pride? The Hubs was once allowed into the cockpit of an Antonov aircraft in the late 90s. Their gauges were still analog.

Such is the conundrum of the Russians and their technology advances and then zero advances. Very uneven in different fields.

ETA: Oh that's a joke? NM.

---

The russians 'engineering pride' is mostly tied to the brilliant phd level engineers and mathematicians they produced. Everything else was sub par. Manufacturing capability, raw materials sourcing, materials research, systems level integration, and maintenance were all lacking. Everything about russian rocketry and weapons design is under heavy constraints that america doesn't think about. Like their version of the saturn 5 had like 31 rockets versus the 5 on the saturn V first stage because they did not have the manufacturing capility to make those big cones. The rocketry design itself had to be of a higher risk/reward design to maximize payload. Both of these lead to major failure points. They developed a whole new field of stainless steel research because we blocked them from getting access to nickel. American stealth on the F-117 nighthawk got its inspiration from a russian research publication on radar deflection. The phds were on their game. Nobody else was.

When my dad worked on computers his whole career he was always amazed at the brilliance of the russian phds he interacted with on chip design. They would always start with the purely mathematical perspective on how to get the cpu cycles as low as theoretically possible to solve a problem and then build a chip from there. America never really thought like that. It was always about building more horsepower at the hardware level and then making the programs as efficient as possible.

---

I remember my uncle who was at Lockheed in their SLBM division told me that Russians scientists and engineers(1980-2000) were very good, but their lack of infrastructure in certain areas(metallergy being one of them) limited their technology to compete with the US. I am sure it has improved in the last 25 years.

Must be military fly day.
220 over europe and over 500 over the usa. Thats above normal for both but not seeing anything of special interest.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=1b6c03

On the other side the Ukrainian Military is Visually Confirmed to have lost around 858 Pieces of Equipment so far since the Invasion, this includes 129 Tanks, 88 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, 18 Aircraft, and 5 Helicopters. pic.twitter.com/JyLfnfVdEN

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) April 20, 2022

MeatDr said:

---

On the other side the Ukrainian Military is Visually Confirmed to have lost around 858 Pieces of Equipment so far since the Invasion, this includes 129 Tanks, 88 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, 18 Aircraft, and 5 Helicopters. pic.twitter.com/JyLfnfVdEN

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) April 20, 2022

---

Were those 3,000 pieces of hardware that the Russians have lost all destroyed or does that number include pieces the Ukes captured and could make use of?

Includes destroyed, damaged, captured, and abandoned.

Each Russian BTG has around 800-1200 Soldiers and includes Armor, Artillery and Logistical Support so each Unit can operate independently from each other, though so far we have no seen many BTGs Operate as a Unit, but this is expected to change in Offensives in Eastern Ukraine.

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) April 20, 2022

Destroyed and captured.

Would help to know how many are cobbled together and what their actual strength is. If they're just random guys thrown together or those BTG's are really at 80% strength, they will have a bad day.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Would help to know how many are cobbled together and what their actual strength is. If they're just random guys thrown together or those BTG's are really at 80% strength, they will have a bad day.

---

Indication seems to be most BTGs are at 75% strength. The later they arrive to the east, the worse off they were.

Yep. Keep giving them guns and ammo and the Russians will keep throwing themselves away.

MeatDr said:

---

Includes destroyed, damaged, captured, and abandoned.

---

They also have not relayed how they will deal with captured equipment that may later get destroyed. As of currently It appears if UKR captures a russian tank, puts it into operation, then the russians destroy it, it will now get listed a second time but under UKR tank losses. Their analysis is difficult enough and I don't see how they could determine reuse of equipment with the exception of partial Z/O still visible under/around the new blue/gold marks.

Of note since this was posted by meatdr, the number has jumped to 3044 and the Ukrainian loss list has disappeared from the site.

Up to 39 russian drones lost, which is one of the keys to UKR success. In a significant number of russian combat videos, their success has been directly related to their drones in either direct attack or targeting for long range indirect fires in both arty and missiles. Hopefully not on the list of aid is a bunch of anti-drone tech.

More missile testing and threats of nuclear war:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-tests-sarmat-intercontinental-ballistic-missile

Quote:

---

Published April 20, 2022 1:21pm EDT
Russia tests new Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile in what Putin hails as 'truly unique weapon'
Missile launch comes amid war in Ukraine and heightened global tensions
By Greg Norman | Fox News

---

AGS-R-TUFF said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Russia is going to keep trying to throw numbers at their problem. We just have to make sure that Ukraine can continue to efficiently reduce those numbers at roughly the same rate they have been.

---

Gen. Keene has pointed out that the Russians (though more heavily concentrated in the East) appear to be following the same road bound advance strategy with their primarily wheeled convoys. If they are not able/willing to use off road tactics en masse, then hopefully the Ukes can wreck them, armor piece by armor piece, and systematically destroy their various BTG effectiveness. AGAIN

---

It's a tuff call.

If you can get off the roads, where the ground will support heavy equipment (no mud/weak soil), you end up leaving snail trails visible from space. Easy for drones to spot where you came from and where your now hiding.

If it was me I would only use the fields for maneuvers on low cloud/bad weather days, get back on the roads, to break up the track, and give the conscripts a few vehicles and a case of vodka and tell them to go nuts in the fields in all directions. Its going to be much easier to sneak manpads into armor occupied territory than it is to advance armor as an aggressing force without air and indirect fire support.

Rasputitsa generally lasts until mid May. Just FYI.

aezmvp said:

---

Rasputitsa generally lasts until mid May. Just FYI.

---

Yeah was gonna say.. the Russians off road options for their armor will expand significantly in 4-6 weeks.

The decision to invade Ukraine in spring was almost unbelievably stupid from a military point of view. I get the sense that the Russian military at the top is just utterly rotten with sycophants devoid of military or strategic acumen. Could end up being Ukraine's biggest advantage. They just have to hope that necessity does not result in Russia finding a Brusilov or Zhukov by luck.

Today, Igor Girkin released on his Telegram a long-form note explaining his pessimism with regards to the second stage of the special operation.

He still strongly believes Russia does not possess enough forces to conduct a successful operation.

The translation in 3 parts: pic.twitter.com/er41FkMtSF

— Dmitri 🇺🇦 (@mdmitri91) April 20, 2022

FriscoKid said:

---

Today, Igor Girkin released on his Telegram a long-form note explaining his pessimism with regards to the second stage of the special operation.

He still strongly believes Russia does not possess enough forces to conduct a successful operation.

The translation in 3 parts: pic.twitter.com/er41FkMtSF

— Dmitri 🇺🇦 (@mdmitri91) April 20, 2022

---

Very interesting read from a Russian's military perspective on this second war phase.

Wonder how legit it s (or how good the take is), but I found it interesting.

I think Russia is going to have a really hard time if they don't go WMD in this war. They are still getting their asses kicked.

https://instagr.am/p/CclUooigaq0

Quote:

---

"Fighting continues even in darkness along the front. Donbas is not a quiet area to be. You just stay awake and keep your eyes forward at all times when needed. I was not around for it, but I believe it's true.

A listening post fell asleep and Russians found them in the dark. The two men in the post were shot killed.

We know they slept because they did not fire a bullet themselves. All their supplies were gone when we found them with enemy bullets (casings) a few meters away. This was 2 days ago and since we make sure no one sleeps while fighting."

- Ukrainian Soldier. Invasion of Ukraine. April 20th, 2022.

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Today, Igor Girkin released on his Telegram a long-form note explaining his pessimism with regards to the second stage of the special operation.

He still strongly believes Russia does not possess enough forces to conduct a successful operation.

The translation in 3 parts: pic.twitter.com/er41FkMtSF

— Dmitri 🇺🇦 (@mdmitri91) April 20, 2022

---

For those on a mobile:

Quote:

---

1/3
One of my comrades who came back from the frontline for reorganisation asked to briefly and clearly (without going into depths of warfare science) to sum up and express my thoughts that I listed in a discussion with him, revolving around my 'pessimism' towards the success of the 'second stage' of this SMO (Special Military Operation). - He believes someone might find this useful. I think that no one from those making decisions will pay any attention, but I made a promise, so here it is:
In short, let's evaluate the operational situation:

1. From our side, after the 'successful completion of the first stage of the operation' (which ended with a large-scale RETREAT from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy Oblasts), a relocation and concentration of the forces in the Donetsk region of the frontline has occurred. Most likely (and according to the official statements of the political command of RF), this is precisely where they are planning to conduct the 'second stage', and complete the objective of totally clearing the territories of L/PR of the enemy's formations. Obviously, they count on creating 2-3 offensive groupings with enough manpower, which, with concentrated support of all available aviation and the majority of artillery forces, will 'break through' the Ukrainian forces (which are still for some reason not appreciated highly enough), and destroy them in one large battle.

2. From the UAF side: the plans of F AF are very clear to the enemy, and they do not at all consider their defeat inevitable. In fact, the opposite - UAF are planning to defend in their highly fortified positions, relying on old and newly created (RF AF gave them plenty of time for that) positions at assumed directions of the Russian Forces strikes (which are obvious - just look at the map).

Let's ask a question - can the supremacy of Russian AF in aviation and heavy weaponry guarantee a victory over the enemy (for whom the offensive plans are obvious?), who is prepared for defence, possessing a high moral spirit? My answer is - NO, not guaranteed.

Why? - My answer:
The 'supremacy' of Russian AF in aviation and artillery is quite relative. Since the enemy has a well-equipped and numerous military Anti-Aircraft capabilities, which severely limits actions of the tactical aviation capable of supporting its own troops on the battlefield. The enemy holds AN ADVANTAGE in terms of field and artillery reconnaissance (UAVs of various classes on nearly squad level). Their artillery has great weaponry and excellent trained personnel. And fighting against numerous Russian armored vehicles - UAF (in defence) is quite capable of this due to massive amounts of anti-tank weapons among infantry (ATGM).

In conditions where Russian troops will have to storm one city agglomeration after another, numbers of troops come to the foreground. And in this regard, neither RF AF nor L/DPR AF have a serious advantage, unfortunately.
Let's imagine that the first line of defence of UAF south of Izyum and near Huliaipole is broken and our forces begin offensive in convergent directions.

Can they quickly link up in deep Ukrainian rears, creating two encirclement rings (inner and outer)? With a guarantee that the enemy won't break them immediately and won't create their own 'salients' for the advancing forces? (Germans did this on multiple occasions in 1942
with our forces).

I doubt it. Why? - Because for that you need A LOT of detachments aimed not only for breaking through but also for firmly establishing in the territories. You also need a large amount of supply detachments. If the enemy had innumerous forces - you could partially ignore defence of communications. Yet UAF (thanks to mobilisation) have enough forces comparable to our own numbers.

Moreover, the enemy has the ability to reduce the frontline and transfer freed forces towards endangered directions - RF does not have complete supremacy in the air simply due to a lack of numbers in attack aviation, and tiny numbers of attack UAVs. At the same time, the frontline near Donetsk can be held by the enemy with relatively small numbers thanks to excellent engineering equipment, developed over years, while our genius politicians were 'chewing Minsk snivel'.

With this in mind, I presume that the general lack of forces will not allow the Russian command to conduct a 'deep envelopment in Dnipro region'. They simply don't have enough manpower for this. So the offensive will be carried out in the shortest directions - in the north towards Slovyansk-Kramatorsk (at best, towards Barvenkovo), in the south - on the Uhledar-Kurahovo line. Both mentioned operational lines will inevitably lead our troops to face the large, highly fortified, and well-prepared defensive garrisons in numerous city agglomerations. In fact, the enemy still retains control over roads between them, which they can use to continue supplying their troops.

So, after a certain time, in this area, the same situation will repeat as in Rubezhnoe-Severodonetsk, Popasnaya, Avdeevka and Maryinka, where united forces are advancing extremely slowly and with huge losses (especially among infantry), or not moving at all (Avdeevka). The enemy is more than happy with such a way to conduct combat operations.

Why? - Because UAF need 1,5-2 (at best, 3) months to
prepare significant reserves - not in the form of constant reinforcements into existing forces (they are already happening, supporting on a very decent level the numbers of troops directly engaged in combat), but in the form of detachments that can be used in other strategic directions, while Russian forces are 'bleeding', storming fortified cities in Donbas.

In the worst case scenario, we can repeat the situation similar to one that happened for the Wehrmacht during operation 'Citadel' While Germans were slowly gnawing through the deeply reinforced defence of soviet troops, wasting time and their saved reserves, Soviet command concentrated in the north (around Belgorod and Oryol) a large group of own troops not engaged in the battle. When it started a
counter-offensive, Germans 'suddenly found out' that there was not enough power to simultaneously continue operation 'Citadel' and defend from counter-offensive of soviet troops.

The operation had to be ended and battered troops had to be returned to their original positions. And then, more or less orderly retreat (which did not always happen for Germans) behind Dnipro.

With this in mind, I would also remind you that the so-called 'ukraine' is finishing its THIRD STAGE OF THE TOTAL MOBILISATION. They have manpower (200-300 thousand people) and equipment (a huge stream of all kinds of weapons from Europe and USA) to not only
support a decent number of their own troops at the frontline, but also create new reserves. And create them in 'numbers' (even 100,000 people is around 50 BTGs, including reinforcements and rear infrastructures - so around 10 full-bodied divisions).

What about us? We are conducting recruitment into various private military organisations, recruiting contractors in enlistment offices, and... and that's all. L/PR (in terms of mobilisation) are completely drained, and those who are 'still to be caught', will only replenish existing and future losses. Let's say, thanks to private companies we are able to create 10 (even 20) various squads and BTGs. And then? Losses taken in Donbas (storming more fortresses will result in these being VERY HIGH) will need to be compensated somehow.

In general, HOW can the Russian command in two-three months 'parry' a concentration of fresh UAF forces, for instance, at the borders of Kursk and Belgorod Oblasts? And if they start an offensive - what will we have to defend them? Police, 'alco-Cossacks' (all real Cossacks are already on the frontline), or regional militia? This regional militia has not yet even been created! No one is speaking about this...

Or did our military 'arranged in advance' with the enemy that they (the enemy) will act strictly within the plans of our Orthodox General Staff? In the first stage of 'SMP' this did not seem to happen at all. With serious losses for the participants. I don't think the second stage will be much different - Ukrainians are definitely not planning to act as 'boys for beating.

So, drawing a conclusion, I note:
Without conducting at least a partial mobilisation in F it is impossible to conduct deep strategic advancing operations in so-called 'ukraine', impossible and extremely dangerous. We need to prepare for a long and difficult war, which will require all human resources, which are now uselessly wasted to have 'another flag over a city council' (Hostomel and Bucha showed how quickly the flags can be changed).

And yes, I would really like to be mistaken in my predictions for the operation that has started (the 'second stage'). But the grande with which these hedonists that shat themselves on many occasions, these lying babblers, and mediocrities, are presenting it - is not giving me extra optimism. NO CONCLUSIONS from the failures of the first two months - in a strategic sense - have been made.

---

Rossticus said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

https://instagr.am/p/Cci53YULCj8

---

---

Wow remove the blue from the helmets and it looks like 1916. 2022, the defenses rule, if air power is limited.

Ukrainian military intelligence intercepted an order from the Russian fascist invaders to kill all prisoners of war in Popasna.

The Russian army is murderers, rapists and looters. It is by no standard military.https://t.co/ZPzlEBdngW

— Michael MacKay (@mhmck) April 20, 2022