Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[mrttao]

Totally lost to Soviet tech.

facepalm. reading comprehension fail.

I didn't say that usa lost to soviet tech. Tech does not fight, people fight using tech.

I explicitly said USA managed to lose to vastly inferior tech opponents, which happened to be using (heavily outdated) russian tech at the time.

That if losing was how you determined tech level then by that logic russian tech is better than the USA since the usa managed to lose against it.
But also that losing is NOT how you determine tech level. That those losses were not caused by tech.

You are sorta right. Russian technology, at least the best of it, while not at the level of western, especially US equivalents in some areas, is not that far behind.
The bigger issue is that:
a) Most of their equipment is not their most advanced equipment.
b) Most of their equipment is poorly maintained. Especially the not newest but still advanced kinds that need expensive spare parts. See: Leaked Moskva technical reports.
c) They skimp on training. Badly. Especially the costly kinds of training.
Point in case:

Thread by @MarkHertling on Thread Reader App

@MarkHertling: Putin's announced mobilization of 300,000 "reservists" was jaw-dropping to me this morning, but not for the reason some might suspect. Why? Because know how Russian soldiers are trained, in basic trai...…

threadreaderapp.com

Thank you.
Yea, fielding untrained conscripts is a pretty bad strategy.

 

[LordsFire]

I notice everyone here is saying that Russia was proven to have inferior military technology.
I am curious what this is based on?

Losses do not necessarily stem from inferior technology.
USA managed to lose multiple wars against vastly inferior tech enemies.
Actually thinking about it, usually those very enemies that defeated USA were using russian military tech.

But victory and defeat have a lot more going into it.

I am not accusing anyone of anything here, just asking if someone can actually explain this.
Where are you all getting the notion that Russia's problem is that its technology is uncompetitive?

This gets back to the issue of political goals vs political restrictions.

Afghanistan and Iraq were losses because the political leadership had either no idea what victory looked like, or set utterly absurd victory conditions, then restricted the means usable to try to accomplish said objectives.

As has been known since the time of Sun Tzu, political interference in the plan of battle is a path to defeat.

To be more specific, victory in Afghanistan was impossible because the Taliban kept retreating into Pakistan and the military was never allowed to pursue and destroy them. Victory in Iraq might have been possible, but Obama turned the situation FUBAR bloody quickly. To be fair, the odds were slim unless we blew up a lot of Iranian shit to get them to stop supporting terrorists and political dissidents in Iraq anyways.

 

[mrttao]

This gets back to the issue of political goals vs political restrictions.

Afghanistan and Iraq were losses because the political leadership had either no idea what victory looked like, or set utterly absurd victory conditions, then restricted the means usable to try to accomplish said objectives.

Yes, step 0 of winning wars is "do not have a retarded leadership"
No matter how good your tech is, extreme stupidity will let you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Zachowon]

So the military never actually lost to any Soviet tech.
In fact we kicked its ass so hard it was things we were not allowed to do that had us losing.

Got it.
Again, the 80s is when the US and the West surpassed Soviet tech in all fields.
Before then armor was close.
The US and the west focused on minimizing the loss of life.

US high tech has not lost any war.

 

[Cherico]

So the military never actually lost to any Soviet tech.
In fact we kicked its ass so hard it was things we were not allowed to do that had us losing.

Got it.
Again, the 80s is when the US and the West surpassed Soviet tech in all fields.
Before then armor was close.
The US and the west focused on minimizing the loss of life.

US high tech has not lost any war.

we don't need technology to lose wars we have polititions to do that for us.

 

[Zachowon]

we don't need technology to lose wars we have polititions to do that for us.

....
We can not claim it is the tech that caused us to lose then

 

[ATP]

I notice everyone here is saying that Russia was proven to have inferior military technology.
I am curious what this is based on?

Losses do not necessarily stem from inferior technology.
USA managed to lose multiple wars against vastly inferior tech enemies.
Actually thinking about it, usually those very enemies that defeated USA were using russian military tech.

But victory and defeat have a lot more going into it.

I am not accusing anyone of anything here, just asking if someone can actually explain this.
Where are you all getting the notion that Russia's problem is that its technology is uncompetitive?

American tanks do not blown up.American missiles do not fall from the sky without reason.

But - i still think that my conscpiracy theory coud be true,and that REAL Moscow army is waiting for RIGHT HOUR to strike and take Europe,or maybe entire world.
And they,of course,would have those super weapons.

Not very probable - but possible,becouse we are taling about KGB dude who do not care how many of his slaves die.So he could kill current Moscov army to get chance for taking Europe/World.

 

[Arch Dornan]

But - i still think that my conscpiracy theory coud be true,and that REAL Moscow army is waiting for RIGHT HOUR to strike and take Europe,or maybe entire world.
And they,of course,would have those super weapons.

One right hour for something is definitely general winter.

 

[ATP]

One right hour for something is definitely general winter.

Indeed.If they do not use their hidden army in few months,it probably do not exist.
Probably - becouse KGB plan could be to wait for next winter.Or few years.
That is problem with kgb - their loses do not count as long as those dead are not kgb officials.Becouse they could sacrifice everybody else in their state to win.

 

[mrttao]

....
We can not claim it is the tech that caused us to lose then

facepalm.
You are literally the only person who made this claim. this is what you are failing to understand.

I was trying to explain to you that the notion that tech == victory is blatantly false.
as proof I pointed out cases where superior tech lost.
Tech helps, but it is not the only factor in war. And stupid leadership can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

You looked at those examples of superior tech losing and what you took from it is "oh, some people are saying soviet tech is superior to USA tech". somehow this is what you took from it. Even though nobody was making that claim.

 

[mrttao]

American tanks do not blown up.American missiles do not fall from the sky without reason.

... of course they do. failed munitions, duds, technical failures... all happen to every military in the world.
are you perhaps alluding to a difference in scale of the problem where russia has a lot more? what are the sources for this info?

we also got confirmation that the tanks issue was a problem with embezzlement resulting in shoddy manufacturing. not necessarily an issue with the actual technology itself. Meaning it should be repairable.

such graft is not a problem unique to russia. as I am aware of examples of it happening in usa as well.

here is an example of unexploded munitions in usa

Bomb cleanup on Plum Tree Island refuge could take years

POQUOSON The cleanup of unexploded ordnance from Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge could take years and tens of millions of dollars, the Army Corps of Engineers said Wednesday. The

web.archive.org

 

[ATP]

... of course they do. failed munitions, duds, technical failures... all happen to every military in the world.
are you perhaps alluding to a difference in scale of the problem where russia has a lot more? what are the sources for this info?

we also got confirmation that the tanks issue was a problem with embezzlement resulting in shoddy manufacturing. not necessarily an issue with the actual technology itself. Meaning it should be repairable.

such graft is not a problem unique to russia. as I am aware of examples of it happening in usa as well.

here is an example of unexploded munitions in usa

Bomb cleanup on Plum Tree Island refuge could take years

POQUOSON The cleanup of unexploded ordnance from Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge could take years and tens of millions of dollars, the Army Corps of Engineers said Wednesday. The

web.archive.org

1.Part of soviet missiles schoot at ukrainian targets do not made it without help of ukrainian AA.
2.Soviet T.72,T.80 and T.64 blow up becouse of how amunnition is hold there.Problems with autoloader.There is up to 40 schells which could explode ther,when in Abrams only one.

 

[Marduk]

2.Soviet T.72,T.80 and T.64 blow up becouse of how amunnition is hold there.Problems with autoloader.There is up to 40 schells which could explode ther,when in Abrams only one.

That's only half the story. The kind of ammo stowage Abrams has is the golden standard, very few other tanks match that (Challenger 2, Merkava?).
Leopard 2 has part of its ammo stored in hull exposed, so it's not as good, the turret bustle has a similar blow out panel system as Abrams, but only 15 rounds fit there.
For comparison, Abrams has 44 rounds there, and optional 11 extras in hull, and even that in containers.
Meanwhile T-72 autoloader style tanks have a shitload of 2 piece round parts spread all over the tank's fighting compartment, some or all of it completely unprotected, depending on variant and technical state.

 

[ATP]

That's only half the story. The kind of ammo stowage Abrams has is the golden standard, very few other tanks match that (Challenger 2, Merkava?).
Leopard 2 has part of its ammo stored in hull exposed, so it's not as good, the turret bustle has a similar blow out panel system as Abrams, but only 15 rounds fit there.
For comparison, Abrams has 44 rounds there, and optional 11 extras in hull, and even that in containers.
Meanwhile T-72 autoloader style tanks have a shitload of 2 piece round parts spread all over the tank's fighting compartment, some or all of it completely unprotected, depending on variant and technical state.

Thanks for info.
One of my friend claimed that he saw on YT short film with russian tank blowing up,it turret flying,and after that some dude come from burning hull alive.
Is it possible?

 

[Marduk]

Thanks for info.
One of my friend claimed that he saw on YT short film with russian tank blowing up,it turret flying,and after that some dude come from burning hull alive.
Is it possible?

It's often technically a deflagration, not an explosion, so remotely possible, the driver at least, especially if he was quick, or he was thrown out of the hatch by the same overpressure that threw the turret. However he could also be walking dead due to deep burns and burned lungs.

 

[mrttao]

1.Part of soviet missiles schoot at ukrainian targets do not made it without help of ukrainian AA.

just like every munition ever. here is a rare example of reporting an unexploded usa missile

CNN - Unexploded U.S. cruise missile found in Pakistan - August 24, 1998

edition.cnn.com

and try searching for "usa drone crashes" (since USA switched over from shooting missiles to sending drone strikes)

2.Soviet T.72,T.80 and T.64 blow up becouse of how amunnition is hold there.Problems with autoloader.There is up to 40 schells which could explode ther,when in Abrams only one.

fair enough

 

[ATP]

just like every munition ever. here is a rare example of reporting an unexploded usa missile

CNN - Unexploded U.S. cruise missile found in Pakistan - August 24, 1998

edition.cnn.com

and try searching for "usa drone crashes" (since USA switched over from shooting missiles to sending drone strikes)

fair enough

Not up to 30% of fired.There is something wrong with their missiles.Considering how many was fired,Ukraine should lost all military bases long ago.Yet they are still there.

 

[mrttao]

Not up to 30% of fired.There is something wrong with their missiles.Considering how many was fired,Ukraine should lost all military bases long ago.Yet they are still there.

going right back to

are you perhaps alluding to a difference in scale of the problem where russia has a lot more? what are the sources for this info?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you did clearly state repeatedly that it was a yes/no thing. making your new 30% claim a case of moving the goalposts.
anyways, where are you getting that 30% figure?
===

Considering how many was fired,Ukraine should lost all military bases long ago.Yet they are still there.

that... really isn't how missiles or bases works.

 

[Marduk]

Yeah, all missiles fail, but some fail more often than others.

Exclusive: U.S. assesses up to 60% failure rate for some Russian missiles, officials say

The United States assesses that Russia is suffering failure rates as high as 60% for some of the precision-guided missiles it is using to attack Ukraine, three U.S. officials with knowledge of the intelligence told Reuters.

www.reuters.com

BGM-109 Tomahawk - Operational Use

www.globalsecurity.org

Two submarines and a number of surface ships fired Tomahawk cruise missiles during the Gulf War. According to initial US Navy reports, of 297 attempted cruise missile launches, 290 missiles fired and 242 Tomahawks hit their targets.

Looks like Tomahawks from late cold war had a failure rate of 19% in Desert Storm, with improvement to less than 10% in 1996 (Block III upgrade effect?).

One of the officials said the intelligence showed that Russia's air-launched cruise missiles had a failure rate in the 20 to 60% range, depending on the day.

It does fit with the general idea that Russian technology is to a large degree stuck in the late 80's.

Not up to 30% of fired.There is something wrong with their missiles.Considering how many was fired,Ukraine should lost all military bases long ago.Yet they are still there.

Don't forget lazy bastards with insufficient intel assets using very old maps to plan strikes (and everything else), so then they aim a missile at some mall or dorm because it was a military barrack or warehouse... in the 80's.
Also obsolete TERCOM maps can make a missile mighty confused if they are years out of date and buildings in the area were built/modified/demolished in the meantime.

 

[Bassoe]

-a russian man carries out self-defense against a government-sponsored slaver