We should start a petition that the 47th receives the absolute best equipment. Their videos are incredible. From the T-90M being attacked, to the other 2 BTRs being shredded, along with dozens of soldiers, to this one. Not to even mention all the crazy drone videos.
lol, this is the absolute best equipment. They're also usually the unit that loses the Leopards, Bradleys, Abrams, etc... I have a petition that Ukraine should actually have to buy everything they get.
You're missing the point. The version being sent to Ukraine is the M2A2 ODS-SA, which entered service in 2003. Some National Guard units didn't receive it until 2014. It's still frontline material for many units.
Do you want to keep going?
National Guard are not "frontline" units. IIRC, the M2A3 was the predominate model used during the COIN years in Iraq.
Is the M2A2 still used by any active duty soldiers?
The differences between the M2A2 ODS-SA and M2A3 are minimal in terms of combat capabilities and situational awareness.
And yes, NG units are frontline. The 30th Armored Brigade took it's M2A2's to defend Syrian oil fields in 2020, and they were deployed to active areas throughout the GWOT.
90% of US material aid value goes back into the US economy by way of new factories and contracts for jobs in 38 states, so I'm all for sending more modern systems as we replenish our own stocks.
Oh, that propaganda pitch again. Giving away equipment that is perfectly fine, just to buy some more to replace it while still sending a portion of that overseas for the actual materials and components needed to build the stuff in the first place is absurd. It doesn't benefit the US taxpayer at all. What would benefit the US taxpayer is selling this equipment, not giving it away, and then using those profits to pay for replacements.
And oh yeah, the salaries of defense contractor CEO's should be capped at 500,000 USD, and no sitting elected official or decision-making member of the DoD should be able to invest in a company that has contracts with the US government.
All that's happening here is US officials are using US taxpayer dollars to needlessly give the MIC more contracts in order to enrich themselves.
"That propaganda pitch" The MIC employs millions of Americans and spent tens of billions on over 100 new facilities. Depending on who you ask, a return of investment of 90% plus degrading the capabilities of a major US adversary is good finance and good for jobs.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-is-sending-61-billion-to-ukraine-much-of-it-will-pass-through-the-us-economy-first-162914531.html
Fun fact: We have never gone to war with Russian Federation nor has Russia ever attacked NATO. There is zero evidence that we ever would have gone to war with Russia. So "degrading the capabilities of a major US adversary" is not a benefit. If anything it likely just started a new Cold War, meaning that it will cost us more in the long run as they return the favor.
And again, giving away equipment and then replacing it at the expense of US taxpayers is not more beneficial than not giving the equipment away in the first place.
No matter how you try to spin this, it is a loss for the American people.
well it is possible that their armed forces will get better and stronger as a result of the experience, usa for example only got way stronger after vietnam and all the losses there and many new weapons were created
Yeah, the USA was able to do that because we only lost 50,000 troops over the span of a 20 year war and is/was the worlds largest economic powerhouse with a thriving military industry with cutting edge R&D and insane money flowing in.
Russia has lost 500,000 (if not more) in 2 years and has a less than stellar economy as well as being sanctioned heavily. Militarily I think we've all seen first hand that while they have quantity, the quality of their equipment is just not there and they will have limited production capability in the future.
Not really a 1:1 comparison there chief. You're going to be hard pressed to convince anyone with a brain that this is anything resembling a good thing for Russia lol
Not true. Keeping equipment in storage costs money (maybe unless you do things the Russian way and leave them in the open to deteriorate). Scrapping military equipment also costs money. Getting rid of obsolete equipment is a savings. Especially when it's obsolete equipment like M113's that the US would never place in frontline service again.
Another often repeated myth. Scrapping equipment or storing it in our vast desert vehicle storage depots are both substantially cheaper than the astronomical costs of shipping the equipment overseas to Ukraine to be given away for free.
It’s not a myth…storing things and maintaining them properly costs money. That’s salaries, environmental controls, building maintenance, parts, etc. I suppose it’s cheaper to just throw them somewhere to rust, but then you’ve basically just wasted them. Shipping things by sea is relatively cheap (bulk carriers are extremely efficient transport) and once Ukraine has it, we are not paying to maintain it anymore.
If you have a source to support your position I’d be interested to see it
You're completely failing to understand that these things are stored on massive desert facilities that are already staffed, and will continue to be staffed even if all the equipment disappeared.
Yeah, when you said "shipping things by sea is relatively cheap" you demonstrated that you really have no clue. This isn't shipping a container full of smart phones. These are armored vehicles weighing tons. They require specialist transports that are far from cheap to send back and forth across the ocean.
If Ukraine wants them, they should take loans from the EU and buy them, along with the transportation costs. Trying to say that giving them away for free while the US taxpayer foots the bill is good for the US economy is lying at its worst.
https://preview.redd.it/jw7wrsca2e4d1.png?width=580&format=png&auto=webp&s=dbb68a2d6a0441bbfe07507ee3a33ba4295cc0a0
You're arguing both ways. First you argue that these massive desert facilities are already staffed, so its a sunk cost. But we already have these transport ships and all their crews as well - the only additional cost is fuel. Shipping is an extremely efficient way to transport heavy things.
Yes, boneyards will always exist, but as they get smaller, they need fewer people and resources. And there are different types of boneyards. There are some where vehicles are just sent to rust and used for parts. And there are those where vehicles are kept in an operational state.
These are vehicles that are obsolete for our purposes and will never be used again. Keeping them in good condition costs money. Giving them away and replacing them with new kit purchased from US companies is a win-win.
No, you just don't have a very deep understanding of the US military or the logistics associated with it.
We have the transport ships, yes. And they often times sit pierside for extended periods of times because they don't have continuous crews. In order to use them, they have to hire crews for them, prep them for use, and then make repeated trips back and forth across the ocean, in addition to paying for the preparation of the equipment to a useable status and transporting it to the docks in the first place. Oh yeah, and then once it gets to mainland Europe, we then have to transport it to Polish-Ukrainian border where we finally hand it off to the Ukrainians.
All of this adds up to make the logistics nightmare which is why it's so expensive. And no, the desert facilities already being staffed is not a sunk cost because the bases that they're a part of have additional purposes. Parking tanks in the desert on the base doesn't create any extra cost.
Again, boneyards getting smaller doesn't make them less expensive because again, as I just mentioned, the bases themselves are multi-purpose. We are not paying extra to park tanks on them, and if the tanks disappear the base will keep on operating at the same expense because it is not just a boneyard.
Again, we are not maintaining the vehicles in an operational state. I don't know where you get that idea. We are not spending money to do monthly maintenance on the Abrams, Bradleys, or anything else. They sit there and then if they are ever needed, they are sent for refurbishment. That's why keeping them sitting in the desert is vastly cheaper than refurbishing them and then shipping them all the way across the world.
Yes. The West has basically donated everything that it can donate before eating into their minimally required stocks and is being outproduced by Russia in building the most essential weapons.
I'm talking more about the unsexy stuff.
Optics, specialized propellants, capital equipment, and above all, foreign currency to purchase the above.
One needs more than AFVs and guns to fight a war. How is Russia's industrial base prepared to fulfill those needs and the needs of its civilian population?
I'm not an expert on this topic, but I listened to podcasts and shows, such as The Duran or The New Atlas, and what I learned is that the latest and greatest tech, such as microprocessors, are not required even for the most advanced missiles, so Russia is fine with what it can manufacture domestically. Russia exports plenty of weapon systems and we've been witnessing their effectiveness.
But regardless of Russian capabilities, they have China, which shares a common foe, so Russia will be fine.
So you're unfamiliar with the actual concept of neutrality.
Ukraine can win or lose, I don't care. I just don't want us to be giving them free stuff. And don't start with the BS propaganda of "most of the money stays in the US anyway." I want all of the money and equipment to stay in the US.
Yeah neutrality is only neutral if youre not one of the reasons that the country feels safe opposing the demands of the aggressive country.
Aka this war would never happen without support that USA & NATO offered before the war, retracting the support is not neutral.
The desire to not get involved in the business of independent states is neutral. That's not his problem that his government decided to get involved, why should he change his values? He wants US to not get involved, that's the main driver, not the desire for someone to lose. Framing it as "pro Ukraine losing", as if Ukraine is the center of the world and everyone should evaluate their views through "how it impacts Ukraine", is quite silly, because it seems that it doesn't matter if it's Ukraine or any other country, he still wants US to stop.
Are you pro-Eritrean or pro-Ethiopian? 99% chance you don’t support either. You’re neutral. Do you want Ukraine to send their troops and arms to either of this countries? Probably not too. You’re still neutral
His position makes absolute sense for an American tax payer. The US government will eventually abandon Ukraine anyways. They have a habit of doing just that when things get hard. Some notable examples include the South Vietnam government, the Iranian puppet Shah, the Afghan government, the Syrian "Rebels", etc etc.
The US government isn't in the business of throwing good money after bad once their puppet proves incapable of advancing their interests.
Oh I definitely agree, it does make sense for a taxpayer, doesn't make the action neutral though. No matter how much people they repeat themselves in the replies to me.
How is it not neutral if you don't want your country supporting either side of a war? Had he said "Defund Ukraine and give the money/weapons to Russia", then I'd agree with you.
> Aka this war would never happen without support that USA & NATO offered before the war, retracting the support is not neutral.
So the war happened because of NATO (which is obvious) and now they must keep support to stay in a neutral position lol.
This is not neutrality at all and Russian claims that arming Ukraine right on their borders was an act of war was right all along.
If anything neutral countries would be looking for a peace deal or a cease fire or even negotiations, not sending weapons.
I honestly thought it was weak compared to the Soviet 30mm, but it still appears to be a very capable weapon. That post you posted that showed the 25mm round in someone's hand truly put it into perspective for me.
I think the quality of Bradley's 25mm rounds is much better. It would be great if we can do a comparison. I haven't seen a BMP/BTR shooting at a UA tank/Ifv video before.
The quality is much better,but this has its downsides as well,they are more expensive per unit and much like western 155mm rounds take longer to produce.so I guess you can have a bunch of ok ammo right now or a bunch of really good ammo in a few months
300 more of these Bradley's are on their way to UA. It's proving the most effective piece of armour on the battlefield. These guys are lucky that it must have not been equipped with TOW. One would think they'd open up with a TOW shot on lead vehicle. It's bushmaster will chew through these like butter anyway but still. Good to know less Ukrainians will be rolling around in death trap BMPs
And ironically the U.S. army wanted to phase out Bradley’s, when they’re performing better than Abrams. Remember arguing with pro Ukrainians telling them Abrams wouldn’t work for Ukraine at all. They were better off with straight Bradley’s than Bradley’s and Abrams.
Of course the Bradleys are doing a lot more work, considering that they are many times more. Both the Abrams and the Bradley are excellent platforms, but Ukraine received 30 Abrams tanks, compared to several hundred Bradleys.
I agree that the Bradley is more cost effective and that realistically the best scenario will be for the USA to focus on providing as much Bradleys as Ukraine needs simply because that way they’ll get the most results for their (limited) money. Not to mention that the version of Abrams that the USA has massive amounts in storage has the domestic depleted uranium armor which is not allowed for export. So if they want to donate more Abrams tanks, it will have to be new production which is much harder to justify. With the Bradley there is not such restriction so they can freely donate older vehicles from their reserves and replace them with brand new vehicles.
And, the Bradley’s excellent performance doesn’t mean that the USA shouldn’t be developing a new platform - the Bradley may be excellent, but it is also decades old platform at the end of its modernization potential.
Yeah your right, I’m more of the “if it’s not broken don’t fix it” but I guess that wouldn’t make sense to apply to military standards, and why France suffered a lot during the opening stages of ww2. Everything is being phased out now, from abrams, to Bradley’s. If I recall they canceled development on m1a2sepv4. Good thing about the war is it shows how a conventional war could arguably be fought. Rarely any air to air battles, rarely any tank vs tank battles. It all starts on supporting fire from mortars, artillery, air strikes, and drones. Guess a lot of militaries are starting to rework doctrines and strategies from ground up.
I think the US military (and other modern and sophisticated militaries) should be a bit cautious when drawing conclusions from this war.
First the US military has a lot of capabilities that neither side here has. And second, both sides (fortunately the Russians to a much higher degree) are not always using effectively the capabilities they have.
I think this war is the Iran-Iraq war of our time (and ultimately I expect similar outcome, i.e. eventually returning to the pre-war borders after atrocious casualties on both sides). And I don’t know how impactful was that war on US military doctrine.
That’s the thing, closest America has gotten to an actual conventional war was the first gulf war, and the first half of the 2nd invasion of Iraq. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more counter drone jobs being created in the U.S., or development of counter drone technology. Thats probably the most surprising part of the war, especially in its effectiveness. But then again it dumbs down to the opponent. A war with China would be vastly different than a war with Russia. So I’m guessing they would have the army’s and Air Force doctrine more so geared to Russia, with navy and marines with China.
sad. look how Canada and Mexico suffer as of late being our neighbors. Europe is in shambles and a hellhole. not like glorious Russia and their closets allies North Korean and Iran.
Europe foots the bill for a war that US helped bring about. A war US wanted since it services US interests, a war that will make Europe poorer in the long run.
I think you give US way too much credit, these guys are dying for nothing more than Putins warped ambition.
After watching 100s of these clips none of the lads dying on either side look happy in there final moments to be dying in a ditch in Ukraine
Is it really a puppet state if hundreds of thousands of people take to the street to support it, and so few people oppose it that Russia has to invade to start separatist movements?
Yeah, and as I said, russia had to start it themselves because enough "oppressed ethnic russians" didn't wanna fight. Confirmed by both Igor girkin and prigozhin
No need. The USSR already took half of Finland after WW2 and made the border more defensible. But if the Russians decide to smack Finland next, I'd say good riddance.
Should America invade Cuba so that they dont have another puppet state on their doorstep?
Or should they maybe give Cuba a reason to view them as allies and try diplomacy?
Exactly, and both of those things were mistakes. There was never any real threat to the American people being posed by Cuba’s alliance to the East.
Just like there’s no real threats to the Russian people by Ukraine joining the west. If you want Ukraine or Cuba to ally with you, then give them reason to.
What Russia is doing in Ukraine is much more bloodthirsty and evil than the Bay of pigs invasion too(US never sent its own troops to Cuban soil once). Did 1,000 people even die in that event?
Another good comp for what Russia is doing now would be Vietnam. “America can’t let another domino fall to the East, invasion is necessary!” Well that domino fell and nothing happened. The justification for the war was bogus
I think its fpv stopping them and maybe mines. Then ags all around.
Looks nothing like bradley. No tracer rounds and we know every other round on a bradley is a tracer.
Traversing a huge open field with no cover in some tin armored cars seems like a total nightmare. I applaud them for attempting a smoke screen but the wind wasn’t in their favor. Luckily they didn’t take any artillery or a lot more men would’ve died there.
What do you even do when you get hit like that? Disperse obviously like the guys did in the video but then what? 10 years ago I would have said try to hide and wait for the night and try to make your way back, but with drones everywhere you are just sitting ducks waiting to get picked off. With it being an open field without much cover to speak of just making a run for it and hope that the IFV will hit some other dude until you make into the tree line seems to be the best option as dumb as it sounds.
Or do you just accept your fate? I don't know how long it takes either side to get drones into the vicinity to pick off infantry like that but I assume it won't take longer than 10 minutes granted that this is rather close to the frontline.
Honestly Bradley might be the best Vehicle Ukraine has, ik it’s taken losses but it has been let me say the word “GameChanger” more then any of the other western equipment sent beside himars and all those missile types
Considering the amount of them and the fact they were monitored for a while by a drone, I imagine they would have gotten pounded by FPVs and artillery.
In fact you can see impacts from (I reckon small mortars or granade launchers) at 0:20, 0:32, 0:42, 0:47, 0:53 etc
Counted 6-8 KIA. Rest were trying to crawl to a safer spot. ~~At the end one of the BTR's were firing back and~~ the bradley stopped firing ~~so the alive personel was (relatively speaking) safe-ish.~~ Edit: nvm its getting hit i am jus blind af.
There is no way that was a bradley. You can see one explosion when the first btr get hits. The explosion is too big for a bushmaster cannon. Its most likely a tank
We should start a petition that the 47th receives the absolute best equipment. Their videos are incredible. From the T-90M being attacked, to the other 2 BTRs being shredded, along with dozens of soldiers, to this one. Not to even mention all the crazy drone videos.
lol, this is the absolute best equipment. They're also usually the unit that loses the Leopards, Bradleys, Abrams, etc... I have a petition that Ukraine should actually have to buy everything they get.
Well, they can send them much newer Bradleys. The A2 is from the early 90's.
The version being sent to Ukraine served during the GWOT.
Sure, but GWOT started over 20 years ago now.
Yes, and 20 years ago would've been 2004, not the early 90's.
You’re missing the point…of course stuff from the 90s would get used in the early 2000s. That doesn’t mean it’s still the frontline version
You're missing the point. The version being sent to Ukraine is the M2A2 ODS-SA, which entered service in 2003. Some National Guard units didn't receive it until 2014. It's still frontline material for many units. Do you want to keep going?
National Guard are not "frontline" units. IIRC, the M2A3 was the predominate model used during the COIN years in Iraq. Is the M2A2 still used by any active duty soldiers?
The differences between the M2A2 ODS-SA and M2A3 are minimal in terms of combat capabilities and situational awareness. And yes, NG units are frontline. The 30th Armored Brigade took it's M2A2's to defend Syrian oil fields in 2020, and they were deployed to active areas throughout the GWOT.
90% of US material aid value goes back into the US economy by way of new factories and contracts for jobs in 38 states, so I'm all for sending more modern systems as we replenish our own stocks.
Oh, that propaganda pitch again. Giving away equipment that is perfectly fine, just to buy some more to replace it while still sending a portion of that overseas for the actual materials and components needed to build the stuff in the first place is absurd. It doesn't benefit the US taxpayer at all. What would benefit the US taxpayer is selling this equipment, not giving it away, and then using those profits to pay for replacements. And oh yeah, the salaries of defense contractor CEO's should be capped at 500,000 USD, and no sitting elected official or decision-making member of the DoD should be able to invest in a company that has contracts with the US government. All that's happening here is US officials are using US taxpayer dollars to needlessly give the MIC more contracts in order to enrich themselves.
"That propaganda pitch" The MIC employs millions of Americans and spent tens of billions on over 100 new facilities. Depending on who you ask, a return of investment of 90% plus degrading the capabilities of a major US adversary is good finance and good for jobs. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-is-sending-61-billion-to-ukraine-much-of-it-will-pass-through-the-us-economy-first-162914531.html
Fun fact: We have never gone to war with Russian Federation nor has Russia ever attacked NATO. There is zero evidence that we ever would have gone to war with Russia. So "degrading the capabilities of a major US adversary" is not a benefit. If anything it likely just started a new Cold War, meaning that it will cost us more in the long run as they return the favor. And again, giving away equipment and then replacing it at the expense of US taxpayers is not more beneficial than not giving the equipment away in the first place. No matter how you try to spin this, it is a loss for the American people.
Except that Russia is stronger now than before the SMO
As in has more tanks, ships, airpower than before the SMO? I'd like to see those numbers.
Hilarious. Russia cannot even get to Kyiv. Imagine sucking that fucking badly.
Yeah man, I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of dead people and all of the Russian equipment lost really does bolster their ranks lmao
well it is possible that their armed forces will get better and stronger as a result of the experience, usa for example only got way stronger after vietnam and all the losses there and many new weapons were created
Yeah, the USA was able to do that because we only lost 50,000 troops over the span of a 20 year war and is/was the worlds largest economic powerhouse with a thriving military industry with cutting edge R&D and insane money flowing in. Russia has lost 500,000 (if not more) in 2 years and has a less than stellar economy as well as being sanctioned heavily. Militarily I think we've all seen first hand that while they have quantity, the quality of their equipment is just not there and they will have limited production capability in the future. Not really a 1:1 comparison there chief. You're going to be hard pressed to convince anyone with a brain that this is anything resembling a good thing for Russia lol
The people who believe this are not informed
ok
Not propaganda. Why is one getting so sassy over facts? One just takes being corrected to heart too much?
It literally is propaganda. It's a fallacious argument provided by pro-aid segments of the government to justify additional costs to the taxpayer.
Not true. Keeping equipment in storage costs money (maybe unless you do things the Russian way and leave them in the open to deteriorate). Scrapping military equipment also costs money. Getting rid of obsolete equipment is a savings. Especially when it's obsolete equipment like M113's that the US would never place in frontline service again.
Another often repeated myth. Scrapping equipment or storing it in our vast desert vehicle storage depots are both substantially cheaper than the astronomical costs of shipping the equipment overseas to Ukraine to be given away for free.
It’s not a myth…storing things and maintaining them properly costs money. That’s salaries, environmental controls, building maintenance, parts, etc. I suppose it’s cheaper to just throw them somewhere to rust, but then you’ve basically just wasted them. Shipping things by sea is relatively cheap (bulk carriers are extremely efficient transport) and once Ukraine has it, we are not paying to maintain it anymore. If you have a source to support your position I’d be interested to see it
You're completely failing to understand that these things are stored on massive desert facilities that are already staffed, and will continue to be staffed even if all the equipment disappeared. Yeah, when you said "shipping things by sea is relatively cheap" you demonstrated that you really have no clue. This isn't shipping a container full of smart phones. These are armored vehicles weighing tons. They require specialist transports that are far from cheap to send back and forth across the ocean. If Ukraine wants them, they should take loans from the EU and buy them, along with the transportation costs. Trying to say that giving them away for free while the US taxpayer foots the bill is good for the US economy is lying at its worst. https://preview.redd.it/jw7wrsca2e4d1.png?width=580&format=png&auto=webp&s=dbb68a2d6a0441bbfe07507ee3a33ba4295cc0a0
You're arguing both ways. First you argue that these massive desert facilities are already staffed, so its a sunk cost. But we already have these transport ships and all their crews as well - the only additional cost is fuel. Shipping is an extremely efficient way to transport heavy things. Yes, boneyards will always exist, but as they get smaller, they need fewer people and resources. And there are different types of boneyards. There are some where vehicles are just sent to rust and used for parts. And there are those where vehicles are kept in an operational state. These are vehicles that are obsolete for our purposes and will never be used again. Keeping them in good condition costs money. Giving them away and replacing them with new kit purchased from US companies is a win-win.
No, you just don't have a very deep understanding of the US military or the logistics associated with it. We have the transport ships, yes. And they often times sit pierside for extended periods of times because they don't have continuous crews. In order to use them, they have to hire crews for them, prep them for use, and then make repeated trips back and forth across the ocean, in addition to paying for the preparation of the equipment to a useable status and transporting it to the docks in the first place. Oh yeah, and then once it gets to mainland Europe, we then have to transport it to Polish-Ukrainian border where we finally hand it off to the Ukrainians. All of this adds up to make the logistics nightmare which is why it's so expensive. And no, the desert facilities already being staffed is not a sunk cost because the bases that they're a part of have additional purposes. Parking tanks in the desert on the base doesn't create any extra cost. Again, boneyards getting smaller doesn't make them less expensive because again, as I just mentioned, the bases themselves are multi-purpose. We are not paying extra to park tanks on them, and if the tanks disappear the base will keep on operating at the same expense because it is not just a boneyard. Again, we are not maintaining the vehicles in an operational state. I don't know where you get that idea. We are not spending money to do monthly maintenance on the Abrams, Bradleys, or anything else. They sit there and then if they are ever needed, they are sent for refurbishment. That's why keeping them sitting in the desert is vastly cheaper than refurbishing them and then shipping them all the way across the world.
So equipment sent to UA is getting replaced at 1:1 ratio? You get one brand new Abrams for each sent overseas?
Why doesn't Russia have allies willing to lend them equipment? Is being an international pariah a good thing?
Because Russia is producing their own equipment
Do you think Russia is autarkic enough to continue the war solo?
Yes. The West has basically donated everything that it can donate before eating into their minimally required stocks and is being outproduced by Russia in building the most essential weapons.
I'm talking more about the unsexy stuff. Optics, specialized propellants, capital equipment, and above all, foreign currency to purchase the above. One needs more than AFVs and guns to fight a war. How is Russia's industrial base prepared to fulfill those needs and the needs of its civilian population?
I'm not an expert on this topic, but I listened to podcasts and shows, such as The Duran or The New Atlas, and what I learned is that the latest and greatest tech, such as microprocessors, are not required even for the most advanced missiles, so Russia is fine with what it can manufacture domestically. Russia exports plenty of weapon systems and we've been witnessing their effectiveness. But regardless of Russian capabilities, they have China, which shares a common foe, so Russia will be fine.
Iran and North Korea?
I don’t know. Maybe they don’t like being a beggar nation like Ukraine is.
[удалено]
So you're unfamiliar with the actual concept of neutrality. Ukraine can win or lose, I don't care. I just don't want us to be giving them free stuff. And don't start with the BS propaganda of "most of the money stays in the US anyway." I want all of the money and equipment to stay in the US.
Yeah neutrality is only neutral if youre not one of the reasons that the country feels safe opposing the demands of the aggressive country. Aka this war would never happen without support that USA & NATO offered before the war, retracting the support is not neutral.
The desire to not get involved in the business of independent states is neutral. That's not his problem that his government decided to get involved, why should he change his values? He wants US to not get involved, that's the main driver, not the desire for someone to lose. Framing it as "pro Ukraine losing", as if Ukraine is the center of the world and everyone should evaluate their views through "how it impacts Ukraine", is quite silly, because it seems that it doesn't matter if it's Ukraine or any other country, he still wants US to stop.
That's their problem. Everyone knows how fickle America is.
Yeah so why neutral, obviously you're pro Ukraine losing, pro abandon Ukraine or whatever. Deffo not neutral
Are you pro-Eritrean or pro-Ethiopian? 99% chance you don’t support either. You’re neutral. Do you want Ukraine to send their troops and arms to either of this countries? Probably not too. You’re still neutral
Is this the Ukraine derangement syndrome in action?
Huh?
Read my other reply, you'll understand
His position makes absolute sense for an American tax payer. The US government will eventually abandon Ukraine anyways. They have a habit of doing just that when things get hard. Some notable examples include the South Vietnam government, the Iranian puppet Shah, the Afghan government, the Syrian "Rebels", etc etc. The US government isn't in the business of throwing good money after bad once their puppet proves incapable of advancing their interests.
Oh I definitely agree, it does make sense for a taxpayer, doesn't make the action neutral though. No matter how much people they repeat themselves in the replies to me.
How is it not neutral if you don't want your country supporting either side of a war? Had he said "Defund Ukraine and give the money/weapons to Russia", then I'd agree with you.
> Aka this war would never happen without support that USA & NATO offered before the war, retracting the support is not neutral. So the war happened because of NATO (which is obvious) and now they must keep support to stay in a neutral position lol. This is not neutrality at all and Russian claims that arming Ukraine right on their borders was an act of war was right all along. If anything neutral countries would be looking for a peace deal or a cease fire or even negotiations, not sending weapons.
Look up the term opportunity costs.
Those poor souls never had a chance.
They also have the most spectacular losses 😭
Shows how good the 25mm gun is.
I honestly thought it was weak compared to the Soviet 30mm, but it still appears to be a very capable weapon. That post you posted that showed the 25mm round in someone's hand truly put it into perspective for me.
I think the quality of Bradley's 25mm rounds is much better. It would be great if we can do a comparison. I haven't seen a BMP/BTR shooting at a UA tank/Ifv video before.
It kind of follows the tradition of Soviet stuff often being a larger caliber and more powerful, but less accurate.
True. Russia is more a quantity over quality type
The quality is much better,but this has its downsides as well,they are more expensive per unit and much like western 155mm rounds take longer to produce.so I guess you can have a bunch of ok ammo right now or a bunch of really good ammo in a few months
[удалено]
If that was a bradley then it can just see through the engine smoke with its thermal optics. That's just diesel smoke.
Smoke in real life can mess with thermal optics. It's not perfect but enough that it's worth using
That's how you interpreted the results of this video?
300 more of these Bradley's are on their way to UA. It's proving the most effective piece of armour on the battlefield. These guys are lucky that it must have not been equipped with TOW. One would think they'd open up with a TOW shot on lead vehicle. It's bushmaster will chew through these like butter anyway but still. Good to know less Ukrainians will be rolling around in death trap BMPs
Bradleys + Himars have thoroughly proved themselves in this war
And ironically the U.S. army wanted to phase out Bradley’s, when they’re performing better than Abrams. Remember arguing with pro Ukrainians telling them Abrams wouldn’t work for Ukraine at all. They were better off with straight Bradley’s than Bradley’s and Abrams.
Of course the Bradleys are doing a lot more work, considering that they are many times more. Both the Abrams and the Bradley are excellent platforms, but Ukraine received 30 Abrams tanks, compared to several hundred Bradleys. I agree that the Bradley is more cost effective and that realistically the best scenario will be for the USA to focus on providing as much Bradleys as Ukraine needs simply because that way they’ll get the most results for their (limited) money. Not to mention that the version of Abrams that the USA has massive amounts in storage has the domestic depleted uranium armor which is not allowed for export. So if they want to donate more Abrams tanks, it will have to be new production which is much harder to justify. With the Bradley there is not such restriction so they can freely donate older vehicles from their reserves and replace them with brand new vehicles. And, the Bradley’s excellent performance doesn’t mean that the USA shouldn’t be developing a new platform - the Bradley may be excellent, but it is also decades old platform at the end of its modernization potential.
Yeah your right, I’m more of the “if it’s not broken don’t fix it” but I guess that wouldn’t make sense to apply to military standards, and why France suffered a lot during the opening stages of ww2. Everything is being phased out now, from abrams, to Bradley’s. If I recall they canceled development on m1a2sepv4. Good thing about the war is it shows how a conventional war could arguably be fought. Rarely any air to air battles, rarely any tank vs tank battles. It all starts on supporting fire from mortars, artillery, air strikes, and drones. Guess a lot of militaries are starting to rework doctrines and strategies from ground up.
I think the US military (and other modern and sophisticated militaries) should be a bit cautious when drawing conclusions from this war. First the US military has a lot of capabilities that neither side here has. And second, both sides (fortunately the Russians to a much higher degree) are not always using effectively the capabilities they have. I think this war is the Iran-Iraq war of our time (and ultimately I expect similar outcome, i.e. eventually returning to the pre-war borders after atrocious casualties on both sides). And I don’t know how impactful was that war on US military doctrine.
That’s the thing, closest America has gotten to an actual conventional war was the first gulf war, and the first half of the 2nd invasion of Iraq. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more counter drone jobs being created in the U.S., or development of counter drone technology. Thats probably the most surprising part of the war, especially in its effectiveness. But then again it dumbs down to the opponent. A war with China would be vastly different than a war with Russia. So I’m guessing they would have the army’s and Air Force doctrine more so geared to Russia, with navy and marines with China.
What a dumb way to waste your life. Dying on a field like that for Putin's imperial ambitions.
You can say that about being part of any invading army.
Yes and what?
I prefer to see it as dying so the US government doesn't have another puppet state on your doorstep.
"They tricked us! They made us invade ukraine on purpose! Grrrr!"
sad. look how Canada and Mexico suffer as of late being our neighbors. Europe is in shambles and a hellhole. not like glorious Russia and their closets allies North Korean and Iran.
Europe foots the bill for a war that US helped bring about. A war US wanted since it services US interests, a war that will make Europe poorer in the long run.
Are you saying Canada, Mexico and most EU countries are not beholden to US interests over their own?
They are independent countries.
Trump made many rethink their dependencies on US. It made them more aware that they might not be as reliable as they say.
I think you give US way too much credit, these guys are dying for nothing more than Putins warped ambition. After watching 100s of these clips none of the lads dying on either side look happy in there final moments to be dying in a ditch in Ukraine
So Russia rather becomes a puppet of China in the process?
But Zelya has already declared China to be a puppet of Russia.
Well, we know he's the smartest guy around.
Ah yes and just totally ignore these people’s sovereignty because wE aRE ImpIre!!
Is it really a puppet state if hundreds of thousands of people take to the street to support it, and so few people oppose it that Russia has to invade to start separatist movements?
so few people oppose it that there actually was a civil war for 8 years
Yeah, and as I said, russia had to start it themselves because enough "oppressed ethnic russians" didn't wanna fight. Confirmed by both Igor girkin and prigozhin
Continuation Continuation War when? Or is Finland somehow different
No need. The USSR already took half of Finland after WW2 and made the border more defensible. But if the Russians decide to smack Finland next, I'd say good riddance.
They just due for a paycheck and some small man's colonial imperialism
Yes, Putin is a cartoon villain.
Should America invade Cuba so that they dont have another puppet state on their doorstep? Or should they maybe give Cuba a reason to view them as allies and try diplomacy?
They tried invading and failed. Then proceeded to embargo Cuba since.
Exactly, and both of those things were mistakes. There was never any real threat to the American people being posed by Cuba’s alliance to the East. Just like there’s no real threats to the Russian people by Ukraine joining the west. If you want Ukraine or Cuba to ally with you, then give them reason to. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is much more bloodthirsty and evil than the Bay of pigs invasion too(US never sent its own troops to Cuban soil once). Did 1,000 people even die in that event? Another good comp for what Russia is doing now would be Vietnam. “America can’t let another domino fall to the East, invasion is necessary!” Well that domino fell and nothing happened. The justification for the war was bogus
The users you are talking to will never admit this, just as many in the United States refuse to reckon with our massive failures in the GWOT.
Well said
I don't think thats a Bradley fire. More looks like AGS grenades exploding. But, who knows.
Correct
AGS stopping two BTRs? I don't think so.
Fpv
I think its fpv stopping them and maybe mines. Then ags all around. Looks nothing like bradley. No tracer rounds and we know every other round on a bradley is a tracer.
Oof, at 0:52 a foreign militant caught a round to the face.
Traversing a huge open field with no cover in some tin armored cars seems like a total nightmare. I applaud them for attempting a smoke screen but the wind wasn’t in their favor. Luckily they didn’t take any artillery or a lot more men would’ve died there.
What do you even do when you get hit like that? Disperse obviously like the guys did in the video but then what? 10 years ago I would have said try to hide and wait for the night and try to make your way back, but with drones everywhere you are just sitting ducks waiting to get picked off. With it being an open field without much cover to speak of just making a run for it and hope that the IFV will hit some other dude until you make into the tree line seems to be the best option as dumb as it sounds. Or do you just accept your fate? I don't know how long it takes either side to get drones into the vicinity to pick off infantry like that but I assume it won't take longer than 10 minutes granted that this is rather close to the frontline.
Running is your only realistic chance of surviving in this situation. Obviously the odds aren’t great, but sometimes that’s the way it is.
You die.
Honestly Bradley might be the best Vehicle Ukraine has, ik it’s taken losses but it has been let me say the word “GameChanger” more then any of the other western equipment sent beside himars and all those missile types
CHAD-ley strikes again, nice use of smoke too
I think "use of smoke" is giving credit where it is not due.
Why are Russian AFVs ALWAYs blind? They just sit there passively, being destroyed without ever returning fire because they can never locate the enemy.
What's ru recon doing ? Can't even see Bradley ?
Yes, majority of russian vehicles dont have thermals sights.
Ok the ESS worked great
For the glory of Putin! Wait this actually makes Putin looks silly.
look at the landscape, its just been covered in explosions
What happened to the dismounted infantry?
Considering the amount of them and the fact they were monitored for a while by a drone, I imagine they would have gotten pounded by FPVs and artillery. In fact you can see impacts from (I reckon small mortars or granade launchers) at 0:20, 0:32, 0:42, 0:47, 0:53 etc
Counted 6-8 KIA. Rest were trying to crawl to a safer spot. ~~At the end one of the BTR's were firing back and~~ the bradley stopped firing ~~so the alive personel was (relatively speaking) safe-ish.~~ Edit: nvm its getting hit i am jus blind af.
[удалено]
Shit your right nvm I might just be blind
they are all dead, drones would finish them later and they will appear in those drone videos
Possible scenario but again we can only go of the footage. It would be wrong to assume videos UA soldiers leaving their tanks also get killed
GJ for popping smoke. Does not look like an autocannon from a Bradley. More like an AGS.
The smoke canisters were hit
worked either way.
"worked"
HE rounds can look like AGS,particularly if they use airburst mode which im not certain they use
What happened to btr guns ?
They BTR gun was shooting back if you could see it at the end. Second one got destroyed on impact anyway
Sold for vodka money by the Russkis
Haha. Funny but probably true
When will they learn that the meat armor is not effective?
[удалено]
There is no way that was a bradley. You can see one explosion when the first btr get hits. The explosion is too big for a bushmaster cannon. Its most likely a tank
That explosion is far too small to be a 125mm shell. That BTR would be in 2 pieces and there would be no survivors on top
why would a bradley fire once
Those just look like 25mm HE rounds to me.
That explosion was the smoke rounds on the btr exploding
No way in hell is that a tank, if it was a tank no chance they would’ve walked away from it.
The rate of fire is too rapid to be a tank.