3 ms·

> People also forget NATO fought a much shitter/temu RU in Yugoslavia where NATO threw everything at even more legacy soviet systems. All of the awacs, prowlers

by eunos 2y ago

> People also forget NATO fought a much shitter/temu RU in Yugoslavia where NATO threw everything at even more legacy soviet systems. All of the awacs, prowlers, F117 barely chiped away at 20% of Yugoslav anti air, something like 700 harms were fired and destroyed less than handful of SA6 batteries. Hard to argue EU part of NATO has better military capability than 20 years ago Likewise the reason why Russia couldn't steamroll Ukraine swiftly is because Ukraine anti air is very formidable (using Soviet hardware no less). That is why it is wrong to simply assume Russia is weak.

eitland 2y ago
> That is why it is wrong to simply assume Russia is weak. russia is weaker than they have been since 1991, possibly 1950. There is a reason they are now delivering ammo using mules and actually attempting old school cavalry charges on horseback. And it it's not because donkeys are better than the armoured, tracked towing tractors or because actual horses are better than tanks.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  One problem with the digital age is you can find news to support any view, regardless of how disconnected from reality it may be. And enough people to echo such that one may not realize how ridiculous they sound.
- maxglute 2y ago
  >horses are better than tanks There's pics of UKR javalin calvary too. It's precisely because they're situationally better than tanks in certain combat conditions. For the same reason everyone is zipping around in dirt bikes and golf carts or UKR retiring M1 tanks from frontlines. Look up survivability onion, tanks/armor get detected and destroyed because they're too visible vs modern frontline battlefield recon. If you want to survive, have to move to smaller/more agile platforms to avoid detection in the first place. RU and UKR are both learning and adapting. It's reflection that last 50 years of doctorine is obsolete, aka everything EU military also hedged on. If shit ever hits the fan, NATO maybe donkeying as well.
  - eitland 2y ago
    Have my upvote, good reasoning. Still sources like Covert Cabal and others do make me think it isn't only a tactical consideration the russians have made but also a reflection of the fact that they very much do see the end of their stockpile.
  - orwin 2y ago
    > aka everything EU military also hedged on I don't think that's true. As an example, Finland and French doctrine are very different. It's easier to test all Euopean nations diffrent doctrine and choose what works best (especially if countries from the Balkans add their grain of salt) Imho that's where European defense industry (as a whole) is interesting. Because you have 5 competing IFV designs (well, over 15, but really, 5 different design that does different things). You also have multiple tanks (and AMX-10s), as well as a bunch of different drone constructors. Even in gun design you have multiple choices, andh while optics and optrionics are Thales', overall equipements are extremely distributed. Europe might find itself on the backfoot in case of an engagement, but i'm pretty sure it would bounce back quickly.
    - MaxPock 2y ago
      "French doctrine" Is this a joke ?
      - orwin 2y ago
        Yes, France have multiple different doctrines. It's most known one is the "Force de Frappe" [0], but the Legion have one, and if you talk about "doctrine d'emploi" every bit of equipment have one (the AMX-10 necessitate a doctrine d'emploi so different than regular MBT than the whole French cavalry have a different general doctrine than any other mechanized troups) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
  - simion314 2y ago
    if donkey are superior, then explain why only after 3 years Putin used them, was Putin keeping them in reserve for the Berlin attack?
- tw2347288 2y ago
  Let's be fair here. If we rightly mock all the silly *pravda sites, the mules aren't exactly reported in the serious press either. It seems more likely that mules were used where they make sense: Supplying ammo to a trench deeply in the forest, where mules are the superior "technology". Then that observation was blown out of proportion. Remember that "the Russians are fighting with shovels" was a slogan in 2022.

by eunos 2y ago

eitland 2y ago

> That is why it is wrong to simply assume Russia is weak. russia is weaker than they have been since 1991, possibly 1950. There is a reason they are now delivering ammo using mules and actually attempting old school cavalry charges on horseback. And it it's not because donkeys are better than the armoured, tracked towing tractors or because actual horses are better than tanks.

somenameforme 2y ago
One problem with the digital age is you can find news to support any view, regardless of how disconnected from reality it may be. And enough people to echo such that one may not realize how ridiculous they sound.
maxglute 2y ago
>horses are better than tanks There's pics of UKR javalin calvary too. It's precisely because they're situationally better than tanks in certain combat conditions. For the same reason everyone is zipping around in dirt bikes and golf carts or UKR retiring M1 tanks from frontlines. Look up survivability onion, tanks/armor get detected and destroyed because they're too visible vs modern frontline battlefield recon. If you want to survive, have to move to smaller/more agile platforms to avoid detection in the first place. RU and UKR are both learning and adapting. It's reflection that last 50 years of doctorine is obsolete, aka everything EU military also hedged on. If shit ever hits the fan, NATO maybe donkeying as well.
- eitland 2y ago
  Have my upvote, good reasoning. Still sources like Covert Cabal and others do make me think it isn't only a tactical consideration the russians have made but also a reflection of the fact that they very much do see the end of their stockpile.
- orwin 2y ago
  > aka everything EU military also hedged on I don't think that's true. As an example, Finland and French doctrine are very different. It's easier to test all Euopean nations diffrent doctrine and choose what works best (especially if countries from the Balkans add their grain of salt) Imho that's where European defense industry (as a whole) is interesting. Because you have 5 competing IFV designs (well, over 15, but really, 5 different design that does different things). You also have multiple tanks (and AMX-10s), as well as a bunch of different drone constructors. Even in gun design you have multiple choices, andh while optics and optrionics are Thales', overall equipements are extremely distributed. Europe might find itself on the backfoot in case of an engagement, but i'm pretty sure it would bounce back quickly.
  - MaxPock 2y ago
    "French doctrine" Is this a joke ?
    - orwin 2y ago
      Yes, France have multiple different doctrines. It's most known one is the "Force de Frappe" [0], but the Legion have one, and if you talk about "doctrine d'emploi" every bit of equipment have one (the AMX-10 necessitate a doctrine d'emploi so different than regular MBT than the whole French cavalry have a different general doctrine than any other mechanized troups) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
- simion314 2y ago
  if donkey are superior, then explain why only after 3 years Putin used them, was Putin keeping them in reserve for the Berlin attack?
tw2347288 2y ago
Let's be fair here. If we rightly mock all the silly *pravda sites, the mules aren't exactly reported in the serious press either. It seems more likely that mules were used where they make sense: Supplying ammo to a trench deeply in the forest, where mules are the superior "technology". Then that observation was blown out of proportion. Remember that "the Russians are fighting with shovels" was a slogan in 2022.