They simply never threw anything away…
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'm assuming 1950s tech was shoot and pray? Like no locking on of any sort? What chance does that have against anything made in the last 40 years
They probably have one of those big metal dart board sights in front of the gunner. That should be more than enough to take a Mig 29 down.
It had been already obsolete against mig 15 I'd imagine
. Its has been like a war museum but where you see the new stuff first.Oh, I see. I didn't know he stayed so long after being dismissed.
What has Russia got from WWI?
Hopefully the ability to overthrow and execute the Head of State.
I'll take "weapons used in the boxer rebellion and the Russian ukrainean war" for 500, Alex.
Lots of rumours of the beginning of a new offensive in Kherson to reach Nova Kakhovka.
I’m no military expert, but I guess it would be useful as artillery (if not air defence). Even in the 19th century they had some shit that would do enough damage in any age over longer distances.
Most valuable PoW?
He seems the type who would rather get killed than captured though, very ideological.
He isn't part of the Russian power structure and they would likely be happy to get rid of him. Sure would be interesting to capture him, but I don't think it would have a big impact except some Telegram outrage by his followers.
They need to roll out the trebuchets!
I don't think they would be effective when used for indirect fire but a lot of AA guns loaded with armor piercing rounds can be pretty effective against armored vehicles.
Tulsi Gabbard
Videos like this, of failed missiles launches are coming out daily now. I wonder if the Russians have been forced to start using missiles that are to old and thats the reason we are seeing so many failed launches.
I was under the impression that you try to use your oldest stuff up first when it comes to ammo and missiles. Maybe that's with the caveat "as long as it seems like it is in good condition" and they've now scrapped the caveat I suppose.
Seems plausible to me and would indicate that the rumuors are true that Russia is slowly running out of ammo.
The US is stopping the sale of all chips to Russia which will prevent them from using anything but dumb bombs.
I’d imagine that you try to use the oldest equipment that still has a valid expiration date and these may be the ammo that’s long out if commission.
That tweet is not entirely accurate. We still have no idea if he's filmed any critical infrastructure, energy or otherwise.
Pretty Shamefull even if it wasnt a big demonstration.
You are absolutly correct, LIFO should be the normal procedure when it comes to any type of ammunition.
Maybe the people in charge of renewing the missile stocks have relabeled old missiles meant for decommisioning as new and pocketed the money meant for the new ones. With the levels of corruption in the Russian army, I don't think something like that would be out of the qustion. This would mean that the missiles they are using now, the ones that are supposed to be the newest are infact the oldest.
It's interesting how quickly misinformation spreads. That tweet is now on the front page of Reddit after it got posted /r/UkrainianConflict, with the headline of that post making the same mistake. There are now probably a whole lot of people who take it as fact that a Russian spy was caught filming energy infrastructure in Norway. Which just might be true, but we don't actually know that yet. It really shows the power of social media.
There are relatively highly upvoted comments explaining the mistake, but the vast majority of people are simply going to read the headline and move on. That story is now going to be hard to change.
Incidentally a second Russian citizen was detained yesterday, and this one filmed airports and military equipment with drones (some helicopters, for example). It seems like it was definitely the right move to up security. Recently (right after the Baltic Sea sabotage) the home guard was tasked with guarding critical gas/oil infrastructure, which had been up to the police before then:
Reports that the Kherson offensive resumed this morning after an operational pause.
It's interesting how diplomacy and foreign relations work.
You can supply an endless amount of weapons and other equipment. You can teach people how to shoot, and you can tell them where and who to shoot. That's all fine, but if you're the one pulling the trigger then you're at war.
Personally I don't really see a big distinction, but it matters a lot.
You can supply an endless amount of weapons and other equipment. You can teach people how to shoot, and you can tell them where and who to shoot. That's all fine, but if you're the one pulling the trigger then you're at war.
Personally I don't really see a big distinction, but it matters a lot.
Seeriously, you don't see a difference ?
World War One in colour:
I think in a different era we'd have soldiers from a dozen other countries in Ukraine, people would volunteer en masse. Which would likely bring in Russian allies and boom, a world war.
Not a substantial one, no. It doesn't matter as long as it's accepted as a substantial difference among the countries involved, though.
Just one thing to comment from your previous post, provided intelligence does not equal "telling them who to shoot". Or you are in the belief that US Generals control all Ukrainian military which would basically echo what they are saying on Russian state TV.
Interesting to read that French President Macron has stated that in the event that Russia launches a nuclear weapon against Ukraine, France would not respond with their own nuclear weapon.
This takes away part of the the basis of having nuclear weapons. That being the threat posed by having it and the threat of using it.
This takes away part of the the basis of having nuclear weapons. That being the threat posed by having it and the threat of using it.
Meh, France would use nukes if they themselves got nuked.
My specific issue with that comment from Macron, and shared by experts that I follow, is actually saying it out loud. But it seemed to be aimed at domestic audiences.