I would not have thought that the 25mm gun could do much more than make an MBT button up. Before this war, I would have told you that I didn’t even think the Bradley’s TOW missiles could destroy a T90 (disable one with a hit in the tracks, sure). These Russian tanks appear to be far more vulnerable than we believed. No wonder the Russians have not committed their new vaunted new T14s to the battle.
Apparently the Bradley didn’t do much more than disable the tank (still a kill) vs destroy it. There’s video on Twitter of three operators abandoning the tank and running away. Some are saying the large explosion is external smoke grenades exploding, not ammunition within the tank.
Not going to let this go down the memory hole, especially as appear to be putting the finishing touches on another mega-catastrophe … Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute
Here's some combat footage from Ukraine, with some of it being NSFW. I watch their live show on YouTube from time to time. It can run long but you do get some analysis with the videos they feature. https://funker530.com/category/ukraine/
Serious question: how much does Russia pay you to object to my posts? All I did was quote something that was in the news. Don't blame me if it doesn't agree with your worldview.
It is encouraging to follow the reports of the Bradleys performance in Ukraine. I hope the Abrams perform as well although the numbers are small. Perhaps Uftaipan can clarify, but my understanding is the US has shipped NONE of its most technologically advanced Bradleys or Abrams model types. This bodes well of course for the Ukranians, that older class systems are holding up against their Russian counterparts. On happier news I am hearing reports that the Biden Administration is considering meeting some Republican demands regarding border policy, in order to get aid flowing. I am also hearing that Katalin Novak (Hungarian President) is backing off his resisistance to approving NATO aid packages as well. I hope so, Ukraine needs renewed aid to continue the struggle against Putins aggression.
That’s very encouraging if true. In my opinion, defeating Russia strategically is the most important goal for the country at the moment. I say that, fully recognizing that it is not the most important thing for either political party. To get to this goal, both parties are going to have to set aside desires that would better advance their own immediate political ends. And that is a lot to ask of politicians. As some of you know, I’m currently a student at the Air Force’s version of War College in Montgomery. The amount of required reading is staggering, even for a person like me who loves to read. One book we had to read recently that I would recommend is No End Save Victory by David Kaiser. It is about the understudied area of World War II between the start of the war (which the book classifies as Japan’s invasion of China in 1937) and the U.S. entry in December 1941, and everything the Roosevelt Administration did to prepare the nation for war under some very restrictive political circumstances. Like Biden, Roosevelt faced obstacles in both parties and was not able to get everything he wanted all at once. I think this Administration could learn a lot from Roosevelt and replicate some of the techniques Roosevelt used to get a coalition of the moderates together and isolating the extreme wings of both parties. I would be interested if anyone who has read the book saw any parallels with our current situation.
I don’t know the answer to that, but it makes sense. Historically, that is the case. We start out by giving away surplus, antiquated gear. And we are reluctant to donate any technology we don’t want to fall into enemy hands.
I am currently reading a book on Winston Churchill and his role in WWII. I see the parallels in the U.S. WWII stance and the current position of the two parties. It seems that one of the defining events in the war was Japan taking over 40% of the world's rubber production in Malaysia. Churchill was aghast that Roosevelt could only get commitment to convert 10% or so of the U.S. auto production into tank and military truck production, as England converted 100%. Once there was very little rubber for tires, there was no point in making passenger cars, so the U.S. switched to military production. Once Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the U.S., the U.S. was 100% in the fight. So there is one difference between then and now: WWII was a global war in every sense of the word (or phrase), while Ukraine is much more of a regional war with some global implications.
Ukraine carries out a drone attack on a Russian oil depot. (What took you so long, Ukraine? ) Four oil tanks were lit up and destroyed, about 40 miles from Ukraine's border. A Ukrainian drone attack on an oil depot inside Russia causes a massive blaze, officials say
Before it was a world war, WW2 was also a series of regional conflicts. People argue whether it began (as it does traditionally) with the German invasion of Poland, Japanese aggression against China, Italian invasion of Ethiopia, or even the Spanish Civil War. People also argue whether it truly became a world war when Germany invaded the Soviet Union or when Japan brought in the United States at Pearl Harbor. What I wonder is how much suffering could have been spared if the aggression had been checked at the outset before it went global.
appeasement never works...ever...yet some still refuse to recognize that. Crimea was the latest world appeasement; Ukraine is the price.
Russia's oil revenues dropped 37% last year due to falling prices. Not good for the Russian economy. Putin’s petrodollars dry up as Arab-Russian cartel loses its grip
