RETAC21

La Gesta (The feat) an Argentine view of the Falklands with interviews of the veterans, you can read it in English with subtitles. Some of the people have very close shaves with Death, for example, Carlos Tomba was shot down at low level:

I am so wrong that I told you 2 years ago that Russia cannot win this war and it still is unable to win the war.

There are claims about a lot of things, but the role of "West" (you mean US, but nevermind...) as global policeman ended up in 1999 in Kosovo. Russia's aims are just imperialistic, despite your attempt at whitewashing it as a "civil war". You inability (time and again) to pinpoint at which point what you consider that "Russia" ends clearly is a matter of concerns for Russia's neighbors, because Russia has demonstrated a willingness to disregard the treaties that Russia signed with these countries and other powers. This is not new, I will just point out that, at the end of the Cold War in 1990, the first thing Russia's neighbors did was to rearm themselves and modernize their armies, and only later, when Russia messed up itself, was the peace dividend taken. Why Russians feel that they need to demonstrate that they are a great power at the expense of others because Russia Stronk is what leads Russia on the path of failure time and again.

I don't know what point you are making there, the point is?

And? that shows what? the Pakistani elite has always had one priority: India. "alliance" with the US is incidental, it's useful only if it serves them and otherwise it's ignored. What has Pakistan ever done for the US? and that goes back to 1947, BTW. India is no different but their relationship with the USSR and Russia was/is merely transactional.

Pakistan and India are not allied to anyone, they just look after themselves and occasionally, their interest are aligned with someone else. Pakistan, specifically, is only interested in stirring shit up in India and "influencing" Afghanistan. This is now, in the last 30 years and during the Soviet intervention. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/pakistans-role-in-the-afghanistan-wars-outcome/ Note the 2010 date, the conclusions are wrong, but note that Pakistan's role is the same.

https://geimint.blogspot.com/ SAM site overview has all the current and historical sites

Weren't the T-72s upgraded ever?

Anyway, as we were saying... Necromancing this thread to ask the Finns about the TO&E of the armored brigades in the 70s and 80s

These were the fomer Infanteria de Marina tanks (Marines), they have been withdrawn from use since 2012 or so... Everything you want to know here: https://publicaciones.defensa.gob.es/media/downloadable/files/links/l/o/los_veh_culos_de_infanter_a_de_marina_1.pdf But in Spanish

Yes, but all that means is that preparation for an attack needs to be more extensive. Shaping the battlefield needs to be done to a wider depth, so when those guys calling for fire support will be told that too bad, none available.

This is akin to long range AAMs, all that needs to happen is that the space in which combat happens is much bigger than previously, and more decentralised.

I think you are rounding up by a bit. In a mobile battlefield, small drones are not an issue.

This doesn't solve the problem of detection = kill, which is not dissimilar to naval war. Anything that is detected can be killed unless properly protected.

The same issues apply to mobile artillery, as we can see in multiple videos. Shoot and scoot only works if you are not under observation, else the guns are targeted when they stop. We are already seeing a move to artillery bunkers: Note also that this happens because the front is static and it's no different than WW1. Then it was the plane that impacted artillery, today it's the drone. Then counterbattery fire was brought in minutes, today it's available in seconds, but the dynamic is the same. The way to break this is in a mobile battlefield, but neither side is able to mass the forces and supporting arms to break through... yet.

Very risky if enemy air is around and has long range missiles (both AAM and SSM). it would suck to lose the helicopter, the gun and both crews.

The problem is not access to drones, it's the ability to use them in the battlefield, which can be denied through EW and counterfire. I agree that mobile artillery in general is the way to go, but it carries its own limitations. Wheeled artillery on trucks is quite vulnerable to loitering munitions and limited on where it can go, unless fighting in a desert. Tracked artillery has a significant overhead in terms of maintenance and a higher visibility vs towed artillery. In a situation like that of Ukraine, towed artillery is survivable using HARTS: https://nautilus.org/publications/books/dprkbb/military/dprk-briefing-book-harts-in-north-korea/

Nonsense, towed artillery will always have a place as not all opponents will have access to higher level tech or this can be denied through EW. Another matter is whether the US Army needs to invest in other systems of higher mobility and networking capability to counter the "transparent" battlefield.

Indeed, on another video the one carrying it can be seen reloading an AK, it's a flashlight reflecting on something (a bayonet?)

Terror attack in Moscow, one of the terrorists carries a flamethrower - asusmed Islamist

They could be tanks damaged outside of combat or suffering slight damage, and in fact that is what they are doing: “At the moment, we’re replacing the damaged sight on a T-80 BVM tank. In the past, there have been situations where a tank’s turret needed replacement. We unreservedly dismantle it and install a new one. Alongside that, we handle modifications to the tank’s chassis, guns, tracks, suspension, and wheels. Additional reactive armor is also attached as required. In a nutshell, we undertake all necessary tasks to enhance the machine’s operational condition"

War according to Glenn:

They don't recover anything at all. Prove me wrong.

They are not stored in the weather, but in a warehouse. That said, the best of the lot were refurbished and sent to Ukraine, so what is left needs more work than the previous ones and of course, a source of spares.

Neither side has the capability to fight like they are fighting today. Russia loses a mechanised battalion per week, probably more, without taking into account personnel losses. Ukraine losses are likely less but equally unsustainable. Both sides are fighting like it was 1916, but without the industrial capacity to sustain it, and both sides know better, but seem incapable of breaking free of the political constrains.