Kiev Is Burning

[Stefan Kotsch]

The formation of marine infantry units from unneeded sailors is an old Russian Soviet tradition. The sailors are considered particularly motivated soldiers who throw themselves into battle without considering their lives. Because they are clueless. The unfortunate boys will probably also be given a motivational injection 'Great Patriotic War V.02'. 

Edited September 23, 2024 by Stefan Kotsch

[Ssnake]

Eh, the invasion of Norway saw similar incidents without Russian involvement.

[TonyE]

French did it during WW1 aswell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_de_Fusiliers_Marins

[mkenny]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The formation of marine infantry units from unneeded sailors is an old Russian Soviet tradition. The sailors are considered particularly motivated soldiers who throw themselves into battle without considering their lives. Because they are clueless. The unfortunate boys will probably also be given a motivational injection 'Great Patriotic War V.02'. 

A bit like the 3  German Marine Infantry Divisions?

[Stefan Kotsch]

But these french 'Marine Fusiliers' were already 'infantrymen on board'. That's a little different than putting a rifle in the hands of sailors.

[Roman Alymov]

3 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The formation of marine infantry units from unneeded sailors is an old Russian Soviet tradition. The sailors are considered particularly motivated soldiers who throw themselves into battle without considering their lives. Because they are clueless. The unfortunate boys will probably also be given a motivational injection 'Great Patriotic War V.02'. 

   Not sure about other countries, but in Russian tradition since at least late Russian Empire time sailors were selected from general conscript mass on the criterea of, first and foremost, education (as they were supposed to be then trained into operating complex machinery), and then health. The same by the way, decades later, became the practice for VDV (to the degree of having all-students/univercity graduate battalions).   Having better then average education allowed improvised marine units not only to operate more complex weapons then regular infantry (for example, urban legend is SVT was disliked by regular infantry but loved by Marines), but also to use more complex tactics, topography, and in general learn all sort of war tricks quicker. The stronger morale/motivation was also the product of education (as it was the people educated enough to read books and know life outside of peasant "bubble"). 

     In modern days, this difference in education level is not so big (compared to the time of Civil War and WW2), but is still present.

[Roman Alymov]

Orion UAV vs. IMR obstacle-cleaning vehicle, Kursk region https://t.me/milinfolive/131160

[Roman Alymov]

Lancet (!) vs. pro-Ukr SOF evacuation group https://t.me/boris_rozhin/138396

[Roman Alymov]

Iskander and Smerch MLRS vs. HIMARS launcher, Donetsk Republic https://t.me/infomil_live/10397

[Roman Alymov]

Lancet vs. ST-68 radar, Dnepropetrovsk region https://t.me/infomil_live/10400

Edited September 23, 2024 by Roman Alymov

[Roman Alymov]

Lancets with target lock vs. tank on move https://t.me/vysokygovorit/17424

[Stuart Galbraith]

So THATS how Tunguska happened, it was a time travelling Ukrainan drone...

 

[Roman Alymov]

FPV drones vs. unlucky infantry section, Kursk region https://t.me/anna_news/71073

[Roman Alymov]

Multiple FPVs vs. Turkish Kirpi MRAP, Pokrovsk region. Looks like size and speed is better protection against FPVs then thick armor https://t.me/infomil_live/10417

[Stuart Galbraith]

Bada Bing, Bada Boom.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

The Death strip on this one looks like the moon.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

This video claims these strikes have been part of a concerted campaign, and are claimed ot have destroyed up to 6 months worth of ammunition, including newly delivered North Korean missiles (probably did them a favour there, heh).

 

[Roman Alymov]

47 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This video claims these strikes have been part of a concerted campaign, and are claimed ot have destroyed up to 6 months worth of ammunition, including newly delivered North Korean missiles (probably did them a favour there, heh).

So it means that current production and purchase of ammunition by Russia is so massive it is not only enough for supplying current frontline use, but is also enough to stock up AT LEAST 6 month worth of extra ammunition?  (note the storages attacked are not all storages in Russia)

Compare that to German army has ammo for only two days of war – media — RT World News

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, it means that after you use up the ammunition already with units, you are going to have to look for 6 months of ammuntion.

I should check ebay, they are always selling weird shit.

Yeah well, this is the NATO threat you had to invade Ukraine to ward off apparently. Yet another dumb decision from a guy replete with them. You cant have it both ways. You cant ridicule the threat, or it makes Ukraine look unnecessary. You cant talk up NATO, without withdrawning all units facing NATO and sending them south to Ukraine as being a bit of a strange decision. Why, to hear you guys talk, Poland is about ready to go and take Belarus, and Germany about to retake Kaliningrad.

[Roman Alymov]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, it means that after you use up the ammunition already with units, you are going to have to look for 6 months of ammuntion.

Well, let's wait and see (as "ammunition already with units" will be out in few days). 

Re keeping NATO away - it is strange to do it by conventional forces (as population of NATO countries is about 960 mln, so NATO will always have cannon fodder advantage). Nukes were created by our grandfathers for this task.

[Josh]

“Six months” seems like a large over estimate. I think most estimates put Russian production of artillery in the neighborhood of 3 million rounds, which is probably around a few hundred thousand tons. Add to that ammunition from other countries. While I think a lot of things went boom, I do not think it was a hundred thousand tons of boom.

That said, it does see like a substantial and very tangible amount of munitions were destroyed and more over with these facilities needing major repairs, presumably a lot of logistical work around are necessary. Ammunition has to be stored and distributed somewhere else, either at existing facilities which will be overburdened and potentially befall the same fate, or new dispersal sites that are unarmored. Presumably we will see the effects within a week or so, given consumption rates.

It also seems quite possible from one of the picture sets that some kind of ballistic missiles were being stored as well. That might be rather significant by itself.

[Stuart Galbraith]

What is stunning is how few of these places seem to have been updated. I looked up another report on one of these places, and it still seems largely how the CIA saw it in the mid 1960's from spy satellite.  It just doesnt seem to have occurred to anyone, despite the massive NATO threat, that maybe they ought to harden some of the structures, rather than keeping explosives in tin roofed sheds with a berm around them.

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This video claims these strikes have been part of a concerted campaign, and are claimed ot have destroyed up to 6 months worth of ammunition, including newly delivered North Korean missiles (probably did them a favour there, heh).

Figure the Russians are firing something like 1,000 tons of rockets, bombs, and shells a day.  Six months of that would be 180,000 tons of ammunition.  The pictures you have posted collectively might be thousands of tons of munitions, but not six months of munitions.

Quote

What is stunning is how few of these places seem to have been updated. I looked up another report on one of these places, and it still seems largely how the CIA saw it in the mid 1960's from spy satellite.  It just doesnt seem to have occurred to anyone, despite the massive NATO threat, that maybe they ought to harden some of the structures, rather than keeping explosives in tin roofed sheds with a berm around them.

Another way to look at it is that they concluded that the amounts and types of ammunition being stored there weren't worth the upgrades, and that the expensive facilities need to be for the important stuff like Kinzhal missiles.

Edited September 24, 2024 by glenn239

[Roman Alymov]

Lancet vs. Bergepanzer  towing tank, Kursk region https://t.me/anna_news/71100

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Another way to look at it is that they concluded that the amounts and types of ammunition being stored there weren't worth the upgrades, and that the expensive facilities need to be for the important stuff like Kinzhal missiles.

I think it more likely that in Soviet days these facilities were too far back to warrant hardening, and then post USSR the money simply was not available (although supposedly there was a major upgrade and consolidation effort). This much like the aircraft shelter situation discussed elsewhere - it was not necessary before the WP dissolved and NATO got much closer. IMO this speaks to how little of threat Russia ever thought NATO was in practice, despite its constant sky-is-falling rhetoric.

Edited September 24, 2024 by Josh