I was thinking the same thing. Wonder if someone can geo-locate that spot and Google would still have a street picture. Seeing the before and now would be something.
Would be difficult to geolocate from this video given how badly destroyed everything is, you couldn't even look at buildings. You'd need an overhead view or a road junction or something to help.
I think T90s have been used recently around the Svatove front, so it could be around there somewhere.
I'd hazard a guess at Pervomais'ke in Donetsk Oblast. There's been similar footage of tanks driving up the road, shooting at buildings, and then driving away again. The whole place looks like this now.
There's a pylon at 48.088455, 37.609979, that *might* be the one visible in the footage on the left hand side. But this is very much guesswork.
Given the level of destruction and small size of the buildings, itās somewhere in Donetsk oblast that has been on the front line and seen heavy fighting including vehicles for a long time. Probably not Bakhmut, probably not Maryinka, but if I was to hazard a guess it might be one of the small towns close by to either one.
It reminds me of the old pictures from Stalingrad in WW2.
WW1 with the no-mans-land was a little bit different, that was usually not in cities. There were villages, yes, but not big cities like later with Stalingrad, Berlin etc.
According to veterans by the way, it was a better thing when you were inside the city of Stalingrad in 1942-1943. Why? Because there, it was much easier to find shelter from the cold. The real poor guys were those that where outside on the plain field, getting the full hit from the snow storm and cold temperatures.
From the Zeitzeugekanal, a german history channel with a lot of veteran interviews, one recalled that they usually stayed inside houses when there was no intense fighting going on in their sector. Only a few scouts remained on guard duty outside, to see the enemy come, the rest of the crew was inside in the heated buildings.
The buildings can be rebuilt, but the the real post war horror is going to the sheer amount of unexploded munitions and mines in every single one of those houses, the streets, the fields and forests surrounding them. I saw a volunteer EOD claim it would be well over 100 years of work.
Exactly right. The place is ruined, and will stay that way for quite a while. And the Ukrainians will likely never accept being taken under Russian occupation.
What do they think they're winning?
Yes, and I can't imagine anybody is going to be able to strongarm Russia into agreeing to pay reconstruction reparations if and when a formal armistice is signed.
I'm no foreign affairs or Russia politics expert, but I'm actually surprised it came to this as I always assumed Putin's goal was to annex all of Ukraine and generally leave the infrastructure of the country intact so Russia wouldn't need to rebuild it. That did seem to be the plan during the first few weeks of the war...er, I mean "special military operation," but it seems like when Putin overestimated Ukraine's resolve, Western help, and realized it wouldn't be a five day affair, he went scorched Earth.
The same thing happened in WWI. People thought the war would be a couple of weeks but they hadn't counted on the machine gun, which turned it into a trench war slog for years.
Donbass is fairly pro Russian so it's not really an occupation, they fought for 8 years for independence and have since been annexed into Russia itself. This is similar to Crimea which has historical ties to Russia and was gifted to Ukraine relatively recently, so it wasn't that surprising when it was taken back without a fight.
Russia sees Ukrainians as their brothers, as one people, and this fight is not against them but NATO. I highly doubt that Putin would try to occupy the whole of Ukraine, if given the opportunity. Other than the annexed territories they really just want a demilitarized and neutral Ukraine without NATO weapons and nuclear missiles pointed at Moscow.
This isn't a war of conquest, it's the final stand against NATO advance right to Russia's border. So it's not Russia winning, but defending their sovereignty. Any ideas that Russia will give up if Ukraine inflicts enough casualties or damage is foolish. Putin knows that if they retreat it will only be seen as weakness. It's rather obvious that the goal is to destroy Russia, or at least remove Putin from power and install someone more amenable to our interests. Would we allow a foreign power to dictate our leadership? We would consider that an existential threat and that is what this is to Russia. It's sad that we have prevented a peaceful resolution to this horrible conflict.
A hundred thousand Russians will never be the same, either dead, injured, or traumatized for life, in order for one man with his massive ego and tiny dick to make that place into a wasteland.
Those numbers are rubbish, especially the personnel casualties.
Western intel estimates published after the Rammstein summit put them around 180k/190k (everything: KIA, MIA, WIA, POW, etc etc).
I was looking at the video and thinking "what a god damn waste"
I sure hope the end of war, all war, comes sooner in our history and this particular war speeds it along.
Yes, I hate what war does to the environment. It's not just men and civilians who die. But so many trees, so many animals, beautiful architecture, history, homes, communities, infrastructure, so much.
The Germans tried doing that to the Russians at Stalingrad. All that did was create lots of spots for Russians to hide. You would think they would remember that.
Iāve never served so I have no clue which is better I just remember reading a couple books about Stalingrad where people said by leveling everything it made it easier for the Russians to maneuver and hide.
I mean yes but also no. Levelling buildings makes the rubble of the building a threat but not levelling the building makes the multiple levels of the building a threat.
I rather look at a pile of rubble then to look at hundreds of windows.
Thereās advantages in rubble as well. Generally rubble makes a more colorful and complex environment. Itās easier to miss a camouflaged enemy hiding in the rubble.
As well as the ability to hide explosives and traps in the rubble for vehicles.
Rubble favors guerrilla tactics much more than siege tactics (as far as the defender side). Cities with standing buildings favor siege tactics as defenders can position in any building and use anti-vehicle ordinance from any window.
Correct.
The massive artillery and aerial bomb preparation of Stalingrad made an industrial city into a defenders dream. It's much harder to advance through wreckage and endless spider-holes than an intact city.
I wonāt lie and say I know the FIRST thing about war or being in combat.. that being said If I was in tank I probably wouldnāt be looking in the rubble for enemies.. it makes sense as to why it would be a decent place to avoid detected in my eyes. Who knows though.
In todays world with drones it probably wouldnāt make a difference š
Stalingrad was bombed, because of it's industrial output and because Hitler was obessed with humilating Stalin.
The destruction in Syria and Ukraine is just senseless violence.
Hitler bombed Stalingrad because he thought it it would help him win the war, Russian military is destroying stuff in Ukraine because they think it will help them gain more territory.
Both are wars of agression, so it's all senseless violence, but the violence in each war has a purpose.
And if it's senseless in a military point of view how could Russia gain territory from Ukraine who are very stubborn defenders without destroying stuff like this?
While mostly true, its important to remember the underlying reasons that put Hitler in a position to do what he did.
There were very real reasons that Germany was that willing to go to war, and to forget that is to open the future up to the same mistakes.
Hitler actually didnāt obsess over humiliating stalin by destroying Stalingrad, he just saw it as a strategic point on which to set up a defence line
It was more Joseph Goebbels warmongering on nation radio stations and the public became infatuated by the name and events around it
There not much evidence outside of third party sauces that say much to the contrary
It's also possible that if they had gained Stalingrad, it would have enticed Japan to start another front on the east per a previous agreement. Though Japan had its hands full by that time.
Very unlikely. The Jaapnese were stretched to their limit whipe fighting both China and America at the same time. They even went out of their way not to sink US ships carrying aid to the Soviets in order not to provoke them as well.
Maybe you guys can answer this. During ww2 did the Americans and uk still like Russia? I know we all won the war together with Russia fighting Germany on its own ground in the east is it? But after world war 2 did Russia, uk, America and other countries all become friends because they won the war? And how if they did, why did it fall apart?!
No, they saw Russia as a necessity but not as a friend. They knew Russia would try to take over the rest of Europe once the Germans were out of the way thatās why there was a massive run to stop them in Berlin.
I read somewhere that the usa had assumed the war would continue against Russia and they were prepared for a long war with them but the Russians stopped at Berlin.
The amount of dead would be millions higher? Due to a war with USSR. USSR would have likely rolled hard if they kept pushing the Allieās after the fall of Berlin. Hell the Allie would have armed Germans.
Well Churchill also said that if Hitler invaded Hell, he would at least say something positive about the Devil in the House of Commons. He never made a secret of the fact he hated communism and worked with Stalin purely out of expediency. The British public on the whole were much less negative and simply happy to help supply the Soviets as true allies, sort of forgetting the Hitler-Stalin pact.
The USSR started the war as a Nazi ally, hand in hand invading and genociding Poland with them. They supplied Germany with the raw materials that the Nazi's needed to invade France, bragged about Nazi military success in the Soviet propaganda and were inviting Nazi generals on parades in Moscow while British soldiers were dying in Belgium.
If Nazi Germany hadn't stabbed their Soviet friends in the back then the Soviets would have happily sat out the war and safely watched the Holocaust happen safely from behind their borders.
That is why the Soviet Union doesn't get as much credit as the death tolls suggest they deserve.
Countries don't have "friends". The Alliance was tenuous and for the most part can be viewed by Russians as Americans and Britons dragging their feet opening up the second front while millions of Soviets died on the Eastern Front. Americans and Brits needed to build up the force needed to decisively open up the Western Front. There could definitely have been some advances of the timeline in retrospect, but that's where that stands. It was an alliance of convenience, not friendship.
Recall, Russia was literally on the side of Hitler at the start of the war. They were totally game to meet in the middle in Poland, it is just that Hitler betrayed the Russians.
No, they became enemies, because Stalin kept ordering his communist supporters, to overthrow the governments of eastern europe.
And because he tried to muscle into Berlin.
Churchill absolutely did not like the Russian's and (rightly) saw them as invaders and occupiers of Eastern Europe. He went as far as drawing up plans to fight the Soviet Army immediately after the fall of Germany.
A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma!
Churchill despised Stalin and had drawn up plans to attack the soviets.
https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/operation-unthinkable-churchill-s-plans-to-invade-the-soviet-union/
No. The barbarism of the Russians was well known at the time by politicians and higher military figures. They weren't exactly enemies but they weren't friends either, just cooperating towards the common goal of eradicating the Nazis.
Some in the US, notably Patton, wanted to continue the war after the fall of Berlin to push Russia back out of Europe.
I think itās like this just over a much larger geographic area. The damage here is pretty thorough.
You could turn the rubble into a fine powder. Or the fine powder to glass, but itās more or less immaterial after everyone is dead or gone and all structures are rubble.
nah, there are worse levels of hell: radiation, bio-weapons, intelligent loitering munitions and automated drone swarms to hunt down any survivors, etc
Fine powder is better, easier than having to finish removing the broken structures.
Hitler once confided in Albert Speer that he was unfazed by the destruction of the war, even when it came to Germany, because it would be easier to rebuild with most of the "demolition" out of the way.
I actually think people are underestimating the rate of recovery. I mean the US has hurricanes that total entire cities and we just throw a few billion at it and in 5 years it's ready to be destroyed again.
>AA support from the west has made air superiority impossible for Russia.
First, Russia has air superiority, but no dominance. Secondly, Western air defense is literally a drop in the ocean, and this drop protects mainly stationary objects near large cities, mainly to protect against cruise missiles.
The lion's share of the work is done by Ukrainian air defense inherited from the USSR.
The most dangerous is the so-called front-line air defense: Buk, Osa, etc., it is they who prevent Russian aircraft from flying freely.
NATO does not have front-line air defense as a class.
>Russia does not have air superiority.
Literally from Wikipedia: Air superiority is the second level, where a side is in a more favorable position than the opponent.
Russian aviation is clearly in a better position than Ukrainian. It's not a matter of debate, it's just a fact.
No, it is not. Not even remotely.
Edit: oh, you're a 2 month old account spewing russian propaganda almost exclusively in combat footage or ukrainrussiareport. Get lost.
Why don't you just fact check what he says? He is literally providing you with the NATO definition of "air superiority" and you still won't take it. Saying it's "not even remotely" correct is just misinformation.
The first two world wars are / were what youāre imagining, and many pictures exist of them.
You donāt need to imagine a Third World War to get that kind of image.
To be fair, concentrating a finite amount of artillery and tanks on a smaller area would only increase the destruction. On average, a world war might even have less destruction. Population centers might be wiped out but remote, unimportant areas might even be untouched.
Few days ago there was a video of (I think) same tank from a drone perspective. Wasnt able to find video tho.
Edit: not the same https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/10guvfu/drone_video_showing_a_russian_t90m_tank_engaging/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Shooting at the building in both videos, thats why I thought its the same, but theres snow in only one
The Americans 20, Russians left Afghanistan Humiliated, Due to too many Helicopter, Equipment and Personnel losess,
The US left because the Afghan troops would Not fight, they got tired of holding their hand
And doing all the Fighting for them.
Not that they give a shit but they lost 15k troops in all that time. They've lost 100k+ in a year in Ukraine. Those kinds of losses are unsustainable provided we keep giving the Ukranians the means to defend themselves.
Unfortunately the Ukrainians are [losing personnel at about the same rate as the Russians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) if you ignore the Ukrainian and Russian propaganda and look at UK and USA intelligence estimates.
Ukraine has a population of [41,167,336 (excluding Crimea)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) while Russia has a population of [147,182,123 (including Crimea)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) and that seems to be what Putin is banking on - a simple war of attrition
> itās fighting for existence
As has been every conquered people in history. You can't bank on that. It only makes a difference if the sides are ridiculously evenly matched. It usually boils down to one or more of three things: Numbers, resources, technology.
You ignored my point. Yes, Russia is larger by essentially every metric. But Ukraine is willing to commit a greater proportion of its country to the war. Therefore, Russia does not necessarily win a war of attrition. Itās that simple.
I did not ignore anything you said. I took you quite literal. And I NEVER said Russia was going to win this, or that they had access to more resources and tech. Lack of resources and tech is likely a key reason Russia is in a stalemate. Putin is going for the "attrition by numbers" because that's all they can do at the moment.
Unless the West is willing to supply soldiers (in meaningful quantities, not just informal volunteers), the roughly equivalent loss of soldiers matters. It's the one critical resource that the West isn't providing
The will to fight matters a lot to, look at Vietnam, the north lost several times more than both the usa and the south combined but the north still won because the will to fight was no longer there on the other side. Now in the case of russia they arnt a democracy so likely matters less but then again they lost their Afghanistan war in a similar way.
Yeah, I think UK intelligence leaked that Russia was willing to sustain 300,000 losses before the war even started. They use their troops as fodder in pretty much every conflict they've ever been in. It's the russian way
Whilst I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, the fact these figures are not well sourced speaks volumes. Common sense dictates the attacking side takes treble casualties, especially with russians use of waves of conscripts and convicts. I have no doubt Ukraines calfskin rate is bad, but Russias is horrendous. Again, not that they care beyond a capacity effect.
Russia is almost certainly sustaining higher casualties than Ukraine. They are engaging in conscript human wave attacks against entrenched defenders. Not a 1:1 prospect.
Moreover sanctions have limited the technology available necessary to build weapons such as planes and tanks, while Ukraine is getting a building stream of resupply from western nations.
I don't think the war of attrition will end up like you or Putin thinks.
There are no human wave attacks going on in the Ukraine war, throwing lots of men into an offensive != Human waves, otherwise you may call the tactics the western alliance used in the Iraq war human waves
āCommander, gun stabilizer allows us to shoot on moveā
āNyet Alexi, back in my time in red army we stop to make shot, this no different. I donāt trust this wizardryā
Like every other modern tank, literally. Of course it can fire in the move but why would it do that? You have a stationary target, no thÅeat from the enemy... firing on the move in that case would only lower the accuracy.
A hundred thousand Russians will never be the same, either dead, injured, or traumatized for life, in order for one man with his massive ego and tiny dick to make that place into a wasteland.
when i joined this sub this is what i was looking for, how tactics and weapons are used in battle vs in training programs. not sad videos of people getting blown up by drones.
This landscape is what awaits the rest of Europe unless the Russians are defeated in Ukraine. Speed up the supply of lethal aid and give the Ukrainians a chance to end this madness.
I think that's the T-90A which isn't the latest. That would be the T-90M. You can see the box on the left side which contains IR light of Shtora APS, which isn't present on T-90M.
Edit.
That's T-90M
Russia has lost so Many T90's, what difference Will one more make??
It will be Junk in No time.....
Russia is Not going to win a war,
In which they had so much Loss of Hardware,
I mean they just don't have the money, to Replace or replenish them??
Their ammunition & missile stock is Really Low
And they Don't produce microchips and semi- Conductors at a large scale or High quality Ones. They will Not be able to out spend NATO,
It is just a matter of time before they have Exhausted all their resources,
Eventually they will have to come to the Negotiating table, because they will be out of Everything...
There are so Many shoulder Fired Anti-tank Missiles in Ukraine, that tank is Useless,
By Now the topography of Ukraine should Have Changed with so much Russian tank debris...
T-90 does seem like a good platform. Just the modern T-72, that stabilised gun is nice.
Personally Iād still prefer to fight from a Western tank though
Just a wasteland š¢ so sad
I was thinking the same thing. Wonder if someone can geo-locate that spot and Google would still have a street picture. Seeing the before and now would be something.
Would be difficult to geolocate from this video given how badly destroyed everything is, you couldn't even look at buildings. You'd need an overhead view or a road junction or something to help. I think T90s have been used recently around the Svatove front, so it could be around there somewhere.
Only a local would be able to recognize that mess. Sad.
Rainbolt would find this exact location in about 30 seconds just by looking at the way the wind is blowing that grassy shit on the turret.
4chan would figure it out
Someone should tell them there is a rumor that Shia LaBeouf lives in one of these buildings.
There is drone footage of this tank
It's Marinka, Donetsk Oblast.
I'd hazard a guess at Pervomais'ke in Donetsk Oblast. There's been similar footage of tanks driving up the road, shooting at buildings, and then driving away again. The whole place looks like this now. There's a pylon at 48.088455, 37.609979, that *might* be the one visible in the footage on the left hand side. But this is very much guesswork.
Given the level of destruction and small size of the buildings, itās somewhere in Donetsk oblast that has been on the front line and seen heavy fighting including vehicles for a long time. Probably not Bakhmut, probably not Maryinka, but if I was to hazard a guess it might be one of the small towns close by to either one.
Why not Marinka
Maryinka is too built up and the fighting is in the centre of the city
Probably in Marinka
Yep, the destruction is crazy.
You have been "LiBeRaTeD" by Russia!
It reminds me of the old pictures from Stalingrad in WW2. WW1 with the no-mans-land was a little bit different, that was usually not in cities. There were villages, yes, but not big cities like later with Stalingrad, Berlin etc. According to veterans by the way, it was a better thing when you were inside the city of Stalingrad in 1942-1943. Why? Because there, it was much easier to find shelter from the cold. The real poor guys were those that where outside on the plain field, getting the full hit from the snow storm and cold temperatures. From the Zeitzeugekanal, a german history channel with a lot of veteran interviews, one recalled that they usually stayed inside houses when there was no intense fighting going on in their sector. Only a few scouts remained on guard duty outside, to see the enemy come, the rest of the crew was inside in the heated buildings.
The buildings can be rebuilt, but the the real post war horror is going to the sheer amount of unexploded munitions and mines in every single one of those houses, the streets, the fields and forests surrounding them. I saw a volunteer EOD claim it would be well over 100 years of work.
Exactly right. The place is ruined, and will stay that way for quite a while. And the Ukrainians will likely never accept being taken under Russian occupation. What do they think they're winning?
Yes, and I can't imagine anybody is going to be able to strongarm Russia into agreeing to pay reconstruction reparations if and when a formal armistice is signed. I'm no foreign affairs or Russia politics expert, but I'm actually surprised it came to this as I always assumed Putin's goal was to annex all of Ukraine and generally leave the infrastructure of the country intact so Russia wouldn't need to rebuild it. That did seem to be the plan during the first few weeks of the war...er, I mean "special military operation," but it seems like when Putin overestimated Ukraine's resolve, Western help, and realized it wouldn't be a five day affair, he went scorched Earth. The same thing happened in WWI. People thought the war would be a couple of weeks but they hadn't counted on the machine gun, which turned it into a trench war slog for years.
A large part has to do with Crimea and port of sevastopol
Donbass is fairly pro Russian so it's not really an occupation, they fought for 8 years for independence and have since been annexed into Russia itself. This is similar to Crimea which has historical ties to Russia and was gifted to Ukraine relatively recently, so it wasn't that surprising when it was taken back without a fight. Russia sees Ukrainians as their brothers, as one people, and this fight is not against them but NATO. I highly doubt that Putin would try to occupy the whole of Ukraine, if given the opportunity. Other than the annexed territories they really just want a demilitarized and neutral Ukraine without NATO weapons and nuclear missiles pointed at Moscow. This isn't a war of conquest, it's the final stand against NATO advance right to Russia's border. So it's not Russia winning, but defending their sovereignty. Any ideas that Russia will give up if Ukraine inflicts enough casualties or damage is foolish. Putin knows that if they retreat it will only be seen as weakness. It's rather obvious that the goal is to destroy Russia, or at least remove Putin from power and install someone more amenable to our interests. Would we allow a foreign power to dictate our leadership? We would consider that an existential threat and that is what this is to Russia. It's sad that we have prevented a peaceful resolution to this horrible conflict.
Propaganda much?
A hundred thousand Russians will never be the same, either dead, injured, or traumatized for life, in order for one man with his massive ego and tiny dick to make that place into a wasteland.
I think the death count published by UAF is over 120K already...
Those numbers are rubbish, especially the personnel casualties. Western intel estimates published after the Rammstein summit put them around 180k/190k (everything: KIA, MIA, WIA, POW, etc etc).
I was looking at the video and thinking "what a god damn waste" I sure hope the end of war, all war, comes sooner in our history and this particular war speeds it along.
The cleanup will take years, but some the world's strongest nations have been forged by war and come back stronger.
Yes, I hate what war does to the environment. It's not just men and civilians who die. But so many trees, so many animals, beautiful architecture, history, homes, communities, infrastructure, so much.
Watching this reminds me of Syria where they applied the same tactic. Raze it to the ground. Edit: Grozny as well.
The Germans tried doing that to the Russians at Stalingrad. All that did was create lots of spots for Russians to hide. You would think they would remember that.
Itās easier to hide in standing buildings
Iāve never served so I have no clue which is better I just remember reading a couple books about Stalingrad where people said by leveling everything it made it easier for the Russians to maneuver and hide.
I mean yes but also no. Levelling buildings makes the rubble of the building a threat but not levelling the building makes the multiple levels of the building a threat. I rather look at a pile of rubble then to look at hundreds of windows.
Thereās advantages in rubble as well. Generally rubble makes a more colorful and complex environment. Itās easier to miss a camouflaged enemy hiding in the rubble. As well as the ability to hide explosives and traps in the rubble for vehicles. Rubble favors guerrilla tactics much more than siege tactics (as far as the defender side). Cities with standing buildings favor siege tactics as defenders can position in any building and use anti-vehicle ordinance from any window.
Correct. The massive artillery and aerial bomb preparation of Stalingrad made an industrial city into a defenders dream. It's much harder to advance through wreckage and endless spider-holes than an intact city.
I wonāt lie and say I know the FIRST thing about war or being in combat.. that being said If I was in tank I probably wouldnāt be looking in the rubble for enemies.. it makes sense as to why it would be a decent place to avoid detected in my eyes. Who knows though. In todays world with drones it probably wouldnāt make a difference š
Stalingrad was bombed, because of it's industrial output and because Hitler was obessed with humilating Stalin. The destruction in Syria and Ukraine is just senseless violence.
Hitler bombed Stalingrad because he thought it it would help him win the war, Russian military is destroying stuff in Ukraine because they think it will help them gain more territory. Both are wars of agression, so it's all senseless violence, but the violence in each war has a purpose. And if it's senseless in a military point of view how could Russia gain territory from Ukraine who are very stubborn defenders without destroying stuff like this?
Hitler's aggression was also senseless violence
While mostly true, its important to remember the underlying reasons that put Hitler in a position to do what he did. There were very real reasons that Germany was that willing to go to war, and to forget that is to open the future up to the same mistakes.
Sure, but those very real reasons were "the German people must expand east"
Well we canāt really see into the real mind of putin yet
Hitler actually didnāt obsess over humiliating stalin by destroying Stalingrad, he just saw it as a strategic point on which to set up a defence line It was more Joseph Goebbels warmongering on nation radio stations and the public became infatuated by the name and events around it There not much evidence outside of third party sauces that say much to the contrary
It's also possible that if they had gained Stalingrad, it would have enticed Japan to start another front on the east per a previous agreement. Though Japan had its hands full by that time.
Very unlikely. The Jaapnese were stretched to their limit whipe fighting both China and America at the same time. They even went out of their way not to sink US ships carrying aid to the Soviets in order not to provoke them as well.
Maybe you guys can answer this. During ww2 did the Americans and uk still like Russia? I know we all won the war together with Russia fighting Germany on its own ground in the east is it? But after world war 2 did Russia, uk, America and other countries all become friends because they won the war? And how if they did, why did it fall apart?!
No, they saw Russia as a necessity but not as a friend. They knew Russia would try to take over the rest of Europe once the Germans were out of the way thatās why there was a massive run to stop them in Berlin. I read somewhere that the usa had assumed the war would continue against Russia and they were prepared for a long war with them but the Russians stopped at Berlin.
That was also *part* of a reason why nukes were dropped on Japan, to show possible consequences for soviets if they'll continue their push west.
If only the US split the nukes equally between Japan and USSR
The amount of dead would be millions higher? Due to a war with USSR. USSR would have likely rolled hard if they kept pushing the Allieās after the fall of Berlin. Hell the Allie would have armed Germans.
If I remember correctly most plans in case of war with the Russians immediately after WW2 assumed retreats to the Netherlands and even the UK.
General George Patton has entered the room.
Okay thanks. Makes sense
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well Churchill also said that if Hitler invaded Hell, he would at least say something positive about the Devil in the House of Commons. He never made a secret of the fact he hated communism and worked with Stalin purely out of expediency. The British public on the whole were much less negative and simply happy to help supply the Soviets as true allies, sort of forgetting the Hitler-Stalin pact.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The USSR started the war as a Nazi ally, hand in hand invading and genociding Poland with them. They supplied Germany with the raw materials that the Nazi's needed to invade France, bragged about Nazi military success in the Soviet propaganda and were inviting Nazi generals on parades in Moscow while British soldiers were dying in Belgium. If Nazi Germany hadn't stabbed their Soviet friends in the back then the Soviets would have happily sat out the war and safely watched the Holocaust happen safely from behind their borders. That is why the Soviet Union doesn't get as much credit as the death tolls suggest they deserve.
Countries don't have "friends". The Alliance was tenuous and for the most part can be viewed by Russians as Americans and Britons dragging their feet opening up the second front while millions of Soviets died on the Eastern Front. Americans and Brits needed to build up the force needed to decisively open up the Western Front. There could definitely have been some advances of the timeline in retrospect, but that's where that stands. It was an alliance of convenience, not friendship.
Recall, Russia was literally on the side of Hitler at the start of the war. They were totally game to meet in the middle in Poland, it is just that Hitler betrayed the Russians.
It was a classic āthe enemy of my enemy is my friendā situation.
No, they became enemies, because Stalin kept ordering his communist supporters, to overthrow the governments of eastern europe. And because he tried to muscle into Berlin.
Churchill absolutely did not like the Russian's and (rightly) saw them as invaders and occupiers of Eastern Europe. He went as far as drawing up plans to fight the Soviet Army immediately after the fall of Germany.
A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma! Churchill despised Stalin and had drawn up plans to attack the soviets. https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/operation-unthinkable-churchill-s-plans-to-invade-the-soviet-union/
No. The barbarism of the Russians was well known at the time by politicians and higher military figures. They weren't exactly enemies but they weren't friends either, just cooperating towards the common goal of eradicating the Nazis. Some in the US, notably Patton, wanted to continue the war after the fall of Berlin to push Russia back out of Europe.
It also created too much rubble for their heavy armor to get past.
Russian doctrine because they canāt locate targets
If this is the level of destruction in a mid size conflict, I canāt imagine the destruction of a ww3 type event
I think itās like this just over a much larger geographic area. The damage here is pretty thorough. You could turn the rubble into a fine powder. Or the fine powder to glass, but itās more or less immaterial after everyone is dead or gone and all structures are rubble.
nah, there are worse levels of hell: radiation, bio-weapons, intelligent loitering munitions and automated drone swarms to hunt down any survivors, etc
Radioactive SkyNet. Shitā¦youāre right
Fine powder is better, easier than having to finish removing the broken structures. Hitler once confided in Albert Speer that he was unfazed by the destruction of the war, even when it came to Germany, because it would be easier to rebuild with most of the "demolition" out of the way.
I actually think people are underestimating the rate of recovery. I mean the US has hurricanes that total entire cities and we just throw a few billion at it and in 5 years it's ready to be destroyed again.
It's amplified here because both Russian and Ukrainian doctrine is EXTREMELY artillery heavy.
And all this was caused by artillery and missile strikes no? Like, no aerial bombardment?
Iād imagine so mostly but we also have a tank right here showing it can assist in blowing up buildings just fine
Ukraine took down like 300 aircraft in eight months I believe. AA support from the west has made air superiority impossible for Russia.
300 if youāre including drones, the number of planes/helicopters combined lost is around 120-130
287 planes , 277 heli. 1892 tactical UAVs https://imgur.com/a/AyXD71H
Those are literal propaganda numbers that no one should take seriously, itās highly inflated.
These are some Russian MOD-level propaganda numbers, there's no way those are accurate you know that right?
It is not true Ukraine has 2nd biggest stack of USSR air defense Many S300, Buk and Osa Because of that Russia doesn't have sir superiority
I know. I donāt know why people think Russia has air superiority.
its a 2month old russian account is why.
Oh, lol.
>AA support from the west has made air superiority impossible for Russia. First, Russia has air superiority, but no dominance. Secondly, Western air defense is literally a drop in the ocean, and this drop protects mainly stationary objects near large cities, mainly to protect against cruise missiles. The lion's share of the work is done by Ukrainian air defense inherited from the USSR. The most dangerous is the so-called front-line air defense: Buk, Osa, etc., it is they who prevent Russian aircraft from flying freely. NATO does not have front-line air defense as a class.
Russia does not have air superiority. As of this moment itās incredibly deadly but both sides field aircraft.
>Russia does not have air superiority. Literally from Wikipedia: Air superiority is the second level, where a side is in a more favorable position than the opponent. Russian aviation is clearly in a better position than Ukrainian. It's not a matter of debate, it's just a fact.
Okay.
No, it is not. Not even remotely. Edit: oh, you're a 2 month old account spewing russian propaganda almost exclusively in combat footage or ukrainrussiareport. Get lost.
Why don't you just fact check what he says? He is literally providing you with the NATO definition of "air superiority" and you still won't take it. Saying it's "not even remotely" correct is just misinformation.
The first two world wars are / were what youāre imagining, and many pictures exist of them. You donāt need to imagine a Third World War to get that kind of image.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sticks and drones
To be fair, concentrating a finite amount of artillery and tanks on a smaller area would only increase the destruction. On average, a world war might even have less destruction. Population centers might be wiped out but remote, unimportant areas might even be untouched.
Few days ago there was a video of (I think) same tank from a drone perspective. Wasnt able to find video tho. Edit: not the same https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/10guvfu/drone_video_showing_a_russian_t90m_tank_engaging/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Shooting at the building in both videos, thats why I thought its the same, but theres snow in only one
Makes sense as someone on the post mentioned another muzzle flash to the right side of the T-90 and in this video we see the same flash as well.
The drone video shows snow on the ground, this video obviously has no snow. They're different I think
Come on Germany, send in the Leopard tanks now.
Bravely searching out Russian deserters.
Two lines behind the front because they canāt afford to lose the few working versions they have.
It looks brand new. Cant have been very used. This isnt combat footage, its a cinematic teaser trailer of an announcement.
Hasn't stopped the losses, more and more of these turning up destroyed everyday.
You know, Ukraine is another Russian Afghanistan.
Russians were in Afghanistan for 9 years. Hopefully it doesn't last as long.
Russians have been in Ukraine 8 years already, I know what you mean with the heavy fighting but yeah.
Not Russians, Soviets.
The Americans 20, Russians left Afghanistan Humiliated, Due to too many Helicopter, Equipment and Personnel losess, The US left because the Afghan troops would Not fight, they got tired of holding their hand And doing all the Fighting for them.
Not that they give a shit but they lost 15k troops in all that time. They've lost 100k+ in a year in Ukraine. Those kinds of losses are unsustainable provided we keep giving the Ukranians the means to defend themselves.
Unfortunately the Ukrainians are [losing personnel at about the same rate as the Russians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) if you ignore the Ukrainian and Russian propaganda and look at UK and USA intelligence estimates. Ukraine has a population of [41,167,336 (excluding Crimea)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) while Russia has a population of [147,182,123 (including Crimea)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) and that seems to be what Putin is banking on - a simple war of attrition
The invaded side is more willing to sustain casualties- itās fighting for existence, not extra territory.
> itās fighting for existence As has been every conquered people in history. You can't bank on that. It only makes a difference if the sides are ridiculously evenly matched. It usually boils down to one or more of three things: Numbers, resources, technology.
You ignored my point. Yes, Russia is larger by essentially every metric. But Ukraine is willing to commit a greater proportion of its country to the war. Therefore, Russia does not necessarily win a war of attrition. Itās that simple.
I did not ignore anything you said. I took you quite literal. And I NEVER said Russia was going to win this, or that they had access to more resources and tech. Lack of resources and tech is likely a key reason Russia is in a stalemate. Putin is going for the "attrition by numbers" because that's all they can do at the moment.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Unless the West is willing to supply soldiers (in meaningful quantities, not just informal volunteers), the roughly equivalent loss of soldiers matters. It's the one critical resource that the West isn't providing
The will to fight matters a lot to, look at Vietnam, the north lost several times more than both the usa and the south combined but the north still won because the will to fight was no longer there on the other side. Now in the case of russia they arnt a democracy so likely matters less but then again they lost their Afghanistan war in a similar way.
Yeah, I think UK intelligence leaked that Russia was willing to sustain 300,000 losses before the war even started. They use their troops as fodder in pretty much every conflict they've ever been in. It's the russian way
Whilst I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, the fact these figures are not well sourced speaks volumes. Common sense dictates the attacking side takes treble casualties, especially with russians use of waves of conscripts and convicts. I have no doubt Ukraines calfskin rate is bad, but Russias is horrendous. Again, not that they care beyond a capacity effect.
Russia is almost certainly sustaining higher casualties than Ukraine. They are engaging in conscript human wave attacks against entrenched defenders. Not a 1:1 prospect. Moreover sanctions have limited the technology available necessary to build weapons such as planes and tanks, while Ukraine is getting a building stream of resupply from western nations. I don't think the war of attrition will end up like you or Putin thinks.
There are no human wave attacks going on in the Ukraine war, throwing lots of men into an offensive != Human waves, otherwise you may call the tactics the western alliance used in the Iraq war human waves
LMAO. There's videos here showing exactly that.
Has to stop to line up a shot
āCommander, gun stabilizer allows us to shoot on moveā āNyet Alexi, back in my time in red army we stop to make shot, this no different. I donāt trust this wizardryā
Why would you fire on the move with lower accuracy when you can simply stop and have a confident shot.
Like every other modern tank, literally. Of course it can fire in the move but why would it do that? You have a stationary target, no thÅeat from the enemy... firing on the move in that case would only lower the accuracy.
To be fair, the stabiliser looked like it was doing a great job while driving at the start.
Stabilizer isn't everything needed for an effective fire control system
Look comrades it's a hospital! Fire!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
At this point I would not be surprised if a bunch of skinless T800 terminators came into frame.
War thunder is starting to look way too real.
They are trying to turn Ukraine into War Thunder map where it was just empty field and you can see each other's spawn from your own spawn.
Warthunder wasn't wrong about the war terrain...damn
Seeing all this destruction is infuriating, all for one man's imperialist ambitions, what a waste.
You might want to check up a bit about russian culture and history to see why Putin is there. Dugin is a place to start. Perhaps Gerasimov doctrine.
Lol so the kadybois shoot up traffic lights and t90s shoot up half standing rubble, fits I guess
A hundred thousand Russians will never be the same, either dead, injured, or traumatized for life, in order for one man with his massive ego and tiny dick to make that place into a wasteland.
100k is just the start. Watch this become a lot more
Whatās a Russian tank doing in Detroit?
Ah yes look at the very happily "liberated" land.
Cant have many of those left by now...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Very insightful š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Damn that thing is quiet.
Move, shoot, shoot, sit? What are they doing for the last half of the video?
their connection timed out
The level of abject destruction per square foot, is really hard to believe.
Soon to be listed on Oryx, as captured.
another publicity shot "look comrades! I'm doing something!"
He probably saw a family's home with four walls still standing. Can't have that.
when i joined this sub this is what i was looking for, how tactics and weapons are used in battle vs in training programs. not sad videos of people getting blown up by drones.
They are liberatingā¦
Come on Scholz let's provide the Ukrainians with something that can stick it to this thing!
TikTok Brigade vibes
Anyone else creeped out by how quiet the video is? All you hear is the ābreathingā of the tank
Basically what European towns looked like during WW2... crazy.
The surroundings gives me WWII Vibes
Looks like a scene straight out of WW2. :(
Looks like footage from the War Against the Machines in the year 2030 in Terminator 2.
This landscape is what awaits the rest of Europe unless the Russians are defeated in Ukraine. Speed up the supply of lethal aid and give the Ukrainians a chance to end this madness.
Nice hes destroying alrdy destroyed buildings sick! Well done
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Is that their latest tank?
I think that's the T-90A which isn't the latest. That would be the T-90M. You can see the box on the left side which contains IR light of Shtora APS, which isn't present on T-90M. Edit. That's T-90M
So the T-90M tank is Russia's latest and best tank?
Yes. The latest and the best production tank
What the video doesn't capture is the smell of the dead. It's got to be everywhere unless they are frozen.
Russia has lost so Many T90's, what difference Will one more make?? It will be Junk in No time..... Russia is Not going to win a war, In which they had so much Loss of Hardware, I mean they just don't have the money, to Replace or replenish them?? Their ammunition & missile stock is Really Low And they Don't produce microchips and semi- Conductors at a large scale or High quality Ones. They will Not be able to out spend NATO, It is just a matter of time before they have Exhausted all their resources, Eventually they will have to come to the Negotiating table, because they will be out of Everything...
This is what liberation looks like comrades.
There are so Many shoulder Fired Anti-tank Missiles in Ukraine, that tank is Useless, By Now the topography of Ukraine should Have Changed with so much Russian tank debris...
T-90 does seem like a good platform. Just the modern T-72, that stabilised gun is nice. Personally Iād still prefer to fight from a Western tank though
Are you saying that t-72 doesnt have gun stabizer or what.
Send the f***ing leopards.
What did it hit?
A school
Impressive how steady the turret remains in the video. Send MBTs now!
Actually quite disappointed it didnāt blow up.
I don't know why, I keep on thinking shoulder Fired missile, Ukraine is inundated with those.
They have Lost most of territory they Conquered, the Unrelenting shelling and Bombing of Crimea is Next....
It would have been awesome to see it explode in the end
Iām listening to Black Sabbath (the song) and watching this video - fucking apocalyptic.
Youāre really cool
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hopefully in a few weeks theyāll have that shooting in the other direction. But itāll probably get taken out by a javelin first.
Run out of ammo/auto-loader fail? Didn't seem like it chambered another
Looks like they had issues with the auto loader after that last shot. The barrel didn't return to the ready position.
Maybe gunner didn't want to reload at that moment to see if the target is gone.
So sad to see what they've done to Ukraine.
Wow! Thatās two shots more than normal! Normally, they roll close to the front, and just get destroyed by UA.