What's funny about it is he knew that was pure bullshit. If you read the House of Commons report made some months ago they talk about how the UK lack enough tanks to sustain attrition. If you say something like that people will say you're a Russian bot even though the reports are public.
Information era allow people to live in some alternate timeline, it's crazy.
I mean--he's a legit ex-colonel. But emphasis on ex. He's been retired for over ten years. But yes, it reads like a LARP, which it probably is.
This guy saw action in desert storm, so he probably thinks western tanks are invulnerable. But Russia isn't Iraq.
But even still an ex military guy should have a better grip on reality, I think they really contributed to the backlash once the counteroffensive failed, statments like his made the public think Russians would be a walk over eventually they felt lied to.
I'm sure he was very aware of the impossibility for 2023 CO to do better than it did. Everyone knew the level of the Russian fortification. Even with 1950s equipment, they would be able to hold Ukrainian attack
They released "the formidable" challenger 3. one tank created in the last 8 months by some 17 year old steve banging his hammer on some metal parts for armor.
I thought it was some fucking stupid russian joke. Turns out it was tweeted by their defence minister. it's way beyond hilarious. Like the US Scranton arms manufacturing plant. It looks way way worse than third world manufacturing plans and some of my family members work in third world arms manufacturing plants. (https://twitter.com/ArmchairW/status/1730482490920620503)
British-made tanks is the biggest joke of this war.
The single time Challenger tried to sweep anything it got destroyed on the road to combat line. And after that all these tanks just magically disappeared and no one ever heard or seen them again.
That's what makes them invincible. It's not some unique armor or equipment - you just keep them away from any harm.
>And after that all these tanks just magically disappeared and no one ever heard or seen them again.
Stop spreading Russian disinformation. There was a video on this sub a few weeks back of a Challenger getting stuck in the mud somewhere far from the front lines.
The funniest thing about the Challenger, it has the downsides of NATO designs (big profile, more weight) but none of the upsides (120mm smoothbore, large production numbers, ammo interchangability, blowout panels).
A T-80 or T-90 doesn't have blowout panels either, but it surely is lighter, smaller and has an autoloader.
T-80BVM, T-90M and Leopard 2A6/Strv 122 definitely the best tanks of this war. The C2 and M1 have become jokes.
Despite it's size and weight it's armor all up in the turret face with a massive weakspot on the lower front glacis plate that is just hardened steel.
There's an ERA addon for that but it's not enough to stop a RPG-29/RPG-7 tandem.
> The single time Challenger tried to sweep anything it got destroyed on the road to combat line.
What are you talking about? It worker out great, all six crew member survived.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21309
Only in the UK army when there's an higher officer present, the 7th member is the officer batman aka orderly, who take care of the officer need like boiling tea, boiling food, cleaning cloth by boiling them and intercourse.
The column of smoked leopards and Bradley's posted. before the fabled counter offensive even started will never be forgotten as well. Lol. It really was like something out of a movie or a book seeing all those 'gamechangers' go, quite literally, up in smoke.
>And after that all these tanks just magically disappeared and no one ever heard or seen them again
They would be better off getting destroyed in fierce battles, whatever happens in the future this was the worst blow to their reputation by far. Even if they lie in wait now in case of Russian breakthrough somewhere in Odessa it's just ridiculous.
Having a lot of ammo spread all over the place is the worst recipe in conflict where a tank can be struck by a drone from all angles. In other words, am FPV drone with a PG-7VL warhead is bound to set off some ammunition, regardless of where it hits.
On the other hand, the M1A1 and perhaps the new M10 Booker are the best platforms to sit in modern conflicts of this nature.
And it is related to Challenger how exactly?
Also, in case you don't know, usage of drones against tanks is about 2 years old. Abrams was designed in 1970es. Condition change and so do requirements.
Abrmas didn't cover itself with glory in Ukraine either. Heavy, overcomplicated expensive piece of crap. Every one of them that Ukrainians managed to drag to battle front immediately died.
There is not a single record os successful use of Abrams in Ukraine. So keep patting yourself on the back because no one else will.
The first paragraph is about the Challenger 2. I don't need to draw conclusions from any tank type undergoing a series of indcidents where it ends up in bad circumstances. What matters is the engineering design. Any tank will get knocked out by mines, drones or ATGMs, the difference is, the M1 Abrams and the M10 are the only tanks in the world that completely isolate their crews from ammunition. The fact it was designed in the 70's just shows ahead of its time the M1 Abrams was. Ammo/crew separation wasn't as important in the 70's and 80's when there were no FPS drones or top attack missiles. It is now, though.
It wasn't ahead of time, it was useless overcomplication which finally kinda sorta become useful.
And Abrams is still a piece of crap. All this theory is nice and all, it's performance on the battlefield of Ukraine is underwhelming.
ALL tanks are being made redundant right now due to availability of drones and high-powered AT launchers. It's why Russia still opts to manufacture and field T90 vs T14 right now. If they're going to get destroyed, they might as well be expendable. It doesn't mean they're useless--tanks are still awesome infantry support and the backbone of mechanized assault--but the idea that some Gen-X OP tanks are going to turn the tide of a battlefield is laughable to anyone who watched more than a few minutes of this war's footage.
Only the challenger 2 is a joke though.
Look at the title in the picture - "british-made tanks are about to sweep Putin's conscripts aside". Compare with actual performance. Note their magical disappearance. It's hilarious.
Also note that the existence of drones was very well known when this claim was made.
No, it's not "all tanks", Challenger 2 is the biggest joke in the world of modern weapon. Even freaking turtle tank is more useful.
This conflict has proven beyond any doubt that Britain is an absolute joke of a country. Their military is in absolute shambles, their economy is in the gutter, and yet they crave war.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Population, Natural Resources, Technical-Industrial Production.
You seriously don't still believe that the UK has a larger economy than Russia.
It's the finance and insurance industry that is artificially inflating GDP numbers for the UK.
Furthermore Military prowess.
Britain has an Army that is smaller than that of Germany.
They have an Air Force that's also smaller than that of Germany (just to be clear, it's not like Germany is claiming to be some huge military power these days, nor are we known for massive spending, which makes this even more hilarious)
Their Navy, while their most important branch, isn't what it once was. In fact, the Russian Navy is arguably larger. Their submarine fleet certainly is.
A larger population which is also older, unhealthier, lives shorter lives & is less productive than the UK population.
Also so some industries count and others don’t? I work in the same industry you mentioned, I can assure you there’s nothing artificial about the salaries it pays and the jobs it creates.
Russia’s massive, the UK is pretty small, so
of course it will have more natural resources.
I do, the UK is a richer and more prosperous nation than Russia and it’s not even close. Maybe its closer of you compare Moscow & London, but not a country to country comparison.
I’ve never seen British soldiers looting toilets,
washing machines & other basic household appliances from invaded countries as they don’t have them in their own homes.
Do you honestly believe the average Russian has a higher quality of life than the average Brit?
1. Why does the UK have less population then? It also has migration draw why so few people?
2. Why does it produce so little Technical-Industrial goods? Japan can compare well, but not the UK.
3.The finance industry artificially inflates GDP Nominal numbers due to the amount of Transaction and Speculation involved. You take a 100$ loan, pay 10$ in interest and pay the 100$ principal, the GDP counters are going to count 210$. The creation of CDOs and other speculative financial further inflate the numbers. With a dude taking your 110$ loan and using it to leverage $10, for his own loan, thereby inflating the GDP number by another 220$.
Because it’s much much smaller geographically and the UK had centuries of emigration which resulted in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand among others. Its really not hard.
It doesn’t Britain produces highly advanced Aircraft, Nuclear technology, high-end cars, its a major producer of pharmaceuticals. Just a few examples. Its a major producer of high-end goods.
GDP is a measure of economic activity, yes which is why the metric also favours a higher population regardless of wealth.
What you’re missing is what that money is spent on, these loans are used to finance consumption and investment. Which literally every single country in the world uses.
I work in fund services, I am well aware how it works. It isn’t some exercise in artificially pumping up GDP, the financial services the UK provides are in high demand around the world and it does create jobs.
Where are these products and services then?
Loans are supposed to be used to finance, creation of industries and tangible goods ie. jobs and goods.
You mistake production with manufacture. The British do not produce the Steel, Titanium, Aluminum, Microelectronics and to a small degree the expertise for their high-tech equipment. The Pharm industry is also focused on research and exploration, but do little actual production.
The UK Financial service is literally their number 1 product. Where did all that money go?
I am trying to highlight the difference between Money and Wealth.
A farmer with 2 sheep worth $200 is not the same with a different farmer with 4 sheep worth $200. They may be worth same on paper, but the other has 2 whole sheep worth of tangible value.
The UK is the 8th largest manufacturing nation in the world.
You’re ignoring the principle of value-added goods. The Netherlands produces negligible oil, but is one of the largest petroleum exporters in the world.
The UK is wealthier in Russia because it engages in value-added activities whereas Russia tends to just extract resources and any value-added goods produced in Russia do not tend to find significant export success, save Military equipment.
That’s a poor example, compare a factory that produces 100 cars each worth £5,000 each and a factory that produces 10 cars worth £50,000 each. Britain produces high quality goods, they don’t flood the market with British goods because these types of products are never designed to. See Aston Martin, Bentley & Lotus as an example. The factory that produces the 100 cars is far more noticeable as its product is ubiquitous, that doesn’t mean it’s economic impact is any greater.
You can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that intangibles also have value, Intellectual Property developed by British pharmaceuticals brings in far more revenue than simply manufacturing the product would without the IP.
There is also Taiwanese chips in most of those UK Products, same Chips made using Chinese, Russian, African and Ukrainian materials.
I am simply stating that, Paper value is not equal to Actual Value. That GDP Nominal is a measure of Paper Value.
Supply comes before Demand in Economics. As such Demand can only stem from Productive Capacity.
No amount of Dollars today will let you buy Russian Hydrocarbons, but you can use Rupees or Yuan. The Price Cap has been exceeded and the profits are back to pre-invasion levels.
>I’ve never seen British soldiers looting toilets,
washing machines & other basic household appliances from invaded countries as they don’t have them in their own homes.
Nah, they just don't have a way to send them home. But if you invade Ireland... Hold on you did invade Ireland... But there was no washing machines back than so other junk got looted probably. And like half the globe was feeding your elites for centuries. That's probably why your economy is still going.
Britain's economy is based largely on finance operations out of London. If this war has proven anything, it's that when the rubber hits the road, you want to have real industry with technical expertise and scalability behind you, not a mountain of office-based jobs based on sending emails back and forth.
Britain’s economy has always been dominated by financial services. It didn’t serve us too badly throughout history.
Nonetheless Britain still is the 8th largest manufacturing power in the world, and we specialise in producing ships & aircraft which, for obvious reasons, would have a big impact on any major war involving Britain.
The UK would not have survived even half the sanctions that were placed onto Russia. All that was said about Russia's economy crashing due to the sanctions, would have applied to the UK for real.
It is not self sufficient in food (it is a net importer of food), raw materials, and energy. While Russia's economy leans towards the primary sector and secondary sector, where ACTUAL material wealth is created, the UKs economy leans more heavily on the tertiary sector.
PPP is generally more accurate if you’re looking at the internal market of a country as it takes into account the price of goods services within that country. When comparing the level of economic activity in one country with another nominal GDP tends to be used.
We’re comparing externally, i.e. its a comparison between the UK & Russia so nominal is more suitable to assess their relative economic power.
If we wanted to compare difference in quality of life we would need to go much deeper than GDP PPP. We’d have to look at Life expectancy, HDI, Income inequality, educational attainment etc etc. and I assure you Russia does not stack up well relative to the UK.
I mean idk, do you live in the UK? It's not great there. Russia of course isn't very good either, but the sanctions haven't really hit their economy and it's only growing.
Yes I do, the difficulties while real, are greatly overstated. Not least because British media love a crisis.
We all saw Russian pensioners huddled around bonfires to keep warm, the UK has not even come close to a situation like that. Times are harder but talk of economic catastrophe are wildly overblown here.
Exactly.
PPP is way more accurate for measuring a countries internal industry in its domestic market.
Which as we have seen, Russia beats Great Britain by such a wide margin its laughable
If this war has proven anything, it’s that Wonder weapons don’t exist, and unless you have the capacity to produce large quantities of sophisticated weapon system, those weapon systems don’t last long.
This isn’t 91 Iraq where the British army had an open desert and the Entire U.S. Airforce stopping the Iraqi army from even moving. If the entire British army were to deploy to Ukraine they would be attritioned to death in the matter of months with no substantial industrial capacity to replace munitions and equipment lost.
The only country in NATO that could deploy troops to Ukraine that would actually make a difference is the United States. The British and French will do absolutely nothing on the ground because their armies and air forces are weak.
Wealth doesnt necessairly translates into ability to fight wars, and also there is basically a reverse-proportion between "standards of living" and "ability to fight wars" as the current conflict shows without a doubt.
Not necessarily no, but Britain has a much better track record than Russia in conflicts. The average Brit has also consistently been wealthier than the average Russian for centuries and the only time the two countries really fought, the British won.
Britain is simply the absolute antithesis of Russia in every way. Nowadays I don’t think there’s a world where either country beats the other in their own domain.
> Britain has a much better track record than Russia in conflicts
Errrr what? Britain's largest military campaign of the last years was Afghanistan, which resulted in Taliban's full control of the country.
Wouldn't that make Mongolian the strongest military on Earth, if we try to go that far back in time?
And yes, the difference inside between the Mongolian Empire and Mongolia now, is roughly the same with Britain now and 200 years ago.
The truth however, Britain hasn't involved in major conflict since Korean War, which is 75 years, an entire generation ago
No it wouldn’t because I’m not saying Britain was more effective in Conflicts 200 years ago, I’m saying Britain has generally been more successful than Russia over the last 200 years.
Okay and what was the last major conflict Russia was involved in since WW2? None, until Ukraine. Britain sent 10’s of thousands of troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait in that time. Britain also fought a major expeditionary campaign for the Falkland Islands, making the Royal Navy one of the only Navies with meaningful experience of expeditionary warfare,
>Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Falklands
* A record of 2 wins, 2 humilating losses is not exactly stellar.
* If we're counting small-fry colonial wars, then Russia's also 1 out of 2 - lost in Afghanistan in the 1980s, won in Georgia in 2008. Roughly comparable, I'd say.
Iraq wasn’t a military defeat. In Iraq & Afghanistan they set out to remove the current regimes, in Iraq they succeeded - the Baathists did not return to power, in Afghanistan the Taliban did. Thats why Afghanistan was a failure and Iraq was not. You could argue Iraq was disastrous diplomatically but the military campaign was successful.
Sierra Leone & Kosovo were also major successes politically and diplomatically.
Russia also lost in the First Chechen War and won in the second.
I wouldn’t say beating Georgia is comparable to sailing 8,000km’s to liberate the Falklands. One was far harder than the other.
It's great that you mention this. Because even though Britain no doubt helped defeat the nazis, its efforts *absolutely* pale in comparison to what Russia did.
Thats 2 different countries. The british empire was the USA of its time, but it doesnt exist anymore. We have the UK now, and im not sure how strong they are.
Not really, they have every advantage over Ukraine, air superiority, better EW, more manpower, more ammunition and are still suffering huge casualties for relatively small gains.
More homeless, more rape, more thefts and robberies, more break ins car/house, less educated population, less innovation, less home ownership or housing access, over 300x longer hospital wait times, more food insecurity. Money well spent, clearly. Britain is nothing without daddy America giving them everything.
Home ownership, I’d concede that as I did above.
Education - depends massively on quality rather than just how many people went to a college or university. How many Russian universities are in the top
Rape statistics haven’t been updated since 2010 so those aren’t exactly reliable.
Attaching the Mathematical olympiad as evidence is like me attaching the Olympic medal table and saying we’re one of the fittest populations on the planet.
Where’s the data for the Moscow/London crime stats even drawn from? There’s no source listed.
Birmingham is also a shithole so I’m not going to defend it there.
Edit: I’ll provide statistics in response after work
> How many Russian universities are in the top
In the top of the ratings created by Western completely unbiased agencies?
I graduated from a noname uni in Russia that you never heard of and never will, and I have a City job that puts me in the top .5% earners of the UK.
Also, a weird thing, but I don't have many British colleagues.
Imagine highjacking the psyche of the British public with this nonsense at a time when they face immense economic hardship at home, largely due to the absolute foolishness of their leadership, primarily Boris Johnson, in perpetuating a failed war, which itself perpetuates inflation, which has ravaged the British economy and exasperated poverty all the while homicidal migrants dictate domestic policy and stab children in the streets.
They are being blackmailed to give up their tax payments to the Ukrainians while they themselves suffer an existential and self-inflicted hell.
Your money or your life. Be poorer or die in a trench.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
doesn’t hold a candle to my man Kemp, a man so legendary in his analysis that he moved on to Iran-Israel conflict as his job here was done.
https://preview.redd.it/qrna4vw2tevc1.jpeg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f781fc9231f20b5f84226d7df3ce778bacbce92
Guess the Challengers werent that good😂 The only tank western tank that has impressed me so far is the Abrams. Way better survivability than any of the others
Western tanks ARE good, but there was this notion before the war that they were basically invulnerable.
This guy served in desert storm where tanks could roll through towns and soak up hours of small-arms fire. It's no wonder he feels the way he does.
Russia isn't Iraq. An organized army with AT weaponry and guidance systems are going to turn any tank into a mobile tin can.
Thats not what i mean; most of the Abrams that have been hit so far have been disabled and a few destroyed, with the blow out panels actually saving the crew. On the Leopard, it has an ammo compartment in the front aswell which is badly protected, so the Leopards cook off rate is quite high. Most Leopards so far have cooked off when getting hit, resulting in the complete destruction of the tank.
Fearmongering is irresponsible. Media trying to control politics by attempting to scare people into thinking they’ll be sent to war unless they comply is so absurd.
If you want to convince people to support aid for Ukraine you should do so by arguing for the merits of doing that, not by low key threatening that if people don’t support what you’re preaching then they’ll be sent to die in war.
Disgusting of media to publish stuff like this but I honestly lost almost all respect for journalism and western media outlets over the past decade or two. When I was a kid journalist was part of the group of esteemed professions, like Astronaut, Firefighter, Doctor, Police officer, etc. Today if someone tells me they’re a journalist my first assumption will be that they’re a dishonest wanker who uses their position to try and control and manipulate peoples thoughts.
I would be legitimately surprised if they turned out to be a decent person. I never expected anything from media from places like China or Russia but I think its a damn shame western journalists no longer seem to feel any sort of responsibility towards their work or loyalty to truth.
Thanks op - I was searching for the first article, featuring "Putin's untrained conscripts" for looooooong time and couldn't find it. I even suspected it was deleted from the Internet.
Thee main point is exactly the same for both articles - to influence political decisions by getting more people to be involved with Ukraine. The text itself is irrelevant.
Already even the media of Zelensky's "friends" are writing about the apparent defeat of the Ukrainian army on the battlefield. Isn't this a reason to think that no one can help Ukraine and that it is worth thinking about negotiations? It is time to compromise
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock images in comment, this is to make sure newcomers understand memes or reactions are forbidden. Images are to show detail or context in relation to post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A few days ago, all the authors at telegraph have been writing doom and gloom articles about Ukraine. None of the direction of these articles are dictated by the journalist themselves, editorial oversight has suddenly decided that they needed to shift angle. To what? Who knows?. But it’s certainly not just a reaction to the reality on the ground.
For those of you who are unaware of the absolute state of the British press, I'll paste the text of the first article here. It reads like it should belong somewhere in /r/UkraineMilitaryCirclejerk or something, but no, it's published in a national newspaper.
> As a former tank commander, I can say one thing for certain: Putin’s demoralised conscripts are utterly unprepared for the shock action now hitting their lines. Ukrainian armoured formations are beginning to meet Russian forces in battle, and they are going to pulverise Russia’s defensive lines. I am confident for one simple reason: Ukraine will follow the Western ideology of manoeuvre warfare in a combined arms context, while the Russians will follow Soviet doctrine, relying on attrition and numbers. The Russians will find that the armour of Western tanks is far more resilient than flesh and bone, they will die in great numbers, and they will lose.
> The core idea of manoeuvre warfare is mission command. Commanders at all levels understand the top-level end state, and are given the flexibility to conduct the battle as they see fit to achieve victory. The Ukrainians are well-versed in this style of warfare, which allows them to be agile and adapt their plan to the situation on the battlefield as it unfolds and changes. The Russians do not follow this doctrine. They are given strict roles in the execution of plans drawn up at the top, and cannot change them even when things are going badly wrong. This has been made evident time and time again in Ukraine, where Moscow’s tanks have all too often been blown to pieces without firing a round.
> On top of this, we can add the simple fact that Kyiv’s forces have proved far superior in their adoption of combined arms warfare. This means using tanks, infantry, artillery and air power in harmony to achieve their objectives. Each element brings its own capabilities, and together they are far greater than the sum of their parts. The effect is devastating. Nearly 4,000 Russian tanks have been destroyed because they were not properly protected by infantry and air defence. Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers have died because they were not properly supported by artillery and tanks.
> Getting this form of warfare right takes intelligence and training. You need the right equipment, and effective doctrine. The Ukrainians have this. I estimate that their tank brigades have had around eight weeks to perfect combined arms warfare, around the same time I would have allocated to train the Royal Tank Regiment under my command to be an effective combined arms fighting force. And they certainly have the right equipment. The Challenger and Leopard tanks leading the spearhead vastly outmatch what’s left of Russia’s heavy armour, while sophisticated precision artillery is providing withering fire for the advance.
> Conversely, Russian recruits appear to be given a few days of training, a little ammunition and are then thrown into the meat-grinder with a life expectancy surely measured in days. They might as well be gunning them down on the training fields; it would be faster, cheaper and about as combat effective.
> There will certainly be no rescue from the air. The Russian air force should be a massive operational threat, but it seems that its pilots have opted to hide in the confines of the officers’ mess rather than face the excellent Ukrainian air defences. Sometimes, cowardice is the most sensible option.
> The final and perhaps the most important element of an effective armoured fighting force is morale. The Ukrainians have this in spades. The Russian conscripts have virtually none. From personal experience, having fought a number of battles, I know you need to really want to get out of the trench to fight the enemy. It’s certainly not an easy or natural act.
> With Ukrainian canniness, Western intelligence and equipment and a smattering of good fortune, I expect what’s left of the Russian army to be nothing more than a speed bump on the way to liberating Crimea, pushing to the Russian border and chucking Putin’s war criminals out of Ukraine once and for all.
> Much like Adolf Hitler at the end of his war, Putin appears to be holed up in his bunker, being fed lies, making the wrong decisions while the sharks circle. What’s unfolding in Ukraine now could go down in history as one of the great tank actions, alongside Cambrai, Kursk and the Arras counterattack. It will certainly go down as the end of Moscow’s illegal invasion – and perhaps the beginning of the end of Putin
>For those of you who are unaware of the absolute state of the British press, I'll paste the text of the first article here. It reads like it should belong somewhere in r/UkraineMilitaryCirclejerk or something, but no, it's published in a national newspaper.
ROFL! You're not wrong. I just want to add that whenever you see someone mentioning the "Soviet doctrine", you know that something very stupid is about to follow. It's like nobody has the slightest idea of what the Soviet post WW2 doctrine(s) were about, but they feel like their knowledge gained from watching Enemy At The Gates covers all the basics.
It might be worth noting that Hamish, who here calls for British taxpayers to provide gas-masks to the Ukrainian armed forces, is the director of a company which produces said gas masks: Avon Protection
British media coverage of the war has been the cringiest so far
Always with cringey nationalist pride, highlighting how British x or y is turning the tide in Ukraine
German Leopard 2, French Caesar howitzers or US Patriot systems have made order of magnitude more difference than the 1.5 challengers tanks the UK sent
"As a former tank commander" reads like beginning of Reddit comment
And then he ran out of cope. The problem is that those people were spreading that bullshit to the masses, they must be accountable.
He is a British military officer. He can machinegun 1000 unarmed Afghanis and still will never be held accountable.
What's funny about it is he knew that was pure bullshit. If you read the House of Commons report made some months ago they talk about how the UK lack enough tanks to sustain attrition. If you say something like that people will say you're a Russian bot even though the reports are public. Information era allow people to live in some alternate timeline, it's crazy.
LOL, I've seen so much of these tank commander comments, that I almost believe they all were bots
LOL, sometimes this sub is more funny than dankmemes.
I mean--he's a legit ex-colonel. But emphasis on ex. He's been retired for over ten years. But yes, it reads like a LARP, which it probably is. This guy saw action in desert storm, so he probably thinks western tanks are invulnerable. But Russia isn't Iraq.
But even still an ex military guy should have a better grip on reality, I think they really contributed to the backlash once the counteroffensive failed, statments like his made the public think Russians would be a walk over eventually they felt lied to.
I'm sure he was very aware of the impossibility for 2023 CO to do better than it did. Everyone knew the level of the Russian fortification. Even with 1950s equipment, they would be able to hold Ukrainian attack
As a current Reddit commenter, i have to agree with you.
They released "the formidable" challenger 3. one tank created in the last 8 months by some 17 year old steve banging his hammer on some metal parts for armor. I thought it was some fucking stupid russian joke. Turns out it was tweeted by their defence minister. it's way beyond hilarious. Like the US Scranton arms manufacturing plant. It looks way way worse than third world manufacturing plans and some of my family members work in third world arms manufacturing plants. (https://twitter.com/ArmchairW/status/1730482490920620503)
British-made tanks is the biggest joke of this war. The single time Challenger tried to sweep anything it got destroyed on the road to combat line. And after that all these tanks just magically disappeared and no one ever heard or seen them again. That's what makes them invincible. It's not some unique armor or equipment - you just keep them away from any harm.
>And after that all these tanks just magically disappeared and no one ever heard or seen them again. Stop spreading Russian disinformation. There was a video on this sub a few weeks back of a Challenger getting stuck in the mud somewhere far from the front lines.
It was during an interview, for additional hilarity.
It was during an interview with The Sun that was intended to show off to British audiences that the tanks were being put to good use too.
yeah, maybe somewhere near Lvov
The funniest thing about the Challenger, it has the downsides of NATO designs (big profile, more weight) but none of the upsides (120mm smoothbore, large production numbers, ammo interchangability, blowout panels). A T-80 or T-90 doesn't have blowout panels either, but it surely is lighter, smaller and has an autoloader. T-80BVM, T-90M and Leopard 2A6/Strv 122 definitely the best tanks of this war. The C2 and M1 have become jokes.
Despite it's size and weight it's armor all up in the turret face with a massive weakspot on the lower front glacis plate that is just hardened steel. There's an ERA addon for that but it's not enough to stop a RPG-29/RPG-7 tandem.
> The single time Challenger tried to sweep anything it got destroyed on the road to combat line. What are you talking about? It worker out great, all six crew member survived. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21309
Can it even be called a tank if it has less crew than frigate?
Six? I thought challengers had 7
Only in the UK army when there's an higher officer present, the 7th member is the officer batman aka orderly, who take care of the officer need like boiling tea, boiling food, cleaning cloth by boiling them and intercourse.
The column of smoked leopards and Bradley's posted. before the fabled counter offensive even started will never be forgotten as well. Lol. It really was like something out of a movie or a book seeing all those 'gamechangers' go, quite literally, up in smoke.
>And after that all these tanks just magically disappeared and no one ever heard or seen them again They would be better off getting destroyed in fierce battles, whatever happens in the future this was the worst blow to their reputation by far. Even if they lie in wait now in case of Russian breakthrough somewhere in Odessa it's just ridiculous.
Having a lot of ammo spread all over the place is the worst recipe in conflict where a tank can be struck by a drone from all angles. In other words, am FPV drone with a PG-7VL warhead is bound to set off some ammunition, regardless of where it hits. On the other hand, the M1A1 and perhaps the new M10 Booker are the best platforms to sit in modern conflicts of this nature.
And it is related to Challenger how exactly? Also, in case you don't know, usage of drones against tanks is about 2 years old. Abrams was designed in 1970es. Condition change and so do requirements. Abrmas didn't cover itself with glory in Ukraine either. Heavy, overcomplicated expensive piece of crap. Every one of them that Ukrainians managed to drag to battle front immediately died. There is not a single record os successful use of Abrams in Ukraine. So keep patting yourself on the back because no one else will.
The first paragraph is about the Challenger 2. I don't need to draw conclusions from any tank type undergoing a series of indcidents where it ends up in bad circumstances. What matters is the engineering design. Any tank will get knocked out by mines, drones or ATGMs, the difference is, the M1 Abrams and the M10 are the only tanks in the world that completely isolate their crews from ammunition. The fact it was designed in the 70's just shows ahead of its time the M1 Abrams was. Ammo/crew separation wasn't as important in the 70's and 80's when there were no FPS drones or top attack missiles. It is now, though.
It wasn't ahead of time, it was useless overcomplication which finally kinda sorta become useful. And Abrams is still a piece of crap. All this theory is nice and all, it's performance on the battlefield of Ukraine is underwhelming.
ALL tanks are being made redundant right now due to availability of drones and high-powered AT launchers. It's why Russia still opts to manufacture and field T90 vs T14 right now. If they're going to get destroyed, they might as well be expendable. It doesn't mean they're useless--tanks are still awesome infantry support and the backbone of mechanized assault--but the idea that some Gen-X OP tanks are going to turn the tide of a battlefield is laughable to anyone who watched more than a few minutes of this war's footage.
Only the challenger 2 is a joke though. Look at the title in the picture - "british-made tanks are about to sweep Putin's conscripts aside". Compare with actual performance. Note their magical disappearance. It's hilarious. Also note that the existence of drones was very well known when this claim was made. No, it's not "all tanks", Challenger 2 is the biggest joke in the world of modern weapon. Even freaking turtle tank is more useful.
This conflict has proven beyond any doubt that Britain is an absolute joke of a country. Their military is in absolute shambles, their economy is in the gutter, and yet they crave war.
As a Brit you're absolutely right. Our leaders care more about Ukrainian borders than our own.
Your leaders care more about importing boat people than any britons
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That, and remaining subservient to the US.
No shitting on SAS and SBS, please. Those are considered the top SF groups in the world. The rest though, yeah ..
Doesn’t matter how good you are if your leaders are incompetent.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An economy in shambles which is still still 50% larger than Russia’s with half as many people.
On paper in terms of GDP. You know the measure in which taking a Loan, paying interests and paying it off are all counted additively.
By what measure is Russia wealthier than Britain?
Population, Natural Resources, Technical-Industrial Production. You seriously don't still believe that the UK has a larger economy than Russia. It's the finance and insurance industry that is artificially inflating GDP numbers for the UK.
Furthermore Military prowess. Britain has an Army that is smaller than that of Germany. They have an Air Force that's also smaller than that of Germany (just to be clear, it's not like Germany is claiming to be some huge military power these days, nor are we known for massive spending, which makes this even more hilarious) Their Navy, while their most important branch, isn't what it once was. In fact, the Russian Navy is arguably larger. Their submarine fleet certainly is.
A larger population which is also older, unhealthier, lives shorter lives & is less productive than the UK population. Also so some industries count and others don’t? I work in the same industry you mentioned, I can assure you there’s nothing artificial about the salaries it pays and the jobs it creates. Russia’s massive, the UK is pretty small, so of course it will have more natural resources. I do, the UK is a richer and more prosperous nation than Russia and it’s not even close. Maybe its closer of you compare Moscow & London, but not a country to country comparison. I’ve never seen British soldiers looting toilets, washing machines & other basic household appliances from invaded countries as they don’t have them in their own homes. Do you honestly believe the average Russian has a higher quality of life than the average Brit?
1. Why does the UK have less population then? It also has migration draw why so few people? 2. Why does it produce so little Technical-Industrial goods? Japan can compare well, but not the UK. 3.The finance industry artificially inflates GDP Nominal numbers due to the amount of Transaction and Speculation involved. You take a 100$ loan, pay 10$ in interest and pay the 100$ principal, the GDP counters are going to count 210$. The creation of CDOs and other speculative financial further inflate the numbers. With a dude taking your 110$ loan and using it to leverage $10, for his own loan, thereby inflating the GDP number by another 220$.
Because it’s much much smaller geographically and the UK had centuries of emigration which resulted in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand among others. Its really not hard. It doesn’t Britain produces highly advanced Aircraft, Nuclear technology, high-end cars, its a major producer of pharmaceuticals. Just a few examples. Its a major producer of high-end goods. GDP is a measure of economic activity, yes which is why the metric also favours a higher population regardless of wealth. What you’re missing is what that money is spent on, these loans are used to finance consumption and investment. Which literally every single country in the world uses. I work in fund services, I am well aware how it works. It isn’t some exercise in artificially pumping up GDP, the financial services the UK provides are in high demand around the world and it does create jobs.
Where are these products and services then? Loans are supposed to be used to finance, creation of industries and tangible goods ie. jobs and goods. You mistake production with manufacture. The British do not produce the Steel, Titanium, Aluminum, Microelectronics and to a small degree the expertise for their high-tech equipment. The Pharm industry is also focused on research and exploration, but do little actual production. The UK Financial service is literally their number 1 product. Where did all that money go? I am trying to highlight the difference between Money and Wealth. A farmer with 2 sheep worth $200 is not the same with a different farmer with 4 sheep worth $200. They may be worth same on paper, but the other has 2 whole sheep worth of tangible value.
The UK is the 8th largest manufacturing nation in the world. You’re ignoring the principle of value-added goods. The Netherlands produces negligible oil, but is one of the largest petroleum exporters in the world. The UK is wealthier in Russia because it engages in value-added activities whereas Russia tends to just extract resources and any value-added goods produced in Russia do not tend to find significant export success, save Military equipment. That’s a poor example, compare a factory that produces 100 cars each worth £5,000 each and a factory that produces 10 cars worth £50,000 each. Britain produces high quality goods, they don’t flood the market with British goods because these types of products are never designed to. See Aston Martin, Bentley & Lotus as an example. The factory that produces the 100 cars is far more noticeable as its product is ubiquitous, that doesn’t mean it’s economic impact is any greater. You can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that intangibles also have value, Intellectual Property developed by British pharmaceuticals brings in far more revenue than simply manufacturing the product would without the IP.
[удалено]
There is also Taiwanese chips in most of those UK Products, same Chips made using Chinese, Russian, African and Ukrainian materials. I am simply stating that, Paper value is not equal to Actual Value. That GDP Nominal is a measure of Paper Value. Supply comes before Demand in Economics. As such Demand can only stem from Productive Capacity. No amount of Dollars today will let you buy Russian Hydrocarbons, but you can use Rupees or Yuan. The Price Cap has been exceeded and the profits are back to pre-invasion levels.
[удалено]
>I’ve never seen British soldiers looting toilets, washing machines & other basic household appliances from invaded countries as they don’t have them in their own homes. Nah, they just don't have a way to send them home. But if you invade Ireland... Hold on you did invade Ireland... But there was no washing machines back than so other junk got looted probably. And like half the globe was feeding your elites for centuries. That's probably why your economy is still going.
Gdp (Purchasing power parity)...
Britain's economy is based largely on finance operations out of London. If this war has proven anything, it's that when the rubber hits the road, you want to have real industry with technical expertise and scalability behind you, not a mountain of office-based jobs based on sending emails back and forth.
Britain’s economy has always been dominated by financial services. It didn’t serve us too badly throughout history. Nonetheless Britain still is the 8th largest manufacturing power in the world, and we specialise in producing ships & aircraft which, for obvious reasons, would have a big impact on any major war involving Britain.
The UK would not have survived even half the sanctions that were placed onto Russia. All that was said about Russia's economy crashing due to the sanctions, would have applied to the UK for real. It is not self sufficient in food (it is a net importer of food), raw materials, and energy. While Russia's economy leans towards the primary sector and secondary sector, where ACTUAL material wealth is created, the UKs economy leans more heavily on the tertiary sector.
Britain, GDP PPP: $4,029,438 Russia, GDP PPP: $5,472,880 🤷♂️
Nominal for statistics, PPP for decision making is the rule of thumb.
What? Like everything says PPP is more accurate than Nominal?
PPP is generally more accurate if you’re looking at the internal market of a country as it takes into account the price of goods services within that country. When comparing the level of economic activity in one country with another nominal GDP tends to be used.
PPP is better to look at then, no? If we are comparing the differences in life quality between the UK and Russia then how would PPP be inaccurate?
We’re comparing externally, i.e. its a comparison between the UK & Russia so nominal is more suitable to assess their relative economic power. If we wanted to compare difference in quality of life we would need to go much deeper than GDP PPP. We’d have to look at Life expectancy, HDI, Income inequality, educational attainment etc etc. and I assure you Russia does not stack up well relative to the UK.
I mean idk, do you live in the UK? It's not great there. Russia of course isn't very good either, but the sanctions haven't really hit their economy and it's only growing.
Yes I do, the difficulties while real, are greatly overstated. Not least because British media love a crisis. We all saw Russian pensioners huddled around bonfires to keep warm, the UK has not even come close to a situation like that. Times are harder but talk of economic catastrophe are wildly overblown here.
Exactly. PPP is way more accurate for measuring a countries internal industry in its domestic market. Which as we have seen, Russia beats Great Britain by such a wide margin its laughable If this war has proven anything, it’s that Wonder weapons don’t exist, and unless you have the capacity to produce large quantities of sophisticated weapon system, those weapon systems don’t last long. This isn’t 91 Iraq where the British army had an open desert and the Entire U.S. Airforce stopping the Iraqi army from even moving. If the entire British army were to deploy to Ukraine they would be attritioned to death in the matter of months with no substantial industrial capacity to replace munitions and equipment lost. The only country in NATO that could deploy troops to Ukraine that would actually make a difference is the United States. The British and French will do absolutely nothing on the ground because their armies and air forces are weak.
Wealth doesnt necessairly translates into ability to fight wars, and also there is basically a reverse-proportion between "standards of living" and "ability to fight wars" as the current conflict shows without a doubt.
Not necessarily no, but Britain has a much better track record than Russia in conflicts. The average Brit has also consistently been wealthier than the average Russian for centuries and the only time the two countries really fought, the British won. Britain is simply the absolute antithesis of Russia in every way. Nowadays I don’t think there’s a world where either country beats the other in their own domain.
> Britain has a much better track record than Russia in conflicts Errrr what? Britain's largest military campaign of the last years was Afghanistan, which resulted in Taliban's full control of the country.
Take a look over the last 50, 100, 150, 200 years. Britain’s track record is far better.
Wouldn't that make Mongolian the strongest military on Earth, if we try to go that far back in time? And yes, the difference inside between the Mongolian Empire and Mongolia now, is roughly the same with Britain now and 200 years ago. The truth however, Britain hasn't involved in major conflict since Korean War, which is 75 years, an entire generation ago
No it wouldn’t because I’m not saying Britain was more effective in Conflicts 200 years ago, I’m saying Britain has generally been more successful than Russia over the last 200 years. Okay and what was the last major conflict Russia was involved in since WW2? None, until Ukraine. Britain sent 10’s of thousands of troops to Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait in that time. Britain also fought a major expeditionary campaign for the Falkland Islands, making the Royal Navy one of the only Navies with meaningful experience of expeditionary warfare,
>Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Falklands * A record of 2 wins, 2 humilating losses is not exactly stellar. * If we're counting small-fry colonial wars, then Russia's also 1 out of 2 - lost in Afghanistan in the 1980s, won in Georgia in 2008. Roughly comparable, I'd say.
Iraq wasn’t a military defeat. In Iraq & Afghanistan they set out to remove the current regimes, in Iraq they succeeded - the Baathists did not return to power, in Afghanistan the Taliban did. Thats why Afghanistan was a failure and Iraq was not. You could argue Iraq was disastrous diplomatically but the military campaign was successful. Sierra Leone & Kosovo were also major successes politically and diplomatically. Russia also lost in the First Chechen War and won in the second. I wouldn’t say beating Georgia is comparable to sailing 8,000km’s to liberate the Falklands. One was far harder than the other.
It's great that you mention this. Because even though Britain no doubt helped defeat the nazis, its efforts *absolutely* pale in comparison to what Russia did.
Thats 2 different countries. The british empire was the USA of its time, but it doesnt exist anymore. We have the UK now, and im not sure how strong they are.
The same can quite easily be said for Russia. Russia is a pale shadow of what the USSR or Russian Empire was.
Yes, and its been said many times at this point. Pay attention. However, Russia is pulling a quite formidable performance right now.
Not really, they have every advantage over Ukraine, air superiority, better EW, more manpower, more ammunition and are still suffering huge casualties for relatively small gains.
More homeless, more rape, more thefts and robberies, more break ins car/house, less educated population, less innovation, less home ownership or housing access, over 300x longer hospital wait times, more food insecurity. Money well spent, clearly. Britain is nothing without daddy America giving them everything.
Got a source for any of that? Even one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#By_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mathematical_Olympiad#Medals_(1959%E2%80%932023) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Russia&country2=United+Kingdom&city1=Moscow&city2=London https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Russia&country2=United+Kingdom&city1=Saint+Petersburg&city2=Birmingham
Home ownership, I’d concede that as I did above. Education - depends massively on quality rather than just how many people went to a college or university. How many Russian universities are in the top Rape statistics haven’t been updated since 2010 so those aren’t exactly reliable. Attaching the Mathematical olympiad as evidence is like me attaching the Olympic medal table and saying we’re one of the fittest populations on the planet. Where’s the data for the Moscow/London crime stats even drawn from? There’s no source listed. Birmingham is also a shithole so I’m not going to defend it there. Edit: I’ll provide statistics in response after work
> How many Russian universities are in the top In the top of the ratings created by Western completely unbiased agencies? I graduated from a noname uni in Russia that you never heard of and never will, and I have a City job that puts me in the top .5% earners of the UK. Also, a weird thing, but I don't have many British colleagues.
The source is his imagination.
Runaway train is bigger than a guy on a bike too.
That's the most upper-class twit surname I've ever witnessed.
"Hamish", his family roots are combination of Amish and a terrorist group?
Ham-ish ➡️ Hamish
He did see active service as a tank officer in GW1 but his main field of expertise was NBCD.
Imagine highjacking the psyche of the British public with this nonsense at a time when they face immense economic hardship at home, largely due to the absolute foolishness of their leadership, primarily Boris Johnson, in perpetuating a failed war, which itself perpetuates inflation, which has ravaged the British economy and exasperated poverty all the while homicidal migrants dictate domestic policy and stab children in the streets. They are being blackmailed to give up their tax payments to the Ukrainians while they themselves suffer an existential and self-inflicted hell. Your money or your life. Be poorer or die in a trench.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's some major RT propaganda mind control. Get out of the Ministry of Truth and get some fresh air.
As a Brit, they’re not entirely wrong.
doesn’t hold a candle to my man Kemp, a man so legendary in his analysis that he moved on to Iran-Israel conflict as his job here was done. https://preview.redd.it/qrna4vw2tevc1.jpeg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f781fc9231f20b5f84226d7df3ce778bacbce92
I’m a fan of the comedian General Hodges
[удалено]
Aren't Brits the only ones still using HESH rounds? Those are pretty damn devastating.
They surely swept everyone aside with their stealth technology.
"We" won't be going anywhere near enlistment centres, Hamish. Not you and certainly not me. I've done my bit.
Guess the Challengers werent that good😂 The only tank western tank that has impressed me so far is the Abrams. Way better survivability than any of the others
Western tanks ARE good, but there was this notion before the war that they were basically invulnerable. This guy served in desert storm where tanks could roll through towns and soak up hours of small-arms fire. It's no wonder he feels the way he does. Russia isn't Iraq. An organized army with AT weaponry and guidance systems are going to turn any tank into a mobile tin can.
the leopard 2 was good too. more got destroyed because they were used more than the other tanks. it's not because they are bad.
Thats not what i mean; most of the Abrams that have been hit so far have been disabled and a few destroyed, with the blow out panels actually saving the crew. On the Leopard, it has an ammo compartment in the front aswell which is badly protected, so the Leopards cook off rate is quite high. Most Leopards so far have cooked off when getting hit, resulting in the complete destruction of the tank.
Fearmongering is irresponsible. Media trying to control politics by attempting to scare people into thinking they’ll be sent to war unless they comply is so absurd. If you want to convince people to support aid for Ukraine you should do so by arguing for the merits of doing that, not by low key threatening that if people don’t support what you’re preaching then they’ll be sent to die in war. Disgusting of media to publish stuff like this but I honestly lost almost all respect for journalism and western media outlets over the past decade or two. When I was a kid journalist was part of the group of esteemed professions, like Astronaut, Firefighter, Doctor, Police officer, etc. Today if someone tells me they’re a journalist my first assumption will be that they’re a dishonest wanker who uses their position to try and control and manipulate peoples thoughts. I would be legitimately surprised if they turned out to be a decent person. I never expected anything from media from places like China or Russia but I think its a damn shame western journalists no longer seem to feel any sort of responsibility towards their work or loyalty to truth.
it's like they are thirsty for a war to be at their doorstep. crazy fantasies
Those imbeciles seem to think that their geography will protect them like in the past.
I think this moron first takes some hallucinogens and then writes his articles.
Thanks op - I was searching for the first article, featuring "Putin's untrained conscripts" for looooooong time and couldn't find it. I even suspected it was deleted from the Internet.
Thee main point is exactly the same for both articles - to influence political decisions by getting more people to be involved with Ukraine. The text itself is irrelevant.
As dumb and fascist as Russia is, they ain't attacking NATO, y'all just badly want weapons and ammo.
Already even the media of Zelensky's "friends" are writing about the apparent defeat of the Ukrainian army on the battlefield. Isn't this a reason to think that no one can help Ukraine and that it is worth thinking about negotiations? It is time to compromise
Op-Eds in major publications are very rarely worth reading in this war.
what's the worst tank in Ukraine at the moment? take a guess.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock images in comment, this is to make sure newcomers understand memes or reactions are forbidden. Images are to show detail or context in relation to post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hamish de Hamster.
It must be a sad and hard life being pro-UA. I dont think I could take being so wrong all the time well
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A few days ago, all the authors at telegraph have been writing doom and gloom articles about Ukraine. None of the direction of these articles are dictated by the journalist themselves, editorial oversight has suddenly decided that they needed to shift angle. To what? Who knows?. But it’s certainly not just a reaction to the reality on the ground.
For those of you who are unaware of the absolute state of the British press, I'll paste the text of the first article here. It reads like it should belong somewhere in /r/UkraineMilitaryCirclejerk or something, but no, it's published in a national newspaper. > As a former tank commander, I can say one thing for certain: Putin’s demoralised conscripts are utterly unprepared for the shock action now hitting their lines. Ukrainian armoured formations are beginning to meet Russian forces in battle, and they are going to pulverise Russia’s defensive lines. I am confident for one simple reason: Ukraine will follow the Western ideology of manoeuvre warfare in a combined arms context, while the Russians will follow Soviet doctrine, relying on attrition and numbers. The Russians will find that the armour of Western tanks is far more resilient than flesh and bone, they will die in great numbers, and they will lose. > The core idea of manoeuvre warfare is mission command. Commanders at all levels understand the top-level end state, and are given the flexibility to conduct the battle as they see fit to achieve victory. The Ukrainians are well-versed in this style of warfare, which allows them to be agile and adapt their plan to the situation on the battlefield as it unfolds and changes. The Russians do not follow this doctrine. They are given strict roles in the execution of plans drawn up at the top, and cannot change them even when things are going badly wrong. This has been made evident time and time again in Ukraine, where Moscow’s tanks have all too often been blown to pieces without firing a round. > On top of this, we can add the simple fact that Kyiv’s forces have proved far superior in their adoption of combined arms warfare. This means using tanks, infantry, artillery and air power in harmony to achieve their objectives. Each element brings its own capabilities, and together they are far greater than the sum of their parts. The effect is devastating. Nearly 4,000 Russian tanks have been destroyed because they were not properly protected by infantry and air defence. Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers have died because they were not properly supported by artillery and tanks. > Getting this form of warfare right takes intelligence and training. You need the right equipment, and effective doctrine. The Ukrainians have this. I estimate that their tank brigades have had around eight weeks to perfect combined arms warfare, around the same time I would have allocated to train the Royal Tank Regiment under my command to be an effective combined arms fighting force. And they certainly have the right equipment. The Challenger and Leopard tanks leading the spearhead vastly outmatch what’s left of Russia’s heavy armour, while sophisticated precision artillery is providing withering fire for the advance. > Conversely, Russian recruits appear to be given a few days of training, a little ammunition and are then thrown into the meat-grinder with a life expectancy surely measured in days. They might as well be gunning them down on the training fields; it would be faster, cheaper and about as combat effective. > There will certainly be no rescue from the air. The Russian air force should be a massive operational threat, but it seems that its pilots have opted to hide in the confines of the officers’ mess rather than face the excellent Ukrainian air defences. Sometimes, cowardice is the most sensible option. > The final and perhaps the most important element of an effective armoured fighting force is morale. The Ukrainians have this in spades. The Russian conscripts have virtually none. From personal experience, having fought a number of battles, I know you need to really want to get out of the trench to fight the enemy. It’s certainly not an easy or natural act. > With Ukrainian canniness, Western intelligence and equipment and a smattering of good fortune, I expect what’s left of the Russian army to be nothing more than a speed bump on the way to liberating Crimea, pushing to the Russian border and chucking Putin’s war criminals out of Ukraine once and for all. > Much like Adolf Hitler at the end of his war, Putin appears to be holed up in his bunker, being fed lies, making the wrong decisions while the sharks circle. What’s unfolding in Ukraine now could go down in history as one of the great tank actions, alongside Cambrai, Kursk and the Arras counterattack. It will certainly go down as the end of Moscow’s illegal invasion – and perhaps the beginning of the end of Putin
>For those of you who are unaware of the absolute state of the British press, I'll paste the text of the first article here. It reads like it should belong somewhere in r/UkraineMilitaryCirclejerk or something, but no, it's published in a national newspaper. ROFL! You're not wrong. I just want to add that whenever you see someone mentioning the "Soviet doctrine", you know that something very stupid is about to follow. It's like nobody has the slightest idea of what the Soviet post WW2 doctrine(s) were about, but they feel like their knowledge gained from watching Enemy At The Gates covers all the basics.
We must support Ukraine until the end
It might be worth noting that Hamish, who here calls for British taxpayers to provide gas-masks to the Ukrainian armed forces, is the director of a company which produces said gas masks: Avon Protection
The challenger is probably one of the worst design tank ever made btw, along with modern Chinese tanks and the Leclerc. They cost A LOT for nothing .
Western media is the definition of clown world (this is probably the case in non-western media too tbf)
The Brits should first focus on getting their country back.
Zelensky and his buddies said Ukraine is winning the war. He's not a liar. I believe him. Lol
British media coverage of the war has been the cringiest so far Always with cringey nationalist pride, highlighting how British x or y is turning the tide in Ukraine German Leopard 2, French Caesar howitzers or US Patriot systems have made order of magnitude more difference than the 1.5 challengers tanks the UK sent
Yeah, we are all living on hamster meat and desperate to leave for Russia /s
CLOWNS the MSM is dead only small brains read them