acrashb

Well, at least he's only a state-level Senator in Virginia.

I may be wrong but I think the word "undermined" should have read "underestimated". Noone here is defending Russia, but this forum does tend towards Russia sux lol sometimes. We can find buckets of videos of zek lemmings getting barbequed but Russia has a big army and there are pockets of competence (see the RUSI report). We should be mindful of that. 

To add to this, 10% losses absolutely is very significant. We tend to grossly underestimate how badly units are devastated by relatively "small" percentage losses. In part because we do the arithmetic and think that a unit which suffers 10% losses is still 90% effective (in reality suffering 10% losses may render a unit <10% effective). And in part because the reference point for most members of this community in particular is CM, and casualty rates in CM are too high (no sim gets this right, CM is still the best sim out there).
In general I think of casualty rates in the following terms:
1% losses: That felt like a real fight. You may even have known some of the people who became casualties.
10% losses: That was an exceptionally difficult fight. Multiple members of your own platoon became casualties, and possibly a couple members of your squad.
20% losses: That was a historically bloody fight. This casualty rate is within the ballpark of such historically bloody battles as Gettysburg or Waterloo.
It's worth noting that this only applies to single actions. A unit which is temporarily incapacitated by 10% casualties will likely recover. It is not unusual for units to take casualties in excess of 100% over several months of fighting.

This is the problem of where we were as western militaries; we never thought this sort of war would happen again.  We have been fighting dust wars against VEOs and insurgents for nearly 20 years, before that were interventions against opponents that had all the capability and operational art of a tethered goat with learning disabilities.  So here we are neck deep into a peer-on-peer proxy war of extremely high intensity sustained combat....who would have thunk it?
So defence industry and militaries have a complex relationship.  Those on the left would have us believe it is all the corporations "being corporationy", and there is some truth to this but in reality defence industry takes signals from defence itself and invests and develops in these highlighted areas.   We highlighted "demining" and AP threats and promptly forgot all about major combat breaching operations because ISIL does not build mine belts km long.  So now we are pushing what we have into Ukraine but a lot of it is last gen and sub-optimized because we are sub-optimized for this sort of war.  The big question after this war will be where to completely re-tool and where to be more conservative.  If history is any indication, we will talk ourselves into "well it is an eastern European anomaly", "Russia Sux" and "We would do it right", so we really do not need to do major overhauls.  The European powers did the exact same thing after observing the US Civil War (except it was "America Sux") which led to that little whoopsie we call WWI.
Here is hoping we go in other directions. 

Are we sure we observe the same genocidal, simple war of conquest? If you are so afraid of "undermining" Russia, here is you adress of complains and source of all of the fuss : http://www.en.kremlin.ru/contacts
You are not rightfully criticizning, you get whacked by arguments and are now doing another virtue signalling, while clearly parroting Putin propaganda matrix you saw on some Russian forum. And you don't even get that- that's btw. how propaganda of this type works. Its victims are always people who think of themselves as freethinkers, outside constraints of mainstream media, but who are in fact mentally not equipped to properly build their own worldview that would be anchored in both political realism and some basic ethics. Ukrainians and "American overlords" guilty of Larissa rail accident, USA building bases to "force" others to watch Micky Mouse, poor bombed Nazis in WWII etc. These are the same, unmistakeable symptoms of reducing everything toward symetristic bull*hit.
I am more and more inclined to believe that if world in 1939 would have internet and contrarian keyboard warriors, whole Europe would be foocked royally, divided between Brown and Red totalitarian empires up to this day, doing whatever they want.
Ok, I have enough of this, so where was this mute button...

I agree but it can only be the reader’s responsibility to identify and be clear about which type of post they are responding to.
 
Again agreed but the key word here is “challenge”, as opposed to just ‘doubt’.  You challenge by discussing weaknesses in the theory or by building a good case for an alternative.  Simply expressing doubt might feel healthy but is not helpful and can be insulting to the person who has worked hard to establish a case.

Since you put it that way. 😁
 

Ok, well I get the no echo chamber part but I also should be able to make professionally based observations without being accused of being a blind apologist hooked on “copium”.  And then when challenged by very weak counters and counter-challenge, I should not be accused of being a “commissar”.  You are of course free to have an uniformed opinion but I am not evil because I point it out.
This entire thing is an observation that on a UA mine breaching disaster - no debate on that, and trust me I have forgotten more about mechanized minefield breaching than just about everyone else you may meet - that RA artillery was tepid to the point of being odd for the context.  That suddenly turned into a crisis point of blind pro-Ukraine echo chamber building because in your opinion this observation was unmerited.  You did not back that up by any hard facts and have even admitted it is too early to tell.  Then when the freakin RA commander says through Russian MOD controlled media that his own artillery was very effective, your response is to crow on how that validates your own position.  When pressed your response was “why would Russia lie about such a thing?” To which I provided 4 different reasons…and now I am an echo chamber commissar.
FFS, you brought the weak arguments to the table and now we are to be punished for pointing that out…how is that not creating another echo chamber of its own?
We have been hearing reports of problems with RA indirect fire for months, this could simply be another data point - not a verdict on the entire Russian defence.  We will see in due time whether or not corrosive warfare will or will not work again.  Not every counter-RA observation is pro-Ukrainian or vice versa.  However, if you are going to start beaking off the least you can do is bring some actual facts or coherent observations to the party.  Unlike whatever social media, school or your friends/family or whatever told you, your opinion is not worth its weight in gold.  We do not respect it simply because you posted it.  It need facts, experience or something to support it.

A little off topic, but interesting:
 

Naysayer? I don't think so, at least not just for the sake of it  I just value good analyses and discussions to gain knowledge. While I understand the temptation of getting rid of those annoying contrary opinions, the result is an echo chamber which is the exact opposite of gaining solid knowledge.
As long as people keep it civil, accept facts and can be reasoned with (there is of course no point in discussing with people who are always right, no matter how much evidence there is that they are actually wrong) I see no use in excluding them.

Well, this is how Russia is solving their ammo shortage; fewer guns means less ammo required. QED.
Putin remains the master strategist.

The XM7 and XM250 have already entered service, first batch of both to be delivered late this year. It's happening.
So the decision has already been made. For my part I go back and forth on whether it was the right decision, but it's worth understanding the arguments for it. I may be covering some ground that you already know, but I think it's worth covering in order to fully spell out the arguments for this cartridge (plus this might be new information to someone else).
We are going back to the old argument of which is better, full power cartridges (normal rifle cartridge by WW2 standards (something like 7.92x57 Mauser, NATO 7.62x54, or Soviet 7.62x59)) or intermediate cartridges (intermediate between a full rifle cartridge and a pistol cartridge, something like 7.92x33 Kurz, NATO 5.56x45, or Soviet 7.62x39 or 5.45x39)*.
A full power rifle cartridge was the default rifle cartridge up until WW2. It has better penetration and a longer maximum range than an intermediate cartridge. The downsides are that it is larger and heavier, so you can't carry as many rounds, and it has more recoil, so is not controllable in full-auto for a small shoulder-fired weapon.
An intermediate cartridge is smaller, so you can carry a lot more ammo, and has a softer recoil, so is controllable in full-auto for a small shoulder-fired weapon. But has a reduced maximum range and inferior penetration.
The argument for switching to intermediate cartridges in the first place was basically that while full power cartridges may have a longer maximum range in theory, both intermediate and full power cartridges have identical effective ranges. Because telescopic sights were not universal, the effective range of a rifle was limited by the limits of unaided human eyesight, not by the ballistic properties of its cartridge. In addition, body armor wasn't really a thing back when the decision to switch to intermediate cartridges was made. So penetration meant barrier penetration, not armor penetration. A higher percentage of tree trunks will be thick enough to stop an intermediate round, but any soldier who is actually hit by an intermediate round is as sure to be a casualty as if they were hit by a full power round. By switching to an intermediate cartridge we gained the advantages of greater ammo capacity and controllable full auto, for absolutely no cost in effective range, and an acceptable cost in penetration.
But the dynamics have shifted since that decision was made. Every soldier today has body armor, and every soldier today (in most armies) has an optic on their rifle. Optics on every single rifle means that the reduced maximum range of an intermediate cartridge, which was only a theoretical cost 60 years ago, is now a real cost. And because body armor is universal, penetration now refers to both barrier penetration and armor penetration. A hit on an enemy soldier with one type of cartridge is no longer equally likely to produce a casualty as a hit with the other type of cartridge.
Do those changes mean that a full power cartridge is now superior? No, not necessarily. But it does mean that we need to re-asses. I think that 60 years ago there was no reasonable case for a full power cartridge, while today it may be a much harder choice. It seems that the US DoD has made their assessment and decided in favor of switching back to a full power cartridge. The switch from the M4 to the XM7 (presumably just M7 now that it's no longer experimental?) was explicitly meant to penetrate body armor, and to allow riflemen to take full advantage of their optics to achieve a longer effective range (about an 800 meter effective range, so I've heard). We may not know until the next war whether or not it was the right decision.
*As a side note you might notice two distinct generations of intermediate cartridges. The first generation only shortens the cartridge, but retains the same caliber as its full-power equivalent (7.92x33 and 7.62x39). The second generation both shortens the round and reduces the caliber (5.56x45, 5.45x39).

i dunno, seems offense and defense could get quite blurred.

According to UKR rumors, Western equipment was employed to draw RU attention and persuade them that it was the main thing. I believe that since the UKR employed Leopards. German tanks annoy Russian officers since the Russian army has suffered greatly from German tanks in the past.

Hey look minefield breach lanes that worked.  And again, no RA artillery.

The shockwave theory comes in different forms - some say velocity (hence the 5.56 SS109 was supposed to be immediately lethal), some say momentum / mass (hence 30-06 or larger "high power" is supposed to be immediately lethal).
The reality is that blood vessels are quite elastic and "shock waves" don't happen.
I have viewed a video where a suspect, in a van, was nailed directly through the heart by a 12g slug, completely destroying his heart - if you've ever field-dressed a deer during shotgun season, you've seen the large permanent wound channel.  He continued to take volitional action - to try and kill FBI agents - for about 14 seconds.  So much for the shock wave.
I don't have a view on the veracity of the video that got this started.  Could be faked, although I would be unsurprised if it was real.
"stopping power" is largely a myth.  Shot placement is the primary issue.  Shoot a guy in the center of the head with a .22lr and he'll die instantly.  Shoot the same guy in the leg with a .50BMG and, depending on the placement, he'll lose a leg eventually, bleed out in a few minutes, or just have a limp or scar later in life, but he'll be able to keep fighting if he wants to.
Stopping a threat immediately / quickly is a matter of crushing or tearing central nervous system / major circulatory system tissue.  That's done through the permanent (not temporary, most human tissue is quite elastic and bounces back) wound channel, which needs to be deep enough to reach the tissue and wide enough so as not to require pinpoint accuracy.

Have a google for "permanent wound channel SS109 ballistic gel" (or M855 if you prefer that).  When the 5.56, at short enough ranges (depends on the cartridge variant and barrel length), turns sideways and splits at the cannelure, the resulting permanent wound channel, in width and depth is very effective in the human torso.  You'd almost think it was designed for that purpose.

The US' move to the 6.8x51mm (civilian name, ".277 Fury", a remarkable cartridge) is stated to be for defeating current and future body armour.  Current 5.56 variants will not go through plates, although they will leave a remarkable bruise and/or crack bones in the impact area.
Could be both.  Spike the bottle with the wrong kind of alcohol!

Send Budlight!  Putin will freak out if all his troops turn gay! 🤡

1) only if it's a central nervous system hit.  Firearms aren't death wands; even someone shot in the heart may have a few seconds of volitional action. Or someone shot in a limb may think they're dead and just, as you say, fall like a log (I would say sack of potatoes, a log is rigid and persons in the condition we're discussing just collapse).
2) a) one flash: assuming 30FPS video, the "shutter" will be open for a fraction of 1/30s - in bright light, without ND filters, perhaps 1/1000s, so muzzle flashes are most often not caught on video.  Even in low light, 1/60s would be the shortest shutter speed, and muzzle flashes again are often not caught - they have a very short duration.
2) b) it's a bit surprising.  Military ammo contains flash suppressants - but maybe this was a bad batch. Also, the lack of clear shadow in the video suggests either highly overcast conditions or dusk / dawn, so flash would be seen more easily  than in full sun.

This.

Just human nature, the basal instinct when confronted with danger of "flight or fight" doesn't include surrender. Couple that with shell shock and they're probably not thinking rationally.

I was talking about the unhealthy and unholy tank lust demonstrated on the forum.

Well that is what a minefield breaching operation going very wrong looks like.  
Before everyone freaks out the vehicles that kept pushing are supposed to do that.  Backing out is just asking to die and impossible to do in column, he saw the RA prove this over and over again.  If your breaching vehicle takes a hit - and that appears to be the Leo, you keep pushing even if it means taking casualties.  We would do the exact same thing.  I mean what are the options?  Stop, wait for help or talk things over while the enemy kills you inside a minefield?  Back out along the one cleared path…while the enemy kills you in a minefield?  Nope you push.  Difference between the UA and the RA is that the Leo has a mine plow on the front (which is odd, that is the deep end of clearance, they should be sticking with rollers).  The RA was just straight pushing.
What is interesting is again the lack of any real RA artillery.  No big craters or impact marks.  Vehicles look like they took mobility hits (except that one) and the crews bailed and ran.  When we do these ops each Combat Team would do two breaches and accept that one is going to die.  This is the video from the failed one.
We said this from the start - western kit does not come with magic wizard shields that allow them to float above the ground and drive their enemies before them.  They blow up just the same as Russian kit.  We were always going to see this, and we will likely see more.  Russian info sphere is going to push out any and all of these that it can.  So buckle in and put your helmets on.

Exactly. Losses are expected. 
These sort of losses should never happen

That's 10 out of, what? 50 delivered Bradleys? So 20% of all Bradleys Ukraine has to drive over a minefield in the first defensive line and give a few Ka-52s some target practice...

If they're smart they'll avoid Toronto. No one deserves the Maple Leafs inflicted on them....