poesel

GPS is only one possibility in the 'P' of PGM. Since image recognition has developed in leaps and bounds recently, there is no reason why munitions shouldn't be able to fly by looking out the windows and comparing it with a map. They actually do this already but AFAIK by radar and height data.
That is not wrong but do not forget that China currently just moves back into the slot they took over from the Romans and lost to Britain in the 18th century: the leading industrial nation of the world.
The main difference to then is that the US didn't exist at that time.
It could also just be to enhance the uncertainty for Russia. Storm Shadow covers a lot of Russian soil measured from Ukraine.

Ok - I think I found the source of the chart: 
It looks like those numbers are not dollar values, but "transaction records" whatever that means.

Well, scientific proof that BFCs potty mouth filters are no match for English football songs.

I guess a problem for reporting losses by respectable media outlets is that you can't really verify the numbers. Both sides lie, and they would be nuts if they didn't. So there are basically only rumors to report, and it's IMHO better that they don't.
Another problem is sources. If the news channels don't have their own teams, they have to use 'official' material. Again, that will be propaganda from both sides, some side more than the other (ahem).
We are used to watching Twitter videos. But those are all 'unverified' and you can understand them only in context. Another thing that makes them unusable for mass media.
This war is a difficult topic. Even though this is the one war since WWII where it's clearest which side are the baddies.

Georgia now looks like Ukraine 2013...
 

Georgia now looks like Ukraine 2013...
 

Well, scientific proof that BFCs potty mouth filters are no match for English football songs.

An interesting analysis of Russian fighting age demographics: 
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/02/26/the-stats-guy-what-the-numbers-are-telling-us-about-putins-russia

The Russians already knew that ATACMS could attack the bridge and since the bridge is officially still on Ukraine's territory they didn't need a green light from anyone. Ukraine could always attack its own territory with western weapons.
So explicitly stating the fact only does, as the_capt would say, enlarge the uncertainty space for Russia.
Btw, are those arches only decorative or are they a structural necessity for the bridge? I would imagine they are easier to hit than a pillar and easier to damage. Even something like napalm may weaken the strength of the steel enough.

I guess a problem for reporting losses by respectable media outlets is that you can't really verify the numbers. Both sides lie, and they would be nuts if they didn't. So there are basically only rumors to report, and it's IMHO better that they don't.
Another problem is sources. If the news channels don't have their own teams, they have to use 'official' material. Again, that will be propaganda from both sides, some side more than the other (ahem).
We are used to watching Twitter videos. But those are all 'unverified' and you can understand them only in context. Another thing that makes them unusable for mass media.
This war is a difficult topic. Even though this is the one war since WWII where it's clearest which side are the baddies.

FancyCat, edited for concision:
A drawn-out war is bad for Ukraine. We don't know what might bring Russia to ceasefire negotiations. The best way to bring them to the table is to fight to win the war. Russia will keep the war going if it is to their advantage. The west is not fighting to win, Russia is taking advantage of Western lack of commitment. Russia is using Western fears of Russian collapse and nuclear war to it's advantage, actively promoting such a narrative for it's benefit rather than because it is a realistic one. Russia seems to be pursuing maximal goals.  The west must signal that these cannot be achieved. Why should the west make concessions as Russia does not.  Russia does not offer a negotiation, rather demands surrender, disarmament and fomalisation of annexed land  
The_Capt, edited for concision:
Preamble: You are ignoring reality. The best becomes the enemy of the good. We have a phrase for that in Army.
The Russian regime might collapse. This would be a risk. You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse. Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace. You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat.  This is holding you back. (6.1) WW3 would be bad, Ukraine is not worth that.  War is costly.  We can simultaniously support Ukrainian resistance and pull back to a new iron curtain behind which could sit a well funded NATO. (6.2) Maximal goals are not the only form of victory. We are looking at a ceasefire scenario with half of Ukraine in Russian hands. (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse. (6.4) Your argument helps the enemy, by making the war unwinnable, and might encourage people to give up support if it does not achieve total vicory.  This is what Russia wants.  
I feel simply summarising the main points of the exchange as I have here should suffice as a critique.  It took me an hour or so.

Because it is an easy-to-understand metric that is good to measure and visualize.
Single value metrics for complex systems usually suck. Better metrics are hard to understand unless you know what's going on. Since the public does not, its km^2.

The Russians already knew that ATACMS could attack the bridge and since the bridge is officially still on Ukraine's territory they didn't need a green light from anyone. Ukraine could always attack its own territory with western weapons.
So explicitly stating the fact only does, as the_capt would say, enlarge the uncertainty space for Russia.
Btw, are those arches only decorative or are they a structural necessity for the bridge? I would imagine they are easier to hit than a pillar and easier to damage. Even something like napalm may weaken the strength of the steel enough.

Because it is an easy-to-understand metric that is good to measure and visualize.
Single value metrics for complex systems usually suck. Better metrics are hard to understand unless you know what's going on. Since the public does not, its km^2.

Because it is an easy-to-understand metric that is good to measure and visualize.
Single value metrics for complex systems usually suck. Better metrics are hard to understand unless you know what's going on. Since the public does not, its km^2.

Because it is an easy-to-understand metric that is good to measure and visualize.
Single value metrics for complex systems usually suck. Better metrics are hard to understand unless you know what's going on. Since the public does not, its km^2.

Well, scientific proof that BFCs potty mouth filters are no match for English football songs.

Well, scientific proof that BFCs potty mouth filters are no match for English football songs.

The Russians already knew that ATACMS could attack the bridge and since the bridge is officially still on Ukraine's territory they didn't need a green light from anyone. Ukraine could always attack its own territory with western weapons.
So explicitly stating the fact only does, as the_capt would say, enlarge the uncertainty space for Russia.
Btw, are those arches only decorative or are they a structural necessity for the bridge? I would imagine they are easier to hit than a pillar and easier to damage. Even something like napalm may weaken the strength of the steel enough.

The Russians already knew that ATACMS could attack the bridge and since the bridge is officially still on Ukraine's territory they didn't need a green light from anyone. Ukraine could always attack its own territory with western weapons.
So explicitly stating the fact only does, as the_capt would say, enlarge the uncertainty space for Russia.
Btw, are those arches only decorative or are they a structural necessity for the bridge? I would imagine they are easier to hit than a pillar and easier to damage. Even something like napalm may weaken the strength of the steel enough.

About developing of warfare by spiral again %)
Since Russia unable to use A-50 AWACS close to our borders, it flooded our space by long-range recon drones Orlan, Zala, SuperCam, which with rotations are may to observe large squares of frontline and in the deep rear. Reportedly only for one day up to 200 UAVs can be spotted behind out lines. UKR side just hasn't enough radars, EW assets and SAMs, SHORADs etc to cover all frontline to prevent penetration of such number of drones in the rear. Except all of this we have large lack of anti-aircraft missiles of all types, including SHORADs and even MANPADs 
Yesterday likley as experimental act of desperation training Yak-52 was use to shoot down two Russian drones over Odesa oblast. Like in WWI times second crewman takes LMG in the cabine to fire at the drones. BTW this flight was successfull - two enemy drones were downed. And this is obviously more cheap method, than waste missiles. There is a one problem - risk of friendly fire, because small aircraft can be similar on radar to the drone

Videos of "dogfihgt" with Orlan-10
So, if some have operational P-51, Spitfires, Bf-109 , it will be useful

 

As shown in the sinking? of the Sergei Kotov, which was guarding the straits and bridge, threatening Kerch brings out Russian forces to defend it. Not that I’m saying focus on the bridge is essential , but I won’t be surprised if the bridge is the site of further attacks. 

It is necessary for Ukraine to attack Kerch Bridge once in a while, so Russia cannot stop wasting resources to protect it. Its high symbolic value forces Russia's hand, no matter what the actual military value is.

It is necessary for Ukraine to attack Kerch Bridge once in a while, so Russia cannot stop wasting resources to protect it. Its high symbolic value forces Russia's hand, no matter what the actual military value is.