Grigb

However, we do have instances of wheeled vehicle escapes using high speed and good roads. [EDIT] A 200-300 kilometers in dive sounds nice until you see the Avenger driving away (top speed 89km/h). 100+ kmh also sounds good until you watch a quadcopter hitting ground behind pickup truck driving right on the battlefield.

From my limited observation 60-100 kmh helps to decrease the chance of hit There are unverified RU claims that with 100-120 kmh you can drive away from FPV The second video shows Avenger escaping from Lancet Keep in mind that piloting FPV is not easy - you need to compensate for example for the wind etc. Even tanks can benefit from speed, but I mostly see wheeled vehicles escaping attack. Here is quadracycle at full speed escapes the attack and we also can compare it with successful attack. RU claims that the current typical suicide FPV that operates at frontline has just 25 minutes (at longer range UKR use different noticeably slower drones). It does not mean that speed is 100% protection, but it does mean that speed helps. [EDIT] Another good video of RU drone that was too slow.

Back to war assessment. Let's have a look at battle damage of RDK M113 from Avdiivka. The M113 got hit by 1-2 RU FPV drones. 00:50-00:56 damage to fuel tank from fragments 01:00-01:10 damage to engine compartment from fragments 01:10-01:20 damage to heater from fragments There are a lot of floor shots to show blood from the wounded they were transporting 01:20 other vehicle (again damage from fragments) M113 was able to return to base Interesting, but the damage comes from fragments, not HEAT. It's possible that HEAT warheads aren't often used at that location or that the FPV drone trajectory isn't always optimal for HEAT, or it missed due to pure luck. Conclusion FPV damage is primarily caused by fragmentation and HEAT from 40mm grenades and RPG-7 type-rounds (in hindsight it is kind of obvious). The damage is moderate and may be considerably reduced by standard methods such as bar and ERA armor, as well as spall liners. The most significant distinction between FPV and conventional rounds is that FPV may hit anywhere on the vehicle, whereas current militaries are primarily concerned with up armoring vehicles against standard Grenade and RPG trajectories. Reasons for extreme effectiveness of UKR drones If we look at RU AFVs there are three distinct groups: Highly flammable tanks and BMPs Low flammability yet weakly armored MT-LB Completely unarmored wheeled vehicles The exceptional success of UKR drones is due to the inherent vulnerability of RU vehicles and the RU's virtually total lack of a mass uparmouring program. Let's see agent Murz opinion Other reason for FPV effectiveness Unlike in low-intensity combat, once a vehicle is disabled, it is effectively gone due to arty fire. So, FPV drones just need to disable the vehicle, not to inflict major damage. And the FPV drone does not even need to disable the vehicle; instead, it may damage the sights, external electronics, and unmanned turret. In low-intensity conflict, such damage is not critical; in this war, it is effective mission kill because there are many other weapons systems around. What is the point of your top-of-the-line unmanned turret if drone with the cost of 400 bucks can destroy it quickly. New paradigm of AFV up armoring Apart from other things (APS, AD, Drone EW) we need to change the paradigm of uparmouring. As much of the vehicle's surface as feasible should be armored to survive a 40mm grenade Engine must be protected even better than other compartments (withstand RPG-7) External components, such as electronics, turrets, and weapons, should be resistant against 40mm grenades or have the ability to be moved inside the vehicle quickly. Spall liners is a must. Crew members may benefit from a full-body flak suit. Previously, there was a possibility of receiving few RPG strikes during missions. Now you may be struck by dozens of FPVs. Each of them may do small damage, but fragments could eventually strike, for example, the driver leg, making the vehicle temporally immobilized and vulnerable to arty fire. Wheeled light vehicles Let's look at RU recommendation for wheeled and unarmored vehicles So, the speed of the vehicle increases survivability. That means steps must be taken to ensure that logistics and unarmored wheeled vehicles can travel at the highest possible speed. Roads need to be improved and fixed. Drivers need to be trained. Vehicles need to have better accident protection (due to obvious decrease of safety).

This is exactly playing with semantics. It is up to Putin to decide to start WW3. You do not have any choice whatsoever.

First of all, it does not work like this. We are not in the court room, and we are not in the court procedure. We are making assessments based on available information Second, we have two solid facts - the most important for Putin pipe was not blowen. And the same pipe is actually in fully working condition. So, let me be clear - I do have solid facts for my assessment while you both do not. All you have is your opinion that these two facts are not enough for you to make your own assessment. Fair enought. Now, given your opinion (that you need something more credible) please provide me with screenshots when you ask the same thing from RU public (for example screenshots of you asking RU public to provide credible source for Putin statement that US did it). If you fail to provide them then I am forced to make an assessment that opinion is not based on your fair judgment but on your personal pro-RU bias.

Credible source for what? That the pipe from Putin's pet project was not blown up? That was in all news articles. That the same pipe is in working condition and ready to be used quickly? I gave the source.

It was obviously RU operation. They blew up old pipes leaving new one undamaged and ready to work to force Germans to switch to the new pipe.

Your refreshingly pseudointellectual high horse way of communicating never fails to amaze me. For your education: it does not make it better or smarter becasue there are a lot of things that directly affect you but do not care about you making any choice. RU buttstock, bullet or nuke do not care about you or your choice or anything about you.

It looks like some time ago he had a friendly talk with the same folks with whom Girkin spoke before moving to the jail. He has recently been avoiding writing negative posts regarding RU MOD. So, he is definitely conscious of the danger. But Avdiivka's victory seems to have pushed him out of allowed boundaries (but not too far yet).

Murz is seriously upset now. Military production - Russia is winning that part.

In your head yes. But this idea will leave your head as soon as RU soldier hits you in the head with buttstock on your way to the torture or execution chamber.

The thing is Lastochkino was not inside of the cauldron. Still no Bradley or Abrams came to counter attack RU push over open field toward Lastockino. But we do know that Bradleys operate even inside village type areas (T-90 incident). UKR command made conscious decision not to involve mech units even when it was military sensible. Mech counterattack at that precise moment would undoubtedly stabilize the entire situation and most likely prolonged Avdiivka defense. Either UKR command is stupid, or they were concerned with something else.

In other news Nesmyan (RU civilian Girkin) comment War is going according to the plan. Western sanctions do not work.

In other news - Whoever blew Nost Stream up very conveniently (for RU) left one pipeline undamaged and ready to work.

Meanwhile UKR colleague of Mashovets reports that RU become active along the whole front and are not planning to make operational pause after capture of Avdiivka. It certainly looks like The main battle started just now.

I think Avdiivka itself was not very important to UKR. I feel we got too fixated on Avdiivka. I believe the intent of the RU command was a significantly more ambitious, which explains the UKR command's unwillingness to commit large forces to the defense of Avdiivka. RU generals are fond of ambitious encircling operations. What if RU intended to attract UKR reserves to the defense of Avdiivka, smash them there, rupture UKR defenses, and simultaneously attack from Avdiivka, Zaporojye, and possibly Bakmut (according to UKR reports, RU has begun to push there as well) to encircle and destroy a significant portion of AFU formations? It explains: Why RU kept significant mech force not far from Avdiivka Why UKR command committed so few lightly armed forces to the defense Why Abrams and Bradly equipped units did not counter-attacked RU units when they started to advance toward Lastochkino Why Patriot arrived only now Recent UKR reports from Rabotny that RU are preparing something big Adviivka's battle was most likely a prelude. The main battle started just now.

A bit of Murz hysterics (he was talking to close friend) The Russian celebration of Avdiivka's capture is in full swing.

We know that RU is working to upgrade Arena-M to combat drones and loitering munitions. However, they reportedly encountered a problem with the [slow] speed of the drones (whatever that means). We know Arena filters out objects with slow speeds. It appears that after they stopped doing that (to include drones), Arena got overwhelmed with objects to process, and given the RU difficulties with electronics, they were unable to overcome it quickly. Also, AFAIR a Russian-speaking Israeli military historian recently mentioned that Rafael was looking for ways to tweak their APS to combat drones. I have not seen any info regarding UKR APS. Like at all. Probably they are developing something, but it is far from production.

Airplanes. RU demonstrated extreme sensitivity to airplane losses. They pulled WW2 howitzers out of storage. RU mil reporter Saponkov reported on Feb 3 Also, UKR claim that RU are replacing losses with mostly towed guns (not necessarily with D-1s) slowly downgrading to WW2 level. The infantry is best transported by up armored APC. Even MRAP is ok as it can get in out quickly Close support is best provided by AFV with automatic weapon. The best is Bradley with two men crew. MRAP with 50 cal will do the job Tank (preferably with HESH rounds) provides long range (2-3 km) fire support against hardened targets (concreted bunkers) using drones for adjustment The assault technique is as follows FPV drones take out crew manned weapons (ATGMs, HMGs etc) around objective 155mms pound the objective Tank demolishes bunkers and other hardened targets APCs with Bardleys arrive at objective and clear out remains of the enemy The biggest difference is APS with ability to counter drones. No APS, no difference. Well, crew survivability of modern AFVs increases overal AFV formation morale and aggressiveness.

Few reports about real effectives of RU drones RU Nat January 18 Another RU Nat RU greatly exaggerates the success of its FPV drone program.

So, how did you get to the conclusion that UKR are incurring big losses? And you came to that conclusion how? You just admitted you do not have any data to support your conclusions. Let's be frank, you have no idea what damage these things inflicted on UKR. We already saw that the biggest RU effort in using gliding bombs, drones etc at Avdiivka resulted in at most 2:1 losses in favor of UKR. RU forums where you get your information wildly exaggerate the effectives of RU weapons. Neither Bakhmut nor Avdiivka resulted in cauldron. And in the UKR forces did not got hammered until very last minute withdrawal. Agent Mur.z about Bakhmut Previously posted Murz quote about Avdiivka You basically have no idea what's going on in reality. Or you simply do not know what is going on. Military wise, RU was intended to call a second wave in the summer/early fall. Putin is personally delaying it (the RU MOD expected Putin to issue an order by the end of the summer or early fall). Which is understandable considering the potential consequences. Oh, FFS - because unlike RU UKR army tries to take care of UKR military personnel by organizing regular rotations. UKR army need manpower to rotate previously mobilized troops. RU army told to mobilized - F*ck you. Try not to use RU propaganda talking points on me. It is stupid. During North Africa campaign British Army lost vast amount of territory twice (pink is map of Ukraine). In war you fight your enemy and not just trying to capture as much land as you can. So, in reality, every day UKR are inflicting disproportional casualties on RU in exchange for a little bit of land which is war winning strategy. RU strategy of suffering disproportional casualties for a little bit of land is not a war winning strategy. In war you fight your enemy and not just trying to capture as much land as you can. Have a look at UKR reports on RU non manpower losses (yes, my paint skills are not high but you can clearly see the relevant dates) RU trucks RU special vehicles RU tanks All graphs show that before the UKR offensive, RU successfully reduced vehicle losses. This would certainly allow RU to win the war of attrition. However, as you can clearly see - as soon as UKR offensive started the trend was reversed. The main gain for Ukraine during its summer offensive was not land, but rather an effective reaction on Russia's defensive strategy with a complete reversal of the attrition trend. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you look at the graphs above, you will notice that the attritional trend did not reverse back after UKR stopped their offensive. RU rejected the previous effective defensive strategy in favor of the offensive strategy keeping attritional trend exactly as UKR like. So, two things. First, UKR does not need to go on the offensive since the RU attrition trend is precisely where UKR wants it to be. Second, the UKR offensive was substantially more effective than most people realize - it terrified RU so much that they abandoned their originally successful defensive strategy in favor of an offensive approach that would be fatal for them for them in the long run (but would allow them to keep UKR on the defensive in the short term).

RU is not winning this part. You read BS about Great Patriotic War. RU has no war economy. Western sanctions inflicted critical damage on RU economy ensuring slow death of RU state as we know it. You do know that RU morale is so low that Putin is afraid to call mobilization, don't you? What drones are you talking about? RU Nat fighter from Avdiivka reported on February 9 Do you talk about Shaheds? Last time I checked, 40 out of 45 were taken down. RU military production reached it's peak at the end of December. It cannot increase anymore due to lack of western heavy machinery. UKR NATO 155mm arty needs less shells as it is more effective than RU arty Last time Trump was president he b*tcslapped RU so hard that I laughed whole week reading RU Nat hysterics. Interesting question. Given that it took RU several months of relentless meat assaults to move front just couple km west and given that there are 560 km to Kiev, RU can be expected to threaten Kiev in 233 years. EU shells will arrive long before that. Nope, Agent Murz reports how RU learns lessons IRL Except from infamous Tolkonuk letter to Stalin about how Red Army generals learned lessons of war by the winter 43-44 Remove reference to Germans and it reads like description of Avdiivka battle. I dont like RU propagand but there it is.

RU propagandists - we are using old tanks as artillery. RU army: From here I am inviting experts to discuss how RU war production of tanks successfully replace RU tank losses.

This is a gross miscalculation since other crucial aspects, such as RU political and economic issues, are excluded. The so-called "partial mobilization" had severe political and economic implications. Russian government managed to temporally stabilize the situation by pledging that there would be no more mobilization. Any more mobilization efforts would be equivalent to playing Russian roulette. It could work for a while, but eventually it will inevitably blow your face off. Or it might blow your face right away. Simply put, the Russian government has a considerably smaller pool of people it can mobilize than Western experts believe.

Simple assertions like "1:3 losses are acceptable for attacker" are BS. We must first examine other aspects. However, the figures are sufficient to demonstrate that assertions regarding massive UKR losses are the delusions of naive people deceived by RU propaganda.