Utopia Talk / Politics / Ukraine: The battle for Bakhmut

murder Member	Tue Mar 07 11:48:51 Today is the day that Russia takes it! Actually the last thread is full and we needed a new one and I could think of anything clever. Sorry. :o
jergul large member	Tue Mar 07 17:16:33 Ah well. Not sure it will fall anytime soon. Wagner wants more *stuff* and would like to tighten the neck of the sack a bit, but is happy grinding Ukraine down at Bakmut. Particularly now that Ukraine has to fight in relatively unprepared positions around the town and run an arty gauntlet to get in and out of the town. The Ukrainian BS about casualty ratios is just that. Russia has arty and aerial superiority. Those are what kill and wound soldiers. Ukraine is prolly making a mistake, but it does not really matter for as long as its equipment is backfilled by the West. It will take years for Ukraine to run out of soldiers at current rates (though it will eventually. 50k new 18 year old recruits a year is simply too small a cadre).
Paramount Member	Wed Mar 08 01:12:16 Ukraine will soon win. According to the british defence ministry, Russian soldiers has to fight with shovels because they are low on ammo, and according to Swedish public service news the Russians are suffering heavy losses, two hundred thousands, and they describe as that Russian soldiers are cannon fooder.
murder Member	Wed Mar 08 07:21:02 "According to the british defence ministry, Russian soldiers has to fight with shovels because they are low on ammo" That's not from being out of ammo. Putin just doesn't want those prisoners returning home.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 08 08:36:51 Entrenchment tools in close combat have almost religious significance in Russia due to wwii. But nothing surprising about running low on ammo in this style of urban combat. A soldier can burn through most of 5 mags fast.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 08 08:45:36 The German news outlet Zeit issued a report that said German investigators had identified the ship that was used by the saboteurs. The company that rented it was allegedly owned by Ukrainian nationals and was registered in Poland. ============== Not far off my speculations. I thought it was done with a charted Polish ship, but same difference really.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 08 11:27:53 Probably chartered by russia.
murder Member	Wed Mar 08 11:50:42 And the name of the ship is???
LazyCommunist Member	Wed Mar 08 11:52:55 What shall we do with these traitors? Yes they have no experience or training Yes they were promised another duty Yes they are transferred to the DPR militia Yes they are used as meat But all that does not matter as they still die for the glory of the Russian empire. How shall we punish them? http://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1633212458662764556
murder Member	Wed Mar 08 12:12:26 "How shall we punish them?" Force them to return to their wives. :o)
jergul large member	Wed Mar 08 12:21:35 Sammy Time to give up on the ludicrous theory that Russia blew up its own pipeline I think. More than time.
Dukhat Member	Wed Mar 08 13:57:52 Ukraine's lack of tactical flexibility is disappointing. Manpower is the only resource that Ukraine lacks. They should preserve it at all costs, even at the expense of land. Let Russia pay in blood for every advance while keeping kill ratios high. Then counterattack with Western tanks a few months later, and surround the tired spearheads. Zelensky got lucky Putin let his army go to shit. He has not proven that clever with strategy yet though our military has helped as best they can.
murder Member	Wed Mar 08 14:18:48 I hope Zelenskyy isn't the one running the war for Ukraine. You pay generals for that kind of thing.
murder Member	Wed Mar 08 14:52:29 Also this is currently going on in Georgia ... Anton Gerashchenko @Gerashchenko_en Russia is trying to keep Georgia dependent on it. Putin aims to govern Georgia through his marionette politician Bidzina Ivanishvili. Today in Tbilisi people are fighting to throw off Russian chains. We stand with the people of Georgia. http://twi..._en/status/1633557436794650624
Pillz Member	Wed Mar 08 16:38:34 Rolf @ cuckhat
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 03:38:46 Murder What was wrong with the 2020 election? Besides people obviously voting wrong. Dukhat Not so much going to shit as being mid transformation. Oddly, same thing happened in 1941. The USSR was still digesting new territory and reequipping when the Germans attacked.
murder Member	Thu Mar 09 10:44:16 "What was wrong with the 2020 election? Besides people obviously voting wrong." Which 2020 election and who mentioned it?
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 11:18:46 The one in Georgia when the current batch of legislators were elected. Complaining about a marionette seems a bit far-fetched.
murder Member	Thu Mar 09 11:26:56 That was that Anton Gerashchenko guy. I was just posting that shit is going down.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 11:55:49 Ah, ok.
murder Member	Thu Mar 09 13:30:19 Those people would be better off migrating. Georgia's location makes a European future highly unlikely until Russia is a part of it.
murder Member	Fri Mar 17 02:25:02 This is actually taking a lot longer than I expected. It's like the Russians keep circling the block unable to find the right address. :o)
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 04:09:34 Russia has pushed 25% of the way (8km) to Sloviansk along the M-03. Ukraine may be slightly blindsided by holding the center of town.
LazyCommunist Member	Fri Mar 17 04:35:03 We will certainly take this city and the surrounding area soon. Though there is one problem that must be addressed: the attack on Bakhmut was initiated by Wagner and Wagner made a soap opera out of it. Now that Wagner is running out of soldiers and ammo, the regular Russian military has to save them. But Wagner should not set goals for Russia. Wagner should get orders and fulfil them. Something like the attack on Bakhmut should not happen again in the future.
patom Member	Fri Mar 17 05:38:54 Not to worry. Ron DeSantis is heading over to Ukraine to show them how to end this war.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Mar 19 00:15:07 Rofl how is this taking this long? Russia isn't very good at this huh.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 19 05:06:24 Sammy Depends on what it is trying to be good at. Right now, Ukraine insists on sending equipment, manpower and supplies through a very narrow, very muddy funnel into a chauldron that has been pretty comprehensively flanked. Russia is being very good at not interrupting an enemy making mistakes.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Mar 19 10:35:47 Says the russians as they order another infantry charge.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 19 14:03:40 Well, if by charge, you mean for Russia to get into range with "bumblebee" hand held thermobaric launchers, then sure (Wagners favoured tactic is to push a team into range and fire off 6-8 thermobaric rockets at a time. So within some hundred meters). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel Not really very much documentation that the old rule of 70% of casualties are to arty and aerial bombardments does not apply.
murder Member	Sun Mar 19 14:40:22 It doesn't matter how many men Russia loses in this battle because the men they are losing are men that Putin is happy to be rid of. Ukraine is losing soldiers. Russia is cleaning our their prisons. Zelenskyy is going to lose all of Ukraine just to defend this one town. He's being pigheaded.
Paramount Member	Mon Mar 20 11:48:02 Kind of like Hitler during his last days then? Hitler should have surrendered earlier and not fight to the last german. It’ll just end with everything being destroyed and everyone being dead.
murder Member	Mon Mar 20 12:11:08 No, he should be listening to the advice he is being given. There is nothing to be won by fighting the war that Russia wants to fight and where it wants to fight it.
Paramount Member	Mon Mar 20 12:33:50 Russian propaganda in Washington Post: Ukraine short of skilled troops and munitions as losses, pessimism grow http://www...pessimism-ammunition-shortage/ Ukraine demoted commander who gave interview about ill-trained troops http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/16/ukraine-commander-demoted-interview-pessimism/ I don’t know how people can not see that this is Russian propaganda?
Pillz Member	Mon Mar 20 14:42:19 Russia is making advances around avdiivka. Rail way confirmed shut off to AFU.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Mon Mar 20 17:18:23 Interesting to see Russia advance on two cities simultaneously, seems to reflect a larger military force than before.
Pillz Member	Mon Mar 20 18:32:40 http://twi...?t=a_-GYG0O70DEDOicdXv_dw&s=19 http://twitter.com/rybar_en/status/1636079179220373505?t=gso8AhJehkvBED8WSNPu1w&s=19 Maps. Bakhmut & Avdiivka have essentially been the major points of defense in Donbas, and Bakhmut continues to see resources dumped into it, regardless of how impossible that seems to be. I don't know if it's a sign of a much greater Russian force, as we saw other simultaneous operations last spring/summer by Russia. The Avdiivka breakthroughs are probably more due to the diversion of AFU reserves to Bakhmut rather than other areas, again similar to what we saw last year. It takes time to open up positions to assault more than it takes personnel. It will be interesting to see how Russian defenses hold during the next AFU offensive however.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 21 02:57:26 There are actually 5 pushes going on and have been going on for many weeks now. I think Russia is hoping some will mature into double envelopes as Ukraine's ability to shift reserves falls as more troops are locked in place on the front line. The New York-Toretsk salient also becomes vulnerable as the pushes beyond Bakmut and Avdiisk mature. Alternatively, it will all fall apart when the vaunted AFU offensive starts :).
jergul large member	Tue Mar 21 03:03:35 Yah, the was in Dumb-ass continues.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 21 16:28:23 Well, the UK is shipping DU munitions with its Challengers. Dirty weapons like this sort of undermine Ukraine's claim to wanting back territory currently being fought over. Or rather, it says a lot about how likely the UK thinks Ukraine winning back Donbas is. More about inflicting costs on Russia than actually winning.
murder Member	Tue Mar 21 16:37:30 "Interesting to see Russia advance on two cities simultaneously, seems to reflect a larger military force than before." It reflects that Ukraine has gone retard and decided to slug it out with a larger enemy who doesn't give a fuck about body counts. They need to keep moving and forcing Russia to do the same. Putin couldn't care less if he loses 1,000,000 men as long as he makes the territorial gains that he wants. And if the "heroes" happen to be 1,000,000 prisoners, then so much the better. Ukraine was doing well and then they just went brain dead.
Pillz Member	Tue Mar 21 17:41:19 No, they were never doing well. Russia isn't suffering thousands of dead - at least not with the frequency that the AFU is. Your analysis of AFU defense of Bakhmut is correct. Unfortunately you didn't speak up about Severdontsk or Lysyshansk. You moaned for weeks about the genius success of the AFU in holding a single beachhead and farming settlement that'd been wipes out by artillery and airstrikes... Despite the AFU losing hundreds of men per day and inflicting virtually not casualties themselves. The issue murder, is not the retardation of the Ukrainian commanders or the Russians having a larger force or not carrying about casualties. The issue is that western media is increasingly painting the Ukrainian position in a more realistic and negative light, rather than just the Washington Post. And you're falling over yourself about it like a retard, because all you do is swallow MSM propaganda like wtb swallow jizz at a glory hole
murder Member	Tue Mar 21 18:59:48 "You moaned for weeks about the genius success of the AFU in holding a single beachhead and farming settlement that'd been wipes out by artillery and airstrikes... Despite the AFU losing hundreds of men per day and inflicting virtually not casualties themselves." I did? That doesn't sound like me.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 22 03:54:39 Lol. DU is used widely in weapon systems (also as counterweights in trimming systems for aircraft). Indeed Russian forces use it in their anti tank rounds. Nor is it particularly toxic compared to what's in other weapon systems, and released by burning military vehicles generally. Naturally Jergul finds an angle to spin it as delegitmising Ukraine. Strange he doesn't apply the same logic to Russia flattening cities to capture them. Murder: I don't think so. Or at least not necessarily. The previous offences were successful after grinding Russian forces to the point their offensives culminated leaving them with two few forces to respond to attacks. Overall the casualty rates have been favourable to Ukraine, though it's now getting to the point they probably aren't, that still might be beneficial if it's soaking up Russian energy in an area with little strategic value but high political value to Russia (better than the alternative). As for them being convicts etc. - it's still Russian manpower. If Russia manpower also happens to be low quality high quantity and viewed as disposable, so be it. What matters to Ukraine isn't the value Putin places on the men, its the opportunity cost to Ukraine of not killing them here, and having them overrun somewhere important.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 06:13:43 Seb There are concerns with the ammunition type and it is being phased out by both the US and the UK. It is a bit specialized and has unlikely been used by Russia in Ukraine. The edge gained over tungsten is marginal. Not really something anyone would use on friendly soil. I stand by my comment on what it suggests is frank and honest analysis by the UK. It does not think Ukraine has to worry about ever having to clean up areas currently being fought over. On casualties. Same as always. 70% caused by arty or air power. Which puts Ukraine at a significant disadvantage. Closer analysis of what Ukraine actually means by human waves - Wagner teams armed with 4-8 thermobaric rocket launchers sneak to within some 100 meters of the targetted fortification to knock it out. Zelenskij is frankly the only one admitting to disregard of soldiers lives. Tis the nature of "hold at all costs" orders. I expect the dead to seriously wounded (away more than 48 hours) ratio for Ukrainians in Bakmut closer to 1:3 than the normal 1:5 due to very difficult evacuation conditions.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 06:55:02 "During the special military operation, up to 90% of the crews of operational/tactical and army aviation, 60% of strategic and long-range aviation and 85% of the personnel operating unmanned aerial vehicles gained combat experience," Shoigu said. In addition, pilots of the Russian Aerospace Forces have flown over 140,000 sorties in the special military operation in Ukraine, destroying more than 20,000 enemy sites, he added." Tass It seems like big numbers, but is only 15 enemy sites a day hit on average. Arty strikes average 10 times that.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 22 07:34:15 Jergul: "Not really something anyone would use on friendly soil." Its been used and is still used by Western countries in domestic firing ranges. DU is toxic, but so is lead and many other materials used in weapons and chemicals residues created as a consequence of combat. "It does not think Ukraine has to worry about ever having to clean up areas currently being fought over." DU is what we have in stock for ap rounds that fit the rifled barrels of the c2 (the rest of NATO uses smoothbore) and 14 c2s isn't going to create widespread contamination. DU oxides are non soluble and localised to impact sites. The main reasons for phase out are in fact reduction of supply and the risk to cost personnel that may inhale combustion products on the battlefield. Not this false narrative you've concocted that it represents a greater and more persistent risk than other materials. As for Russia not using it - of course. Russia has never been known to use toxic chemicals in war.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 09:10:21 Seb The US and UK you mean. Who both have phased out DU. It has marginal if any advantages over tungsten. DU self-sharpening characteristics turn the munition into aerosols. It is chemically highly toxic. Nice to see you so relaxed about it. You used to be so terribly upset about injested alpha radiation particle matter.
LazyCommunist Member	Wed Mar 22 09:13:41 This is the end of the Ukraine. We will now conquer all of it. We're currently moving the good old T-55 out of storage and prepare them for battle. We wouldn't do this if we would only want to defend the new Russian territories, we would not need them for that easy task. But we do need huge numbers of tanks if we want to liberate and keep the whole of Ukraine. The Ukraine is big and thousands of T-54/T-55 will allow us to put many tanks into even the smallest Ukrainian cities to protect the inhabitants. 10 tanks into every village, 100 tanks into every city, the Ukrainians will soon feel much safer.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 09:24:15 How dare you copy-cat Ukraine who has been using t-55s prepared for battle for many months now!
Seb Member	Wed Mar 22 09:56:58 Jergul: "Who both have phased out DU" [Citation needed] - best I can see is some manufacturers have stopped using it due to lack of supply. Indeed it has gone from being a cheap by product of nuclear industry to the DoE having to commission manufacture of new supply for nuclear warhead refurbishment. I cannot see anything suggesting the govts have decided to phase out existing stocks or as an active policy bit to procure DU weapons. " It is chemically highly toxic." Its less toxic than lead actually. There are plenty of sources of heavy metal contamination from the kind of conflict in Ukraine. Let alone organics. DU isn't anything special. "You used to be so terribly upset about ingested alpha radiation particle matter." The specific activity of DU is very low. Its lower than many other substances found ambiently, such that anyone getting a reasonable dosage from depleted uranium to pose a risk would be having far bigger problems from chemical toxicity. To have absorbed that much they have to be doing something like inhaling the combustion products from the DU munition (which is a physical impossibility due them not having a body anymore) or eating the tank wreckage. Uranium oxides are not water soluble and particulates settle and do not readily aerosolize thereafter. The radioactivity is a total red herring. Chemical toxicity from heavy metal poisoning is a thing, but there's plenty of that from other weapons. Tungsten is safer, but manufacturers switch to it is largely due to supply and price issues.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 11:59:22 Lack of supply of depleted uranium? Depleted uranium is a byproduct of enrichment, so your nukes will not work if you are commissioning that for warheads. [citation needed] indeed. Less toxic than lead? [citation needed] Inhaling or eating aerosol DU particles you say? As the nature of selfsharpening breaks the slug down to a minute spray of radioactive particles. Noted that you think radioactivity is a red herring. We will remember your position if Russia chooses to resolve challenger issues with some tactical usage of it. Chemical toxicity is indeed a thing. Frankly, Eastern Europeans are not fond of heavy metal toxicity, nor radioactive materials for historical reasons. Tungsten used because making DU ammunition is no longer seen as a neat way to get rid of uranium enrichment byproduct (which is what depleted uranium is). You should be sending Ukraine tungsten equivalents. But it does not matter to the UK if donbas+ is seen as toxic because the UK does not think Ukraine will ever get it back. I applaud the UKs realism. The game of using Ukraine to degrade Russia is of course mildly questionable, but does fall under the cunning use of flags premise, for boy oh boy would Russia be mad at you if you were actually fighting them. We cant have that now, can we?
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 12:02:25 I personally think Seb's backyard should be expropriated and used for storing nuclear waste given how little risk he feels it involves. Not many people feel that way, so finding one that does just screams "put nuclear waste in his backyard".
Seb Member	Wed Mar 22 12:55:33 Jergul: Firstly, enriched uranium is used for civilian and military fuel. DU is what is left over. N.b. U238 separated from used fuel *isn't* DU because it's contaminated with other isotopes. British and American warheads use plutonium and there's far more supply than demand, and they reforge and remanufacture Pits rather than breeding more. There used to be loads of DU left over from both civil and military nuclear programs - both power and weapons during that period where uranium was used to breed pu. DU is also used in the tamper of h-bombs as part of the radiation case to drive radiative implosion of the secondary and to maximize yield from prompt neutrons film the secondary. There's also ongoing demand for DU for various civil applications (trimming and counterweights in missiles, aircraft, as a shielding material, for fission chamber neutron counters etc.). Point is, one of the main factors is that the giant pile of excess DU from military and civil enrichment programs has largely been used up. Less toxic than lead - LD50 is 4.5g/kg Vs 5g/kg for uranium. In both cases there's no safe level - so any amount can be correlated with some increase in risk of developing disease. "As the nature of selfsharpening breaks the slug down to a minute spray of radioactive particles" I suggest you read my post again. If you are in a position to inhale any of that spray, you will not be breathing. If you are in a position to inhale the smoke of a burning tank before the DU oxide participates fall out in the first hour or so after it has been hit the uranium oxide particulate content isn't the most lethal thing in the air. So after that, unless you are eating the soil around the tank by the kilo or the debris, the radiation is a non issue and even in the unlikely decision you are tucking into this stuff, the uranium isn't likely to be the thing that poisons you first. "Noted that you think radioactivity is a red herring" You do understand that DU is *less* radioactive than natural uranium. In fact it's less radioactive than breezebricks. "We will remember your position if Russia chooses to resolve challenger issues with some tactical usage of it." I think someone dropped you on the head. 'This thing isn't appreciably radioactive and there's no real way to get act radiological symptoms from it' 'aha, so you are saying radiation isnt a problem and Russia can respond with dirty bombs' No jergul. I'm saying DU poses *NO* radiological threat and any attempt by Russia to use it to justify RBC weapons would make as much as "well, Russia shot people with bullets, bullets are made of chemicals, obviously that's a violation of the ban on chemical weapons, so naturally we are entitled to respond with nerve gas". "DU ammunition is no longer seen as a neat way to get rid of uranium enrichment byproduct" Actually the original use of DU was because USSR was the main source of tungsten, and there was a massive stock of DU from enrichment (you know, the stuff with the lower activity). Thing is by virtue of it being less radioactive than natural uranium, having various civil uses, and having used up the stockpile, while the amount of enrichment activity has declined, and global Tungsten supply having become more diverse, it no longer makes sense You are trying to make the case that DU is asbestos. This is not correct "You should be sending Ukraine tungsten equivalents" How do you know we aren't? The L28 rounds have slightly worse performance than the L27 and both are in use.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 13:32:18 Seb Mansplain much? I am ignoring the paragraphs where you did that. Not a good habit if you wish to stay married. As I am sure you wife also does on both counts. "I'm saying DU poses *NO* radiological threat" Wrong. Asbestos is significantly safer than DU. But also a lot more widespread, so some people die eventually from exposure to damaged asbestos products. Here it is in a simple form. DU munitions are weapons that are radioactive and will leave radioactive debris. You can elitist prick your way about explaining why that is not bad, but the supply taints Ukraine's efforts in the eyes of normal people everywhere. You should just have supplied tungsten rounds instead. For PR reasons and to avoid the obvious perception that the UK is escalating the conflict. Frankly, I think you will probably end up doing what I am telling you to do. But you government screws up spectacularly regularly, so we will have to see.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 22 14:49:05 Jergul: IF you are accusing me or mansplaining this point, that can only be an admission to absolute dishonesty on yours. Specific activity of depleted uranium is 15Bq per mg. Natural uranium, 25Bq per mg, is used in ceramic tiles to give it a lovely red/orange hue. DU is less radioactive than many other materials used all over the place. Saying it is "radioactive" and leaves "radioactive debris" - well so does blowing up a building made of bricks composed of fly ash. I doubt that Russia removes C14 isotopes from its gun cotton. That's radioactive too! There have already been rulings on whether DU can be considered a radiological weapon or chemical weapon (no). The maximum allowed specific activity in the EU alpha emitters for solid food is 80 Bq/kg. Basically, the dilution of the round on impact and combustion puts it below civil safety standards. It would be difficult for someone to ingest or inhale sufficient amounts of DU oxide dust to get a radioactive dose above civil food safety limits while not having been killed by the kinetic effects of having the tank they were on or next to be blown up. Chemical toxicity is the risk, but there is a lot of toxic byproducts of weapons (including use of heavy metals). "You should just have supplied tungsten rounds instead. For PR reasons and to avoid the obvious perception that the UK is escalating the conflict." We should have supplied tungsten rounds to minimise the risk of people who profess to be fully cognisant of the chemical and radiological properties of depleted uranium falsely constructing a narrative that Ukraine is writing off the territory it is holding by poisoning it, and falsely claiming it provides a basis for Russian use of nuclear weapons? No Jergul - we are not responsible for your dishonesty and cynicism on this point. You will always find a way. The L27 DU rounds are more effective than the L28 tungsten ones, and we have a large stockpile of them. There is no reason to restrict Ukraine's ammunition supply to limit the scope for you lying about them being uniquely toxic and radioactive. And Russia can threaten to use radiological and chemical weapons on the UK - after all it has already done so - which of course you then proceeded to deny, then downplay, then appologise for back then.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 22 15:02:13 "DU munitions are weapons that are radioactive and will leave radioactive debris." Wrong.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 22 15:13:29 Sam: Correct in the sense that Jergul's shit is radioactive and he leaves radioactive debris when he uses the toilet.
Paramount Member	Wed Mar 22 15:21:00 DU is about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium. - Wiki So it is radioactive, but as radioactive as natural uranium. It certainly is toxic.
Paramount Member	Wed Mar 22 15:21:36 * but not as radioactive as natural uranium
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 22 15:51:58 And natural uranium is not all that radioactive either.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 16:12:06 Seb: "Radioactive material is not radioactive". I would advise not feeding the propagandists with DU ammunition. Ukraine does not have much of an edge in popular sentiment globally. Why do stupid shit that helps shift popular opinion? There are no military reasons for supplying DU ammo and lots of reasons not to. But you do you. I am starting to see how you lost an empire.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 22 17:17:44 http://twi...?t=3oHi-Ys2NMbzw2Esgh5Fog&s=19 Challenger next to a t55
Seb Member	Wed Mar 22 17:18:37 Jergul: I would advise you not propagandise.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 22 19:20:36 The truth is propaganda in your form of newspeak? I dont speak that, sorry. You are screwing up public relations with no military benefit beyond getting rid of old stock close to its decommissioning date. The danger of living in a bubble I suppose.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 22 20:55:14 http://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.com/defense/1036958/amp Tanks firing depleted uranium does not violate international laws, says russian state sponsored media in 2018. Rofl.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 23 02:09:26 Jergul: Propogandists are going to say what they are going to say, and some people are going to be mislead unfortunately. You are reliably going to toe the line on Russian talking points in so far as they delegitimise the NATO and Ukraine. You were always going to do that, though. You've been doing that for nearly quarter of a century. What's important is that Ukraine has as much ammo for its challengers as possible and that Russian tanks go boom. There's a good way to avoid contamination, which is good Russia to withdraw those tanks from Ukraine. Meanwhile I look forward to your exhaustive complaints about Russian environmental damage and toxicity - of which we have seen so much over the years.
TheChildren Member	Thu Mar 23 02:37:58 oooh http://twitter.com/AZgeopolitics/status/1638628018309431297 woops
Seb Member	Thu Mar 23 03:15:04 And of course, Russian forces have been using their own DU ammo in Ukraine - Svinets-2 3bm60 rounds with DU core. https://9gag.com/gag/aXnMrNP
Seb Member	Thu Mar 23 04:44:35 RE "the Truth" - some of this might be argued as being 'errors in good faith' - but it is not truth. "Dirty weapons like this sort" It is not particularly dirty compared to other weapons in common use. "undermine Ukraine's claim to wanting back territory currently being fought over." Logically false - this is an assertion. "Or rather, it says a lot about how likely the UK thinks Ukraine winning back Donbas is." Again, logically false. The UK uses DU weapons on its own soil. The idea that DU salts the earth for generations is incorrect. "More about inflicting costs on Russia than actually winning." Again, false assertion. "There are concerns with the ammunition type and it is being phased out by both the US and the UK." Intentionally misleading coupling. There are concerns about the ammunition type (largely unfounded) due to associations of uranium with radioactivity and chemical toxicity. However these have largely been shown to be overblown. The weapon is not being phased out by the US and UK, who still use it - rather they are buying tungsten rounds that are cheaper and have more robust supply chains. "It is a bit specialized and has unlikely been used by Russia in Ukraine." False. It turns out it has been used in ukraine. "The edge gained over tungsten is marginal." Misleading. The edge gained over tungsten is not decisive, but it is also not marginal. DU performs better - but not so much that it is worth it when the supply isn't essentially free. "Not really something anyone would use on friendly soil." DU has regularly been used on friendly soil. "I stand by my comment on what it suggests is frank and honest analysis by the UK." It suggests no such thing. "It does not think Ukraine has to worry about ever having to clean up areas currently being fought over." Non-sequitur - the alternative is that decontamination is trivial. Scoop up the topsoil with a few meters of the tank, it's no more dangerous than mine tailings. "Noted that you think radioactivity is a red herring. We will remember your position if Russia chooses to resolve challenger issues with some tactical usage of it." False equivalence - trying to present arguing that uranium isn't in any meaningful way a radioactive weapon as an argument that radiological weapons are fine to use.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 23 06:30:07 Seb Surprising actually to see the svinets. Not great PR for them either. But unlikely to gain much traction. Which, well, means Russia is staged to win its first internet battle. That is how bad giving Ukrainians DU is. Ticktock win for Russia. After all these years. The rest later.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 23 07:47:33 Jergul: "But unlikely to gain much traction" Yes, because the only people repeating this crap about DU=breach of international law and DU=given up on Donbas don't care at all about DU, and were always going to seize on any point to keep making their disingenuous claims. Nothing pro-ukranian or anti-Russian is going to get traction with those people and they can be ignored. What will determine the outcome is if Ukraine can destroy enough Russian forces. "Russia is staged to win its first internet battle" Not that worried about that. Support in Europe and the US matters, but the support is strong and DU isn't going to change that.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 23 14:13:46 Seb The global concensus is that using DU is bad. Including in Europe and the USA. Lose a percentage here or there and see GOP resistance to aiding Ukraine solidify. European support is also on a timer. DU supplies speeds up that clock. You should just supply tungsten. There is no military benefit from DU beyond clearing out old munition stocks in the UK. But sure. Lose the war for Ukraine in increments any way you want.
murder Member	Thu Mar 23 14:28:17 Probably don't need DU or tungsten to wreck T-55s.
murder Member	Thu Mar 23 14:30:23 And by probably I of course mean that you absolutely don't.
seb Member	Thu Mar 23 15:22:42 jergul: We don't have a massive stock of rounds, and Challengers use non-standard ammo due to the rifled barrels. If we gave them only tungsten rounds, they wouldn't have enough ammo. You know all of this, which is why you are pretending that ZOMG DU is going to tip European and US support away. It won't. No matter how much you hype it, in the pretence that you are hyping it only so that we are aware that others are hyping it. It's a non issue.
Pillz Member	Thu Mar 23 17:41:05 Murder & seb realize it is Ukraine fielding T-55s and not Russia right? =o
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 23 18:55:50 Pillz, as competent as always, missed the russian t55s on the move a few days ago. Guess that didnt make the putin propaganda tiktoks huh?
jergul large member	Thu Mar 23 20:25:56 Seb How can you argue that DU is fine to use, but you would not have ammo if you had to use DU because you gave Ukraine tungsten equivalents? How can PR be a non-issue in a conflict dependent on foreign support? There is no tipping point in Wester public sentiment, but there could easily be the wimper from a million cuts. DU represents quite a few cuts.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 24 02:42:20 Jergul: Very easily - you are suggesting that we should give Ukraine only Tungsten core apfsds rounds for PR purposes. I'm saying if we did, they wouldn't have enough rounds because we've only ordered a few of those, most of our stock is DU. "How can PR be a non-issue in a conflict dependent on foreign support?" Because the only people that care about this are people who have already made up their minds. Nobody is going to go "shit, better let Russia conquer Ukraine because they are using DU".
Seb Member	Fri Mar 24 02:47:19 Sorry, nobody is an exaggeration. Obviously there is you and the rest of the reflexely Russian sympathetic NATO phobic alliance of contrarians, trots and maga types. But you aren't saying that in good faith, you all just seize on whatever you can. Trying to limit raw material for such propoganda by not providing enough ammunition for the tanks just because people attach totemic significance to DU would be a mistake.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 24 02:54:58 Seb Why does the UK need Tungsten rounds if DU rounds are better for its purposes? Anyway, what do you mean by "very few"? Everybody cares about nuclear stuff one way or another. In the minds of many, DU sorts under a nuclear umbrella. People support very high levels of support to Ukraine for sentimental, not rational reasons. DU undermines the emotional connection required to maintain extreme levels of assistance. You are trying to lose the war with a wimper, not with a bang. http://www...rt-on-u-s-support-for-ukraine/
Seb Member	Fri Mar 24 05:50:56 jergul: "Why does the UK need Tungsten rounds if DU rounds are better for its purposes?" The Challenger's rifled L30A1 can't fire most other NATO 120mm rounds that are designed for smoothbore. So basically we are one of the few countries that actually have a stockpile of ammo that can be fired by L30A1s. All the UK has said is that it is shipping DU rounds to Ukraine. It has not said it is ONLY shipping DU rounds. The UK had a largish stockpile of DU rounds during the 90s. Since the 2000's the Challenger modernisation plan has been to switch to the nato standard smoothbore. That has been repeatedly put back. The UK only started buying the L28 tungsten penetrators in 2000's to make up losses on the stockpile. The L28 - a private initiative by Royal Ordnance - can be modified for smoothbore use whereas the L27 (the DU shell) can't. That was the main reason for switching. The UK govt didn't make a policy choice to commission RO to design and manufacturer them a DU version of the L28 (as you say, the performance benefits are not worth the cost anymore - especially because the performance gap has narrowed with new propellants being used, and DU no longer essentially free). Now we did fight a few tank battles in Iraq, but other than that we have been shrinking the tank forces, and constantly planning to change to a smoothbore gun and putting it off. So I would bet we have not bought very many tungsten rounds both because we haven't needed to (the number of tanks in active service declining meaning decreased firing in training, and stockpile requirements declining); and fears in MoD procurement that it is a wasted investment (why buy rounds for a rifled tank gun you are going to replace 'soon' that you will then need to pay to modify). The likelihood is that even if we bought into your histrionic argument that DU will rob Ukraine of any legitimacy and inflict strategic defeat on them, even if we give them all the L28s we had, they would still need L27s.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 24 05:52:05 "DU undermines the emotional connection required to maintain extreme levels of assistance." Ok, well, we have documented examples of Russians using nuclear weapons in Ukraine over the last year then.
LazyCommunist Member	Fri Mar 24 07:10:28 Yes we need the weapons for ourselves. But we need them for a better world, for a world without Nazis. This is a higher goal and India should just stfu! http://edi...kraine-war-intl-hnk/index.html Russia is unable to honor its arms delivery commitments to India because of the war in Ukraine, the Indian Air Force (IAF) said, placing a potential strain on New Delhi’s relationship with its largest defense supplier as Moscow attempts to ramp up weapons production. An IAF representative told an Indian parliamentary committee that due to the Ukraine war a “major delivery” from Moscow “is not going to take place.” The admission, published in a report by India’s lower house of parliament on Tuesday, is the first official confirmation by Indian authorities amid swirling rumors and reports in local media suggesting shortcomings in Russian capacity. “They have given us in writing that they are not able to deliver it,” the representative said, according to the report. CNN has contacted the Russian Embassy in New Delhi but did not receive a response at the time of publishing. The report did not mention the specifics of the delivery. The biggest ongoing delivery is the S-400 Triumf air defense system units India bought in 2018 for $5.4 billion. Three of these systems have been delivered and two more are awaited, Reuters reported. IAF also depends on Russia for spares for its Su-30MKI and MiG-29 fighter jets, the mainstay of the service branch, according to Reuters.
murder Member	Fri Mar 24 07:38:49 I can't think of any reason why India can't manufacture the stuff themselves and import whatever components Russia can't get a hold of.
seb Member	Fri Mar 24 07:47:22 murder: I think that may be the way they go. There is an opportunity for them to insist on greater tech transfer. Russia's growing dependency on China makes Russia look a bad bet for India - the assumption in India had been they could rely on Russia to supply weapons in any cold or hot conflict with China. So they need to now insulate themselves not only against the short term disruption to supply chains, but long term ones not only of Russia no longer being able to import key components but that even after the Ukraine war ends they may well be too dependent on China in future to do so.
murder Member	Fri Mar 24 08:14:17 btw ... http://edi...kraine-war-intl-hnk/index.html Is India just letting the kids handle their camouflage now? :o)
seb Member	Fri Mar 24 09:09:41 That is weird - I can only assume that it is optimised in some way for a particular threat- though I can't imagine how.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 24 09:35:25 Seb And how much traction is the Russian DU story getting compared to UKs? Besides, we are supposed to be the good guys. "Whatabout Russia" is easily dismissed. You do the whataboutism fallacy all the time when you find comparative arguments compelling enough to trigger that form of misguided negation. Murder India always negotiates a domestic assembly and production deal on larger orders. Its one of the reasons it buys Russian stuff. The US is strangely reluctant to let India open an Abrams factory you see. These are the shock troops / human waves that freak out Ukraine. I did not know it was actual formalized doctrine (dedicated weapon and assault squad carrier states doctrine): "BMO-1 (boyevaya mashina ognemyotchikov) – Transport vehicle for a flamethrower squad armed with 30 RPO-A "Shmel" 93 mm napalm rocket launchers. It is equipped with storage racks and a dummy turret. The crew consists of seven soldiers. It entered service in 2001." Wiki.
murder Member	Fri Mar 24 11:22:20 "India always negotiates a domestic assembly and production deal on larger orders. Its one of the reasons it buys Russian stuff. The US is strangely reluctant to let India open an Abrams factory you see." That seems odd with the Abrams being older than half the posters on this board.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 24 12:23:11 Well, the US relented on the M1A1 in 2018.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 24 15:09:45 Jergul: "And how much traction is the Russian DU story getting" You tell me. You are the one saying it is having so much impact the UK should actively reduce the military capabilities it is sending Ukraine because the PR impact more than offsets it. "Whatabout Russia" is easily dismissed" No it's not. Russia is using DU weapons in Ukraine, by your and their argument, Ukraine using DU is supposedly a case of Ukraine using illegal weapons of unprecedented toxicity, justifying an equivalent response, and clear proof that the combatant using it has no intention to actually take the land (which is allegedly ruined beyond economic repair). And Ditto for the supplier. If that's the case for Ukraine, how can it not be the case for Russia using the same munition type in Donbass?
Seb Member	Fri Mar 24 15:12:27 Btw, I'm not saying "well Russia does, so it's ok". I'm saying DU isn't particularly bad compared to conventional weapons generally that are toxic and contaminate the environment. You are the one that is making the argument DU is this hell substance that nobody who actually valued the territory would use. If you *actually* believe that, you need to account for your apparently relaxed attitude to Russian useage.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 24 17:39:11 Seb Overpenetration will be more of a problem than penetrating armor. Ukraine loses no capability with tungsten. PR is important. That is where Ukraine wins or loses. You doing something to lose. So, you are going to stop with the whataboutism fallacy? Or do you just want me to stop? The problem is different standards. Ukraine and its allies are supposed to be the good guys. So little traction on Russian use of DU. Lots of traction for UK supplying Ukraine with DU. Russia is not using a lot of DU. And it is actually directly participating, so uses what it has. The UK has the luxery of deciding if it wants DU to be used or not. So false equivalency. Ukrainian PR has attrocitied out Russia. The trick is not joining Russia in the rush to the bottom in popular support internationally. You caught the Pew source, right. Support is eroding. Why erode support faster than needed? I know you have a reading disability, but review what I actually wrote. I have not vilified DU in particular. I have pointed out it has characteristics suited to fuel popular imaginations and it hits weak spots in the UKr/Rus psyche. I have been aware that mordern war is toxic war since 2003.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 24 17:43:07 What I actually believe is that I will not want to use corn or veg oil sourced in part from Russia or Ukraine. Precautionary approach. Why eat what might be slightly contaminated by chemical or radioactive toxicity? I will also not be visiting former combat areas anytime soon.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 25 19:25:36 "About 90 percent of all casualties come from shrapnel injuries, according to 42-year-old combat medic Dmytro. He estimated that another four to five percent are from bullet wounds, and there are “a lot” of concussion cases as well. Every day is “unpredictable,” Dmytro said. There are usually 30 to 45 wounded soldiers arriving daily. On some days, more than half of them have serious injuries, he added. Though most arriving soldiers have a good chance of recovery if they make it to the stabilization point, that’s not always the case, Serhiy said. He said that he puts his emotions on hold during work, to avoid getting distracted." Kiev independent (pro ukraine). That sort of kills dead the narrative that more Russians are dying than Ukrainians.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 25 19:29:45 "Ukraine needs additional military support from partners, without which it cannot launch a counteroffensive and liberate the temporarily occupied territories, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said. "We can't start yet. Without tanks, artillery and Himars, we can't send our brave soldiers to the front," Zelenskyy said in an interview with Japanese publication The Yomiuri Shimbun on Saturday morning. He called the military situation in eastern Ukraine "not very good" and cited a lack of ammunition as the reason. The head of the Ukrainian state said the Russian troops daily spend about three times more ammunition than the Ukrainian army. "We are waiting for the receipt of ammunition from our partner countries," the president said." Interfax-Ukraine (pro Ukrainian source). 3:1 arty advantage with 90% of casualties caused by arty. Yah, you do the math.
Seb Member	Sun Mar 26 06:33:09 Jergul: "Overpenetration will be more of a problem than penetrating armor. Ukraine loses no capability with tungsten." DU has the better performance against reactive armour (and self sharpening helps against dug in tanks). But you are missing the point dramatically . If the UK simply doesn't have enough tungsten rounds for Ukraines needs, then obviously we need to supply the DU ones also. "PR is important." As a means to ensure money and bullets. It would make no sense to withhold ammunition needed for the tanks. And I'm unconvinced any state is altering their policy towards Ukraine as a result of this. "So, you are going to stop with the whataboutism fallacy? Or do you just want me to stop?" Whataboutery would be if I said that DU use was wrong, but deflected the issue of Ukraine using it by pointing out Russia or some third party used it. What I'm saying is DU is not especially dirty compared to other weapons used all the time, and the Russian charges (and your absurd narrative as to what it unless regarding the seriousness of Ukraine's territorial claims) are easily dismissed by pointing out Russia is using DU weaponry in Ukraine also. This is not deflection, it speaks directly to your and Russia's claims about DU - if you add Russia genuinely believed them you'd be talking about Russian useage, and/or Russia wouldn't be using them. This is just more Russian fudd and hardley worth the time we've both spent on it. DU is just another weapon. "The problem is different standards." Yes. Your different standards, and Russia's different standards. "Ukraine and its allies are supposed to be the good guys." Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with DU. You are the ones claiming it's somr kind of pseudo banned weapon - something thats not recognised in law or Western practice - and something Russia doesn't believe given it's own usage in Ukraine to date - and something you clearly don't believe it you would be making a song and dance about Russian useage. " Lots of traction for UK supplying Ukraine with DU." Not really, Russia has said some stuff and made veiled threats of nuclear response. The last bit got some traction. But there's no evidence its changed public opinion or anything else. "Russia is not using a lot of DU." How much, exactly, relative to the number of rounds we've sent for 14 challenger tanks? "And it is actually directly participating" So is Ukraine. What of it? "The UK has the luxery of deciding if it wants DU to be used or not." Sure, we could send the Ukrainian 14 challengers and a few hundred rounds of tungsten amo. But that would be stupid. "So false equivalency." No. Not at all. Either these weapons are notably dirty and shouldn't be used, in which case neither Russia nor Ukraine should be using them. Or they are fine. And if they are fine, there's no reason for Ukraine to forgo the use of 14 mbts, which are worth far more than any other impact of Russian propoganda. " Why erode support faster than needed?" Theres no evidence this has had any impact on PR. "I know you have a reading disability," And we know you have a hard on for Putin. "I have pointed out it has characteristics suited to fuel popular imaginations" No, you've several times made claims about its properties. You claimed you needed a citation about it being less chemically toxic than lead. You wouldn't be doing that if you were aware of is actual properties. You claimed that the UK MoD wouldn't use it on friendly soil and so it's agreement to allow it suggested the UK didn't think Ukraine could reasonably recover it. Those statements only make sense if you yourself had unrealistic beliefs about the substance.
Seb Member	Sun Mar 26 06:35:30 "Why eat what might be slightly contaminated by chemical or radioactive toxicity?" If you don't trust your own countries testing regimes to pick that up, why do you think any of your food isn't contaminated with heavy metals that were used widely throughout Europe?
jergul large member	Sun Mar 26 07:58:32 Overpenetration (round goes in one side and out the other so much energy is lost) would be more of a problem than penetrating Russian armor. Establish that the UK does not have enough tungsten rounds. PR is way more important. Tanks are not the main tank killers by any stretch. But sure, lose the war any way you like. Whatboutism is to point to Russia having at least one DU round in Ukraine to justify the UK casually Challengers with the munition type. Maybe. If photo was not manipulated. Goodness knows Ukraine has captured enough vehicles for us to know the rounds are nowhere near widespread. So not very many at all. I would just down any DU there as SNAFUs. The Russian military is incredibly incompetent as Ukraine and the West have established in the internet realm. Nothing to do with supporting Putin. I do believe that Russia will create conditions on the ground that will force Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire against the backdrop of diminished popular support abroad. I do really like being right. So perhaps you are mistaking that for a fondness for Putin? DU has all kinds of recommended limitations on its use due to its many characteristics. http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23729095/ I can tell you are a bit desperate when you want to argue that test use on a permanent firing range equals use on UK soil. I definitely do not trust my testing regimes to systematically pick up toxic contamination in bulk products like wheat and seeds, so will stick with the Canadian-Norwegian wheat mix. Better to err on the side of caution. I do however trust Western vetting of farmland for agriculture.
	show deleted posts