Re: Ruska invazija na Ukrajinu

by **AssadNaPodmornici** 23/6/2022, 23:07

Hektorović wrote:
AssadNaPodmornici wrote:gadno Ukrima trenutno na fronti, nažalost prijeti odsjecanje na više dijelova fronte, a sa druge strane par UKR pokušaja ofanziva je propalo.

Nema ništa drugo nego da se povuku na utvrđene položaje , ne moraju braniti svaki grad gdje Rusi imaju puno veću koncetraciju tehnike i neka se nadaju da će zapad ubrzati slanje oružja. Par američkih VBRova neće okrenuti rat, treba na stotine takvih doći u UKrainu i na stotine teških dronova, i eskadrile lovaca, i napredni PZO sustavi, inače kurac od ratovanja , Ruse boli kurac za svoje mrtve, a sovjetskog oružja imaju, slati će i T-34 tenkove u valovima ako treba

Rusi nemaju T-34, morali su iz Laosa uvesti par paradnih.

No zato imaju tisuće T-62, T-64, T-72… bolje im i ne treba pošto se tenkovi u ovom ratu uglavnom koriste kao infantry support. Nema tenkovskih bitki.

ma šalio sam se sa t-34, ali ono.. zato i oni stari Poljski tenkovi kao i ova slovenska prastara oklopna vozila, te i potencijalni njemački tenkovi Leo1 imaju svrhu..

iako neki IFV nisu loša stvar.. gledao sam videa gdje bi Ukrainci znali u zasjedama sa BTR i 30mm topom napraviti kaos... zapravo ono Rusko rješenje terminator je najbolje oružje.. ima dva 30 mm topa na šasiji od t-72 tenka.. 30mm top će ako prvi počne tući po tenku - sa prijeda će ga onesposobiti a ako ga pogodi sa straga ili čak sa boka može ga uništiti...

by RayMabus 23/6/2022, 23:07

A jesen će bit jebačina samo takva kad oni 2.10 opet instaliraju Komšića.

Samo vidiš ovi zavrne plin, rastu kamatne stope, cijene lete u nebo.....JEDITE GOVNA.

by **Hektorović** 23/6/2022, 23:11

AssadNaPodmornici wrote:
Hektorović wrote:
AssadNaPodmornici wrote:gadno Ukrima trenutno na fronti, nažalost prijeti odsjecanje na više dijelova fronte, a sa druge strane par UKR pokušaja ofanziva je propalo.

Nema ništa drugo nego da se povuku na utvrđene položaje , ne moraju braniti svaki grad gdje Rusi imaju puno veću koncetraciju tehnike i neka se nadaju da će zapad ubrzati slanje oružja. Par američkih VBRova neće okrenuti rat, treba na stotine takvih doći u UKrainu i na stotine teških dronova, i eskadrile lovaca, i napredni PZO sustavi, inače kurac od ratovanja , Ruse boli kurac za svoje mrtve, a sovjetskog oružja imaju, slati će i T-34 tenkove u valovima ako treba

Rusi nemaju T-34, morali su iz Laosa uvesti par paradnih.

No zato imaju tisuće T-62, T-64, T-72… bolje im i ne treba pošto se tenkovi u ovom ratu uglavnom koriste kao infantry support. Nema tenkovskih bitki.
ma šalio sam se sa t-34, ali ono.. zato i oni stari Poljski tenkovi kao i ova slovenska prastara oklopna vozila, te i potencijalni njemački tenkovi Leo1 imaju svrhu..

iako neki IFV nisu loša stvar.. gledao sam videa gdje bi Ukrainci znali u zasjedama sa BTR i 30mm topom napraviti kaos... zapravo ono Rusko rješenje terminator je najbolje oružje.. ima dva 30 mm topa na šasiji od t-72 tenka.. 30mm top će ako prvi počne tući po tenku - sa prijeda će ga onesposobiti a ako ga pogodi sa straga ili čak sa boka može ga uništiti...

Leo1 doslovno nema nikakav oklop.

BTR je APC, no i takvo korištenje je problem. Naime Storr je jasan kako ne može biti i borbena platforma i Taxi za trupe. Mora se razdvojiti.

dodatni Ruski problem sa početka rata je bilo taj što uopće nije bilo ljudi koji bi napustili IFV, naime U platunima je bilo dovoljno osoblja samo za operiranje tehnike.

by **Hektorović** 23/6/2022, 23:12

Use it and Lose it

I thought William Owen’s article on infantry fighting vehicles was excellent, but missed a critical point. That is: if you give armoured carriers to the infantry, you cannot afford to lose them.

If you give armoured carriers to the infantry, their main purpose is to transport that infantry at more-or-less the same speed as the tanks in the all-arms force. Not necessarily at exactly the same speed in all terrain; but to enable the infantry to move at broadly the same speed as the armoured force, rather than on foot. Those carriers are armoured so that they can cooperate with the tanks. If they weren’t, the infantry would have to debus at the first sign of small arms fire. That’s not a showstopper, but it really slows down the tempo of the force as a whole. The big problem, however, is that you need to keep enough carriers to keep the infantry mobile.

That has simple consequences. Take two scenarios: attack and defence.

In the attack, the carriers carry the infantry onto, through, or to just short of the objective (the details vary with all sorts of things, not least national practice). Some carriers may get damaged or destroyed en route. Some of the infantry in those carriers will be killed or wounded, but the expectation is that more of it will survive to fight on the objective than if it was on foot. Now, in a well-handled attack with lots of indirect fire, good support from tanks, good coordination and well-selected routes that may be the case. In addition, it can all happen much faster than if the infantry was on foot. That’s all good.

However, what happens when you give those carriers significant offensive weapons? Those weapons will be used; be it in the approach, whilst fighting through the objective, or on the reorganisation. That means exposing them. And that means that some of them will be disabled in the process. And each disabled carrier represents a section, or a command team, that has lost its mobility. Consider the traffic on the battalion command net:

‘Well done on clearing that village and beating off the counterattack. Now mount up and be prepared to continue the advance.’

‘Will do. Unfortunately, I’ll have to leave a platoon or so behind to catch up on foot.’

In defence, if you give those carriers significant offensive weapons, they will be used. They will be used to engage enemy armour, or to assist in defeating enemy troops on foot. As before, that means exposing them. And that means that some of them will be disabled in the process. And each disabled carrier represents a section, or a command team, that has lost it mobility.

‘Well done on defending that village and beating off the attack. Now mount up and be prepared to take part in the counterattack.’

‘Will do. Unfortunately, I’ll have to leave a platoon or so behind to catch up on foot.’

In both cases, there are four possibilities:

[list="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, \"Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; text-align: justify;"]

[*]That you lose virtually neither infantry nor carriers.

[*]That you lose some infantry, but no (or a few) carriers.

[*]That you lose a few, if any, infantry; but proportionally more carriers.

[*]That you lose infantry and carriers in roughly equal proportions.

[/list]

If the carriers provide the infantry with mobility, then Option 3 is the one you can’t afford. have. Unfortunately, if you mount significant offensive weapons on those carriers, then Option 3 is the most likely.

Armies don’t have spare carriers lying around ‘just in case’. The lesson is quite clear. Mounting significant weapons on infantry carriers means that those weapons will be used. Some carriers will be lost whilst doing so, and infantry’s mobility will be reduced. And if you issue carriers to the infantry for mobility, then you can’t afford to lose that mobility. So you can’t afford to lose those carriers.

So Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) are a bad idea. They are, basically, armoured infantry carriers equipped with significant offensive weapons. The purpose of giving them those weapons is in order to use them. That means that some of them will be disabled, at times and places that leave their infantry stranded.

This is an observation from those massive force-on-force exercises on the North German Plain during the Cold War. Armoured warfare takes place at several kilometres per hour. The next engagement typically takes place several kilometres away. Troops moving on foot just get there too late. Therefore the infantry needs its section, platoon and company carriers. It can’t afford to lose them. In the Second World War the Wehrmacht, if given a choice, would rather have recovered an APC than a tank.

Some people say that you need IFVs to contribute to the anti-armour battle. There are better ways of doing that. They include: more ATGW; small cannon; longer-ranged LAW; indirect fire; mines; or more tanks. But don’t confuse the need to kill more armour with the need for mobility for the infantry. The infantry are those who fight on foot. In an armoured battle they need to be taken to the fight. For that, they needs armoured mobility. And if you give them armoured mobility, you can’t afford to lose it by having the carriers do someone else’s job. IFVs are basically a bad idea.

It really is that simple.

by **Hektorović** 23/6/2022, 23:15

Storr je dobro predvidio i kako su padobranci totalna glupost od 1950tih naovamo.

Rusija ima ogroman VDV i čak niti oni nisu izveli niti jedan uspješan padobranski desant u ovom ratu. A ogromno košta trening i čitava infrastruktura.

Štoviše Rusi su zadnjih 10 godina ogromnu lovu potrošili na IFV i APC za VDV. Isti su zbog kompromisa u dizajnu totalno bezkorisni ispali i ratu.

by **Hektorović** 23/6/2022, 23:16

The Airborne Fallacy

One afternoon a few years ago I was looking out of my office window. About three miles over my shoulder there was a parachute drop zone (DZ) on one of our major training areas. In front of me I could see about eight or nine Hercules flying slow, low and level, one behind another towards the DZ. They were clearly about do carry out a battalion-level parachute drop. I went and watched. They did.

Dead meat.

How often have we seen insurgents on the TV news, with ‘technicals’ (utility 4 x 4 trucks) mounting 1950s Soviet-style antiaircraft (AA) machine guns or cannons? A bit of research tells us that a ZPU-2 twin 14.5mm AA machine gun weighs about 600kg. You often see them on the back of technicals. They have a practical combined rate of fire of 300 rounds per minute; a range against slow, low-flying aircraft of about 2,000m; and fire incendiary rounds weighing 60 grams each. The ‘technical’ can move at perhaps 40 or 50 kilometres per hour on roads or tracks. A ZU-23-2 twin 23mm AA cannon weighs about 950kg. It can also be carried, and fired, on the back of a truck. It has much the same range. Its rounds are high explosive fragmentation and weigh about 180 grams each. The ZU-23-2 has a combined rate of fire of 400 rounds per minute.

Imagine an irregular force in an undeveloped country at risk of airborne attack:

‘Orders for the AA guns on seeing a number of transport aircraft flying low, slow, and one behind the other:

a. Do not delay. Whether on the move or static, get into action and engage as soon as possible.

b. Engage immediately the aircraft get into range.

c. Fire long bursts at the nose of each aircraft.

d. Do not worry about shooting aircraft down. The aim is to get rounds into the fuselage of as many aircraft as possible.

e. Once the aircraft have gone overhead or out of range, drive towards the drop zone. Fire long bursts along the drop zone if possible. Continue to fire as the paratroops land and as they gather on the ground’.

In this imaginary example, our battalion of Paras was lucky. Just two technicals were within range that day. Five aircraft were hit. The cockpit of one was destroyed. That aircraft crashed with the loss of all on board. Bursts hit the fuselages of two others. A few paratroopers were killed immediately, but in the carnage many were injured and none of them landed safely. One of the damaged aircraft limped home with its wounded Paras still on board. A couple of dozen Paras were killed or wounded as the technicals strafed the DZ afterwards. The Paras lost 97 dead and 161 wounded before they fired a shot. The Paras’ medical platoon couldn’t cope.

There is a lot that you can do to counter shoulder-fired missiles, but little you can do against technicals with heavy MGs or cannon. They are easy to hide, and can move frequently and quickly. In practice it would be very difficult to be sure that there would be none near the drop zone on a given day.

However, our Paras’ misery was not over. Have you ever seen a medium mortar? They are tiny. A 1950s-era mortar weighs about 40kg all up. You can throw one into the back of a technical (or even a car) with several dozen rounds of ammunition. Another technical can carry a couple of hundred more rounds. They have a range of 4,000 metres or more. Even if the Paras have the element of surprise and land before the AA gets them, mortars are a real challenge.

The Paras land and form a hasty perimeter. The Hercules will come back and land to extract them. Alternatively, their job is to secure a landing strip for the fly-in of the rest of the brigade. Either way, they need a landing strip several hundred metres long and there are only a few hundred of them.

A circle with a radius of 4,000 metres has a circumference of about 25 kilometres. You can fire a medium mortar from any small dip or hollow; or behind a few bushes; or behind a building. So our Paras have to control the whole of a perimeter 25 kilometres long. They move on foot, whilst the insurgents can throw the mortar into the back of a perfectly innocent-looking technical, drive it a few hundred yards, and be back in action in a few minutes.

‘Orders for the mortars on seeing an airborne landing:

a. Deploy and fire the mortars singly, several hundred metres apart. Each mortar team leader is to fire on his own initiative.

b. Work out where the Paras will try to bring their planes in; watch for planes trying to land; or both.

c. Wait until a plane comes to a rest on the ground, then engage it quickly.

d. Fire only a few rounds at each plane. You don’t have to destroy them; just damage them so that they can’t fly off.

e. Move frequently. If the enemy engages you, move the mortar in the technical. Find somewhere else to come into action. When you get there, fire only if there are undamaged planes.’

120mm mortars are considerably bigger. They need a slightly bigger truck in order to tow them. But many forces have them, and their range is about 8,000 metres. That makes the perimeter about 50 kilometres. Mortars are pretty easy to locate if you have mortar-locating radar. That, however, doesn’t normally come in on a parachute drop. Mortars are pretty easy to hunt down, if you have attack helicopters that can afford to stooge around doing just that. But, if you can deploy attack helicopters to the drop zone, why on earth didn’t you land your infantry by a helicopter as well? Or by V-22 Osprey?

Airborne forces are disgustingly vulnerable to the sort of 1950s Soviet-style threats that many insurgent forces possess; let alone more capable enemies. Since the Second World War, there have been many occasions when the ground threat has simply been too high to use them. There have been incredibly few occasions when airborne assaults were actually carried out. There were virtually no occasions when heliborne forces could not have been used instead. With the advent of the Osprey, there will be even fewer.

In real terms, airborne assaults are not an act of war. What they are in reality is a fallacious justification for the continued existence of parachute infantry forces. We pretend that we have parachute infantry forces so that we can carry out airborne assaults. We pretend that airborne assaults are practical so that we can have parachute infantry forces. Spot the fallacy.

by RayMabus 23/6/2022, 23:18

Otkako su se helikopteri uveli u oružane snage klasični padobranci baš i nemaju svrhu.

Može nešto specijalne snage al ono to više reda radi.

by **AssadNaPodmornici** 23/6/2022, 23:18

u prijevodu trebali bi se samo koristiti za transfer vojnika na frontu a nikako borbu.

zato i slanje onih slovenskih 50godina starih oklopnih vozila i ima smisla pod uvjetom da neće se koristiti u borbi nego za prijevoz pješadije do fronte.

inače sve one prije rasprave, "koji je bolji tenk vs tenka" nemaju smisla, rijetko kada u ovom ratu je tenk uništio drugi tenk..

tenk je milijun puna češće bio uništen običnom artiljeriom nego od drugog tenka. ATGM također. avijaciom. dronom. brimestome projektilima. pa na kraju i od strane nekog IFV-a možda češće nego od drugog tenka.

Budući tenkovi će se razvijati ne da pobjede drugi tenk , nego da budu infatry suport. zato jedino što od RU vojske valja kao napredni koncept su mi oni terminator oklopna vozila. dva brutalna 30mm topa na šasiji od T-72 tenka, plus imaju još i ATGM za svaki slučaj

by RayMabus 23/6/2022, 23:22

AssadNaPodmornici wrote:u prijevodu trebali bi se samo koristiti za transfer vojnika na frontu a nikako borbu.

Pa to mu i je svrha.

Ako baš želiš za borbu onda izbaciš taj prostor u kojem prevoziš pješadiju i nabaciš više oklopa i raketa i koječega na njega i u njega, dakle čistokrvi napadni stroj.

by **AssadNaPodmornici** 23/6/2022, 23:22

inače dobra analiza korisnosti ovih protu avionski starih topova..

s obzirom na rusko korištenje avijacije u niskom letu, dronova, i helikoptera, oni njemački Gepardi vrijede kao suho zlato, pogotovo što sam gleado na youtubu, oni su praktički modernizirani, imaju moderne radare, sustave predikcije brzine mete, i programirajuće streljivo. ukrainci bi trebali imati na stotine takvi diljem fronte, samo šteta niti švabe ih nemaju toliko..

by **AssadNaPodmornici** 23/6/2022, 23:25

RayMabus wrote:
AssadNaPodmornici wrote:u prijevodu trebali bi se samo koristiti za transfer vojnika na frontu a nikako borbu.

Pa to mu i je svrha.

Ako baš želiš za borbu onda izbaciš taj prostor u kojem prevoziš pješadiju i nabaciš više oklopa i raketa i koječega na njega i u njega, dakle čistokrvi napadni stroj.

pa komentiran članak od Hektorovica.

ako staviš 30mm top na transportno vozilo, njega ćeš koristiti u direktnoj borbi.

a ovo što si ti iznio kao prijedlog, Rusi imaju to u obliku terminatora

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator

dapače razvili su ga upravo poučeni iskustvom što je general pričao, sreća za ukraince da ih nemaju puno .. korupcija u ruskoj vojsci je spasila ukraince

by RayMabus 23/6/2022, 23:29

Nisan čita taj član jer mi je na engleski a baš toliko engleski ne znam da bi tako to čita.

To je prije dok nije bilo puno protuoklopnog oružja ili sad ako ti je s druge strane Zulu pleme a inače IFV je za prijevoz vojske i drugog malo iza linija da te ne pogodi metak i krhotine dakle ne da ideš s time u napad itd a ako oćeš napad onda izbaci taj prostor za prijevoz desetak ljudi i nabaci oklopa i oružja po njemu i u njega itd.

Tih 10 ljudi svaki ima sto kila šta sebe a šta opreme dakle čin to makneš moš odma tonu oklopa stavit na njega.

Vozač , komandant, nišanđija i to je to. Nabaciš oklop i oružja i radara, ometavača, dimnih signala, šta ti god padne na pamet a potribno je u napadu i borbi.

by **Hektorović** 23/6/2022, 23:42

AssadNaPodmornici wrote:
RayMabus wrote:
AssadNaPodmornici wrote:u prijevodu trebali bi se samo koristiti za transfer vojnika na frontu a nikako borbu.

Pa to mu i je svrha.

Ako baš želiš za borbu onda izbaciš taj prostor u kojem prevoziš pješadiju i nabaciš više oklopa i raketa i koječega na njega i u njega, dakle čistokrvi napadni stroj.
pa komentiran članak od Hektorovica.

ako staviš 30mm top na transportno vozilo, njega ćeš koristiti u direktnoj borbi.

a ovo što si ti iznio kao prijedlog, Rusi imaju to u obliku terminatora

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator

dapače razvili su ga upravo poučeni iskustvom što je general pričao, sreća za ukraince da ih nemaju puno .. korupcija u ruskoj vojsci je spasila ukraince

Ruje su kupovale stotine bezkorisnih desantnih BMD-4M, i to poslale na Kijev. VDV lobi je prije ovog rata dominirao.

by Guest 23/6/2022, 23:44

Ništa nije nitko naučio iz ratova unatrag 20 godina. Guraju tenkove u gradove...redovito bez pješačke potpore...i onda posade ginu,izgori sve...sve bude snimljeno, sutradan jedinica koja ih dođe mijenjati vidi te clipove i uvuče im se strah u kosti. I onda se na kraju sve svede na ukopavanje tenkova kao nekakvih statičkih strongpointa...što je sačuvaj bože ideja. A barbari rat vode gotovo isključivo artiljerijom.

Tenkovi koje koristi i jedna i druga strana su nedovoljno oklopljen krš sa zastarjelim taktikama i bez pravilne potpore pa se događa što se događa. Ukrainci su vjerojatno potpuno svjesni bili da ne mogu obraniti ovo dolje ali su odlučili da bude toliko krvavo zauzimanje istoga da stoka piša krv za svaki metar.

Zapadna potpora i dostava oružja je totalno zakazala. Raketno naoružanje koje sada im dolaze je u premalim brojevima. To su trebali prije mjesec dana i više dobiti da bi se gamad krvavih gaća izvlačila. No ajd, bolje ikada nego nikada. I još nešto. To što barbari ne znaju se boriti s tenkovima i potpuno su nesposobni u primjeni modernih taktika te se uzdaju u filozofiju ratova razvijenu prije 40-50 godina ne znači da bi se isto dogodilo nekome drugome

by **Hektorović** 23/6/2022, 23:47

AssadNaPodmornici wrote:u prijevodu trebali bi se samo koristiti za transfer vojnika na frontu a nikako borbu.

zato i slanje onih slovenskih 50godina starih oklopnih vozila i ima smisla pod uvjetom da neće se koristiti u borbi nego za prijevoz pješadije do fronte.

inače sve one prije rasprave, "koji je bolji tenk vs tenka" nemaju smisla, rijetko kada u ovom ratu je tenk uništio drugi tenk..

tenk je milijun puna češće bio uništen običnom artiljeriom nego od drugog tenka. ATGM također. avijaciom. dronom. brimestome projektilima. pa na kraju i od strane nekog IFV-a možda češće nego od drugog tenka.

Budući tenkovi će se razvijati ne da pobjede drugi tenk , nego da budu infatry suport. zato jedino što od RU vojske valja kao napredni koncept su mi oni terminator oklopna vozila. dva brutalna 30mm topa na šasiji od T-72 tenka, plus imaju još i ATGM za svaki slučaj

To su skužili i Izraelci, zato Namer uglavnom ima samo samoobranu. Umjesto teškog streljiva i topa pruže mobilnost i zaštitu.

Sa velikim topom + streljivom bi imao manju zaštitu i manju mobilnost.

Ruska invazija na Ukrajinu - Page 5 Flickr10

by **Hektorović** 23/6/2022, 23:51

MDMiridije wrote:Ništa nije nitko naučio iz ratova unatrag 20 godina. Guraju tenkove u gradove...redovito bez pješačke potpore..

zato što je uglavnom nemaju, iako se zadnja dva-tri mjeseca to popravilo.

Naime Rusi su sa nekih 50 profesionalnih BTG-ova 2014te došli do 140 2020te sa istim brojem vojnika tako što su doslovno prepolovili broj ljudi u platoonima a ostavili isti broj tehnike.

Na početku rata imali su doslovno dovoljno ljudi samo za tehniku.

Sad su uspjeli formirati i neke improvizirane pješačke skupine tipa O grupe, Wagnera ili Kozaka. I ti se uglavnom i bore.

by Guest 23/6/2022, 23:54

Hektorović wrote:
AssadNaPodmornici wrote:u prijevodu trebali bi se samo koristiti za transfer vojnika na frontu a nikako borbu.

zato i slanje onih slovenskih 50godina starih oklopnih vozila i ima smisla pod uvjetom da neće se koristiti u borbi nego za prijevoz pješadije do fronte.

inače sve one prije rasprave, "koji je bolji tenk vs tenka" nemaju smisla, rijetko kada u ovom ratu je tenk uništio drugi tenk..

tenk je milijun puna češće bio uništen običnom artiljeriom nego od drugog tenka. ATGM također. avijaciom. dronom. brimestome projektilima. pa na kraju i od strane nekog IFV-a možda češće nego od drugog tenka.

Budući tenkovi će se razvijati ne da pobjede drugi tenk , nego da budu infatry suport. zato jedino što od RU vojske valja kao napredni koncept su mi oni terminator oklopna vozila. dva brutalna 30mm topa na šasiji od T-72 tenka, plus imaju još i ATGM za svaki slučaj

To su skužili i Izraelci, zato Namer uglavnom ima samo samoobranu. Umjesto teškog streljiva i topa pruže mobilnost i zaštitu.

Sa velikim topom + streljivom bi imao manju zaštitu i manju mobilnost.

U automatskoj stanici ima mitraljez i bacač granata. Plus još jedan mitraljez...60mm minobacač. Ima čak i shema sa lanserom spike raketa koji se nalazi na rampi koja se nalazi do samog opaljenja unutar vozila... Ono jebote...kurac je nenaoružan.

by **Hektorović** 24/6/2022, 00:03

MDMiridije wrote:
Hektorović wrote:

U automatskoj stanici ima mitraljez i bacač granata. Plus još jedan mitraljez...60mm minobacač. Ima čak i shema sa lanserom spike raketa koji se nalazi na rampi koja se nalazi do samog opaljenja unutar vozila... Ono jebote...kurac je nenaoružan.

Prije svega za samoobranu, ne kao jurišno vozilo. I sve je to lagano, i niti ne zauzima puno prostora.

Ruska invazija na Ukrajinu - Page 5 Bmp-3_tan

Ruska invazija na Ukrajinu - Page 5 10577949_783197248393237_780002696_n

by Guest 24/6/2022, 00:05

Ima maltene naoružanje za svaku vrstu situacije moguće plus oklop...mrcina ima 60 tona jebote. Dakle...ne možeš ga ograničiti definicijom vozila za ovo ili ono.

by RayMabus 24/6/2022, 00:06

23:00 - Sjedinjene Države šalju dodatnu vojnu pomoć Ukrajini, objavila je u četvrtak Bijela kuća. Isporuka od 450 milijuna dolara uključuje dodatne raketne sustave za korištenje protiv ruskih snaga. "Ovaj paket sadrži oružje i opremu, uključujući nove topničke raketne sustave visoke pokretljivosti", rekao je John Kirby. Ostala vojna oprema uključuje desetke tisuća metaka topničkog streljiva, kao i patrolne čamce. Kirby rekao je da su uspjeli izvući nešto žita iz Ukrajine, ali nedovoljno. Milijuni tona žitarica miruju u ukrajinskim lukama usred blokade ruskih ratnih brodova u Crnom moru. "Svakako pozdravljamo sudjelovanje Turske u pokušaju posredovanja u nekoj vrsti aranžmana koji bi omogućio otpremu žita", rekao je.

Pročitajte više na: https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/g7-i-nato-zele-jaci-pritisak-na-rusiju-i-kinu-zelenski-otkrio-do-kada-planiraju-poraziti-ruske-snage-1596637 - www.vecernji.hr

by Eroo 24/6/2022, 00:29

Razne verzije...

Šta fali ovome?

by Sponsored content