Military Losses in the Ukraine

[Hackney2]

NoddyonNitrous said:

And it's a good one!

Yes,love it!

[faa77]

Welshbeef said:

LeadFarmer said:

If it wasn't for the very realistic nuclear threat from Russia, it would be nice to see an army invade Russia just to see their panic response, their army divided and their retreat from Ukraine. But instead he would probably fire off some very big bombs and end all human existence.

There have been over 2,000 nukes deployed/tested be it under sea underground above ground and high altitude in a myriad of locations over the world.

Impact——not sure there has been a nuclear winter or anything.

They weren't tested in London and Washington, which would be the targets now.

[Error_404_Username_not_found]

Welshbeef said:

However that warship was sunk it’s sunk

A huge boon and morale booster for Ukraine and the “fk you russia” ship is gone those slaughtered Ukrainians refusing to surrender have been justified.

She hasn't been sunk; she has been modified for "special submarine operations to liberate and de-nazify the Donbas coastal regions".

[Hackney2]

[Hackney2]

[hairykrishna]

Welshbeef said:

There have been over 2,000 nukes deployed/tested be it under sea underground above ground and high altitude in a myriad of locations over the world.

Impact——not sure there has been a nuclear winter or anything.

The supposed trigger for nuclear winter is not the nuclear detonations themselves. It's large numbers of cities being on fire simultaneously and kicking lots of particulates into the atmosphere. I think there's a lot of debate on whether it'd actually happen but the nuclear tests tell you nothing about the plausibility.

[Mr Whippy]

hairykrishna said:

Welshbeef said:

There have been over 2,000 nukes deployed/tested be it under sea underground above ground and high altitude in a myriad of locations over the world.

Impact——not sure there has been a nuclear winter or anything.

The supposed trigger for nuclear winter is not the nuclear detonations themselves. It's large numbers of cities being on fire simultaneously and kicking lots of particulates into the atmosphere. I think there's a lot of debate on whether it'd actually happen but the nuclear tests tell you nothing about the plausibility.

Why would they nuke cities rather than military installations?

[NextSlidePlease]

Mr Whippy said:

Why would they nuke cities rather than military installations?

Because they are fking monsters with zero respect for human life regardless of age. Kyiv would be decimated, and likely first on the list.

[Harpoon]

Oryx now showing over 3000 tanks, fighting vehicles, SAM systems, artillery, trucks etc lost by the Russians.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-eu...

Though they report the backlog they have the number is actually around 3300

https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/151674599...

[Talksteer]

Mr Whippy said:

Why would they nuke cities rather than military installations?

By this stage in the conflict I doubt very many military units or establishments are located in their pre-war buildings given the ready access to precision guided long range weapons.

Military forces in the field are actually pretty resilient to nuclear attack as they are rarely densely concentrated. Dug in soldiers and armoured vehicles can survive being very close to a nuclear weapon, hundreds of meters away in the case of 10kt devices.

This is why NATO really focused on precision weapons near the end of the could war. A squadron of Tornadoes launching 12 Brimstones each could probably render an armoured division combat incapable whereas a tactical nuclear weapon would probably kill at most a handful of tanks.

[Bodo]

	Ukraine	Russia
flagship		1

[NoddyonNitrous]

Bodo said:

= =||= Ukraine=||= Russia =||

flagship

1

I don't think Ukraine even put in an entry for that category.

[Johnnytheboy]

As the OP can no longer post in NPE under the new rules, that's the end of this thread I guess...

[deadtom]

Oh, that's a shame.

While I appreciate the need to filter out much of the dross that seems to be infecting NPE lately, this solution does seem a little half baked and will throw out a fair few babies with the bathwater, whilst just driving up pointless commenting elsewhere in the forums to hit the 1000 posts mark.

[hairykrishna]

Mr Whippy said:

Why would they nuke cities rather than military installations?

I wasn't suggesting they would. I think any nuke use is unlikely, and if anything it's likely to be small tactical strikes against hard to root out pockets of resistance. A nuclear winter is only something which needs to be worried about in the context of a full strategic nuclear war. I was just explain to Welshbeef why the very large number of nuclear tests that have been carried out would not be expected to trigger a nuclear winter.

[Johnnytheboy]

From the Mail...

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

https://youtu.be/Mt3Sua-fZH4