Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[Digga]

CrutyRammers said:

News feeds the quietest I've seen them today since this started.

Sometimes no news is not only good news, but also the wisest tactic.

[boholoblanka]

Guys, small arms are less relevant nowadays? is that fair to say?

I cant help but ask this q in light of the fact that the battlefield is still populated with AK47 variants. Ive friends in the army here and they use Steyr AUG's etc and im wondering why an investment hasnt been made in terms of small arms.

[CrutyRammers]

Digga said:

CrutyRammers said:

News feeds the quietest I've seen them today since this started.

Sometimes no news is not only good news, but also the wisest tactic.

Indeed, which makes one wonder if something new is about to happen, or is happening.

[TTmonkey]

boholoblanka said:

Guys, small arms are less relevant nowadays? is that fair to say?

I cant help but ask this q in light of the fact that the battlefield is still populated with AK47 variants. Ive friends in the army here and they use Steyr AUG's etc and im wondering why an investment hasnt been made in terms of small arms.

Sorry what do you mean? That we should be replacing the AK47s the Ukrainians are using?

If so…..
I don’t think they’d want to change. It’s robust and plentiful, and they know how to use it. There’s literally millions of rounds of the right calibre available all over the place.

I believe a number of millions of rounds have been sent by Eastern European countries too.

[NRS]

jsf said:

isaldiri said:

They will once the flow of western arms stops because the war is being pretty much fully maintained by that as compared to Ukraine's own military capability

Once western attention shifts as there are considerably more important domestic issues to attempt to get sorted and the effort/costs are viewed as being greater than forcing an end to the mess in a far away place, Ukraine will stop and negotiate because they have to.

Dream on Vlad.

I wonder what isaldiri thinks will change in a major way, even if the war ends?

Gas security? The main impact for Europe is gas and oil. No matter what happens with the war, both Russia and the EU are dropping each other like hot potatoes, so even with an end to the war tomorrow we'll be building infrastructure ASAP (LNG, renewables, coal etc).

NATO "expansion"? Sweden and Finland are about to join, that's not stopping if the war ends. Russia will view it as NATO aggression, practically everyone else will view it as joining a safety group to help defend yourself against a neighbour who has proven they're willing to invade.

Anything else major from this?

[simo1863]

boholoblanka said:

Guys, small arms are less relevant nowadays? is that fair to say?

I cant help but ask this q in light of the fact that the battlefield is still populated with AK47 variants. Ive friends in the army here and they use Steyr AUG's etc and im wondering why an investment hasnt been made in terms of small arms.

Still relevant and Ukraine has gone through a modernisation process where they have been bulpup converting some of their AK74 stock into something that can take modern attachments/optics.

The US is going through adoption of a new cartridge designed to combat advancements in body armour but is too soon for this conflict.

[boholoblanka]

TTmonkey said:

boholoblanka said:

Guys, small arms are less relevant nowadays? is that fair to say?

I cant help but ask this q in light of the fact that the battlefield is still populated with AK47 variants. Ive friends in the army here and they use Steyr AUG's etc and im wondering why an investment hasnt been made in terms of small arms.

Sorry what do you mean? That we should be replacing the AK47s the Ukrainians are using?

If so…..
I don’t think they’d want to change. It’s robust and plentiful, and they know how to use it. There’s literally millions of rounds of the right calibre available all over the place.

I believe a number of millions of rounds have been sent by Eastern European countries too.

no in view of what you say - and your are prob correct, they are used to the AK47. the point is, we talk about HIMARS etc and all these ultra modern weapons systems and yet the lad on the ground has a gun which can trace its direct origin back to the 1950's. Now i see your point, its easy to use, plenty of parts etc, but to me its an anachronism in the modern battlefield context.

[Prolex-UK]

Thinking about when it ends,hopefully with Russia kicked out completely, who pays for the rebuilding ?

From what I have seen you are talking billions of £/$/Euros

I understand that it is illegal for us to use the money/goods we have seized from the Russians.

Think that needs to be revisited.

Its not like at the end of WW2 when the victors help rebuild

Russia gets billions for its oil & gas so why can we not take it from them deduct 50%.

Doesnt seem right that the get off scot free

[jimmyjimjim]

boholoblanka said:

Guys, small arms are less relevant nowadays? is that fair to say?

I cant help but ask this q in light of the fact that the battlefield is still populated with AK47 variants. Ive friends in the army here and they use Steyr AUG's etc and im wondering why an investment hasnt been made in terms of small arms.

That's akin to asking why the US is still using M-16s more than 50 years after they were introduced.

The answer to which is the same as to why Russia is still using AK47 variants - it's not the same gun. Leaving aside the fact that it's currently an AK-12 - it would be similar in looks and operation to the original AK-47, but the internals and construction are different. The idea is, like with the M16/M4 - the controls are the same, operation is the same, so training is simplified, but the weapon itself is greatly upgraded.

[Puggit]

Finland and Sweden formally invited to join NATO.

[HM-2]

jimmyjimjim said:

Leaving aside the fact that it's currently an AK-12 - it would be similar in looks and operation to the original AK-47, but the internals and construction are different.

Not quite true I don't think, the AK-12 is in very limited production and the primary weapon in use by Russia is still the AK-74M, which was released in 1991 (though it's functionally identical to the AK-74, about 50 years old in basic design).

That said there are a LOT of wooden stock AK-74s cropping up in footage from the Russian side, so it's quite feasible they're handing out pretty ancient rifles to folks engaged in combat in Ukraine.

[TTmonkey]

Prolex-UK said:

Thinking about when it ends,hopefully with Russia kicked out completely, who pays for the rebuilding ?

From what I have seen you are talking billions of £/$/Euros

I understand that it is illegal for us to use the money/goods we have seized from the Russians.

Think that needs to be revisited.

Its not like at the end of WW2 when the victors help rebuild

Russia gets billions for its oil & gas so why can we not take it from them deduct 50%.

Doesnt seem right that the get off scot free

Laws can be changed.

[untakenname]

Prolex-UK said:

Thinking about when it ends,hopefully with Russia kicked out completely, who pays for the rebuilding ?

Ukraine will be given a loan from the IMF then the big infrastructure projects will go to the Germans and French just like what happened with Poland back in 2009.

[simo1863]

boholoblanka said:

no in view of what you say - and your are prob correct, they are used to the AK47. the point is, we talk about HIMARS etc and all these ultra modern weapons systems and yet the lad on the ground has a gun which can trace its direct origin back to the 1950's. Now i see your point, its easy to use, plenty of parts etc, but to me its an anachronism in the modern battlefield context.

I doubt very much that we've seen a single AK47, they're extremely rare and expensive. You'll have seen 74u/74s/74su/74m, AK100 series, maybe some old AKMs. As has been said, they're familiar, reliable, easy to clean, easy to fix, have facilities to keep them well fed and the people they're calling up will have had training on them (or something very similar). They've been developed and updated into the 2010s.

There's only so far smokeless powder can take you. You have slow and heavy or small and fast or somewhere in the middle. A lot of modern advancement is around eeking out tiny improvements in accuracy and making them more portable, able to take more advanced optics.

Militaries are also confined with projectile development by the Hague Convention..... although I have seen a video of a Ukranian loading ballistic tipped 308 hunting rounds into a bolt action rifle.

Edit: They're also probably less prelevant as man with a gun vs man with a gun doesn't seem how a lot of this war is fought. The Russian man with a gun backs off and levels the place with artillery.

Edited by simo1863 on Wednesday 29th June 15:22

[sisu]

boholoblanka said:

Guys, small arms are less relevant nowadays? is that fair to say?

I cant help but ask this q in light of the fact that the battlefield is still populated with AK47 variants. Ive friends in the army here and they use Steyr AUG's etc and im wondering why an investment hasnt been made in terms of small arms.

We sent 2500 Sako R62 assault rifles and 150,000 rounds to Kyiv and also other assault weapons from Valmet as others that were comparable to what the troops were using in Ukraine, we will send more when needed.


I haven't used the Steyr pup or that type of rifle so can't comment on its virtues or flaws.

[NRS]

CrutyRammers said:

Another train derailed in Russia: https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/154211694...
Dashed unlucky, second time in 2 days apparently.

Liz Truss at NATO saying that is is important to ensure the defeat of Russia in Ukraine. "Some say there is a possibility of negotiations while Russian troops are still in Ukraine, but I think this will give us a false peace and lead to further aggression in the future"

US stationing 2 new F35 squadrons in the UK.

Norway sending 3 MLRS

I'm somewhat surprised we don't see more proper terrorism attacks in Russia, given the amount of Ukrainians there, rather than just military targets.

[boholoblanka]

thanks guys. to the untrained eye it looked like the same rifle since the 1950's. much obliged for the time taken to respond

[BikeBikeBIke]

NRS said:

I'm somewhat surprised we don't see more proper terrorism attacks in Russia, given the amount of Ukrainians there, rather than just military targets.

Utterly insane idea. Would simply fire the Russians up and maybe make mobilisation politically possible. (See the Mall Bombing this week and the Moscow Apartment bombings.)

[TTmonkey]

boholoblanka said:

thanks guys. to the untrained eye it looked like the same rifle since the 1950's. much obliged for the time taken to respond

I think we are effectively talking about the ‘generic Russian rifle’ which looks and feels very similar to each other. However although the new looks like the old it’s workings are very different, most obviously in the ammunition used.

But I believe the statements about its availability and reliability are the same though.

[TTmonkey]

BikeBikeBIke said:

NRS said:

I'm somewhat surprised we don't see more proper terrorism attacks in Russia, given the amount of Ukrainians there, rather than just military targets.

Utterly insane idea. Would simply fire the Russians up and maybe make mobilisation politically possible. (See the Mall Bombing this week and the Moscow Apartment bombings.)

No to terrorism. Yes to destruction of Russian assets used in the war efforts. Sabotage.