Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 791 posts

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#31

Post by glogla »

watwut wrote: post #10
farseer wrote: post #8

Quoted post unavailable.

The war is already in the indiscriminate killing phase and moving towards just destroy city phase. Should be there in few days. Slav fellowship does not work in wars. No fellowship works in wars.

Yes, after Grozny and Aleppo, anyone saying Russians are trying to limit destruction is deluded or a shill. Russian military strategy has been to force surrender through causing as much civilian death as possible for a while now.

Based on his speeches, both before invasion and the leaked one that was supposed to go out after a win, Putins objective is genocide. "The Ukrainian question", dude is literally quoting Hitler.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#32

Post by spacemanmatt »

watwut wrote: post #10
farseer wrote: post #8

Quoted post unavailable.

The war is already in the indiscriminate killing phase and moving towards just destroy city phase. Should be there in few days. Slav fellowship does not work in wars. No fellowship works in wars.

At 80% conscription rate, the RF army is seriously vulnerable to mass-realization of international views. Many young Russians were deceived into this war and would rather be with their families.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#33

Post by boc »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #7

Just because the US is in love with 'Shock and Awe' doesn't mean everyone else sees it as the appropriate methodology in all circumstances.

The US is "in love with Shock and Awe" because it worked extremely well. Russia doesn't have the air power to pull it off, which is why they are running a version of Deep War, but without a second echelon to prevent their supply lines from getting picked off.

In reality it appears that Russia had a big problem with "ghost units" and rapidly tried to fill their invasion force with conscripts in the weeks before the invasion began. It's why we're seeing so many ill-equipped soldiers and awful tactics where tanks/APCs are driving solo through fields.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#35

Post by DavidPeiffer »

wildzzz wrote: post #20
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #4

I can only assume they are keeping their powder dry, or working to limit casualties. I saw a video of a lady riding in a car beside a convoy, and then she threw a molotov and the driver sped off. If that were Iraq in 2003, she car probably would have been lit up.

It was an armored vehicle being pulled by what looked like a tractor. I don't think it was in any condition to fire on the car.

Those are two separate videos.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-molo...

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#36

Post by boc »

jcranmer wrote: post #28
josefresco wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article... "That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London"

From the development of air power theory a century ago, it's been widely held that strategic bombing of civilian targets is one of the best ways to quickly end a war. The actual failure of strategic bombing to end wars quickly every time it's been tried notwithstanding.

The Japanese surrender in WWII due to sustained strategic bombing of civilian cities without a single troop landing in mainland Japan is a clear contradiction to this take.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#37

Post by ceejayoz »

boc wrote: post #36
jcranmer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the development of air power theory a century ago, it's been widely held that strategic bombing of civilian targets is one of the best ways to quickly end a war. The actual failure of strategic bombing to end wars quickly every time it's been tried notwithstanding.

The Japanese surrender in WWII due to sustained strategic bombing of civilian cities without a single troop landing in mainland Japan is a clear contradiction to this take.

We've got a sample size of one for "conflicts ended via nuclear explosions", though.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#38

Post by axiosgunnar »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #32
watwut wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war is already in the indiscriminate killing phase and moving towards just destroy city phase. Should be there in few days. Slav fellowship does not work in wars. No fellowship works in wars.

At 80% conscription rate, the RF army is seriously vulnerable to mass-realization of international views. Many young Russians were deceived into this war and would rather be with their families.

Is this something we, hackers/information technology specialists, could try to achieve?

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#39

Post by whimsicalism »

boc wrote: post #33
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #7

Just because the US is in love with 'Shock and Awe' doesn't mean everyone else sees it as the appropriate methodology in all circumstances.

The US is "in love with Shock and Awe" because it worked extremely well. Russia doesn't have the air power to pull it off, which is why they are running a version of Deep War, but without a second echelon to prevent their supply lines from getting picked off. In reality it appears that Russia had a big problem with "ghost units" and rapidly tried to fill their invasion force with conscripts in the weeks before the in…

Russia absolutely has the air power to pull it off, you clearly haven't seen Syria.

My guess is that they have, correctly, anticipated that mass casualties of white civilians would play very badly internationally and domestically.

e: I'm downvoted.. for what? It's obvious that the ethnicity of the victim matters for both domestic and international perception, all you need to do is look at a bit of media coverage of reporters bemoaning that this is happening to "blue eyed, blond haired" people or in the "civilized world." There is a different standard for what sort of casualties are considered acceptable.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#40

Post by shepardrtc »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #11
AlwaysRock wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have been bombing cities. I don't think they are trying to limit casualties.

There are always going to be civilian casualties in war, but it sure looks like they are trying to limit them. Would be worth comparing to other, similar conflicts. Surely a full scale air campaign would lead to more civilian casualties?

> it sure looks like they are trying to limit them

Just saw a video where they blew the leg off a civilian that was just standing in the road to block their advance.

Post reply on HN