It only stands to reason that the Ukrainians are behind antisemitic riots in Russia, I mean they’re Nazis, right?
On that note:
1420 by Daniil Orain (It’s a community post with a photo, not a video, trying to embed a link is more problematic than linking a video, go figure)
Once again: “One People, One Country, One Leader”.
It is the slogan of Nazis: “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”.
Once again, budget workers in Russia seem to have been asked to take pictures with this slogan. I made the post about a similar situation a couple of weeks ago.
Interestingly, in the background of this photo, you can see the monument to the Unknown Soldier, a monument dedicated to the soldiers of the Soviet army who fought against the Nazis.
Precision attacks on schools, apartment buildings, and shopping centers. You know, all the High Value Military targets.
You are completely full of shit of you think the civilian losses of the Ukrainians is typical warfare.
Look at the war in Israel for comparison. Israel is bombing churches, mosques, schools, etc. But we know Hamas has extensive underground tunnels and uses Palestinian civilians as cover. They deliberately put their clandestine terrorist network under civilian sites.
Whereas there is no evidence Ukraine is using civilian population centers as cover for their military. Yet Russia is bombing the hell out of civilian sites, as opposed to military operations.
And notice how Israel is also getting blasted for their inhumane tactics.
Trying to abide by the rules of “civilized war” is tricky when one side deliberately works to use the rules as cover. And isn’t civilized.
But at least Israel has justification. Russia is doing it to eradicate the Ukrainian people.
War is messy, and damages both sides. That the way is mostly occurring in Ukrainian territory means de facto that even if Ukraine wins back all the taken territory including the Crimea, they will have lost by damage to the land and infrastructure, and especially the lost lives of its people.
But that’s true of any war. The Allies “won” WW2 , but Europe was a mess, and London was craters, and the US didn’t take many attacks on our land aside from territorial Islands in the South Pacific and of course the raid on Pearl Harbor, but still measured the loss of life.
“Winning” a war can be defined by many things, but loss of some land and loss of life wouldn’t mean they didn’t win. “Win” will be decided at the conclusion of the conflict by whatever terms make sense then. Russia agreeing to stop hostilities and let Ukraine continue to exist would be a win for Ukraine, regardless of the terms.
Russia’s final status on the world stage has certainly taken a hit. Their military has been revealed to be much less capable than feared. Putin has pushed for a bigger presence, a more influencial role. He had been succeeding with the US pulling more isolationist.
This war is polarizing the world. When President W talked about “the Axis of Evil”, I dismissed it as simplistic and misleading. The countries mentioned were unconnected in aims and goals.
Now we see Russia, Iran, and North Korea aligning and interacting for mutual gain. And they want China on their side.
With war in Ukraine and now Gaza, and China eyeing Taiwan, it feels like we are marching inevitably toward a global conflict, a conventional WW3.
That would dramatically change the measuring stick of Russia’s outcome.
And the Pacific northwest. Hey, this is the SDMB after all.
On May 5, 1945, six picnickers were killed in Oregon when a balloon bomb they dragged from the woods exploded. The U.S. government quickly publicized the balloon bombs, warning people not to tamper with them. These were the only known fatalities occurring within the United States during World War II as a direct result of enemy action.
I’m still firmly in the simplistic and misleading camp on this. They don’t have mutual goals and cooperation is opportunistic, not planned. Iran, Russia, and North Korea don’t care about Taiwan, and much as Russia might want China on its side with regards to Ukraine, China has taken a firmly neutral stance and shows no sign of budging from that position with the war now nearing two years old. North Korea took a very long time to be convinced to supply shells to Russia, the war was nearing a year and a half old before they agreed, and the only thing North Korea has an abundance of to export is munitions.
Iran supplying drones to Russia is purely opportunistic, they wanted to get their hands on Su-35 fighters, but that deal appears to have fallen through.
The only thing Russia, Iran and North Korea have in common is that they are all under international sanctions. The only interest Russia has in Gaza is as an international distraction from the war in Ukraine.
I don’t know, but strongly suspect that Russia currently lacks the ability to produce a lot of Su-35 fighters, even for themselves, much less for export.
Oh I agree. But opportunism can still lead to chaos on the world stage. It’s not like Germany and Japan had a lot in common in WW2 except the big bad US.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and all that. They seem to be starting to realize that as long as their goals aren’t in conflict, it doesn’t matter if they share goals, only that they have a common obstacle.
I wonder if there is research or even production of lighter weight drone munitions.
Drones have little payload capacity. I see that a lot of standard munitions are being pressed into service for them. Drones fly fairly slow. They don’t fire their munitions. So the munition would require very little protection or need to be very sturdy. Strip down the munitions to the essentials required and you may get better range, multiple munitions, or more bang per munition.
I have not heard of any specific efforts to tailor munitions to this fairly new role.
Komrad! Was getting worried you drank yourself to death!
So huh, drones. You don’t now shit about them; therefore, no research exists about them, nobody’s done anything to look at new ways to produce or manufacture them, every nation in the world with a defense budget and security concerns certainly hasn’t been studying the shit out of how they are transforming the modern battlefield, etc. etc. etc.
I mean you haven’t heard anything about it, it must not be happening. I’d say I miss you being such a complete dumbass, but I really don’t.
I said I wonder if, not that I think there is not. I even wondered if they are in production. So again I did not think there was no research or development. I just had not come across specifics.
I own two drones. I am building a third from raw carbon fiber pieces and custom parts on my 3D printer.
Current drones can deliver standard munitions well enough, and the cost of a drone blowing itself up in the delivery is still cheaper than the cost of delivering the munition in a standard way.
The cheap FPV drone costs no more than an artillery shell, and unlike Excalibur, it is guided to the point of impact and the operator has a camera to see the target’s current location. This means it can be used in a dynamic situation where the target location is uncertain.
Also, the shell is only part of the cost. 155mm shells may be cheap, but the M109 Paladin that fires them currently costs about $14m. An army that cannot afford this type of hardware can still afford a few thousand FPVs, and will get a decent amount of firepower for the money.
An FPV is a first-person view drone where the pilot sees from the perspective of the drone as if it was being flown in a cockpit.
This is at least a proposal being given by a person in the tech industry, not a military person. There may be a reason why this isn’t as viable as it is being suggested.
But the answer to your question is that drones can already transport existing munitions, there doesn’t seem to be any need to make “lighter” munitions for them. I presume mass will always be proportionate to destructive power unless you have some kind of lighter-than-air explosive. So, making a lighter munition just means making one that doesn’t cause as large of an explosion. Not necessary.
How odd, I linked you 6 hours of videos on the topic of drones, their use in Ukraine, effects on military matters and the attention that nations other than Russia and Ukraine are focusing on learning the lessons from the ongoing conflict. Yet even with this primer as a starting point for you and the open availability of this newfangled invention called ‘Google’ (and I even hear dark, whispered rumors that Google is just a thing called a ‘search engine’ and that there are other of these bizarre contraptions called ‘search engines’ than just Google - the mind recoils in horror at the very thought!) your conclusion is that there is no real information out there for small drones.
We stopped wondering this about you ages ago Komrad.
Are you still getting paid with your horrible track record here? I would expect your bosses expect some folks glomming onto your nonsense and in turn spewing it elsewhere. I think you have zero success here in creating propaganda that spreads. You should probably concentrate on Truth Social or the Fox News comment section.
My question was specific to munitions. Not six hours of repetitive information that I mostly already knew.
The construction of a grenade for instance is overweight when used in a drone. It has to be more rugged due to being worn in battle. A similar device could be lighter in design as it is delivered in a protective box to a drone operation team. It seems some of the munitions are meant to be fired rather than dropped. They are also probably overweight to withstand the stress of launching them.
