if you have to source your war machines from DPRK… you might be losing
Russia is not loosing. This is just part of the 5D chess Putin is playing. Any minute he will make his master move and conquer Ukraine, destroy NATO and fingerbang your dad. Just wait. You’ll see.
Kyiv in 3 days!
Show me where Putin claimed he’d take Kyiv in 3 days.
How would you be able to see with putins cock so far down your throat?
That’s very generous, thinking Putin would ever stick his dick in any of these tankies’ holes.
They’re all just useful idiots, not even worth a bag of onions.
Sure. The minute you show me where I said Putin claimed it.
Oh my bad, for some strange reason I had assumed you were talking about Putin in a comment chain devoted to talking about Putin.
Generally, if someone quotes someone else, they put it in quotation marks. Hence my never claiming Putin said it.
On the other hand, there was the three-day plan, which I am sure you will deny existing or say is a Western lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Kyiv_convoy#Three_day_war_plan
But then I’m guessing you’ll also say the invasion was justified for one reason or another.
Bruh, you literally just linked to a paragraph that makes the claim that the idea of a three-day conquest came purely out of American and Ukrainian speculation. This is exactly what I’m saying, save for that one Lukashenko quote.
I’m not going to get into the weeds with you about the invasion, but I am going to call you out for sheisty implied quotes. Any reasonable and adequately uninformed person would read your “three day war” comment in response to a comment chain about putin and assume you were talking about putin. You deserve to get called out for that. It’s misleading and disingenuous.
I wouldn’t say the comment chain is talking about Putin, but someone aggrandising Putin.
They’ve moved on from “Putin didn’t say that” to “it was just speculation” because this was never actually about Putin to them, it was about justifying Russia’s invasion.
Bruh…
Jokes on you, my dad behaves like he is already being fingerbanged by Putler.
Are you Eric or Don Jr.?
As far as I am concerned, neither. He’s a lost cause tho.
That’s the problem. This is an old school war. If Russia can keep moving the front lines the correct direction them nothing else matters. I don’t say this because I like Russia but because it shows how much more support we need to be giving Ukraine. The manpower difference is something like 4 to 1. The casualty ratio is something like 3 to 1 which is high but within Russian standards. If nothing changes Russia will win this in another few years.
There’s a lot of truth to that unfortunately. Historically, Russia has shown many times that any number of casualties is acceptable .
Historically inaccurate, and if they were sustaining “just” 1 in 4 they’re literally run out of guys before Ukraine.
If all that they have to continue throwing at this war is casualties, Ukraine has already won. Russia may have plenty of meat left but they do not have equipment left. And no war, especially a modern one, is going to be won without equipment and vehicles. Ukraine has NATO support behind them and Russia has… North Korea, maybe China if they’re feeling charitable that day.
I mean, nothing changing is a big ask, on both sides. It’s still up in the air, and hinges on the American election more than anything else at this moment.
Yeah we’re sorry about that. We still don’t know how we let our biggest adversary of the last 70 years infiltrate an entire political party.
Official and recognized military taxonomists insist that a vehicle doesn’t count as a tank unless it’s classified manuals and specs have been leaked in the World of Tanks forums.
*Warthunder
I’m sure there is a difference between warthunder and world of tanks. Next time I’m flying DCS, I’ll ask around if anybody has kids that play them.
Well, the main difference is Warthunder is the place where the classified stuff is being leaked
deleted by creator
It’s not a tank unless it comes from the Tank region of France. Otherwise it’s a sparkling armored vehicle.
How far will they go before completely shaking apart? In meters?
Meters plural? Aren’t you optimistic.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
There’s always intertia
Pedantry warning - we use the plural for decimal quantities less than 1 too. E.g. the tank only made it 0.8 meters before collapsing into a pile of low grade steel.
They may not be that bad. 7 cylinder engines with 5 valves per engine. Front engine, camshaft at the trunk. Revolutionary
Reported as “subject doesn’t match headline”, however since this case is a subject of translation and there may be variations in translation software, I’ll allow it.
Happy cake day
Thanks! Can’t believe it’s been a year since reddit imploded! 15 years there, walked away, never looked back!
It was 13 for me. My cake day was a month ago. Goodbye to Reddit forever as far as I’m concerned. I didn’t even get an IPO offer despite being a “power user,” probably because I changed my profile to say “FUCK REDDIT!” and gave lemmy.world’s URL.
I shut down every subreddit I modded permanently and was publicly screaming “fuck reddit” and “fuck spez” until the last minute.
Still got an IPO invite I ignored and even a mod meetup invite
Huh. I wonder why I didn’t?
I don’t really care since I wouldn’t have taken up their stupid offer, but I’m curious now.
I assumed they sent it to everyone, even my old reddit account with only 2000 karma got it
And even if i wanted, being not a us resident i couldn’t even actually get it
That’s fucking weird, my reddit account wasn’t quite a decade old and I got an offer, ninja edit to add “that I obviously did not accept”
it’s called lemon day over here
TIL. Cheers
For more info on why search Lemon party.
Technically the Bulsae-4 is an anti-tank missile carrier. Basically 8 TOW missiles on a wheeled BTR.
English source:
They’re probably extremely vulnerable to Ukrainian drone strikes.
Those don’t even look like tanks. Bad author. (OP’s author, this article is better.)
What should I change the title too?
Armored vehicles is probably a safe bet since that’s a big catch all term
done :)
I love the post-reddit era, where titles can be changed if they are not correct!
You had me in the first half, but the second is icing on the cake.
You shouldn’t.
Community rule #1 states the title must match the headline.
That rule is as rubbish as most headlines though
“Panzer” is a general term in German, meaning armoured vehicle, not limited to main battle tanks (Kampfpanzer) mistranslations are thus exceedingly common.
This in particular is a Raketenjagdpanzer meaning a Jagdpanzer (hunting tank) armed with missiles, not to be confused with the more general category Panzerjäger (tank hunter) which is any vehicle that hunts tanks, not just armoured ones, and not just ground vehicles, and not just vehicles but also units. That is, Jagdpanzer are Panzerjäger which are themselves Panzer.
Some Anglos also get their standard issue underwear in a twist if you call the Gepard a flak tank – that’s quite literally its official designation in German: Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard, short FlakPz Gepard, more or less literally “flight offwarding cannon tank”. An “Infantry fighting vehicle”, fuzzy term if I’ve ever seen one (in Ukraine that can mean a Hillux) is a Schützenpanzer, “marksmen tank”.
IMO those translation errors shouldn’t be corrected, they can only clean up English terminology.
Western journalists when any vehicle has the slightest amount of armour: it’s a tank!
Anyway, this is sad and hilarious. The “second-best military in the world”, everyone!
AR-15:Rifle::Tank:Armored Vehicle
Were there also NK soldiers? Or they just gave them the vehicles?
I can’t find anything on actual NK forces being deployed. Another user linked an article in English and near the end it postulates that this is sort of a win-win for NK that they can help their ally while gathering test data for the vehicles
And also get a king’s ransom off of Russia in exchange for saving their asses. I don’t know if they’re desperate for tanks yet, but that’s definitely the case with artillery. Calling them “allies” is probably a stretch.
Spiegel Online (Der Spiegel) Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Spiegel Online (Der Spiegel) is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: Germany
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.I would really like a better source than the sensationalist garbage that is Der Spiegel.
Your opinion seems to be at odds with https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/
Uh oh. I messed up. Was thinking about Bild.
Well they are using NATO weapons against Russia so alls fair.
Sending weapons to help defend against an illegal Invasion and genocide is different from supporting an illegal Invasion and genocide. Should Sweden have sent weapons to Germany in 1941 after the US started sending weapons to the UK?
I didn’t say either was right or wrong I just said that it was fair. The way you feel about a conflict doesn’t change how either side fight. And your historical examples are only relevant because we were on the winning side so of course we fell it was the right thing to do. But during that time period the American public was very against getting involved with another war in Europe after WW1. FDR was looking for every way possible to convince the American public to support the Allies but during that time period we were very isolationist.
So to answer your question, No Sweden should not have sent weapons to the Germans in 1941. Not because the US sent weapons to the UK but because Sweden was neutral by their own policy.
Ok, fair enough, but then would it have been fair for Sweden to do so if they had not declared themselves neutral? The US was neutral too. Was it unfair for the US to send weapons to the UK or Ukraine? I would argue that it wasn’t, because of the ethics of defending countries from outside attack, and upholding international law.
So then, what is the basis of “fair”? Ethics? International law? Statements by Kim? Statements by Biden?
I mean, I pointed out why the ethics argue against it, and for international law, Russia’s importation of weapons from North Korea violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
Kim’s statements don’t seem to justify this, since Kim has not made any outright statements about Ukraine, and has only pledged to supply weapons to Russia for “defence against aggression”, which does not match Russia’s situation. NK is basically saying they’re neutral, and then sending weapons to Ukraine, which doesn’t seem very fair.
Biden definitely isn’t ok with NK sending weapons, and his administration has denounced North Korea’s involvement and pointed out that is illegal under international law.
No party has made any statements justifying North Korea sending weapons to Ukraine, so I can hardly see how it’s fair.
I find it funny that you’re using the UN Security Counsel as some sort of authority. Could you tell me who are the 5 permanent members of that security counsel? Those resolutions are only as legal as the they are enforceable. Honestly if North Korea wants to supply weapons to Russia and Russia accepts then who can stop them? No other country or entity has any authority of either. The best you can do is sanctions or war. But to give another example of how the UN has no power unless granted power; Everyone seems to forget that NATO, a defense alliance, attacked a sovereign European nation.
NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN’s approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.
So here we have NATO itself ignoring the UN Security Counsel.
So you’re equating the 10 year-long invasion of Ukraine, complete with attacks on civilian targets, torture, and genocide, with the NATO airstrikes on the Yugoslav military during the Kosovo War?
OK russkiy.
No. I’m equating Russia ignoring the UN Security Counsel with NATO ignoring the UN Security Counsel. And resorting to name calling just means you have nothing to use in this conversation.
It’s war, fairness doesn’t come into it.
As for whether it’s an escalation, you’re right that it’s not.
I was originally pointing out that if NATO can supply Ukraine than North Korea can supply Russia. Nothing anyone can do about it but complain to deaf ears.
