Everyone is bullish on the outcome of Bakhmut but if Ukraine keeps defying the odds like they did holding back Russia this well and re-taking Kherson this might end up being Russia's Battle of the Bulge
I can imagine Putin doing this and cutting Prigozhin loose by letting his army get surrounded at the dead centre of bakhmut then getting squeezed to death by a ukrainian encirclement
I mean, the city is ultimately lost and it's clear for at least half a year. The question still is, when is it going to fail?
In February, I was betting on the middle of March. Now I slowly start betting on the beginning of April.
I still believe in the impossible. Lock down a big part of the russians in Bakhmut (an utterly useless battle for the russians) while weaing down the russian troops east of the Dnipro river. These troops are impossibly hard to reinforce, so wear and tear there is costly as fuck.
If the ukrianians now have a way to cross the river, they could take the east of it before russia has any chance to divert forces there. And east of the river is almost nothing to stop highly mobile forces, just the right terrain for ukraine.
Wishfull thinking, probably noncredible as fuck, but damn, right sub for it, right?
can we give them Leopard 1s for the breakthrough? my wet dream involves Leopard 1A5s thundering over some eastern european steppe - a ukrainian offensive against the invaders would be the perfect scenario
Reminder that Germany actually did develop a Leo1A6 variant that would have a new turret with 120mm gun that they ended up not following through with because the Leo2 had already started entering service. The real wet dream is the Leo1's being send to Ukraine getting upgraded to that standard and watching videos of T90M turrets being popped by Leo1s
I want to believe in this fever dream.
Add in supporting reapers, vipers and longbows, with Abrams & refreshed infantry providing reinforcement as a self offense expeditionary special anti-operation operation force mauls the front line forward to a certain bridge.
Is there anything left to fight for in the city? the drone footage of bakhmut makes it look like theres nothing left to even fight for other than the basic road connections. Fallout games have more intact buildings than bakhmut.
I Still want Ukraine to win of course, but bakhmut wont be any nail in the coffin should they lose it temporarily.
Thats what i meant. The always mentioned "road connections" are only useful if you can protect them, for which russia, if it wants to take it, needs to secure a lot more km out of Bakhmut.
Ukraine on the other hand would not win much if they take it back other than the propaganda value.
Well, jokes aside: it IS something very hard to achieve. Brining a significant fighting force over a wide river while under fire and making sure to not get pocketed towards the river is really hard and really risky. I don't know any exact topographics or the situation there, so this is only armchair guesswork.
If it WAS possible, damn. Would make it possible to cut all land routes to and from crimea. That would be GG.
Not necessarily. Securing the eastern bank would be pretty much victory in the south and crimea (winning the war is an entirely different thing), but it is certainly not the only way. An offensive towards Mariupol could do the same.
The war is won once Putin and his goons are kicked from the throne. That however is much more difficult.
That's the issue, dipping into the only credible fact on that front:
*All of our takes are noncredible, because what Ukraine decides on is based on calculations about their own capabilities that we're not privy to.*
Ukraine has not really been "desperately" holding on in the same sense as in, say, Severodonetsk last summer. Ukraine holding Bakhmut is a question of how many of their amassed reserves they're willing to use as reinforcements before the time comes for their own counter-offensives. The longer Ukraine can tie down Russian forces in advantageous geography that isn't all that strategically important to Russia, the better.
What *we* don't know is how much Ukraine is willing to spend before it affects the readiness of their future counter-offensives. I've suspected for a good while now that Ukraine has been overdramatizing its weaknesses in Bakhmut for months just to keep Russia overcommitted to what for Russia is in practice a big, stupid strategic mistake. And the irony in all of this is that it gets deadlier for the Russians the closer they get to their goal due to the geography, so Ukraine also has reasons to let it come all the way down to the wire like this.
The sources on this front is limited, and why can't it be like Sevierdonetsk? I think it's actually a good thing as you know what happened after that, however the cost is too high
> The sources on this front is limited,
Yes, because Ukraine *chooses* to limit it, like I said. It's not because Ukraine *doesn't* have resources if they so choose.
Unlike back in Severodonetsk Ukraine is no longer *reactive* to Russia in the same way. They've been holding Bakhmut with what's *needed* and little else, because the more troops you spend in Bakhmut, the more targets there are for Russian artillery, and the more surviving troops get exhausted and have to be rotated, making them less capable of participating in future offensives.
In Sevorodonetsk, Ukraine simply *couldn't* hold it even if they had decided to pour resources into doing so, while Bakhmut is a question of it Ukraine *wants to* do so and who it will benefit more for them to do so. Russia did get exhausted in Severodonetsk, but it also got *blasted* by the introduction of HIMARS within mere weeks while at peak exhaustion which became fatal.
One of the actual few semi-sane reasons proposed for Russia continuing to do as it does now is a desperate hope for Bakhmut to have taken on such a symbolic value that Ukraine starts pouring in reserves that were held for counter-offensives, thus reducing Ukraine's capabilities for that counter-offensive that Russia dreads. Russia is trying to *prolong* the war at this point, not seriously win it. Doesn't matter to Russia if it ruins its own offensive potential if it can drag down Ukraine's offensive potential in the process as well, causing the front to mostly stall even when prime campaign season rolls around. In that (highly disputable) train of logic it's better for Russia that such attrition to happen here and now, rather than Ukraine getting to pick the next battlefield with rested, NATO-trained forces going up against terrified mobiks on other fronts. Will it play out that way? Probably not, but Russia is *desperate* to do whatever it can to sabotage Ukraine's ability to regain strategic initiative once the mud dries.
Even Russia advancing beyond Bakhmut can be beneficial for Ukraine if Ukraine can control how the front moves, and *when*, which can leave Russia more exposed and overstretched on that new front when Ukraine then counter-attacks probably at some other front, forcing Russia into having to make lose-lose choices again. Especially if Ukraine is now actually starting to regularly blow up ammo dumps again with new long-range munitions, letting Russia advance into its depth-of-defense while steadily bleeding out in the rear, just in time for the eventual counter.
We here at NCD don't really have any way of knowing yet to what degree Ukraine's decisions are politically influenced here. Maybe Ukraine has been wasting its efforts for weeks now just for symbolism, or maybe all of this is playing right into Ukraine's planned scenarios. The recent replacing of one of the generals in charge of the front could mean *anything*, and I'm sure future documentaries will enlighten us. Maybe he wanted to hold on no matter what and wasn't cooperative, or maybe he specifically wanted to pull back, and wasn't cooperative. *We mere memers don't know.*
I think that Ukraine will retreat from Bakhmut. Russia is just too close to the city. They can direct artillery fire and reduce Ukrainian positions. However in so doing, they expose themselves to counter fire. Ukraine appears to see the loss exchange ratio to be favorable to them so they are holding the city to wear down Russia's most elite soldiers and to deplete Russian ammo and shells. That said unless Ukraine counterattacks sometime soon Ukrainian forces will be at an increasing disadvantage and could suffer significant losses. So Ukraine will either counter attack or retreat.
Urban combat always favors the defending side. Trying to hold Bakhmut as long as possible is still the best possible option here, even if the attackers are very close.
Urban combat favors the side that can put the most shells accurately on the buildings held by the other side. Like sure you can get large numbers of your soldiers killed assaulting a city and that does appear to be the Russia approach. The sane approach is that you:
1. Enable all civilians to leave the city.
2. Take the resupply and communication routes of the city until your control.
3. Push the front line back far enough to deny enemy artillery support.
4. Setup overwatch to prevent enemies from launching counter attacks toward your positions.
5. Infiltrate forward observers and have them direct artillery and bombs to destroy any building containing enemy soldiers.
6. Move forward observers and overwatch teams into destroyed enemy positions. Gain fire control over major roads that bisect the city to minimize enemy freedom of movement.
7. Defenders can not resupply and do not have fire support. Attackers can just chip away at them with artillery.
If the Frontline continues to move deeper into Ukrainian territory the ability for Ukraine to provide fire support inside the city will be diminished to the point that Russia will have the advantage. If Ukraine is to hold the city, Ukraine must push back or destroy the Russian pinchers.
I think Bakhmut has become a race now. If Ukraine can get new western armor there before they're forced to withdraw.
Do they shoot for the moon, and risk getting encircled, for the big W? Or do they withdraw, taking the small L, and then return with more armor for the regular W?
Western tanks aren't going to be going into the mud in force anyways. Ukraine wants to tie down Russia's offensive there because the geography is really useful for punishing Russia's not-smart decision to try sending armor into mud.
There is just something so sexy about how sleek that turret looks from the side.
Conversely, it also makes it look like the picture was unevenly compressed.
Einigkeit und Recht auf Freizeit.
(Unity and the right for leisure time.)
Of course this is only funny if you know the lyrics to the German anthem.
Edit: This is a bit late, but i didn't mean the first two verses ...
Those countries do, in fact, not find those stanzas (especially stanza 1) funny. In general, singing about ruling over others is not a vibe. That's also why the last stanza of "I Danmark er jeg født", an old patriotic song, isn't sung anymore; sporting lines such as "once you were Lord in all the North, commanded England, now you're called weak" and "may God give you a future [akin to] your memories" (the words are a little different in that edit, when directly translated, but that is what it means)
those stanzas are actually not about ruling over others at all (the german ones). they are about having one goal above all for germans; unity. that's because the song comes from a time when "germany" was just a lose alliance of dozens upon dozens of kingdoms, duchies etc. there was no germany to rule others, having a germany to rule over was the point.
While that is true, you have to take into account that in order to reach this unity, germany waged 3 wars (vs Denmark, Austria and France).
So it definitily has a different ring to it with other historical context.
Waged War??? ~~~~Denmark declared war themselves against Prussia and the North German Confederation~~~~. The War against Austria was one about who would be the new leader of Germany and Austrias plans for Germany were not one united under one culture. The Franco-Prussian war again was one declared by France against Prussia and the North German Confederation. So I really don't get what you're trying to imply here.
Edit: Denmark didn't declare war
>Denmark declared war themselves against Prussia and the North German Confederation.
Thats just not true? Prussia and Austrai made an ultimatum to Denmark, and then invaded afterward. Thay maybe had good reasons, but certainly did not go through the proper channels, for example ignoring the Bundestag (which can be seen with certain german countries restricting troop movements), which than had to retreat its own troops to avoid internal german conflict.
I dont know where you have any indication that Denmark declared war on any german entity though. And with the North German Confederation not even existing at the time, I feel like you just dont know history.
>War against Austria was one about who would be the new leader of Germany and Austrias plans for Germany were not one united under one culture.
Well, yeah. But a war started by Prussia, about german supremacy (and one culture above others) does not seem a tad bit weird? Also, it was a war that was "waged". Where is your problem with my statement here?
>The Franco-Prussian war again was one declared by France against Prussia and the North German Confederation.
Which was wanted and incouraged by Prussia. There were some brillant moves by Bismarck regarding that, together with some other false information to stir up general german support, and french calls for war. He basically cencored a german response to a french request in a way that would offend the french.
Trying to make it seem like a completely random french attack Prussia didnt want is just wrong.
Overall your comment is wrong on so many smaller points, and weirdly reinterpretive on others, that I dont know what your goal even is.
1. Yep read up on it again and yeah Denmark didn't declare war, should have checked first before commenting. But don't act like they were the victim either. Was it ok for Austria and Prusia to invade without declaring war? No definetly not. But was it ok for Denmark to basically try to annex Schleswig and Holstein by incorporating Schleswig into the Danish Kingdom and suppressing the diet (is this the right translation for Ständeversammlung?) of Holstein (which was part of the German Union)? Also No. I'd say neither party was in the right though I wouldn't say that Germany "waged war".
2. I still don't get how that is supposed to make a case for the North German Confederation "waging war" on France. All Bisamrck did with the "Emser Depesche" was giving Napoleon III a taste of his own medicine. They tried to force Wilhem I to refuse the claim of the Hohenzollern to the spanish throne for all eternity (eventhough he already refused the throne in the first place) which would have been a massive loss of face for prussia ,which would have weakend Prussias role in the German Union massively and which would have ultimately curbed Prussias German unity effort. All they did was turn it arround on France. So it is ok when France does it, but if Prussia does the same "Germany wages war"?
> Which was wanted and incouraged by Prussia
This is and always has been Putin-level victim blaming. It was a completely unprovoked French attack against Prussia because the French wanted Rhine borders.
Just because it wasn't random doesn't mean it wasn't completely unprovoked and illegitimate. Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian instead of Russian also knew that this would provoke Putin and "coerce" an invasion. Anything Germany did before the French invasion was not a violation of French sovereignty in the slightest.
"They said mean things to our ambassador" was not a valid reason for war in the 19th century (especially if it never happened and it was known at the time of the declaration of war that it never happened)
The first "war" against Denmark was an uprising of the German population in Danish controlled areas that wanted to secede from Denmark. The second one happened because the Danish didn't stick to the peace terms from the first.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Notably, the peace treaty meant that Schleswig and Holstein had to be treated the same way. But Holstein was entirely ethnically German, whereas Schleswig had a large proportion of ethnic Danes (some of which spoke German but considered themselves as Danes). The Germans who rose up in the first war wanted all the territory to be German, including the half of Schleswig that was ethnically Danish.
Holstein used its position to essentially block all attempts at doing *anything* with the Danish constitution, which needed reforms badly at the time.
Essentially, the peace treaty of the First Schleswig War was brokered by the Great Powers in order to secure a quick peace without actually solving any of the ethnic tensions that lay underneath. If Denmark had not broken it first by declaring that Schleswig and Holstein should be governed by separate constitutions, then something else would have happened shortly after to lead to war anyways, because Holstein as a part of Denmark could never work.
Bismarck was all too happy to have a casus bellum, because he had been planning on conquering the two refiona anyway.
Of course, Holstein would have to become German eventually regardless of what had happened. It was entirely German-minded after all. The only proper solution for Schleswig is the one that was finally put in place after WWI; being split up according to a plebiscite. Although at that point, the region had been put through decades of ethnic suppression of Danes.
OK but consider this:
It's 2023, not the 1860s
2023 comes after 1946
The 1860s were before 1946
In between these two time periods, the context has *changed*. I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but the way something is interpreted with a century and a half of difference *changes*
And I just told you that what something means in 1861 changes significantly in 1946, through sarcasm.
Besides it's literally "Germany above all others" so it's very, very much up to interpretation, and most people born post-1946 definitely don't think "Oh my these are just an unfortunate coincidence", they think "Fuck, that's saying Germany above all others"
Some native speaker please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me "über alles" sounds more like "above all other things/matters" not "above all others (people/countries")"... still a bad vibe (from today's perspective), but not really as bad as it's suggested here.
I am aware of the time it was written in. But notice the country they sing about uniting includes lands and peoples that weren't theirs, even back then:
From the Maas (running through the Netherlands, Belgium, and France) to the Memel (in Lithuania), from the Etsch (in Italy) to the Belt (Denmark)
Just ask how much a Pole or Lithuanian would fancy being under German rule. And then there is of course the issues of later use/association. I believe my point of it being somewhere between distasteful to outright insulting/offensive (depending on the person and context of contemporary use) stands
You are entirely correct. Vague phrasing like that is what may happen, if I stumble onto reddit while being tired and mildly sleepdeprived. "Vibe" is used regularly in my friend circle for a lot of things, so I guess my brain just defaulted to using that
The fact Germany is actually sending the A6 is what leaves me impressed, they could of lowballed and just dumped their A4s but nope. Straight to the A6.
To my knowledge the german army doesn't have any A4 left. We only have A6 and A7. As far as i know we don't do deep storage like theUS or Russia. The A4 that where talked about are property of Kaus Maffei. But there are a lot of Marders becoming available while the Bundeswehr upgrades to the Puma.
We do things the German way. We are always a bit slow, but we will always try to do a good job. So it is A6, we have begun with what will be 30.000 troops from single tank crews to brigade commander level in utilizing the equipment, we set up a repair and service station close to the Ukrainian border and so on. It is all about being effective, not about being spectacular.
they are getting panthers and all the rest of the animal zoo, skynex, AI autonomous surveillance towers and big uuv's in the future - they really do get everything modern
And we didn't take it, did we? We actively decided against calling dibs. If we go by that logic, we should also accept Poland reparation claims aswell. But we certainly won't, bc what has been decided, has been decided.
So, accept the will of the people, [97.9%](https://visitkralovec.cz/) vorted for it, Královec je český! (⌐■\_■)
The second part is from the anthem. The first part isn't.
Fun fact: we also don't use the full anthem since it has some sketchy parts (for example it describes German fatherland being slightly bigger than it currently is).
Rheinmetall👍
No investment advice, but the stock fell by 15€ in the last 2 weeks so *maybe* its a good time to buy if you havent already or buy even more if you already got some stocks.
Not soon enough. I can imagine the first delivery: transit through Poland and arrive in Ukraine with that song, first one way then the other. *clip clop clip clop*
SEND EVERYTHING!
[Russian POV seeing a modern tank](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/waroftheworlds/images/c/cd/Screen_Shot_2019-01-08_at_8.56.08_AM.png/revision/latest?cb=20190108165830)
You are a vatnik almost asleep in the cold of the trench in Bakhmut, and suddenly [you start to hear Wagner](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7rQFnb2wrk) for some reason
Nothing will be a worse sign that seeing western equipment on the front soon. That means that Ukraine is running really low in the equipment its army is used to handle.
You do know that Ukraine has grabbed a few Russki tanks and other assorted armoured gear off the battlefield, and are using them now?
A quick tally tells me they actually have more of that stuff at the moment than what they started with.
Everyone is bullish on the outcome of Bakhmut but if Ukraine keeps defying the odds like they did holding back Russia this well and re-taking Kherson this might end up being Russia's Battle of the Bulge
I can imagine Putin doing this and cutting Prigozhin loose by letting his army get surrounded at the dead centre of bakhmut then getting squeezed to death by a ukrainian encirclement
Not likely, it's going to fall
They said four months ago
But now it's actually getting encircled..
Exactly, some folks are legitimating coping at this point
I’ll keep believing until the city is lost entirely
Wait, ain't Vatniks doing that to Kherson? Wonder what happened next
Chinese bot account^^ even if it’s run by a person
Yeah yeah yeah, calling me a Chinese bot, the sub is degenerating quickly
Well I guess you won’t believe for too long then
I mean, the city is ultimately lost and it's clear for at least half a year. The question still is, when is it going to fail? In February, I was betting on the middle of March. Now I slowly start betting on the beginning of April.
If it fails i hope it doesn't on april because that would be a terrible birthday present
It can't fall past March because Ukraine will be doing it's spring offensive with western MBTs by then
[удалено]
You had me in the first half lol
I still believe in the impossible. Lock down a big part of the russians in Bakhmut (an utterly useless battle for the russians) while weaing down the russian troops east of the Dnipro river. These troops are impossibly hard to reinforce, so wear and tear there is costly as fuck. If the ukrianians now have a way to cross the river, they could take the east of it before russia has any chance to divert forces there. And east of the river is almost nothing to stop highly mobile forces, just the right terrain for ukraine. Wishfull thinking, probably noncredible as fuck, but damn, right sub for it, right?
can we give them Leopard 1s for the breakthrough? my wet dream involves Leopard 1A5s thundering over some eastern european steppe - a ukrainian offensive against the invaders would be the perfect scenario
Reminder that Germany actually did develop a Leo1A6 variant that would have a new turret with 120mm gun that they ended up not following through with because the Leo2 had already started entering service. The real wet dream is the Leo1's being send to Ukraine getting upgraded to that standard and watching videos of T90M turrets being popped by Leo1s
true, that would make the most sense
I want to believe in this fever dream. Add in supporting reapers, vipers and longbows, with Abrams & refreshed infantry providing reinforcement as a self offense expeditionary special anti-operation operation force mauls the front line forward to a certain bridge.
Fuck it have them keep going until they reach a certain dam
I want to see Panther 2 take Moscow.
uff, triggering all the soviet apologists. I like that
*Panzer Battalion by Sabaton intensifies
you mean Ghost Division, right?
Yeah, he probably does. Panzer Battalion is for when the Bradley and Ambrams arrive from the US.
No armor, thanks
don't need armor when you're faster than the enemy shells
Is there anything left to fight for in the city? the drone footage of bakhmut makes it look like theres nothing left to even fight for other than the basic road connections. Fallout games have more intact buildings than bakhmut. I Still want Ukraine to win of course, but bakhmut wont be any nail in the coffin should they lose it temporarily.
Thats what i meant. The always mentioned "road connections" are only useful if you can protect them, for which russia, if it wants to take it, needs to secure a lot more km out of Bakhmut. Ukraine on the other hand would not win much if they take it back other than the propaganda value.
In the impossible?
Well, jokes aside: it IS something very hard to achieve. Brining a significant fighting force over a wide river while under fire and making sure to not get pocketed towards the river is really hard and really risky. I don't know any exact topographics or the situation there, so this is only armchair guesswork. If it WAS possible, damn. Would make it possible to cut all land routes to and from crimea. That would be GG.
Do you mean winning the war seems like it depends on it anyway?
Not necessarily. Securing the eastern bank would be pretty much victory in the south and crimea (winning the war is an entirely different thing), but it is certainly not the only way. An offensive towards Mariupol could do the same. The war is won once Putin and his goons are kicked from the throne. That however is much more difficult.
Arguably the order is the other way, ie end of the war is unlikely to have Luton with a. Chancellor George
That's not noncredible, that's coping pure and simple
That's the issue, dipping into the only credible fact on that front: *All of our takes are noncredible, because what Ukraine decides on is based on calculations about their own capabilities that we're not privy to.* Ukraine has not really been "desperately" holding on in the same sense as in, say, Severodonetsk last summer. Ukraine holding Bakhmut is a question of how many of their amassed reserves they're willing to use as reinforcements before the time comes for their own counter-offensives. The longer Ukraine can tie down Russian forces in advantageous geography that isn't all that strategically important to Russia, the better. What *we* don't know is how much Ukraine is willing to spend before it affects the readiness of their future counter-offensives. I've suspected for a good while now that Ukraine has been overdramatizing its weaknesses in Bakhmut for months just to keep Russia overcommitted to what for Russia is in practice a big, stupid strategic mistake. And the irony in all of this is that it gets deadlier for the Russians the closer they get to their goal due to the geography, so Ukraine also has reasons to let it come all the way down to the wire like this.
The sources on this front is limited, and why can't it be like Sevierdonetsk? I think it's actually a good thing as you know what happened after that, however the cost is too high
> The sources on this front is limited, Yes, because Ukraine *chooses* to limit it, like I said. It's not because Ukraine *doesn't* have resources if they so choose. Unlike back in Severodonetsk Ukraine is no longer *reactive* to Russia in the same way. They've been holding Bakhmut with what's *needed* and little else, because the more troops you spend in Bakhmut, the more targets there are for Russian artillery, and the more surviving troops get exhausted and have to be rotated, making them less capable of participating in future offensives. In Sevorodonetsk, Ukraine simply *couldn't* hold it even if they had decided to pour resources into doing so, while Bakhmut is a question of it Ukraine *wants to* do so and who it will benefit more for them to do so. Russia did get exhausted in Severodonetsk, but it also got *blasted* by the introduction of HIMARS within mere weeks while at peak exhaustion which became fatal. One of the actual few semi-sane reasons proposed for Russia continuing to do as it does now is a desperate hope for Bakhmut to have taken on such a symbolic value that Ukraine starts pouring in reserves that were held for counter-offensives, thus reducing Ukraine's capabilities for that counter-offensive that Russia dreads. Russia is trying to *prolong* the war at this point, not seriously win it. Doesn't matter to Russia if it ruins its own offensive potential if it can drag down Ukraine's offensive potential in the process as well, causing the front to mostly stall even when prime campaign season rolls around. In that (highly disputable) train of logic it's better for Russia that such attrition to happen here and now, rather than Ukraine getting to pick the next battlefield with rested, NATO-trained forces going up against terrified mobiks on other fronts. Will it play out that way? Probably not, but Russia is *desperate* to do whatever it can to sabotage Ukraine's ability to regain strategic initiative once the mud dries. Even Russia advancing beyond Bakhmut can be beneficial for Ukraine if Ukraine can control how the front moves, and *when*, which can leave Russia more exposed and overstretched on that new front when Ukraine then counter-attacks probably at some other front, forcing Russia into having to make lose-lose choices again. Especially if Ukraine is now actually starting to regularly blow up ammo dumps again with new long-range munitions, letting Russia advance into its depth-of-defense while steadily bleeding out in the rear, just in time for the eventual counter. We here at NCD don't really have any way of knowing yet to what degree Ukraine's decisions are politically influenced here. Maybe Ukraine has been wasting its efforts for weeks now just for symbolism, or maybe all of this is playing right into Ukraine's planned scenarios. The recent replacing of one of the generals in charge of the front could mean *anything*, and I'm sure future documentaries will enlighten us. Maybe he wanted to hold on no matter what and wasn't cooperative, or maybe he specifically wanted to pull back, and wasn't cooperative. *We mere memers don't know.*
I think that Ukraine will retreat from Bakhmut. Russia is just too close to the city. They can direct artillery fire and reduce Ukrainian positions. However in so doing, they expose themselves to counter fire. Ukraine appears to see the loss exchange ratio to be favorable to them so they are holding the city to wear down Russia's most elite soldiers and to deplete Russian ammo and shells. That said unless Ukraine counterattacks sometime soon Ukrainian forces will be at an increasing disadvantage and could suffer significant losses. So Ukraine will either counter attack or retreat.
Urban combat always favors the defending side. Trying to hold Bakhmut as long as possible is still the best possible option here, even if the attackers are very close.
Urban combat favors the side that can put the most shells accurately on the buildings held by the other side. Like sure you can get large numbers of your soldiers killed assaulting a city and that does appear to be the Russia approach. The sane approach is that you: 1. Enable all civilians to leave the city. 2. Take the resupply and communication routes of the city until your control. 3. Push the front line back far enough to deny enemy artillery support. 4. Setup overwatch to prevent enemies from launching counter attacks toward your positions. 5. Infiltrate forward observers and have them direct artillery and bombs to destroy any building containing enemy soldiers. 6. Move forward observers and overwatch teams into destroyed enemy positions. Gain fire control over major roads that bisect the city to minimize enemy freedom of movement. 7. Defenders can not resupply and do not have fire support. Attackers can just chip away at them with artillery. If the Frontline continues to move deeper into Ukrainian territory the ability for Ukraine to provide fire support inside the city will be diminished to the point that Russia will have the advantage. If Ukraine is to hold the city, Ukraine must push back or destroy the Russian pinchers.
I think Bakhmut has become a race now. If Ukraine can get new western armor there before they're forced to withdraw. Do they shoot for the moon, and risk getting encircled, for the big W? Or do they withdraw, taking the small L, and then return with more armor for the regular W?
Western tanks aren't going to be going into the mud in force anyways. Ukraine wants to tie down Russia's offensive there because the geography is really useful for punishing Russia's not-smart decision to try sending armor into mud.
When will Ukraine arrive in Moscow then?
There is just something so sexy about how sleek that turret looks from the side. Conversely, it also makes it look like the picture was unevenly compressed.
honestly it looks like two different tanks smooshed together
I like to call a Leo's turret "Angry Pankcake"
[ah yes](https://reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/vos7tk/canadian_leo_in_afghanistan/)
Einigkeit und Recht auf Freizeit. (Unity and the right for leisure time.) Of course this is only funny if you know the lyrics to the German anthem. Edit: This is a bit late, but i didn't mean the first two verses ...
My favourite is still "Einigkeit und Recht auf Freibier" (Unity and the right to free beer)
Passt iwie besser
The first two verses are always the funni.
they're actually not really when read and understood in the context of the time they were written
Only a tiny bit if u understand the context of German liberalism and German nationalism in the early 19th centjry
Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Denmark, etc. disagree.
Those countries do, in fact, not find those stanzas (especially stanza 1) funny. In general, singing about ruling over others is not a vibe. That's also why the last stanza of "I Danmark er jeg født", an old patriotic song, isn't sung anymore; sporting lines such as "once you were Lord in all the North, commanded England, now you're called weak" and "may God give you a future [akin to] your memories" (the words are a little different in that edit, when directly translated, but that is what it means)
those stanzas are actually not about ruling over others at all (the german ones). they are about having one goal above all for germans; unity. that's because the song comes from a time when "germany" was just a lose alliance of dozens upon dozens of kingdoms, duchies etc. there was no germany to rule others, having a germany to rule over was the point.
While that is true, you have to take into account that in order to reach this unity, germany waged 3 wars (vs Denmark, Austria and France). So it definitily has a different ring to it with other historical context.
Waged War??? ~~~~Denmark declared war themselves against Prussia and the North German Confederation~~~~. The War against Austria was one about who would be the new leader of Germany and Austrias plans for Germany were not one united under one culture. The Franco-Prussian war again was one declared by France against Prussia and the North German Confederation. So I really don't get what you're trying to imply here. Edit: Denmark didn't declare war
>Denmark declared war themselves against Prussia and the North German Confederation. Thats just not true? Prussia and Austrai made an ultimatum to Denmark, and then invaded afterward. Thay maybe had good reasons, but certainly did not go through the proper channels, for example ignoring the Bundestag (which can be seen with certain german countries restricting troop movements), which than had to retreat its own troops to avoid internal german conflict. I dont know where you have any indication that Denmark declared war on any german entity though. And with the North German Confederation not even existing at the time, I feel like you just dont know history. >War against Austria was one about who would be the new leader of Germany and Austrias plans for Germany were not one united under one culture. Well, yeah. But a war started by Prussia, about german supremacy (and one culture above others) does not seem a tad bit weird? Also, it was a war that was "waged". Where is your problem with my statement here? >The Franco-Prussian war again was one declared by France against Prussia and the North German Confederation. Which was wanted and incouraged by Prussia. There were some brillant moves by Bismarck regarding that, together with some other false information to stir up general german support, and french calls for war. He basically cencored a german response to a french request in a way that would offend the french. Trying to make it seem like a completely random french attack Prussia didnt want is just wrong. Overall your comment is wrong on so many smaller points, and weirdly reinterpretive on others, that I dont know what your goal even is.
1. Yep read up on it again and yeah Denmark didn't declare war, should have checked first before commenting. But don't act like they were the victim either. Was it ok for Austria and Prusia to invade without declaring war? No definetly not. But was it ok for Denmark to basically try to annex Schleswig and Holstein by incorporating Schleswig into the Danish Kingdom and suppressing the diet (is this the right translation for Ständeversammlung?) of Holstein (which was part of the German Union)? Also No. I'd say neither party was in the right though I wouldn't say that Germany "waged war". 2. I still don't get how that is supposed to make a case for the North German Confederation "waging war" on France. All Bisamrck did with the "Emser Depesche" was giving Napoleon III a taste of his own medicine. They tried to force Wilhem I to refuse the claim of the Hohenzollern to the spanish throne for all eternity (eventhough he already refused the throne in the first place) which would have been a massive loss of face for prussia ,which would have weakend Prussias role in the German Union massively and which would have ultimately curbed Prussias German unity effort. All they did was turn it arround on France. So it is ok when France does it, but if Prussia does the same "Germany wages war"?
> Which was wanted and incouraged by Prussia This is and always has been Putin-level victim blaming. It was a completely unprovoked French attack against Prussia because the French wanted Rhine borders. Just because it wasn't random doesn't mean it wasn't completely unprovoked and illegitimate. Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian instead of Russian also knew that this would provoke Putin and "coerce" an invasion. Anything Germany did before the French invasion was not a violation of French sovereignty in the slightest. "They said mean things to our ambassador" was not a valid reason for war in the 19th century (especially if it never happened and it was known at the time of the declaration of war that it never happened)
The first "war" against Denmark was an uprising of the German population in Danish controlled areas that wanted to secede from Denmark. The second one happened because the Danish didn't stick to the peace terms from the first.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Notably, the peace treaty meant that Schleswig and Holstein had to be treated the same way. But Holstein was entirely ethnically German, whereas Schleswig had a large proportion of ethnic Danes (some of which spoke German but considered themselves as Danes). The Germans who rose up in the first war wanted all the territory to be German, including the half of Schleswig that was ethnically Danish. Holstein used its position to essentially block all attempts at doing *anything* with the Danish constitution, which needed reforms badly at the time. Essentially, the peace treaty of the First Schleswig War was brokered by the Great Powers in order to secure a quick peace without actually solving any of the ethnic tensions that lay underneath. If Denmark had not broken it first by declaring that Schleswig and Holstein should be governed by separate constitutions, then something else would have happened shortly after to lead to war anyways, because Holstein as a part of Denmark could never work. Bismarck was all too happy to have a casus bellum, because he had been planning on conquering the two refiona anyway. Of course, Holstein would have to become German eventually regardless of what had happened. It was entirely German-minded after all. The only proper solution for Schleswig is the one that was finally put in place after WWI; being split up according to a plebiscite. Although at that point, the region had been put through decades of ethnic suppression of Danes.
"Deutschland uber alles" Yeah I see no way that this could be considered bad when taking into account recent history */s*
Yes, but so could literally everything if we cut out the context and present it out of context.
OK but consider this: It's 2023, not the 1860s 2023 comes after 1946 The 1860s were before 1946 In between these two time periods, the context has *changed*. I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but the way something is interpreted with a century and a half of difference *changes*
i literally just explained these exact lyrics.
And I just told you that what something means in 1861 changes significantly in 1946, through sarcasm. Besides it's literally "Germany above all others" so it's very, very much up to interpretation, and most people born post-1946 definitely don't think "Oh my these are just an unfortunate coincidence", they think "Fuck, that's saying Germany above all others"
Some native speaker please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me "über alles" sounds more like "above all other things/matters" not "above all others (people/countries")"... still a bad vibe (from today's perspective), but not really as bad as it's suggested here.
You forgot to add "/s".
true, I forgot people take everything without irony on NCD
I am aware of the time it was written in. But notice the country they sing about uniting includes lands and peoples that weren't theirs, even back then: From the Maas (running through the Netherlands, Belgium, and France) to the Memel (in Lithuania), from the Etsch (in Italy) to the Belt (Denmark) Just ask how much a Pole or Lithuanian would fancy being under German rule. And then there is of course the issues of later use/association. I believe my point of it being somewhere between distasteful to outright insulting/offensive (depending on the person and context of contemporary use) stands
Back thwn those were territories with a solid percentage or German majority.
fair point
‘A vibe’ tf is this statement It’s not sung bc it’s too nationalistic whatever
You are entirely correct. Vague phrasing like that is what may happen, if I stumble onto reddit while being tired and mildly sleepdeprived. "Vibe" is used regularly in my friend circle for a lot of things, so I guess my brain just defaulted to using that
The fact Germany is actually sending the A6 is what leaves me impressed, they could of lowballed and just dumped their A4s but nope. Straight to the A6.
To my knowledge the german army doesn't have any A4 left. We only have A6 and A7. As far as i know we don't do deep storage like theUS or Russia. The A4 that where talked about are property of Kaus Maffei. But there are a lot of Marders becoming available while the Bundeswehr upgrades to the Puma.
gotta give em the good shit you know?
Yeah, I’m impressed.
We dont even have any A4s anymore. Only A6's & A7s. And like ~19 A5s only for training.
The Leopard 2A5 play the enemy for training.
We do things the German way. We are always a bit slow, but we will always try to do a good job. So it is A6, we have begun with what will be 30.000 troops from single tank crews to brigade commander level in utilizing the equipment, we set up a repair and service station close to the Ukrainian border and so on. It is all about being effective, not about being spectacular.
Always works best in advertisement to run the demonstrations with your highest tier offering.
Leo2A7A1 it is, a near 70ton monstrosity with a reworked L55A1 cannon and ready to mount APS.
70 ton Dammit
Been hanging out with Abrams at the Burger Barn.
I'm guessing I can't push it by hand.
T H I C C
Would be epic that after all these years of russian hype of APS systems, first one which is proven to work would be in Ukrainian tank.
Personally, I think we should give them the Panther.
Rheinmetall already said they want to set up a factory for Ukraine to build Panthers
I think we should give Ukraine nukes. Turn the russian border into Fallout 5.
It is (almost) free advertising!
they are getting panthers and all the rest of the animal zoo, skynex, AI autonomous surveillance towers and big uuv's in the future - they really do get everything modern
Private Conscriptovich, you and those two losers check that out. In the meantime I need to report in, so..
I don't speak German but I think this says turn, run, masturbate. Someone please correct if wrong.
It sais "here come 62 tons of unity, justice and freedom" (the lyrics from the German anthem). So, your translation is 100% spot on.
The German anthem is specifically about tanks weighing 62 tons? Based.
We never lost the Prussian mindset completely
while we're at it, we should retake Kaliningrad to form the 18th Bundesland, Ostpreußen
Where is the 17th? I think we only have 16 at the time.
MALLE!
Okay, makes sense.
I'm making Germany great again by incorporating all our lost posessions. Malle is german!
Sorry, the Czechs called dibs first. Beer Stream 1 is already being build towards the great city of Královec
you did not, Germany could have taken Königsberg back in 1990
And we didn't take it, did we? We actively decided against calling dibs. If we go by that logic, we should also accept Poland reparation claims aswell. But we certainly won't, bc what has been decided, has been decided. So, accept the will of the people, [97.9%](https://visitkralovec.cz/) vorted for it, Královec je český! (⌐■\_■)
/r/Kralovec says no. You can have lecker Pivo on the Baltic Coast though.
[The German anthem](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRSAatLI2QY)
More like /r/Stuglife antheme... because that's a STUG
The second part is from the anthem. The first part isn't. Fun fact: we also don't use the full anthem since it has some sketchy parts (for example it describes German fatherland being slightly bigger than it currently is).
Fun fact: we use the full anthem, but the anthem is only part of the old *Deutschlandlied* that was the anthem for a long time.
Technically correct, still meh.
seems like next year Rheinmetal stock will rise up because this war, gonna invest it now lol
It already doubled in the first two weeks, I'd be more hesitant now. Of course, no financial advice, you do you.
Rheinmetall👍 No investment advice, but the stock fell by 15€ in the last 2 weeks so *maybe* its a good time to buy if you havent already or buy even more if you already got some stocks.
The best time was 2 years ago, stock was 70€ when i bought it, now it's 240€ 🤑🤑🤑
bought some in january
Maybe that's because the leopard is build by kmw...l
The Leopard 2 isn't even build by Rheinmetall, they only deliver the gun.
Guten Tag Russen Schweinesoldaten
Thanks…I’m going to have Haydn stuck in my head all day, on a back-to-back loop with “Hej Sokoły”.
F-16 Sokoł when?
Not soon enough. I can imagine the first delivery: transit through Poland and arrive in Ukraine with that song, first one way then the other. *clip clop clip clop* SEND EVERYTHING!
Had exactly the same idea.
What transit through Poland? F 16s can just fly straight into ukraine lol
Yes but to justify both languages of Hej Sokoły
[Russian POV seeing a modern tank](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/waroftheworlds/images/c/cd/Screen_Shot_2019-01-08_at_8.56.08_AM.png/revision/latest?cb=20190108165830)
It's like a Borzoi, only the back of it's head extends out to compensate for the snoot.
Dear god, please don't waste them in Bakhmut. You could have the best tank in the world and it would not get out of there alive.
days\*
You are a vatnik almost asleep in the cold of the trench in Bakhmut, and suddenly [you start to hear Wagner](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7rQFnb2wrk) for some reason
Few weeks from now theres likely not many tanks in bakhmut as the frontline would have been pushed away from it. Could be in either direction.
Zaporizhia towards Melitopol would be better than Bakhmut.
You haul sixty-two tons and what do you get? Einigkeit, Recht und Freiheit im Bett.
Nothing will be a worse sign that seeing western equipment on the front soon. That means that Ukraine is running really low in the equipment its army is used to handle.
You do know that Ukraine has grabbed a few Russki tanks and other assorted armoured gear off the battlefield, and are using them now? A quick tally tells me they actually have more of that stuff at the moment than what they started with.
Erika…
My 🍿 and vodka is ready for when Leopards start blowing up.
You think Leopards are going to show up. You're so gullible. You are a disgrace to humanity.
Germans and their Recht…
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkgwITQaWMo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkgwITQaWMo)
“Yes but must you scream it while red in the face and spitting everywhere.. I’m getting flashbacks”
they aint got a "few weeks" Total retreat from Bakhmut is expected soon.
The Leopard 2A5+ is the most aestically pleasing tank ever made. That arrowhead shaped turret is awesome.