this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
624 points (98.6% liked)

World News

37301 readers
1515 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Anarch157a 245 points 2 days ago (16 children)

According to the open-source intelligence (OSINT) site Molfar, Ukraine has sunk or damaged nearly 60 ships of the Russian Navy.

How, for fuck sake, Russia managed to lose 60 ships to a country that has NO NAVY ?!?

Holy! Shit!

[–] Badeendje 178 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Because it is easier to deny your enemy terrain than it is to keep it.

And Ukraine does have a navy. It is just made up out of very angry remote controlled low observable high speed boats that carry a ton of explosives and don't have to come home because they want to hug your ship and make it sad.

[–] andrewta 53 points 2 days ago

😆 I love it

Hug your boat and make it sad

[–] NOT_RICK 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Drones really change the calculus

[–] kautau 40 points 2 days ago (1 children)

New war meta is crazy this season

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago

Eh, they keep releasing new War every few years and idiots keep buying it even though war never changes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Marine drones. Basically remote control exploding speed boats, some with rockets on them. They basically attack like hyaenas bringing down a zebra.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

That question was not a question but more like a "Lol, world's second greatest navy lost to a country with no navy, lmao"

[–] suction 22 points 2 days ago

I think it was a rhetorical question...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 84 points 2 days ago (9 children)

This is a whole paradigm shift, and it's not new.

So you have a billion dollar aircraft carrier. How many million dollar missiles can you shoot at it before it sinks? Generally, it's not a thousand.

Same deal all down the line. A tank is fantastically more expensive than an antitank rocket.

Just the way the world works. You can iterate and improve a small munition way faster than a huge ship.

[–] Valmond 56 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tanks are different, it is more or less normal they blow up from time to time, a destroyer not so much. Like an AWACS for example, should never get picked out of the sky.

Great anyways that russia is losing both in ridiculously high numbers.

[–] AbidanYre 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Even still, there's a difference between losing one AWACS and losing all of them.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

Well, yes and no. Fleet size matters.

UK MoD estimated earlier this year that Russia had about 6 serviceable A-50 airframes; the US alone has 21 E-3s, while France operates 4, and NATO collectively operates another 18 - and that doesn’t factor in other newer and more advanced AWACS platforms.

Russia lost over 10% of their operable AWACS fleet by losing one plane. Russia is HUGE. Their AEW assets were absurdly stretched before, and now they will be even moreso. Any losses they incur will degrade their overall strategic AEW capacity in a very real fashion.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 days ago (7 children)

That is the meme, but when I talk to military people they point out Russian incompetence. They do not believe NATO ships are that vulnerable. Ukraine is using a lot of tanks, but because they are using them according to good military doctrine they are not taking nearly as many losses. Note that Ukraine and Russia both got their tank instructions from the old Soviet playbook not a NATO book (though Ukraine as had NATO training as well), there is nothing about using a tank well Russia shouldn't know, but they are failing to follow their own book on how to use tanks.

[–] Aceticon 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Also a lot of the late Soviet Union military technology came from Ukraine, plus their military were also trained in the same kind of school of thought as Russia and still know it.

So it makes sense that, when push came to shove, the Ukranians would fast come up with asymetric war solutions against Russia, that Russia wouldn't be as fast in effectivelly countering them and Ukraine would be quicker at developing new or adjusted solutions once Russia found a counter (or, more generally, that Ukraine would remain ahead of Russian in the cycle were each side develops a counter to the other side's counters).

Had Russia's initial blietzkrieg attack worked, it would've been a different story, but at this stage it makes sense that Ukraine has the technological edge, not just in the weaponry it gets from the West but also in their own weapons development, especially now that it has much better AA to protect the installations far away from the frontlines working on weapons tech.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

On the tank side, some planned updates/replacements for the Abrams were very suddenly canned and went back to the drawing board. The DoD didn't say why, but a good guess is that they saw how things were going for tanks vs drones in Ukraine, and decided that these new designs would be obsolete before they're built.

[–] khannie 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You may bet your bollix that tank designers are earning really good overtime at the moment.

[–] mojofrododojo 9 points 2 days ago

You may bet your bollix that tank designers are earning really good overtime at the moment.

something tells me drone and EW designers are pulling even more OT than the tank guys.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Maggoty 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This shift happened in the 1930's. Land based naval bombers prevented the Germans from operating surface ships anywhere near the English coast. Japanese carriers routinely ferried bombers to support naval landings. And of course the US built their entire Pacific fleet around carriers.

A landmass isn't anything more than a giant, unsinkable, carrier in naval strategy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Tanks aren't about to go out of style, though. The goal is to not let anti-tank weapons in range of your tanks - as it has been since WWII, just moreso as time goes on. Maybe ditto for ships that aren't Soviet rustbuckets crewed with drunks, although I think even that is in question these days.

Also, funny enough, the average weapon is getting more complicated and expensive as time goes on. At least for the West, a skilled soldier continues to cost more than whatever they operate, so survivability is worth it even if it means less volume.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It's not that simple. If it was the American military wouldn't be effective because manpads, javelins, and torpedos would have taken out all the aircraft, tanks and ships.

The military is a fighting unit and protects itself very well. At least, it does it it's working right. When you have a military being destroyed by a vault interior opponent, it's because they are fucking to their military...or someone is trying to occupy Afghanistan.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Maggoty 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Drones and missiles. Air power long ago surpassed ship power and a landmass makes one hell of an aircraft carrier.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If only they had desert power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Ukraine has a navy. The navy just -- for the moment -- doesn't have any ships, just boats and anti-ship missiles and USVs and such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Navy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago

That is genuinely amazing, losing 60 ships to a country without an actually big navy. Invading Ukraine to have warm waters for your navy, and you still lose.

This is Russia's "don't invade Russia in winter". Don't launch a naval assault on Ukraine, apparently.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

Fuck yeah Ukraine. We love to see it :)

[–] Aceticon 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Russian Propaganda: "Our Glorious Nation has acquired a brand new submersible to help its fight against NATO in Ukraine"

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 5 points 1 day ago

We've mined this very specific location with very powerful ordinance!

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 days ago
[–] MushuChupacabra 53 points 2 days ago (4 children)

That's impressive.

I'm now wondering how fucking useless the Russian navy would be fighting a nation that also had a navy.

[–] espentan 33 points 2 days ago (7 children)

For an amusing read on how well their navy did against the Japanese, in 1905, check out Battle of Tsushima.

The Russians lost 5.045 and 21 ships (more captured and/or damaged). Japan lost 117 and 3 torpedo boats.

Here's an entertaining video on their journey to Japan.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago

I don't think Russia has ever had a positive naval experience in anger lmao

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fedizen 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL 48 points 2 days ago (8 children)

He [Putin] also said that the fleet is being replenished with new ships, equipped with modern weapons, and that domestic shipbuilders will hand over more than 40 vessels to the Defense Ministry this year.

Sure, do that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, except that per the Montreux Convention, because Turkey has recognized that Russia is “at war”, Russia is not allowed to transit any warships through the Bosporus Strait, so any new combat ship they make has to be made in the Black Sea.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Is 40 a lot? That seems quite ambitious but I have no idea how long it takes to build one.

Edit: Russia's built ~16 of these Karakurt-class ships since 2018 lol. So no, it won't be 40 missle boats.

[–] Bernie_Sandals 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Russia's built ~16 of these Karakurt-class ships since 2018 lol.

It's taken Russia over 10 years to just build a little over 10 stealth fighters. (And Ukraine has destroyed one)

Meanwhile the Netherlands alone has 24, and the U.S. has over 600.

Russia's high tech side of their military industrial complex is incredibly weak compared to the old USSR days, and even their low tech side is struggling.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No way they're replacing the bigger ones, like the Moskva. That one was built in a yard that's now in Ukraine, and Russia hasn't gotten that part back. Even if they did, Ukraine hadn't really maintained it.

It was also launched in 1979, and they haven't built anything that size since the USSR fell.

They'd have to rebuild the infrastructure needed to build the ship. These losses are irreplaceable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ganksy 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd be willing to take a wild guess and say that at least 30+ of those new vessels are small support boats.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cabron_offsets 40 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I know they're saying Ukraine sunk those ships......but the headline makes it sound like Putin is saying "Now where did I put that military ship? Was it in the baltic sea? Did I harbor it in the Atlantic? Oh who can keep track of these things???"

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago

There's this one time my brother was playing some Total War (I think?) And he told me he lost his army. I gave my condolences and he said "No, I lost lost it. I don't remember where I placed them and now I can't find them."

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago

You love to see it! Every little bit helps.

load more comments
view more: next ›