Refute this.

Refute this.

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you need to elaborate so we can refute it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Really dude?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        eh, i'm not really following all the Ukro-Russian drama. it's just another fight between israelites anyways.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not a clever strat
        actually embarrassing dude

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Air superiority.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      surface to air missiles will destroy that

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ship launched ballistic cruise missiles will destroy surface to air missile batteries.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hezbollah completely held of Israels air strikes with hand held SAMS's in 2006. Israeli planes were returning to refuel without having delivered their payloads because getting to their targets meant being shot down. Israel gave up trying to bomb Hezbollah's bunkers after three days of this and started bombing civilian infrastructure in northern Lebanon instead. Israel also lost 50 Merkava tanks to infantry with unguided anti tank rockets.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nukes

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nukes aren't being used in the conflict used in the conflict as far as I know

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Artillery.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      tanks btfo artillery

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Rus-ukr war says otherwise. Modern arty with drone sporting and guided shells BTFOs tanks.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not if the tank is 5 feet away.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But it's not, it has to drive kilometers to to get in range.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Just ask the french who believed artillery was superior to tanks in world war 2. Trying to get through replies

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We are not in 1940. Thinking moden tanks are superior to modern arty is the same logic the beforementioned french used.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                precision guided munitions with drone spotters though

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        tanks never even see artillery since the horizon is 4km away.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The tanks would charge the artillery or encircle it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              With their fast manoeuvrability and engines which is why they were invented haha. Fine to charge if you are too low iq to encircle but encirclement is ideal

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How long do you think it takes a tank to drive 4km? How long do you think an artillery shell takes to travel 4km?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It doesn't take a tank long at all. Ten minutes. The artillery won't adjust aim fast enough. Artillery is slow tanks are fast.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How long does it take for a tank to travel 4km?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                For anyone interested, I just done the maths and a 155mm shell will travel 4km in 4.62 seconds.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            into mines and drone corrected artillery fire. the last charge of the tank brigade is over. everything is observed now and artillery deployed off axis drone antitank mines are here too. not to mention most of the artillery duels are fought in spgs that outrun your tanks.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              spgs get btfo by nlaws

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                a SPG is 30km away from a nlaw.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I am talking about an offensive strategy. We would charge with nlaws on mechanized infantry making the spgs retreat which is what we want

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                mounted foot infantry charging 30km toward spgs through minefields and trenches under observation of drones is not a sound plan. better would be having longer ranged and faster spgs, and maybe an atgm that can be deployed out of tube artillery and is cheap.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      right, this war is all artillery

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is all artillery because it is backward

        All you need is the old good 3x to 5x numerical superiority.

        I am suggesting something that isn't chinese wave tactics and values life.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >values life.
          lolwhat

          Just offer those refuges the average wage of an ukrainian soldier, promise asylum, train them for three months or so and send them to storm Russian positions round a clock to deprieve defenders from sleep.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Artillery
    Mines
    Drones

  6. 4 weeks ago
    FREE PALESTINE
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      eighth post best post

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      eighth post best post

      although clearly not the intention, this coincidentally works in all three permutations
      >kill all israelites
      obvious
      >all israelites kill
      yep, scum that they are
      >israelites kill all
      that's indeed exactly what they do, and why they must be exterminated

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine doing a "refute this" thread and getting btfo'd within 5 mins. Embarrassing. I'd probably kill myself.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      keep charging into the meat grinder then your choice merely offering some common sense

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Common sense that ignores artillery, mines, drones, helicopters, jets, ballistic missiles and ship launched ordinance? Please.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Put anti tank weapons on your tanks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That makes you vulnerable to other tanks. With nlaw you are too small of a target

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    look nagger. its the very first sentence on wikipedia:
    Combined arms operations date back to antiquity

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i am trying to explain combined arms to ukrainians

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this is so fucking retarded even pointing out the absolute obvious is pointless and yet here you go;
    LOGISTICS. Where's your tanks and inf going? What they going to do? Where their supply? Medicine? AMMO? Repair? Broken routes or bridges?
    Honestly I hope you feel bad about this post

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      obviously you would have logistics

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not without air superiority you wouldn't.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          surface to air missiles

          Wow, who would've though being a general would be so simple.
          Thanks to op, the homosexual, and his useless thread, we can extinguish military academies all over the world.

          i am trying to suggest a strategy that isn't meat grinder

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            surface to air missiles will destroy that

            Ship launched ballistic cruise missiles will destroy surface to air missile batteries.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              shoot missiles at boat

              mounted foot infantry charging 30km toward spgs through minefields and trenches under observation of drones is not a sound plan. better would be having longer ranged and faster spgs, and maybe an atgm that can be deployed out of tube artillery and is cheap.

              my strategy is close quarters and mines can be avoided by outmanoeuvring and an artillery launched atgm does not exist

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Chinese GP105 fired from 105 mm gun[1]
                French Anti-Char Rapide Autopropulsé [fr] (ACRA) 142mm anti-tank guided missile, tested on a version of the AMX-30 MBT
                Indian SAMHO (missile) fired from 120 mm gun
                Israeli LAHAT, used with their 105 and 120 mm gun tubes
                Russian 9K112 Kobra (AT-8 Songster), 9M119/M/120 (Refleks/Refleks-M/Svir) (AT-11 Sniper) and other types, fired from 115, and 125 mm guns, and 9M117 Bastion fired from 100 mm guns
                Ukrainian Kombat [uk; ru] tandem-warhead ATGM with a 5,000 m effective range, fired from a 125 mm smoothbore gun[2]
                US Army MGM-51 Shillelagh fired from a 152 mm gun
                XM1111 Mid-Range Munition (guided round, no rocket motor)[3]
                Ukraine-developed Falarick 90, 105, and 120 mm with a 4000–5000 m range (depending on the calibre) ATGM for Cockerill guns made by the Belgian arms manufacturer CMI Defence[4][5]

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Those are extremely new weapons and not numerous or realistically manufactured enough to have a major effect. I am trying to vouch for a winning strategy that uses things ukraine has a lot of.

                >obviously you would have logistics
                obviously? nah tanks, infantry and anti-tank

                I think your definitions are v broad.
                do you include paras in infantry? as they are infantry but then you "have" to have planes, so obviously planes would have to have support planes and for planes to work you'd need radar, anti air etc.

                really the big problem you have is "anti tank" as one of your 3. infanty + tanks are both anti-tank, so what you gaining there? fighter jets are anti-tank, as are missiles fired from fucking space

                paratroopers are unnecessary fluff and a paramilitary is unnecessary. Ukraine has enough capital to supply those three things that I've boiled it down to

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                an offensive strategy for ukraine using what they have... time. sue for peace making territorial concessions and wage a bloody insurrection using $100 'liberator' drone mines to bleed russias officers and officials. publish the plans on the internet. kill all russian oligarchs. revolution topples russia 2.0, russia 3.0 joins NATO with Ukraine. the right way to defeat russia is a coup, not a land offensive.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That seems over ambitious and the attrition strategy is resulting in thousands dying. I don't think giving up territory is a good idea it is basically surrendering

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                if you nuke moscow does the war end? youre killing the wrong people. the advantage in war is always on the defense. take that advantage and use time to kill the right people. or just nuke moscow if that works. there is no way armies are marching to capitals. why kill a million men fighting drone grenades? people are better to have, but not better at blowing up. end the war for the soldiers and kill their leaders.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ok fine russia's navy is untouchable but the overall affect on the war isn't that big

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                anti-boat missile missiles missiled from a boat negates this. get with the times.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I tried to say before, I concede the russian navy is untouchable but the russian navy can't win the war by itself

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >obviously you would have logistics
        obviously? nah tanks, infantry and anti-tank

        I think your definitions are v broad.
        do you include paras in infantry? as they are infantry but then you "have" to have planes, so obviously planes would have to have support planes and for planes to work you'd need radar, anti air etc.

        really the big problem you have is "anti tank" as one of your 3. infanty + tanks are both anti-tank, so what you gaining there? fighter jets are anti-tank, as are missiles fired from fucking space

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >LOGISTICS. Where's your tanks and inf going? What they going to do? Where their supply? Medicine? AMMO? Repair? Broken routes or bridges?
      That's Western thinking, and one of the reasons Ukraine is getting rofflestomped at this time. Proper communist thinking is to put starving, unequipped, unsupplied, desperate prisoners with trivial or political charges (but not necessarily all-the-way retarded) into targeted territory, and let them naturally Battle Royal for whatever position that suits their automatic expression of natural traits. Of course, all of these properties will have been inventoried for future exploitation during their prison and pre-prison selection investigations.
      Remember, the Yo-Yo is one of the oldest and most successful pre-history tools, toys and weapons. Commie cannon fodder is essentially the combination of a Yo-Yo and bomb belt, but in your head. Food for thought.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wow, who would've though being a general would be so simple.
    Thanks to op, the homosexual, and his useless thread, we can extinguish military academies all over the world.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    so basically a cheap drone will fuck all 3 of them up at the same time

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Infrantry⊃Anti-tank
    Artillery>>>All above
    Air force>>>All above
    SAMs>>>Air force

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What about mechs?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All you need is the old good 3x to 5x numerical superiority.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, works until your opponent shows up with Ultralisks, Cracklings and Defilers, then it's gg

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, I'm an anti-tank infantry tank.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all 3 at once march into a minefield under an artillery strike

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      precision guided munitions with drone spotters though

      all of this shit relies on insanely stationary warfare and can be bypassed by being mobile

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        One you get through the line of mines, no more mines!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > being mobile
        howertanks I guess

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Allow me to effortpost:

    The burning man incident shows the importance of hovercrafts, which are insanely underrated. They are fast and according to one james bond movie they can float above land mines. Troops on hovercraft can outmanuever drones and anti-tank troops on foot. The fact that pootin and shillensky/nato don't use hovercrafts is just further proof that this war is FAKE & GAY. the end goal is to shift the man vs man depopulation war away from the mideast and towards a place where they can establish New Khazaria (where israeli women can fuck africanaggers and dogs, while israeli men can watch and count shekels)

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In reality its 90% artillery and a game of battle ship with your mostly infantry and some tanks to hold territory.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it only makes sense to office generals

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everything about taking fortified positions with entrenched infantry was invented 100 years ago and polished to perfection 80 years ago,

    About 1000 pieces of artillery per 1 km with enough of dumb shells to fire non stop for 2 to 3 hours and plow minefields, trenches and any possible position of defending artillery up to 25 kms from the frontline

    3x numerical superiority in infantry. supported by some tanks, which then do forth and cleanup the remaining defenders

    next day repeat the same.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Except it was countered in world war 2 when they realised you could encircle the enemies artillery and fire it against them. Handheld anti tank has been said to have stopped this but they can be killed with infantry

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Refute this.
    Artillery parked miles away with drone spotters.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      MUH DRONES

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can cry about it if you want but you didn't factor in artillery with modern spotting (drones)
        All of your infantry, tanks and antitank units get obliterated along with the rest of the grid squares they occupied.
        gg no re.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My strategy is a close quarters strategy. Artillery does not work close quarters.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh close quarters
            And how did they get so close?
            Do they just appear like a video game spawns in enemies?
            I would have spotted your units before they became to close for artillery and shelled the fuck out of them.
            All your base are belong to us.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I attack at night. Or are your drones surveying the land 24/7. I can tell you they're not.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Another way is to just send ukraine 5000 tanks and promise to replenish any losses. This likely would make Putin to back out. But the west needs to be able to produce so much stuff. Protip: it can't.

    It all boils down to the real gdp expressed in number of shells and tanks and not in some abstract monetary gdp.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      An inferior force can defeat a superior force if the inferior force uses better strategy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God sides with the side with big batallions

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    drones seem to beat everything though

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Drones are a meme weapons that don't decide wars

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >cheap to produce in large numbers
        >can safely and effortlessly scout the land ahead
        >psychological impact, will potentially drop a bomb on you
        >can take down armored vehicles that cost 1000x more to produce
        retard, drones have proven themselves to be the MVP of the modern theater of war

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why not both? My strategy plus drones if ukraine has them. They are a luxury and will never be the core of an army

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *