Comments by "" (@steemlenn8797) on "RFU News — Reporting from Ukraine" channel.

  1.  @quantustremorestfuturus5434  They had a spear because they were the roman equivalent of the greek phalanx. Marui's reforms got rid of both spear and triarii. And they were the troops of last resort, not the weapon of last resort. In a tight formation as they were supposed to fight, the spear wall is far stronger (and unmovable, which was an important point at that time) formation than any sword wielders. Not to metion if you run down fleeing units, a sword is waay better than a spear, because you can slash while running, without stoppig and without your weapon getting stuck. Your argument is actually against "deserter hunter". (Also they were relativly old and armor-laden, not the type of guy you want if you need to run after someone)
    1
  2. Yeah, that was the second one. Still remarkably few.
    1
  3.  @stefanth8596  For the Russians, yes. For each 5 times they took them.
    1
  4. that's just a wetdock! But I guess you don't know what that is because $insert bad joke about virginity here
    1
  5.  @ZeroneAngel  The third was waiting for the 4th and 5th adn the moved. That makes sense - at least if you aren't under drone survailance.
    1
  6. It's not that easy. First of all bomb save warehouses are extremely expensive. Secodn corruption. Third don't forget that Russia has not really build anything, relativly speaking. And in Soviet times you didn't need those warehouses to be save from Himars or cruise missiles. In most cases any war would have started hundreds of kilometers away from Russia.
    1
  7. Where else should they attack? It's not liek there is anything left except open space after month of bobardment.
    1
  8. That is likely the least gamechanging gamechanger I have seen in this war. It's only effective if the soldiers in the trench are suprised and under heavy fire, so they can't even shoot at the drone (which is highly visible after all once the thermite starts to drop). Also it's not a flamethrower drone (would be even less gamechanging).
    1
  9. Not enough training. The vocal equivalent of the 4 fingers.
    1
  10.  @TheRezro  You are confusing casualties with the amount needed to achieve the goal (of attacking). Though 3:1 seems to be the rule of thumb for casualties, too, if you take the whole front.
    1
  11. That is because there wasn't much fighting in Baghdad. If thsoe 5 million were all armed and determined to fight, the US would never have even started the fight.
    1
  12.  @3characterhandlerequired  It's armoured in the same way armoured cars for politicians are armoured. 9mm and grenade fragments, nothing more.
    1
  13. Probably too heavy for the drone.
    1
  14.  @MrAstrojensen  To that I respond: 1. The rate of destruction on Ukrainian soil has increased since Kursk, not decreased because 2) The diversion and thinning of Russian forces has not worked (a few thousand at most), while it definitely worked in thinning Ukrainian defenders, partly causing the "collapse" of the front lines seen in the last 3 months, with some units simply giving up because they are too exhausted. 3) That would have been the same in other places too, see Pokrovsk. 4) And Russia still has more of them than Ukraine. ----- I think you misunderstood because I left it out as self-evident: The initial attack certainly had military goals - but the ongoing defense in Kursk is mostly political. And those military goals were not or only partly achieved, with high drawbacks. The current stubborn fighting is way more political(!) than military - it's not a coincidence that "peace talks" get thrown around a lot more now.
    1
  15.  @elduquecaradura1468  The Russian Momentum is not lost, and it slowed down because they reached the actual second defense line. AND they are running out of heavy equipment, which would not have changed without Kursk.
    1
  16. What are those rings on the drone at 5:55 ?
    1
  17. I heavily doubt Kim cries. He has written them off whe he send them. Their houses are already redistributed.
    1
  18. That's either a very bad joke or someone having no idea what they are talking about.
    1
  19. Putin wanted a buffer zone, and Ukrainians are providing it. Damn nice guys!
    1
  20.  @veto7767  Yeah, typical "conservative" American. Other countries are of no interest for you, except they have oil. Then you either bomb them or organize a coup to install a puppet dictator. And then you are wondering why there are people applauding terrorists flying a plane into a tower.
    1
  21.  @Atheos-1  Moralizing? WTF you even talking about? And you didn't answer the OP question, which was about the actual casualties, you provided a "General rule of thumb", which by definition cannot be the non-general answer.
    1
  22.  @richardschipper5989  Which is why they do more meat waves.
    1
  23.  @realiteechecka  That is your impression. It may be the objective analysis and maybe even the reality. But all that is moot. The reality is that Russia could not take Ukraine in 3 days and they still tried it. The reality is that Putin will continue the meat waves as long as it means he gains territory. And he of course hopes that after Trump is president, the help of the West will go down even more and that his army can then overpower the already near breaking point Ukrainian army. We have seen how fast an army can run in Ukraine 2 years ago and just now in Syria. Or, as they say at the stock exchange: Past performance is no indicator of future performance.
    1
  24. Yes, It's an Ukrainian PR channel. That is why they sell Ukrainian stuff at the end. I thought that was a big enough hint. It's not like all the Russian bots who pretend to be independend 3rd party newspapers with names nobody can pronounce.
    1