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

World News

39032 readers
2261 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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@lemmy.world 247 points 4 months 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@lemmy.world 178 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago

😆 I love it

Hug your boat and make it sad

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 38 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Drones really change the calculus

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago (1 children)

New war meta is crazy this season

[–] bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 28 points 4 months 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)
[–] notagoodboye 84 points 4 months ago (8 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@lemmy.world 56 points 4 months 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@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

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.

[–] bluGill@kbin.run 44 points 4 months 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.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 16 points 4 months 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@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months 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.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They do not believe NATO ships are that vulnerable

Oh they are, so a shit ton is being done for anti missile, anti submarine, now anti flying drone, should be anti jet ski drone, anti submarine drone, etc.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 16 points 4 months 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)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

So you have a billion dollar aircraft carrier. How many million dollar missiles can you shoot at it before it sinks?

For Russia's aircraft carrier? Zero. That thing was always catching fire and had to be towed everywhere.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 44 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 32 points 4 months 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.

[–] suction@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

I think it was a rhetorical question...

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 9 points 4 months 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"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tal 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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)
[–] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 4 months 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.

[–] SpacePirate@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 months ago

To be pedantic, they have a navy, just no large ships in said navy.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months 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@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months 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)
[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 48 points 4 months 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.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months 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)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 17 points 4 months 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@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months 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.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

We put Kalashnikov on Sergey's rowboat, Ukraine cowers before invincible Russian engineering!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] hoss@lemmynsfw.com 46 points 4 months ago
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months 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???"

[–] RandomStickman@kbin.run 26 points 4 months 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."

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 17 points 4 months ago

You love to see it! Every little bit helps.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 13 points 4 months ago

Fuck yeah Ukraine. We love to see it :)

[–] noxy@yiffit.net 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] spaghetti_hitchens@kbin.run 9 points 4 months ago

Hey, Russian Warship, go fuck yourself.

load more comments
view more: next ›