Apologize.
Here's their new long-read, as always, absolutely fascinating.
https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf
RUSI specifically emphasizes that old T55/62 play a vital role on the battlefield
Apologize.
Here's their new long-read, as always, absolutely fascinating.
https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf
>a-actually T-55 is an improvement
The absolute state of vatnik mordor
They also said that Russian EW knocks out 10000 UAVs per month. Not even fucking Konashenko reports such insane numbers
Yeah, beyond retarded report.
>It sounds improbable therefore it didn't happen.
Yeah, like a country with no navy can't just sink a superpower's flagship.
Literally an NPC with a double-digit IQ mindset.
The paper from the last year called "preliminary lessons" had one of the lessons exactly saying that NATO should abandon the wunderwaffe mindset when it comes to drones and accept that they're disposables akin hand grenades.
So what you're saying is that they are double retarded, considering NATO has had disposable grenade-scale loitering munitions for a decade.
And tripple retarded, considering most non-insane Russian (incl. vatnik) sources have been repeatedly decrying the insanity and wastefulness of Russian drone usage because it leaves troops without essential recon assets.
>sounds improbable
It's such an absurb number, not evne Russias propaganda channels are claiming half as much. It's as "improbable" as fucking claims that cold fusion exists and that the moon landings were fake.
>accept that drones are disposable
That's exactly how they see them, and how they have always seen them. It's why they developed them. You have to be completely brain dead to write this shit
>It sounds improbable
It doesn't sound improbable. It's completely retarded. Ukraine never had and never will have that many UAVs to lose every month.
Drones also include cheap Chinese quadcopters
One of the largest Ukrainian charities bought 3.5k drones in the entire 2022. There are 3 big charity organizations and let's assume all 3 bought similar amounts (they didn't). MoD bought/requested jack shit because they are retards. So we have 10.5k drones not including smaller charities/donating to the brigades. You are zigger tier delusional if you think 10k/month is anywhere close to reality.
Yeah unless if the drones are constantly knocked out, constantly recovered in the gray zone/ behind enemy lines, then constantly relaunched, this is vatmoron level of retardation.
It’s $4500 * 10,000 a month ~ $45 million?
But honestly I don’t think dji makes that many drones per month
they could get a F35 or two in 4 months
It’s 333 drones KIA a DAY.
So this vatmoron publication is saying drones are being killed in greater numbers PER DAY than Russian and Ukrainian soldiers combined?
Unless if there’s some secret domestic drone industry in Ukraine, building a shit load of hobbyist drones. I highly doubt this is 333 DJI Magic drones PER DAY
>vatmoron publication
You and every other dumbass ITT literally only heard about RUSI this week shut the fuck up you uneducated child, these are not implausible numbers if you actually do the math and consider the size of the global drone market
Swear to god the amount of retards misreading or refusing to critically think about RUSI's recent report is a new low for this board
Vatmoron I literally finished reading “Blood Metal and Dust” last month because it was shortlisted on RUSI’s book award list.
You’re the retard that thinks $50 million of DJI Mavic drones are destroyed each month in Ukraine.
There’s literally not enough camera sensors, electronics, etc in the world to sustain that
Again, if you seriously believe that, you do not understand the size of the global drone market
So the burden of proof is on you and this RUSI publication to explain how 10,000 drones lost is sustainable within the context of the global drone market.
You vat morons are the ones making the claim, so you vat morons have to give the proof.
This publication is meant to be for a general audience, not Equity Research analysts in investment banking.
All they had to do was add 1-2 sentences explaining how this amount of drone losses is sustainable in the global drone market. But they didn’t, because they made up the numbers because they’re vatmorons
Have you considered that a rough estimate of $600 million annually lost on drones (assuming the very faulty assumption that each drone lost is worth $5000 instead of much cheaper) is substantial, but not inconceivable, for an industry worth $30 billion in 2022?
So you’re telling me, worldwide, there was 30 Billion USD worth of drones sold in 2022?
And it's expected to continue growing over the next decade
Alright then, why didn’t RUSI take the time to add this simple sentence and graph to their presentation?
Because they're not beholden to convince your retarded ignorant presumptuous ass, they're merely reporting the results of their interviews. Which you would know if you had actually read the report.
>I think they're just uncritically regurgitating Russian mil-blogger cope.
>they are giving the impression that the T-55/54 is the best thing since sliced bread, and totally superior to a javelin
>pure clownery
>they made up the numbers because they’re vatmorons
RUSI urges all not to be complacent when dealing with the Russian threat, citing interviews with Ukrainian officers actually fighting the Russians; but an army of PrepHoleommando couch potatoes are shrieking in denial and are convinced that Ukraine can just stroll into the Russian lines tomorrow.
Pathetic.
Lack of complacence when dealing with Russians would imply immediate McCarthism in the UK and putting the writers under increased scrutiny. Both the last 200 years and especially the last 24 have shown us that Russia is terrible at warfare but great at subversion.
Did I stutter, you fucking retard?
Considering every single squad has one, that's not actually that many. You'd probably lose half of that to general failures let alone drone drops.
The drone operator with 400 Russian kills said he'd lost like 30 and he was dropping like crazy. Still way most cost effective imo.
>abandon the wunderwaffe mindset
It didn't quite say that. It said they had a dramatic effect on the battlefield, particularly in terms of situational awareness- to the extent the fundamentally have changed how warfare are conducted. But at the end of the day they are highly expendable. To be used almost like expendable munitions rather than dumping huge amount of money in per an item.
>It sounds improbable therefore it didn't happen
>It sounds improbable
it doesn't sound improbable, it sounds downright insane. If we include all suicide drones it's possible Ukraine had 10k UAVs in total throughout this war. And RUSI are saying that Ukraine is losing that number of UAVs every single month to EW ALONE
Wouldn't it be reasonable if we are considering smallest observation drones? They are bulk buy off Ali baba $50 each min pack 36. How many platoons on the active fronts? Say 20k soldiers so 800 platoons going through 3 mini drones a day puts at 72k a month. 10k a month only requires each paltoon to lose 12 drones a month, or one every 3 days.
This sounds reasonable doesn't it?
So far as we've seen, it's far from a platoon level asset even with the Chinese junk ones. They're run by specialized units according to the "how it's made" type videos we've seen. Surely they have a lot, but not many per platoon
Where do you get this bullshit information from? The cheapest drones used in Ukraine for recon are Mavic 3, which are $3k per piece with extra batteries. Some units use Autel as a much more shittier alternative, but they're not much cheaper though.
No one loses 3 drones a day because you can't even get that many to replenish. Pretty much all drones are being delivered by volunteers in very and very small batches per unit.
For instance, my 50+ man unit lost only 2 mavics, 2 autels and 1 plane in a 4-month period.
Just to stop gaslighting the aware people, because of the sheer amount of reddit takes in this thread.
Based on the handful of drone company telegrams I follow, back of the napkin math say it's pretty close.
Squads are running the cheapest and smallest drones they can find. Basically, shit that you use your cellphone on or whatever. Getting shot at to peek around a corner is not fun when you can have a $20 drone.
The dudes flying what the redditors assume to be a 'drone', like Mavik and similar, report needing 3-4 and 15+ batteries to be combat effective. They have losses and rebuild them.
Evidently for every 5 or ten sorties, they claim to be painting marks and celebrating the successes.
The average lifespan of a drone (in sorties) seems to be under 15, but I don't know if it's batteries, random glitches, or EW Countermeasures.
If HQ is losing a handful of big drones a week, your company is losing 2-3 maviks a day, and your squad is losing 3-4 chink drones a day, I guess their numbers could be somewhat realistic?
Russia would have to be going full retard and calling $5 chink toy drones the same as maviks and real drones.
Sounds like they're doing that because once again, it's a fair bit better to peek around in urban areas with a shitty toy drone then to get shot in the face.
I've seen footage and stories of using mini drones to clear staiwells and clear parts of the commie blocks.
Interesting shit
Here's a russian anti-drone company telegram for reading my ted talk.
https://t.me/s/TFSURICATS
>reddit
>reddit
>reddit
Fuck off back to 4chan, moron.
You have to go back!
Looks like their estimate might be valid.
Russians are at the point of squad level anti-FPS drone jammers.
https://t(dot)me/Military_engineer/84
Ukraine was allegedly running 1,000+ FPS sorties a day, so that would somewhat make the numbers realistic if they went full retard.
Otherwise, IDK? I'm not sure how to explain away a 'prototype' batch of 500 drones made of fiberglass for the chasis.
You see this? The russians really are upping their tech.
Looks pretty serious. I think Russia's winning now.
What a retarded hot take. Please go back to retardia.
m8 that little jammer's smoking Ukies' minimalist, cheap-drone-based ISR and strike capability. They've got them set up at regular intervals across the front. Russia's getting serious with drone interdiction and area-denial at the squad level, here.
That estimate I too fucking high. MAX 250 a day that is what I would guess.
if they were doing that many sorties a day it would be wild.
>drone company telegrams
>telegrams
Way to out yourself.
>Literally an NPC with a double-digit IQ mindset.
that is you retard
For the sake of argument, let's say Ukraine is losing an average of 10,000 drones per month, or 323 per day. Let's assume this rate is just for 2023, and that previous losses were lower. That means since January 1st, 2023, Ukraine has lost upwards of 50,000 drones.
And these are just the losses caused by Russian electronic warfare countermeasures. Add in the drones destroyed by Russian ground fire or by Ukrainian soldiers who mistook them for enemy drones, the drones inevitably lost to mechanical failure, operator error, adverse weather conditions, collisions with power lines, buildings, or trees, those destroyed on launch or recovery, or lost to fratricidal electronic warfare, and the number will be higher still.
Yet there doesn't seem to be any reduction in the number of drones at the front. The Ukrainians don't report shortages and Russian sources seem to agree that drones are a real and persistent threat. There is a steady supply of open-source evidence that the Ukrainians are employing drones en masse.
How many of these things is Ukraine importing every single day just to keep their frontline drone units up to strength?
Many of the drones will have crashed behind Russian lines. So why isn't Russia bragging about how effective their EW units are? Why aren't they using the captured units in propaganda? Why hasn't Prigozhin release a tiktok of him standing next to a giant pyramid of captured Ukrainian drones? Is it because of operational security? Ukraine has been repeatedly gifted high-quality bomb damage assessment photos simply because the Russians wanted the internet to believe that HIMARS wasn't effective against bridges. They will choose propaganda over secrecy every time.
Some, if not most, of those lost to ECM will land intact. Even those that crash will be useful as spare parts for those that are repairable. Russia should be getting two or three digits of free drones every day. Where are they?
tl;dr RUSI's 10,000 figure is pure clownery.
The 10k number refers to all losses, not just EV. 323 per day isn't some cosmic number given that suicide drones exist and you might have more than 323 squads operating them, some of them more than one per day.
>And these are just the losses caused by Russian electronic warfare countermeasures.
No, RUSI is saying Russian EW has been highly effective at countering drones, not that it is solely responsible for the 10,000 lost per month figure.
Do you believe in Bigfoot anon?
>Yeah, like a country with no navy can't just sink a superpower's flagship.
They didn't, they sunk Russia's flagship.
This, you can tell it's vatmoron propaganda, it's in the name even (RUS-I)
Is this satire, stupidity, or just OP fishing for screenshot material?
They aren't even trying to hide it when their name is an anagram of "I, Rus"
They also said russia is cracking 256bit encrypted radios in realtime.
Why do you guys lie? I mean we can all read the thing. They said they can decrypt (note decrypt is NOT the same thing as crack) in NEAR real time. Not REAL TIME.
Why the fuck do you guys take something, then completely remove the context and what they actually said and try to twist it? Is this Dunning-Kruger effect in action?
>I am so smart they said thing they didn't actually say and I don't understand the difference!
Again, crack is not the same as decrypt. Shitty crypto algorithm, or flawed implementation, or weak keys, or stolen keys can all lead to this situation. Confusing key management/distribution scheme with 80's 'IM IN' shit is another flaw in your comments.
>why lie?
As a Russian you ought to be quite familiar
Ironically your argument only makes sense when you take it out of context. You read into every word and think about its possible explicit meanings rather than it's apparent implicit meaning and say "SEEE IT COULD MEAN ANYTHING"
>Why do you guys lie? I mean we can all read the thing. They said they can decrypt (note decrypt is NOT the same thing as crack) in NEAR real time. Not REAL TIME.
Dude, it's doesn't fucking matter. It's technologically impossible to break AES256 encryption. It's literally Quantum-resistant, which means that even Quantum computers cannot break the encryption in able time. Maybe the extraterrestrials visiting us have quantum computers powerful enough to do it, but no human nation have or will have such technology for hundreds of years.
>what is rubber hose cryptanalysis
>Is this Dunning-Kruger effect in action
Pretty much.
>>what is rubber hose cryptanalysis
Not actual cryptanalysis.
And they didn't actually say they brute-forced the hash, which is what every smart-arse on the board immediately jumped on, they said
>decryption.
All manner of military-grade side-channel attacks could have been used.
>anyone with a harsh, empirical take on reality
would know that "decryption" covers a whole host of meaning.
So that counts you lot out then.
>you lot
Crack a textbook Nigel.
Open a dictionary, knobhead
>They said they can decrypt in NEAR real time.
Yeah. Exactly.
"Hi guys did you know group Little Green Men can fly anti-gravity warp engines in near real time please trust me when I tell you vodka-soused conscripts are casually doing [thing impossible with modern science]"
Yes, the more seasoned readers will understand these are British liberal arts nerds with a war hobby speculating about rumors outside their expertise through a language barrier and adding qualifiers accordingly, but anyone with a harsh, empirical take on reality won't be inclined to forgive reality-disregarding errors on par with claiming antigravity Armatas.
It is possible to break AES256 encryption but it is hard. And I don't think Russia can do it or they would be unironically at the gates of Kyiv by now.
>They said they can decrypt (note decrypt is NOT the same thing as crack) in NEAR real time
AES is extremely easy to decrypt and is ubiquitous. It's actually more impressive that they are only on 'near real time' instead of 'far faster than real time'.
Any little arm cpu with crypto extension can do it
if AES 256 bit can be decrypted, then the vat morons would be able to hack every e-commerce website and steal everyone's credit card numbers.
here is my little ARM cpu with a crypto extention on it. It cant fucking decrypt, shit (as in unless it knows the fucking password).
>Verification not required.
>AES is extremely easy to decrypt
https://github.com/SmarterDM/micro-aes
That's just an aes implementation you retard
yes, and decryption is a part of it.
i refuse to believe someone is this dumb
Yet there you are, a perfect example of it.
A retard who confuses decryption with breaking the encryption
I saw that retardation about the 256bit encryption in the other thread. My big thing is what the fuck happened? I didn't peruse too much of their work, but I was under the impression RUSI was on a similar plane as ISW. This report seems as though it was unironically written by some splinter cell vatnik at the Institute.
That's gotta be the only possible explanation. It's been co-opted by Russophiles.
I think these people went to Ukrainians and asked what their issues were, and just summed them up. On the ground problems and dooming probably aren't as vitally problematic issues as they say but they are probably less effective because of the issues described. Things like the encryption are probably radio code books not being changed, maybe one or two javelins hit the engine deck instead of the crew compartment, Ukrainians complaining about t62s shelling them from 2KM away. Perhaps they lost a plane to FF and contributed it to long range Russian AA, perhaps they doctrinally aren't able to shoot at planes at a certain range within Russia and reliably kill them as they drop to the deck afterwards.
The fact of the matter is even if it's innefectual and still results in dead Russians at drastically higher rates their problems are still problems they need to contend with.
The fact that it's presented as fact rather than something to suggest further study is the issue really.
>The fact that it's presented as fact rather than something to suggest further study is the issue really
Only because every moron ignored their foreword in which they emphasised that this is all data collected by interview and it shouldn't be assumed to apply across the front let alone in future
>what the fuck happened?
You forgot the meaning of "decryption"
Not anyone's fault you're deluded.
Tell me again where ISW's fancy maps come from?
Yeah same here I thought RUSI’s first big ass report was reliable and had a lot of good information. Now it sounds like their second report is full of vat moron word salad.
>it sounds like their second report is full of vat moron word salad.
Did you read the report?
Like I said in the previous thread, watch Perun's video on drones, and the ukie CO's interview. Drones are consumables. A drone lasts about 4 sorties in frontline service (not even counting suicide FPVs, who go out and don't come back). Drones are like ammo, something to be expended.
An ATGM that relies on thermals, what could it possibly be?
Is it Stugna?
Is it NLAW?
Oh, wait, of course, it's the fucking Javelin. as if there wasn't enough evidence that it's complete dogshit. A contender for the biggest fail of weapon in this war rivaling Switchblade, TOS, and BMPT.
>Tank's temperature is closest to the environment during dusk or dawn
What in the ass is this? Those are the two times of day when the background thermal radiation would be the most different. Air temperatures might (usually not though) be closer to each other but that temperature sure as hell isn't close the T-55 radiated temperature.
I feel like this report is supposed to be disinformation to try to get the russians to do the most retarded tactics becuase of imagine advantages.
maybe read on "thermal crossover" retard.
>source: it once came to me in a dream
This whole report is full of shit and you had to make another thread because you got completely blown the fuck out in the last one
Are they literally memeing? Highly effective? This will have 0 effect on Javelin or any other ATGM.
They're citing people who are actually fighting who are saying it is effective.
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/russians_started_actively_use_thermal_camouflage_against_thermal_cameras_how_the_suit_works_and_how_significant_the_threat_is-6502.html
Slavs have been putting their tanks in blankets for years, I believe that they would have figured out a blanket that would actually work to an extent by now.
I don't get the dawn and dusk thing though.That makes little sense. The ambient temp would be vastly different from the tank's engine temp in those conditions. If the rest of the tank heating up due to transferal of engine heat is a factor then I guess I could see that having an effect.
>literally gorillions of clips of Javelin turning vatmorons into crispy critters
>it sucks. Please stop sending it.
Bargaining stage
as a gunner for a RWS with a thermal imager, armored vehicles are still easy to spot in dusk and dawn, because they're a hunk of steel.
>yeah it's just used as static guns, we're not using them to support offensive operations, that would be silly haha
Of course they do if there's nothing available to replace them. Better than shovels.
>T-55
>highly accurate fire
I'm not even debating that Russians use them instead of SPGs even tough taht's clearly a sign of desperation but saying that T-55 is used as an accurate fire support from the range of 2km is really fucking stupid. Not to mention that crews inside those 55s are barely trained mobiks.
>Russia is doing great guys
>they can only use their tanks at dusk and dawn or they'll get blown up
>they're doing great guys
>I'm not the one coping, PrepHoleopers
How does it challenge that? It cites personal interviews for the majority of it's technical points which means absolutely nothing
>This thread will get little engagement because it challenges the simplistic narrative of PrepHoleopers that RUSSIA BAD
Actually it fits the narrative perfectly, because Russia, by the admission of this report, has to substitute obsolete tanks to fill the roll of IFVs. This shows that Russia
>lost so many BMP-3s that it has caused a shortage for the army
>failed to account for the attrition rate of BMP-3s in their planning
>cannot muster enough reserve BMP-3s in a timely fashion to recuperate losses
>cannot produce factory new replacement BMP-3s in a timely fashion to recuperate losses
The roll described in this report (makeshift artillery, direct fire support) is supposed to be filled by the BMP-3.
>Russia now fields mobile artillery with a range of 2 km
>this is an improvement
I am now convinced Russia is very strong and we should stop prolonging this pointless war.
t. Georg Sperling from Leipzig oblast
If the ancient tanks are supposed to fullfil the role of BMPs then what happened to the existing IFVs in the first place?
Russia was founded in 1991.
Next you'll tell us RT has nothing to do with Russia despite the name
What do you call a guy who works there if not a RUSI-an?
>"and therefore pose a serious battlefield threat when there are a limited number of ATGMs able to reach them at their stand-off range
Clearly not the case in the war in Ukraine and now, after making the insanely ridiculous claim that the Russians have somehow achieved godlike powers to decrypt AES256 encryption in real time, I'm beginning to think that there are some Russophiles working within the Royal United Services Institute.
What is there to apologise about? We already knew this. Only PrepHoleeddit and /v/ermin tourists go
>lol old tank xD
We've known about them using shit as fire support for fucking months. Even Ukraine does it. The issue is that they're useless in offensives because they're not being used as their intended role which is as breakthrough units.
There is literally nothing wrong with laughing at Russians who were a "modern well trained and equipped army" resorting to 70 year old metal boxes with guns barely a year into a war.
Russians will literally never recover online, I will be posting dead Russians and exploding Russian vehicles till I die as revenge for acting so tough while being so weak
>Even Ukraine does it.
Sobering report by RUSI, as always. Cheerleaders won't appreciate it of course since it doesn't fit their pre-conceived biases, but it shows how Russia has been adept at adapting to the battlefield situation, unlike what the majority of PrepHole wishes to believe.
There's a fine line between "adapting" and "desperation". If anything, this just shows that the Russians ran out of BMP-3s if they have to be relying on T-55s and T-62s for fire support roles (and it's doubtful they even have the optics to see the full 2km).
If only 330 BMP-2's turrets upgraded with 660 of their most advanced ATGMs hadn't mysteriously gone missing immediatly before the invasion. But that would be silly, that is almost as crazy as them doing the same thing with 300 Terminators and another 600 missile launchers.....
Oh wait, they did exactly that.
>reddit level memes
Touch grass.
Go back to the you tube comment section with that moron gay tier reply.
>Go back to the you tube comment section
No u, double moron gay.
Reddit spacing lmao. Also what the fuck are you going on about with maps. Why am I supposed to care for your hate boner for ISw?
>Reddit spacing
Trying too hard.
Go back.
>Trying too hard
No (You).
What the fuck is this reddit spacing thin i keep aeeing people posting about?
They play big role on the battlefield becasuse russia has nothing else, not because its a good tank.
a lot of vatniks on PrepHole at the moment, which front of theirs has completely collapsed now?
I honestly don't understand how RUSI is still in business. Being a "think tank" is the easiest fucking job, even weather forecasters have better accuracy than these think tanks. At least RAND tries to back up the shit they spew to make something at least sound plausible. RUSI has been wrong about almost everything this entire war.
>RUSI has been wrong about almost everything this entire war
No they haven't
sounds like someone's doing a concerted job of character assassination here
>shit they've spewed in the past include
>claim Ukraine isn't using HARMs and they can't get them to work with MiG-29s despite OSINT showing wreckage of them and videos a week later from UAF showing them doing exactly that
>Russia is preparing nuclear forces for a retaliatory strike on Kiev after the destruction of Moskva
>Russia's logistics have no been affected by GMLRS
They seem to be doing a concerted job of assassinating their own character here to me.
Yeah? Well I've seen enough of PrepHole's shit takes on their latest report in the past couple of days to have significant doubt that PrepHole actually read the fucking thing, most of them are playing the telephone game and at the head of the chain is that one guy who insists that "decrypting" must only refer to breaking 256 encryption and nothing else
>Well I've seen enough of PrepHole's shit takes
wow, PrepHole shitposting this group that routinely gets things wrong is definitely proof that they're doing amazing because it aligns with your notions of this conflict. amazing.
>PrepHole shitposting this group
PrepHole making a fool of itself by assuming things the report did not say, yes
>that routinely gets things wrong
given the above, is definitely an assumption that must be called into question
>it aligns with your notions of this conflict
once again, an instance of PrepHole making assumptions out of whole cloth
with this kind of background, yeah, I'm not taking any PrepHoleommando's opinion on the matter wholesale
>PrepHole making a fool of itself by assuming things the report did not say, yes
is that why you had to abandon your previous thread and then remake it with a completely different piece clipped out? because PrepHole was wrong and you were right?
I've never made any threads on RUSI in PrepHole.
I just took the time to read the report.
So once again, you're wrong.
>this is my first thread ever on PrepHole
>please ignore that it's a virtual copy of the other thread
>>I've never made any threads
>this is my first thread
Once again, you're unable to read.
No wonder you keep ascribing things to RUSI that they didn't say.
>i've never made any thread, i swear!
>please believe me that this isn't the exact same deflection tactic we've been seeing for over a year now
>and everything you said was wrong because... because it just is ok??
you're boring. here, i'll let you have the last word since you clearly need it.
They really need to send better glavset drones. This is embarrassing to watch.
It's run and staffed entirely by independently wealthy or otherwise employed people. It's at most a side gig and most commonly a hobby
This I had a job interview at ISW and they were like “we can offer a $1,000 a month stipend to help offset cost of living in Washington DC”. moron I make $2800 every two weeks after taxes in the Midwest. Fuck that
Back in my day, we used to take our hobbies seriously.
Especially when they come with a pedigree that is more than a century old.
>Tank can fire from 2km
>Stugna can fire from 5km
What am I supposed to apolgize for exactly?
Why'd anyone develop IFV's then if a shitty T54 is an upgrade compared to them??
RUSI seems to forget here that IFVs are not just for fire support, but for transporting infantry as well.
>It is important to note that while the introduction of older tanks such as the T62 and T55 to the field has been mocked online, these vehicles are largely being used in the role of the
fire support function
>offered by BMPs and other infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). They represent an increase in range, protection and kinetic effect over these IFVs, and therefore pose a serious battlefield threat when there are a limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them at their stand-off range
emphasis mine
I think RUSI got it wrong. T-55s and T-62s aren't there to replace IFV capability, they're there to fill up gaps in their increasingly shrinking artillery gap. There's still plenty of 100mm and 115mm ammunition to go around and their barrels haven't been completely shot through yet.
Assault guns are basically just budget artillery.
>they're there to fill up gaps in their increasingly shrinking artillery gap
yes, mentioned:
>tanks tend to operate in three ways. First, they are used to supplement artillery capabilities through indirect engagements
The difference between assault guns and budget artillery is that assault guns - and IFVs acting in that role - are typically direct fire guns and are controlled by infantry commanders.
They play vital role by taking place of artillery and IFVs Second Army in the World apparently lacks?
Seems to be working well according to the Ukrainians themselves. Bakhmut today btw in case you're still coping
Bakhmut fell* today
Legally?
>Bakhmut fell
Bullshit. There was ten times more gloating 4chan spam when a Russian pilot had a totally-non-accidental-you-guys mid-air collision with a drone. If Bakhmut had fallen you wouldn't be able to breathe for the curry smell.
>These vehicles are largely being used in the role of the fire support function offered by BMPs and other infantry fighting vehicles (IFV)
Does RUSI not know the term "assault gun"? Because that's exactly what they're trying to describe.
Bros, this RUSI report gives the impression that Russia might be able to maintain control of the territory they currently hold in Ukraine.
- spastic verbal attacks ensue
it just gives the impression that there's an insane number of DJI drones being downed on the frontline lines every day.
if that were true, literally every 10th crater we see in KINO should a dead DJI drone next to it.
they are giving the impression that the T-55/54 is the best thing since sliced bread, and totally superior to a javelin
Dumb question why don’t tanks have flares so when they get lazed they can just fire off flares? Atgm misses simple as
Because thermally guided missiles don't use lasers for guidance...?
This has to be a rascism I’m simply too high and stupid to have a rebuttal rascism clearly
It can be decrypted which is the entire point of the algorithm. And that's why security isn't cryptography unlike some gays think.
>Just throw crypto in and it will be secure!
>It cant fucking decrypt, shit (as in unless it knows the fucking password).
That's the point you fucking gay. Decrypt is for when you have the fucking key. And it's not a hard process at all.
Nice STM32H7 board though, those thing cost an arm and a leg.
>crypto extention
It doesn't have crypto extension, it has a crypto module on the SoC. Compare it to an A-series core, which will have that stuff available as instructions.
Ooops, meant to quote
and not
>It can be decrypted which is the entire point of the algorithm. And that's why security isn't cryptography unlike some gays think.
That is correct. That's why I said (as in unless it knows the fucking password).
In that case it would be trivial even on a arduino with some extra ram (maybe).
>It doesn't have crypto extension, it has a crypto module on the SoC. Compare it to an A-series core, which will have that stuff available as instructions.
Yes A-series are fast almost borderline computers. Still my cortex-m7 can do it (You are also correct, about it not being part of the instruction set.)
>In that case it would be trivial even on a arduino with some extra ram (maybe).
Depends on the 'arduino'. If it's the classic Uno with atmega328p or atmega32u4 then it's technically doable just slow. I would guess that you would get results in the range of 10~20 kbit/s of decryption.
The thing is the 'real time' or 'near' that is the requirement.
What the vatmorons are saying is that they have completely pisspoor hardware and can somehow manage to get their hand in the keys, which can be due to many ways instead of magical ways to break encryption.
>Yes A-series are fast almost borderline computers
Depends on the A core and their configuration.
>Still my cortex-m7 can do it
Doing it by software isn't fast though, you should use the dedicate crypto peripheral that should be in the STM32H7 that you have.
See as an example Raspberry Pì cryptobenchmarks, despite the A53 or A72 cores, it suffers greatly from the fact that they didn't license the crypto extensions, it's really orders of magnitude worse off due to it.
I have the STM32H7B3I-DK It has 2 OTFDEC (on-the-fly decryption) engines. I have done this in software before (on a cortex M7), it is slow-ish, but it was for hashing in a bootloader so real time was not required.
>What the vatmorons are saying is that they have completely pisspoor hardware and can somehow manage to get their hand in the keys, which can be due to many ways instead of magical ways to break encryption.
That is possible
I glanced into the datasheet and those two OTFDEC are coupled with the OctoSPI with AES-128. I don't think it's possible to use it standalone.
But your STM32H7 have CRYP and HASH modules in it that can handle AES, DES, SHA, etc etc. Doesn't seem to handle any asymmetric one though.
See for how software implementation is slooow
>https://cdn.cnx-software.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Raspberry-Pi-4-vs-Rock-5B-vs-Khadas-VIM4-vs-ODROID-N2.png
(chinkmoot blocked me from posting images).
Yeah I saw that too after I posted, I never used it, as I said. But yeah you are right, something like a Cortex A would be needed.
Asymmetric is less common (in embedded), for some reason.
>Asymmetric is less common (in embedded), for some reason.
ESP32 has it, generally for asymmetric it's like accelerators for certain parts of it though like the galois infinite field instructions one that x86 has.
It's pretty important for web as you the start of connections over HTTPs is over asymmetric and then it goes symmetric.
Anyway, Russian hardware must suck and they must be braindead over not getting it to work well, despite the fact that they somehow got the keys.
Isn't there a way to decrypt live radio by cracking it using things like noise consistent with the sender.
Like if artillery landed you'd be able to narrow down some of the encryption due to only some of the keys matching that sound profile on transmit.
If they're cheap radios they might only transmit when there is high enough volume, I know digital would hide sound level and even no sound (if it transmits on low volume) but perhaps something like code sent before a transmit would also compromise it.
I can think of a few ways they can be built in a way where you can end up not actually being as well encrypted as you think, it all depends on how much shit the radio sends and how.
I have seen similar techniques to what you are talking about BUT, using something like a good reference point like electrical humming of 60 Hz and it wasn't encryption if I remember it right.
The thing is that such technique is only useable against say AES using ECB, which is the cipher is straight function of text and key. If you use it with CBC mode then the input is XOR'ed with the previous cipher result, so it depends on the text and is distributed in a pseudo-random way. Enough that it wouldn't be possible to use such technique.
Alongside that, you would need to well, know the noise well. Artillery's shell isn't a reliable one, you don't know how it will be as it depend on the distance, dampening factors(which can affect frequencies differently!) and etc.
it could be things like faulty random number generation. if you can narrow down the range of what the keys could be. it would be possible, to decrypt.
>able to stand off at 2km
>limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them at their standoff range
>FGM-148 Javelin range: 2000-2500m (depending on variant)
> 9K111 Fagot range: 2500m
>RK-3 Corsar range: 2500m
>MILAN ER range: 3000m
>BGM-71 TOW range: 3750-4500m (depending on variant)
>9M113 Konkurs range: 4000m
>Stugna-P range: 5500m
Yeah, 2km is well within range of virtually every ATGM that Ukraine has access to, including the man-portable Javelin. Two kilometers is even just about doable with the baseline MILAN missile. Fuck, leaving aside accuracy and ease of use issues, the circa-1963 AT-3 Sagger has 50% more range than that. As far as I know, the only ATGM used by Ukraine which couldn't (at least hypothetically) hit a target 2000m distant is the NLAW, and a one-shot, disposable, predicted line-of-sight missile is arguably not even an ATGM at all.
So unless RUSI considers the hundreds of ATGM launchers (if not more) Ukraine has access to as a "limited number," I think they're just uncritically regurgitating Russian mil-blogger cope.
The Duke of Wellington would be disappoint.
shit stugna has some range!
Most SAGGERs still in use by half competent nation states have been upgraded to use laser guidance, besides a vast accuracy increase they can fire over water now. Iranian/DPRK upgraded versions have shown up in Syria.
Excuse me; Laser data transfer not guidance.
>Checks book quickly
Both are options; you can upgrade the missiles and controller to use a laser for the in flight correction and you can buy a whole new controller package that lases the target and then a second laser guides the missile using that as a refrence.
I'm confused.
We *know* this.
It's still not great for Russia to be using these, and the fact that they began using them due to Ukrainian attrition is still an indication nothing is going well in their SMO.
I don't care if Ukraine uses their tanks in indirect fire attacks, I know it's part of their training, and hell, they have the world record for the longest tank kill. They're defending, they (used to) have less materiel. They (used to) have a smaller army.
I'm glad that the RF are using T-55 and T-62 because it means Ukes will have more spare parts eventually. Probably not the barrels though.
you know it's bad when even 4chan takes RUSI more seriously than PrepHole these days. i don't even remember pushback being this particularly bad last year
>russians have personal quantum computers breaking ukrainian codes in real time
Maybe it is time we try to make peace with the bear.
The report neither implied nor stated that Russians are 'breaking' their encryption
you don't need quantum computer to decrypt something if you have the key.
>Verification not required.
Is this by the same authors as
>real-time 256-bit decryption
and
>10k drones per month
I think RUSI might need to start vetting who is allowed to publish under their name.
Why do you think those two points are unreasonable?
I remember RUSI also saying that Javelins and NLAWs would be insignificant against Russia because they'd just use long-range fires to quickly overwhelm Ukraine
If you read Ukrainian accounts, you'd find that Javelin and NLAW were useful for equipping their field infantry, SF and militia but they credit their artillery with fending off the first wave. Also, we all thought Russian long-range fires would be more effective than they turned out to be, because we all thought the Russians weren't retarded