Posted on 01/09/2024 6:33:48 AM PST by SpeedyInTexas
This list only includes destroyed vehicles and equipment of which photo or videographic evidence is available. Therefore, the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here. Loitering munitions, drones used as unmanned bait, civilian vehicles and derelict equipment are not included in this list. All possible effort has gone into avoiding duplicate entries and discerning the status of equipment between captured or abandoned. Many of the entries listed as 'abandoned' will likely end up captured or destroyed. Similarly, some of the captured equipment might be destroyed if it can't be recovered. When a vehicle is captured and then lost in service with its new owners, it is only added as a loss of the original operator to avoid double listings. When the origin of a piece of equipment can't be established, it's not included in the list. The Soviet flag is used when the equipment in question was produced prior to 1991. This list is constantly updated as additional footage becomes available.
(Excerpt) Read more at oryxspioenkop.com ...
Reuters reports:
Turkey looks set to ratify Sweden’s membership in NATO in the coming weeks, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Saturday (6 January). (After meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister)
You did a speedy job of having a mod remove my zeeper graphic, but I can show your true character by posting your own words:
To: Travis McGee
I would rather the world end in nuclear war than yield to Little Pukin.
15 posted on 10/12/2022, 7:02:03 AM by SpeedyInTexas (RuZZia is the enemy of all mankind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
15 posted on 10/12/2022, 7:02:03 AM by SpeedyInTexas
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4099982/posts?page=15#15
To: Worldtraveler once upon a time
I stand by that statement. S it up.
55 posted on 11/25/2023, 5:42:24 PM by SpeedyInTexas (RuZZia is the enemy of all mankind) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]
55 posted on 11/25/2023, 5:42:24 PM by SpeedyInTexas
https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/4199173/posts?page=55#55
And this just a week after Patriot PAC-2 GEM/T manufacturing is announced in Germany, with buyers being Germany, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain. I wonder if Spain might be divesting from HAWK. If so, this could be their "HAWK-21" batteries that were modernized in 2021, and should be in very good shape. From what I hear, the batteries they donated in 2022 were in terrible condition, and had to be sent to the USA for repair. This is why the fist HAWK system in Ukraine wasn't seen until October 2023. The same happened with the 50+ Leopard 2 tanks Spain wanted to donate, which turned out to be in too poor of condition to use. Spain is terrible at maintaining its equipment.
In addition to Spain and Sweden donating systems and components, the US has listed "HAWK air defense systems and munitions" among our military aid. These batteries were likely purchased from Taiwan, and probably well maintained. We also now list 12 NASAMS batteries (not all delivered), which is 4 more than I remember the USA providing. With NASAMS being born from HAWK, Norwegian Adapted Hawk being the interim step, integrating the 2 systems isn't difficult.
Do you know Reagan’s nuclear policy if the world was facing yielding to Russia?
Do you have any information on the performance of the HAWK in Ukraine?
Many years ago, I flew CAS training missions in the Central European Buffer Zone. The HAWK batteries would practice tracking us.
Have not heard any real world reports of effectiveness. Probably not much good against the most challenging targets (Khinzal, Iskander, KH-22, KH-31), but should be quite good against drones and cruise missiles as long as the illuminator has a line of sight to the target. Fighters that get too close would also be at very high risk. Since there’s no shortage of ammo, they are probably fired in a salvo of 2 or 3 depending on target.
A fine question. Assuming you are informed as to the answer, please provide that answer with citations such that verification can be made. Please define "yielding," in a time when the USSR was intact.
President Reagan taught us to "trust but verify." In exchanges on these threads, assertions without citations often can be msistated or incorrect. Trust but verify.
So you can’t answer the question, I see.
Applies to you. Posit your answer with citation(s).
We're not in school and you're not the teacher.
Sorry about your problem, you saw a question asked of another poster and you jumped in to show that you can’t answer it.
As, geez. Speedy’s doing the censorship thing too? I thought he was at least better than that.
I didn’t see the deleted post, so I’m not sure what had been determined to be verboten. I’m pretty sure this one doesn’t violate the TOS. It’s just humor. A little raunchy, but certainly not X-rated or anything.
Until you provide a citation from President Reagan, you prove you also cannot answer the question you posted.
A simple quotation from President Reagan with citation would prove you not to be playing a silly game.
The absence of such proves you to be playing a silly game.
I'd happily discuss President Reagan's policies in detail with an interlocutor who would deal honestly. And provide citations, as is my habit.
It is hilarious that the Russians have to rely on Iranian tech to fight their wars.
They don’t deserve their empire back.
You can post all the nonsense you want since you wanted to jump in to play a weird game of long posts of you not knowing the answer to a question on the thread to someone else.
Proof positive you are playing a game.
Look at the thread, you jumped in to start playing some silly, and as usual wordy, and rambling, game.
A fine question. Assuming you are informed as to the answer, please provide that answer with citations such that verification can be made. Please define "yielding," in a time when the USSR was intact.
President Reagan taught us to "trust but verify." In exchanges on these threads, assertions without citations often can be misstated or incorrect. Trust but verify.
LOL, All this for a question you weren’t asked and evidently are upset about.
-— “Do you know Reagan’s nuclear policy if the world was facing yielding to Russia?”
A fine question. Assuming you are informed as to the answer, please provide that answer with citations such that verification can be made. Please define “yielding,” in a time when the USSR was intact.
President Reagan taught us to “trust but verify.” In exchanges on these threads, assertions without citations often can be misstated or incorrect. Trust but verify.
“You can post all the nonsense you want since you wanted to jump in to play a weird game of long posts of you not knowing the answer to a question on the thread to someone else.”
Truth. But, maybe this is a teachable moment as Worldtraveler once upon a time is finally conceding needing help to understand!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.