>

We won’t hesitate to resort to paintball mode. Dam. Get that big head placed in a facility
Judging from past Kremlin statements that means that they've just run out of rockets. >

They could hardly have stated it more clearly if they'd painted themselves purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord, singing 'We've just run out of rockets.' >

Ahh, the Baldrick school of information warfare. >

Are the words 'I have a cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation? >

Alright I get you, so this means they are about to run out. >

Yes. Running low for certain just like support. >

Just like trained troops >

The troops will be the new rockets. >

“Ok, Vlad, as part of a new directive, we need you to strap this bomb to yourself and hop inside this comically-sized cannon that the circus donated to our glorious armed forces”
“Why?”
“It is not your place to ask questions, comrade” >

Ork stormboyz >

Orks may not be the smartest but even they know when to replace a warboss thats getting them nowhere. >

Russian soldiers = wish.com orks >

Spat my Pepsi all over my shirt there, thanks for that. >

So Russia is out of rockets is what I'm hearing? I can't tell with all of the nonsense double talk that comes out of Putin these days. >

The Russians are having a rough time keeping their tube artillery supplied with shells, which are much easier to manufacture.
They are almost certainly having a much harder time with rockets, especially since a significant chunk of the resources for missile production were imported.
They'll likely never run entirely out of rockets - domestic production will keep some moving to the front - but the amount they'll be able to shoot long term will be constrained. >

Yeah they make enough domestically to do a salvo every once in awhile. Some of the missiles fired have been found to have been produced in the last 2 months. Meaning Russia has likely run out of old stock. So they probably have to reduce the number of massive missile strikes to once every month or 2. They make about 75 precision missiles a month.
With Ukraine getting more air defense I don't see this as an effective strategy. >

I'm still flabbergasted that this all started with Russia having literal boots on the ground in Kyiv on day one and now the war is coming down to Russian logistics and stockpiles of munitions. Like what the fuck happened Russia? This is far from over but my god what an absolutely shit show from the start. >

An absolute amazing win for the US also, completely kneecap the "second" strongest army in the world with no troops and not even with half our military budget >


not even with half our military budget

It's more like 5% and almost all of it is surplus cold war tech we really don't need anymore. Just amazing value. >

$700 billion is just what it costs to keep the lights on and toilet paper in the stalls in the US Defense Department. 
Supporting Ukraine against Russia is absolutely the bargain of the century. There's probably couch cushions in the Pentagon that are hiding more than the $50-odd billion Ukraine has cost so far. >

And the conservatives will bitch and moan about sending them money. Now they care about being frugal. >

They are worried Putin's next bribe check will bounce. >

Putin is importing bottle rockets and roman candles from chinese fireworks companies >

Don't forget black cats there bad ass >

You forgot whistlin’ bungholes and spleen splitters. >

Hoosker dos?  Hoosker don'ts? >

Lmfao where's the good stuff? >

But… snakes and sparklers are the only kinds I like. >

Hahaha. I'm about to have a smoke and watch some dirty joe. >

Yeah, they pledged to "never" leave Kherson either.
Cruise missiles are a very expensive supply. While Russia may never "run out", there is a limit to how much they can produce of it per month, especially under electronics sanctions. It's cheaper for the West to help Ukraine to repair damaged generators than for Russia to expend a missile on one. 
The more pressing problem is finding a mass-produced and reliable counter to cheap Iranian drones which (sometimes) do the same thing at a small fraction of the cost of a cruise missile, and shooting down which costs Ukraine far more than the drone. Probably a lot of truck-mounted machine-gun AAs, WW2-style.
This drone campaign is a war of economic attrition rather than a decisive field battle. We need to make sure Ukraine's economics are more sustainable than Russia's. >

Pardon the dumb question… Russia is using what type of missile/rockets exactly? >

Kh-101, x22 and Kalibr. The Iranian drones have been absent for months but those were called shahid 136. >

Apparently the Iranian drones don’t do well in cold weather. >

Because they are using fucking diesel as a fuel. They are loud as hell and the fuel jellies in colder temperature. >

But they are 100 to 1 the cost of US drones .  Sometimes cheaper is better. Its a fiarly typical strategy for them.
You can give 1 guy a Javelin rocket that can take out a tank or chopper with almost absolute certainty or give 80 guys RPGs and one of them will eventually hit the target even if 2 dozen die trying
US is high cost , high effect, life preserving tactics .  Unfortionaly low cost throwing junk and canon fodder in large amounts is actually a effective tactic for beating high tech ., most people dont do it because its a high cost of human life and good chance of mission failure .  But Russia doesnt care...they will fail 100 times and cost thousand of life - but if they get it right once they will make it a national success story.
Gurilla tactics often beat standard military ones - on the flip side its also why Ukraine is winning because they have crippled the Russian regulars .
This is a SUPER unconventional war - I don't want to sound too academic on it but this would be an amazing study back at west point and would of loved to be back their studying this . >

Cheaper isn't the metric your looking for, it's effectiveness/$. The AK-47 isn't the cheapest gun, but if it were any cheaper it would loose a lot of its requirements. The fact that they work even when highly mistreated makes them so effective. Cheaper drones that do less damage per $ are worse. What is the case here is something to be seen. What people think doesn't matter, we'll have to wait and see how they work in the battle field, that's the only measure of effectiveness that matters.
And yes if you lose 2 dozen men per enemy tank, that's not effective. Even if the javelin costs 100x more, it's far more effective becauase you keep your full infantry. You have to consider the costs not just of the equipment, but training support and what happens when you lose a lot of people. Again Russia here is a great example of why these metrics matter far more than anything else in an invasion. If the enemy has 1000 tanks, that means you need to lose 24,000 soldiers, if the enemy has 5000 tanks, that's 60,000. That's a text book pyrrhic victory at best.
Russia's tactic of "just throw everything at it" never has worked on offensive. It only makes sense in a defensive or revenge war. Here soldiers do have a choice, they will have something to return to if they give up. So it's a lot harder to keep morale like this.
Guerrilla tactics do not really work better than standard military unless you are fighting a civil war. People always assume that the guerrilla > standard military because of Vietnam. But the reality was that the Viet Cong had a lot of civil support and many civilians resented the US as another oppressor. What the US learned from this is that it's important to have support of them population and it's important to make sure soldiers behave well with the locals. Otherwise the US would have lost Afghanistan and Iraq, where the opposition quickly degraded you guerilla tactics. Russia here is seen as the oppressor, and struggles. Ukraine has been able to effective leverage guerilla tactics to support their traditional warfare very effectively against Russia, helping them recover territory at high speeds. As they move into territory that has less support this will get less effective.
The fact is that a war like this hasn't been fought in decades. Unconventional requires a convention but it doesn't apply here. This is a waste of conquest which is rare. In the last 75 years the wars we haven't seen a war like this happen, so we get to see how the tech has evolved and changed wars in that time. Certainly what historians and tacticians will be looking back at this a lot and it will define a lot about how future wars will be fought. >

I don't think some of your point make logical sense here.  
For example "Cheaper drones that do less damage per $ are worse."  That exactly the opposite point for example...they don't do less damage per dollar.They do the same damage for fraction of the cost  so they whole point of using cheap thing in high volume is that they still cost less.
​
Your example about the javelin is a great example of the American military doctrine but my whole point is Life is cheap and meaningless to the Russians - your thinking strictly from a saving life stand point with highly trained soldiers that America looks at as cost savings using a rocket that cost 100 times the cost of an RPG to preserve fighting force and highly trained soldiers.
Russia doesn't care if it loses 20 soldiers with cheap RPGS as long as it didnt cost them as much as a Javelin . They have no value on the human life part. 
Russia gives these guys minimal training and has little to no value for their regular soldiers , let alone their conscripts ..  For Christ sake they dropped off dozens of battalion sized conscript groups at the front lines with 2 weeks of training - shovels and sandbags , pistols with only 2-3 clips of ammo and almost no reserve ammo and rusty MGs that weigh upwards of 180 lbs that no one knew how to crew properly.  Many of these groups set defenses and immediately surrendered .  The point i do fully agree with you is the tactics they use work when defending but not on offense - even with Russia threatening jail time for retreat , they just surrender instead . 
​
Russia give the Guerrilla tactics  exactly as you do because it a doctrine from the 80s.  So they blew alot of their resouses taking out the conventionial military bases, supply depots , airfields , radars etc.  Figuring after cripping the normal army they would walk in.
What they didnt count on was regional defenders hiding all over with COORDINATED hit and run tactics .  What made it quite more effective the traditioned GT tactics is that it was organized. the Militias are registered with the state in Ukraine and given comms equipment and instructions on how to communicate and take orders from a central command .  Giving them all the advantages of GT tactics backed by traditional tactics and coordination.  Russia could of never expected well armed and coordinated micro Militias receiving orders and cutting supply lines with surgical accurate and rapid response . ITs unheard of in the modern theater but so is a full land invasion's of a industrialized polulation center in the modern era. 
A lot of your examples are exactly the type of thinking on why Russia is losing - for the past 40 years all of that made complete sense , but now you have Trained , armed , unpaid and self maintained and supplied regional defenders WITH A COMMAND structure.   
You can't image how incredible that is and again unheard of in the modern era - this is an event that will be studied for decades! 
The after effects especially -because while it is a MASSIVE advantage right now - at the end of the war you will now have heavy equipped well trained militia , that during the war were happy to take orders but are not under no obligation to continue to take orders.  It could lead to warlords or terrorist arenizations .
Not even counting the azov battalian and that potential powder keg.  You might have extreme loyalist that become terrorist to Russia let alone the internal threat   It going to be a case of one of the most effective defense against a standing traditional army in history but the after effect will need to be closely watched. >

So russia is running dangerously low on rockets. Good to know. >

Their autocorrect put "rockets". They meant "rocks". >

So girl rocks maybe? >

Rockettes? >

Rock Lobsters. >

“ proceeds to run out of rockets” >

"cruise missiles shot down with manpads" >

“We have the cheat codes from a Nintendo 64 version of GoldenEye.  We have unlimited golden gun and proximity mines while NATO is regulated to slaps only.” >

"We demand that Ukraine stop playing Oddjob immediately."