Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[scrdest]

I think it is AN-94 with a silencer and lighter magazine.  Weapon of Russian Specnaz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

I think you're trying to squeeze that in a little too hard. Don't get me wrong, I'm as far from pro-Russian as it gets, but let's try to minimize the impact of bias for either side. AN-94 has forwards-curving magazine and the distance between the pistol grip and the magazine is visibly smaller than here.

I'd say it looks like a FN FAL or (Russian) SVDS.

Spoiler: Respectively: (click to show/hide)

[Sean Mirrsen]

I think it is AN-94 with a silencer and lighter magazine.  Weapon of Russian Specnaz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

I think you're trying to squeeze that in a little too hard. Don't get me wrong, I'm as far from pro-Russian as it gets, but let's try to minimize the impact of bias for either side. AN-94 has forwards-curving magazine and the distance between the pistol grip and the magazine is visibly smaller than here.

I'd say it looks like a FN FAL or (Russian) SVDS.

Spoiler: Respectively: (click to show/hide)

Ah, the folding-stock variant. Yeah, that could be it. Though in this case it's fairly obviously not a "stock" stock - it looks more like what you'd find on an M4. Still, the SVDS is probably the closest match. Curiously, I earlier dismissed "AK family" guns because it didn't have a visible gas piston assembly. It didn't occur to me till now that it's longer and hidden under the forward grip in this case. Just shows how good I am at gunspotting.

[Owlbread]

4chan have been taking a look at the guns. That particular guy in Sloviansk seems to be carrying an AR10 or M16, possibly made by Molot. Whatever it is, it's being used as a DMR with the suppressor and scope and such.

No AN-94 in the bottom picture, I'm afraid.

[Sinistar]

I'll make a very wild guess here, or more like a question directed to people who might know this, Ukrainian Ranger in particular:

Is there any possibility that in the video posted, those are actually Ukrainian (counter-terrorist) units, conducting an operation against pro-Russian protester that occupied one of those buildings in the past few days?

This question is not meant as a provocation of any kind, I'd just honestly like an opinion on this.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I'll make a very wild guess here, or more like a question directed to people who might know this, Ukrainian Ranger in particular:

Is there any possibility that in the video posted, those are actually Ukrainian (counter-terrorist) units, conducting an operation against pro-Russian protester that occupied one of those buildings in the past few days?

This question is not meant as a provocation of any kind, I'd just honestly like an opinion on this.

Ukrainian units acting in the open would probably have insignia, unless they want to be mistaken for hypothetical Russian special ops.

[Sinistar]

Truth be told, video is not really clear enough, at least for me, personally, to see either any sort of insignia or lack of them for that matter.

Also, there's a memory in my mind from somewhere that says it is practice in some counter-terrorist units to NOT wear insignia when conducting operations...but I'm not sure how valid this memory is.

Still, you do make a good point.

edit:
And those gun pictures are interesting. Gun enthusiast in me would immediately say some sort of modified AR-15 is on the 1st picture, but modified SVDS could be on the second. Magazine size bothers me on both, to short for either 5.56 or 7.62x54 caliber. But hey, I'm just gun enthusiast not gun expert. Still, why would AR-15 be used in Eastern Europe?

[misko27]

Setting aside the usual "not even relevant to what is happening" stuff, this is basically where I stand.

If Russia invades I will genuinely be surprised. It's not in their interest to do so.

[miljan]

I'll make a very wild guess here, or more like a question directed to people who might know this, Ukrainian Ranger in particular:

Is there any possibility that in the video posted, those are actually Ukrainian (counter-terrorist) units, conducting an operation against pro-Russian protester that occupied one of those buildings in the past few days?

This question is not meant as a provocation of any kind, I'd just honestly like an opinion on this.

They are probably exukraine special forces, berkut, or how they are called

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Spoiler: I doubt this is a former Berkut member. Wrong uniform (click to show/hide)

 

[GlyphGryph]

UR, I've said before and I'll say again. You seem quite happy with the prospect of Ukraine "going out in a blaze of glory", rather than having it survive in any sort of recognizable form and with as little loss of life as possible.

Here, have a trope. It suits you. ^_^

Do you know anyone in Russia who wouldn't be advocating the exact same thing as him if the situations were reversed? If the US military landed on the Russian shores tomorrow, would you advocate your countrymen lay down their arms and let them simply have the country, since if you refused you would prompt the launching of nukes and go out in a "blaze of glory"? This reeks of hypocrisy, to be honest. Of the Russian posters here, I think you're the only who would even consider arguing for Russian surrender, and I don't even think you would go that far - but you argue that this is the stance UR should take.

Setting aside the usual "not even relevant to what is happening" stuff, this is basically where I stand.

If Russia invades I will genuinely be surprised. It's not in their interest to do so.

This is basically an exact repeat of everything that was said about Crimea, though, so... uh... yeah, I'm not sure if I find it a convincing argument.

[Sergarr]

UR, I've said before and I'll say again. You seem quite happy with the prospect of Ukraine "going out in a blaze of glory", rather than having it survive in any sort of recognizable form and with as little loss of life as possible.

Here, have a trope. It suits you. ^_^

Do you know anyone in Russia who wouldn't be advocating the exact same thing as him if the situations were reversed? If the US military landed on the Russian shores tomorrow, would you advocate your countrymen lay down their arms and let them simply have the country, since if you refused you would prompt the launching of nukes and go out in a "blaze of glory"? This reeks of hypocrisy, to be honest. Of the Russian posters here, I think you're the only who would even consider arguing for Russian surrender, and I don't even think you would go that far - but you argue that this is the stance UR should take.

Setting aside the usual "not even relevant to what is happening" stuff, this is basically where I stand.

If Russia invades I will genuinely be surprised. It's not in their interest to do so.

This is basically an exact repeat of everything that was said about Crimea, though, so... uh... yeah, I'm not sure if I find it a convincing argument.

Russia is the Empire. Ukraine is not. That's the difference.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm not sure what you mean. Is that a commentary on the cause of the mentality or a justification of it? Or something else.

[misko27]

*sigh* I meant that invading Ukraine is highly unlikely. Russia is playing a negotiating game where it ramps up the fear of invasion, then appears reasonable by asking for things that will allow it to retain influence in Ukraine. Thus, all the clamor in this thread about "Is THIS Russian forces?!?" and protestors is slightly off-center.

The obvious counter would be to call the bluff. But that would be irresponsible.

[GlyphGryph]

Yes, and it was argued that invading Ukraine was highly unlikely just before the last time they did it too. The question is, how successful will they be at their negotiations? I believe they do want to negotiate, but I doubt its a bluff - Putin will get what he wants one way or another, the only question is the exact details of what he wants.

Eastern Ukraine is way more of a prize than Crimea was.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Do you know anyone in Russia who wouldn't be advocating the exact same thing as him if the situations were reversed? If the US military landed on the Russian shores tomorrow, would you advocate your countrymen lay down their arms and let them simply have the country, since if you refused you would prompt the launching of nukes and go out in a "blaze of glory"? This reeks of hypocrisy, to be honest. Of the Russian posters here, I think you're the only who would even consider arguing for Russian surrender, and I don't even think you would go that far - but you argue that this is the stance UR should take.

If US armed forces were in our territory, calmly and relatively peacefully taking over parts of Russia, then one of two things would happen. A) I would be conscripted into the military, unfitness be damned, or B) I would watch quietly from the sidelines as all the benefits of a unified east-west economy roll in unopposed. Well, at least unopposed by me. There's plenty of idiots that would prefer to go down swinging, to fight for some kind of ideal or custom. See: Honor Before Reason. Russians being crafty people I foresee a lot of Killdozer situations. But I really would prefer it if no fighting happened. If nukes started to get thrown around, pretty much everyone would lose, one way or another. If bombers start taking passes at our car factory, with the kind of accuracy those butterfingers pilots have they'd be hitting the residential areas too "by accident", and I rather like this place with as few extra craters as possible. The roads are bad as it is. War is really bad, mkay?

I honestly try to never wish upon another that which I would not have happen to myself. While the US taking over Russia would wreck all kinds of things in the day-to-day, unless it happens in a violent manner I do not see anything outright wrong with it. A lot of things would have to happen for that event to come to pass - and if our government is weak enough to let something like that happen, if they are weak enough to allow the US to be so bold as to simply march in and start taking stuff, then I would rather side with the stronger government. I would technically become a US citizen, if it really is like Russia did with Crimea. We'd probably finally get the pavements in the driveways around here fixed permanently. There are benefits to a change of leadership sometimes. So no, I would do exactly as you describe. I would advocate that our troops stay where they are and only put up a modicum of resistance to the takeover, giving any remaining politicians and diplomats a chance to do their silly thing and attempt to sort the mess out.

If Abrams tanks start putting holes in the facade of my favorite grocery store however, well... I have an SUV and some rocketry experience. I'm also a big fan of the Katyusha. ^_^