• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Klimax said:
Forgot to address this. You are way behind. There are at least 12 HIMARS/M270 now. Would it kill you to actually pay attention if you are going to comment on it?
Click to expand...

Do they have the volume of missiles to use it as general purpose artillery though ?
 
Klimax said:
Forgot to address this. You are way behind. There are at least 12 HIMARS/M270 now. Would it kill you to actually pay attention if you are going to comment on it?
Click to expand...
I find it very hard to get reliable information on the conflict. There is so much misinformation and clickbait fiction that it's hard to tell what is actually going on.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Who says they will be used as general purpose artillery?
Click to expand...

My original response was to this post:

Mike! said:
Dug in is just another way of saying sitting duck. Let them dig in, then Ukraine can rain rockets down on them and turn their trenches into graves.
Click to expand...

I was suggesting that it wouldn't be a good use of expensive and comparatively scarce HIMARS missiles to do this.

The Don said:
Can they though ?

Do you use expensive, comparatively scarce, high precision ordnance to attack trenches and highly reinforced positions ?
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
My original response was to this post:



I was suggesting that it wouldn't be a good use of expensive and comparatively scarce HIMARS missiles to do this.
Click to expand...

If they launch a major offensive and it is needed then yes it will be used for direct support against specific positions they come against if it is the best asset to use in a given situation.
 
From ISW, this sounds very worrying:

After annexation, Putin may state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory applies to newly annexed territories. Such actions would threaten Ukraine and its partners with nuclear attack if Ukrainian counteroffensives to liberate Russian-occupied territory continue.
Click to expand...

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-19

of course:

e. Putin may believe that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would restore Russian deterrence after his disastrous invasion shattered Russia's conventional deterrent capabilities, although previous Russian hints at Moscow’s willingness to use nuclear weapons have proven hollow. Ukraine and its Western partners may have a narrowing window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
From ISW, this sounds very worrying:



https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-19

of course:
Click to expand...

Russian nuclear doctrine does not - I repeat: NOT - trigger a nuclear response if merely some "Russian" territory is at risk.

Russian doctrine knows four triggers:
A multi-missile launch against Russia is detected and it can't be ruled out it's nuclear
A hostile nuke actually explodes in Russia
An attack on the Russian nuclear infrastructure that threatens Russia's nuclear strike capability
An existential threat to the existence of Russia

None of those applies to the loss of territory, not even legitimate territory, at the periphery due to conventional warfare.
 
Oystein said:
Russian nuclear doctrine does not - I repeat: NOT - trigger a nuclear response if merely some "Russian" territory is at risk.

Russian doctrine knows four triggers:
A multi-missile launch against Russia is detected and it can't be ruled out it's nuclear
A hostile nuke actually explodes in Russia
An attack on the Russian nuclear infrastructure that threatens Russia's nuclear strike capability
An existential threat to the existence of Russia

None of those applies to the loss of territory, not even legitimate territory, at the periphery due to conventional warfare.
Click to expand...


Perun dealt with this quite well in one of his videos a couple of months ago.


I think ISW's daily analysis is generally excellent, but it's kind of annoying that they occasionally make these the-sky-is-falling pronouncements about Putin's possible use of nuclear weapons if (when) Russia starts being pushed back in Ukraine.
 
Oystein said:
Russian nuclear doctrine does not - I repeat: NOT - trigger a nuclear response if merely some "Russian" territory is at risk.



Russian doctrine knows four triggers:

A multi-missile launch against Russia is detected and it can't be ruled out it's nuclear

A hostile nuke actually explodes in Russia

An attack on the Russian nuclear infrastructure that threatens Russia's nuclear strike capability

An existential threat to the existence of Russia



None of those applies to the loss of territory, not even legitimate territory, at the periphery due to conventional warfare.
Click to expand...
It might be Russian Doctrine. Is it Putin Doctrine?
 
This war seems to be a testing ground where modern European and American weapons versus the Russian old but tried and true weapons. I've seen videos where Russian tanks are being blown to bits. The Russians are winning battles but at a huge cost. This is not a Russian walkover.
 
From Reuters:

U.S. to send four more HIMARS to Ukraine

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - The United States will send four more high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) to Ukraine, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Wednesday, in the latest military package to bolster Kyiv as it confronts heavy pounding by Russian forces. . . .

Austin said the new package would also include rounds for Multiple Launch Rocket Systems as well as artillery munitions.

The latest package would bring the total number of HIMARS the United States has provided to Ukraine to 16.​
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If they launch a major offensive and it is needed then yes it will be used for direct support against specific positions they come against if it is the best asset to use in a given situation.
Click to expand...

The Don still thinks this is a simple war of numbers, and that the side with the greater mass of men and materiel to throw into the meatgrinder will inevitably win.

Never mind that modern warfare, and modern weapons, all focus on flexibility, precision, and doing far more with far less. "Weight of metal" on the front used to be the tits, because massed artillery barrages were the only real option. The whole point of things like HIMARS is that one well-aimed rocket, hitting one key target, disrupts an entire offensive. HIMARS isn't there to get into artillery duels with Soviet-era howitzer batteries. It's there to knock out the supply depots, rail junctions, and command posts that make those howitzers something other than firecrackers or useless lumps of metal.
 
theprestige said:
The Don still thinks this is a simple war of numbers, and that the side with the greater mass of men and materiel to throw into the meatgrinder will inevitably win.
Click to expand...

No I don't, but I do think that people who think that Russian collapse is imminent, that they are about to run out of men and materiel soon or that any counter attack won't be hard fought are being overly optimistic.

The Russians are preparing to throw yet more men and materiel against Ukraine. They certainly have the money to do it (in part due to the EU's reliance on Russian fossil fuels) and they seem to have vast reserves of (outdated) equipment. Time will tell whether they will be successful in getting the manpower.

theprestige said:
Never mind that modern warfare, and modern weapons, all focus on flexibility, precision, and doing far more with far less. "Weight of metal" on the front used to be the tits, because massed artillery barrages were the only real option. The whole point of things like HIMARS is that one well-aimed rocket, hitting one key target, disrupts an entire offensive. HIMARS isn't there to get into artillery duels with Soviet-era howitzer batteries. It's there to knock out the supply depots, rail junctions, and command posts that make those howitzers something other than firecrackers or useless lumps of metal.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point I was trying to make, that HIMARS would be used against distant, high value targets.

Meanwhile at some point in time Ukraine will have to counter-attack to start to regain the territory currently under Russian control. Conventional wisdom is that you need a 3-5 times manpower advantage to attack.
 
The Don said:
No I don't, but I do think that people who think that Russian collapse is imminent, that they are about to run out of men and materiel soon or that any counter attack won't be hard fought are being overly optimistic.

The Russians are preparing to throw yet more men and materiel against Ukraine. They certainly have the money to do it (in part due to the EU's reliance on Russian fossil fuels) and they seem to have vast reserves of (outdated) equipment. Time will tell whether they will be successful in getting the manpower.



That's exactly the point I was trying to make, that HIMARS would be used against distant, high value targets.

Meanwhile at some point in time Ukraine will have to counter-attack to start to regain the territory currently under Russian control. Conventional wisdom is that you need a 3-5 times manpower advantage to attack.
Click to expand...

Quality is a big force multiplier. That 'wisdom' seems to forget
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom