• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
HansMustermann said:
To be honest, and as a disclaimer, I'm not a military strategist. I was conscripted to an AA unit that gets attached to a division (you, know the kind that tracks someone on an air search radar and puts several 35mm rounds through their skull and back of their seat, plus some missile stuff), and wasn't the best soldier even there. We had some basic infantry training, like all arms of the armed forces, but that was about it. More about how to save your ass if at some point you're on foot and charged, than grand military strategy, is all I'm saying.

But what the Russians are doing baffles me all around. Like, they're losing artillery systems like popcorn, but they're wasting them bombarding some civilian city (like Kherson on the anniversary of their liberation) even if it means driving them closer to the front line and losing them to counter-battery fire. Without intending to Goodwin the thread, it reminds me of WW2 and wasting resources on V1 and V2 "vengeance" weapons for propaganda value against Britain, instead of even trying to deal with the massive army tearing through Germany from both sides.

Or they're repeating standard stuff that is known and analysed that it didn't work in the early stages of WW1, and WHY it didn't work. Like open up with a massive artillery (and this time: rocket) barrage, it stops, then the infantry attacks. Like not even try to make it a combined arms thing. It was known from the first year of WW1 (plus, more modernly, just listen to the Chieftain talking about simultaneous attack vectors and why that matters) that yeah, heads down, and when it stops, it means poke your head up and shoot. Like, even in WW1 they invented stuff like crawling artillery fire and whatnot (which, ok, also didn't work:p), but the Russians don't even seem to be at that stage.

Like, what the hell is wrong with the Russian army?

Like, ok, I know that Shoigu is a clown in a military uniform, but supposedly Gerasimov is a career officer who published papers on military matters. Like, even he can't say, "no, that's stupid"?

Edit: and don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting for Russia or anything. It's good news that they're incompetent. But there's only so many times you can watch a cat run, slide across the floor and hit a wall head first, before it stops being funny and you start wondering "OMG, is it brain-damaged?"
Click to expand...

Actually the creeping barrage did work. It just took a lot of practice to get it right.
 
Mike! said:
WTAF??? :boggled:
It's looks like they're attempting a combined effort at jamming a large square peg into a small round hole, but maybe I'm just misinterpreting what the video is actually depicting.
Click to expand...

They're using a crate to hammer in a rocket that's just a bit too large for the tube.
 
What is wrong with the Russian army?

1. The 'good' troops weren't as good as the colonels were telling the generals, and the generals were telling Putin they were. The ranks have always been ravaged by alcohol and deep corruption. Units that were supposed to have 5 battalion groups, only had 2 or 3, but on paper they had 5. Units that were supposed to have 50 armored vehicles and crews, only had 12 or 15, but on paper had 50.

2. The 'Good' units in 1 are now gone, and new units are being thrown into the battle with little training and bad equipment.

3. The higher ups had no idea of the superiority of Western weapons and tactics. The yes men have been saying to their leaders for 50 years that the Russian troops and tactics were superior.
 
arthwollipot said:
And quite honestly I'm more worried about North Korea yeeting nukes about with reckless abandon than I am about Russia.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the reason that I'm in the same camp as you comes from the difference in the totalitarian regimes in charge of the two countries.

In Russia yes, Putin is effectively a dictator. He makes all the rules and he directs the policy of the country pretty much on his own. His advisors are all yes men who like being in power and want to stay there. The problem for him is, he's only in charge at the whim of the oligarchs. If they pull support he's buggered, because they can always find another "stronk Russian manly man leader" who will stand up to the West and talk about how wonderful Russia is and borcht and whatever.

North Korea on the other hand doesn't really have oligarchs controlling the purse strings. It just has the family. The family worshipped as near gods. The family that can not only remove important members of the military from their positions but have them killed. Any of them. At any time.

If Putin decided to use nukes, the oligarchs would realise that hurts their bottom line and pull support, and crucially finance from under him and the nukes would not get launched. No one can sell gas to a nuclear wasteland afterall.

If Kim Jong-Un decides to use nukes who is going to stop him exactly and how? Even if he is assassinated, next in line is his kid, either his eldest son (who we think exists) or his eldest daughter (who definitely does, thank you Dennis Rodman). A child who is brought up to believe their great grandfather was basically a god, their grandfather was the most enlightened person of his age, and their father is in total control of the best country in the world and now that has passed to them. Their predecessors were all infallible gods. Who is going to gainsay them?
 
Drewbot said:
What is wrong with the Russian army?

1. The 'good' troops weren't as good as the colonels were telling the generals, and the generals were telling Putin they were. The ranks have always been ravaged by alcohol and deep corruption. Units that were supposed to have 5 battalion groups, only had 2 or 3, but on paper they had 5. Units that were supposed to have 50 armored vehicles and crews, only had 12 or 15, but on paper had 50.

2. The 'Good' units in 1 are now gone, and new units are being thrown into the battle with little training and bad equipment.

3. The higher ups had no idea of the superiority of Western weapons and tactics. The yes men have been saying to their leaders for 50 years that the Russian troops and tactics were superior.
Click to expand...

And yet here they are throwing meat wave after meat wave, slowly taking ground in a few hotspots on the Eastern Front and generally holding the line elsewhere. They may be bad, but not bad enough. Poor morale and drunkenness may be rife, but those meat waves keep coming. There may be a shortage of men and materiel, but it isn't apparent from their tactics.
 
The Don said:
And yet here they are throwing meat wave after meat wave, slowly taking ground in a few hotspots on the Eastern Front and generally holding the line elsewhere. They may be bad, but not bad enough. Poor morale and drunkenness may be rife, but those meat waves keep coming. There may be a shortage of men and materiel, but it isn't apparent from their tactics.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? They have not achieved anything so far with their Avdiivka offensive so far. Lets say they do, eventually take it, and it really does take them 100,000 casualties, 1000 tanks, and 2000 APC's. That proves Russia cannot win a conventional war against Ukraine given continued western support. Extrapolate those numbers against what it would take them to conquer all of Ukraine? Russia cannot suffer MILLIONS of casualties against Ukraine and not face a revolution. Right now they are taking prisoners, and immigrants. Outsiders, the dregs of their society to the middle an upper class Russians. To fully mobilize would mean digging into their mainstream. They can't.

They've been slowing down their attacks recently. Theres 3 reasons for that, that I can come up with:

1) They're stockpiling men and material for another big push.
2) They're reinforcing the frontline around the Dnipro as a result of Ukraine crossing it.
3) They're giving up.
 
The Don said:
And yet here they are throwing meat wave after meat wave, slowly taking ground in a few hotspots on the Eastern Front and generally holding the line elsewhere. They may be bad, but not bad enough. Poor morale and drunkenness may be rife, but those meat waves keep coming. There may be a shortage of men and materiel, but it isn't apparent from their tactics.
Click to expand...

It's apparent from their tactics, their tempo, and their lack of progress. And their lack of meaningful objectives. Avdiivka isn't Lviv. It's not Kyiv. It's not even Odessa. It's not even Kherson. It's a city they've been trying to take since 2014,that doesn't open up anything for them now even if they do take it. No more than Bakhmut.

This doctrine made sense when the Soviet Union could do it on a wide front, and reinforce the breakthroughs. Moscow is doing it now because they can't think of anything actually effective, but they don't want to admit defeat. They've already lost all their strategic objectives, and their current tactics won't win those objectives. They don't even have Sevastopol as a naval base anymore.

A year and a half of this, and all they've really accomplished on the ground is a slight shifting of the borders of the occupied territories. Which is not what they set out to do, and not what they need to do for success.

Meanwhile NATO has been revitalized and even expanded. Ukraine is still on course to align with western Europe and ally with NATO. But still you insist that Zeno's Advance is Moscow winning.
 
For what it's worth, Russia finally taking Avdiivka would be a real win for them. It was fairly heavily fortified and it gives Ukraine some measure of artillery fire control over Donetsk, limiting their logistics. Taking Avdiivka would very much remove a figurative thorn in their side.

With that said, victory at Avdiivka is pretty well showing to be Pyrrhic in nature, if Russia even does manage to achieve such in the end. The loss ratio being incurred is immensely unfavorable to Russia and the scale is quite substantial.
 
Last edited:
ginjawarrior said:
Nothing says going to plan more than wanting to turn female prisons into baby making factory's ...

https://youtu.be/4Uf9QB_YAv8?si=W0M23jgZheIq_Fld

Reminds me of this scene

https://youtu.be/6jamrudGfC4?si=zJzrq172xBxj2vXg
Click to expand...

They don't call Russian soldiers "orcs" for nothing.

Seriously, though, Russia is facing a demographic disaster, and assuming the translation is correct, this is a desperate attempt to do something about it. But it won't do much.

I remember hearing at one point that Russia had more abortions than live births, which is a pretty horrifying statistic. I tried looking up the details just now, and according to this source:
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-russia.html
that used to be the case for a long time but actually changed more recently. Live births have been going steadily down, but abortion rates collapsed over the last decade+, and are now well below live births, which is an improvement. But their demographic collapse still looks inevitable.
 
lobosrul5 said:
That proves Russia cannot win a conventional war against Ukraine given continued western support.
Click to expand...

That's one heck of a given. It has to be further qualified "given sufficient continued western support." There may be some well wishes, but less money. There may be money, but an inability to produce sufficient munitions, etc. We've seen zombie movies before. Unless you get them all, they keep coming. They don't have the best brains, guns, etc. but they keep coming.

Will they eventually take Kyiv, even with flagging support from the West? Probably not, but they can still wreak misery on Ukraine.
 
theprestige said:
It's apparent from their tactics, their tempo, and their lack of progress. And their lack of meaningful objectives. Avdiivka isn't Lviv. It's not Kyiv. It's not even Odessa. It's not even Kherson. It's a city they've been trying to take since 2014,that doesn't open up anything for them now even if they do take it. No more than Bakhmut.

This doctrine made sense when the Soviet Union could do it on a wide front, and reinforce the breakthroughs. Moscow is doing it now because they can't think of anything actually effective, but they don't want to admit defeat. They've already lost all their strategic objectives, and their current tactics won't win those objectives. They don't even have Sevastopol as a naval base anymore.

A year and a half of this, and all they've really accomplished on the ground is a slight shifting of the borders of the occupied territories. Which is not what they set out to do, and not what they need to do for success.

Meanwhile NATO has been revitalized and even expanded. Ukraine is still on course to align with western Europe and ally with NATO. But still you insist that Zeno's Advance is Moscow winning.
Click to expand...

All true but Russia still occupies a significant chunk of Ukraine.
 
Jimbo07 said:
That's one heck of a given. It has to be further qualified "given sufficient continued western support." There may be some well wishes, but less money. There may be money, but an inability to produce sufficient munitions, etc. We've seen zombie movies before. Unless you get them all, they keep coming. They don't have the best brains, guns, etc. but they keep coming.

Will they eventually take Kyiv, even with flagging support from the West? Probably not, but they can still wreak misery on Ukraine.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's true, and it does worry me.

Although on the zombie thing... I do believe that once "HEADSHOTS KILL THEM!" became public knowledge, we'd very quickly go from zombies being the worst threat, to it being accidentally headshot by someone who thought you were a zombie. At least in the USA.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I suppose that's true, and it does worry me.

Although on the zombie thing... I do believe that once "HEADSHOTS KILL THEM!" became public knowledge, we'd very quickly go from zombies being the worst threat, to it being accidentally headshot by someone who thought you were a zombie. At least in the USA.
Click to expand...

"I sweart-to-got, off'sir, he wazza mutter'n' somethin-er-other 'bout 'brains', so's I shot him square in the knoggin', jess-to-be-safe, ya-know? Cain't be too careful these daze."
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
They don't call Russian soldiers "orcs" for nothing.

Seriously, though, Russia is facing a demographic disaster, and assuming the translation is correct, this is a desperate attempt to do something about it. But it won't do much.

.
Click to expand...
I don't speak russian but that source is trustworthy, it's always matched up with other russian speaking translators

There's talk from officials about banning abortions and restrictions on women for higher education too

https://youtu.be/PIqqJpKYgIg?si=Uy1tu76R8IwR8YgA

As to the russian plan. They were hoping to have 40million or so more people ATM

Whereas they've lost nearly 1% of their population from young men leaving the county and 300+ thousand dead in Ukraine.

No wonder they're desperate now
 
theprestige said:
Which they did before they started this war. This war was supposed to finish Ukraine off, nor prolong the status quo. Certainly not prolong the status quo AND lose the use of Sevastopol.
Click to expand...

OTOH they have their land bridge to Crimea so it's not the post 2014 status quo either.

It's absolutely the case that the Russians have not achieved their inferred war aims but then again they haven't achieved nothing either. It's far less and at a much higher cost in terms of men and materiel than any Western force would be content with but so far it seems an acceptable cost for Russia, both the leadership and the public.
 
The Don said:
OTOH they have their land bridge to Crimea so it's not the post 2014 status quo either.

It's absolutely the case that the Russians have not achieved their inferred war aims but then again they haven't achieved nothing either. It's far less and at a much higher cost in terms of men and materiel than any Western force would be content with but so far it seems an acceptable cost for Russia, both the leadership and the public.
Click to expand...

They achieved a negative result for themselves. They've lost men, material, money, world wide standing, the perception of their military and might, and use of their Crimean naval base. What have they gained? A bit of mostly ruined territory. That they've planted every old Soviet mine they could get their hands on, in.

I really cannot see how even given Russian distorted logic that anyone near the top doesn't view their war as an abject failure of which they are trying to salvage something out of.

It is also a negative result for Ukraine. But this isn't a zero-sum game. Just because Ukraine has lost something from this war does not mean Russia has gained net value.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
It is also a negative result for Ukraine. But this isn't a zero-sum game. Just because Ukraine has lost something from this war does not mean Russia has gained net value.
Click to expand...

I've phrased this same sentiment before in a slightly more negative tone. Just because Russia has already lost doesn't mean Ukraine can't still lose, too.
 
Drewbot said:
What is wrong with the Russian army?

1. The 'good' troops weren't as good as the colonels were telling the generals, and the generals were telling Putin they were. The ranks have always been ravaged by alcohol and deep corruption. Units that were supposed to have 5 battalion groups, only had 2 or 3, but on paper they had 5. Units that were supposed to have 50 armored vehicles and crews, only had 12 or 15, but on paper had 50.

2. The 'Good' units in 1 are now gone, and new units are being thrown into the battle with little training and bad equipment.

3. The higher ups had no idea of the superiority of Western weapons and tactics. The yes men have been saying to their leaders for 50 years that the Russian troops and tactics were superior.
Click to expand...

I'd say the even bigger and more systemic error is the lack of preparation. Western armies use extensive briefing and planning, including the one-third two-thirds rule, meaning that for every day you spent planning an operation, you give two days for your subordinates to plan their part in it. In last years invasion, it was painfully obvious to everyone else than the troops that they're even gonna attack. The only way they used that rule is if Shoigu also spent exactly zero hours planning it.

Hmm... waait a minute...
 
lobosrul5 said:
I really cannot see how even given Russian distorted logic that anyone near the top doesn't view their war as an abject failure of which they are trying to salvage something out of.
Click to expand...

To the top it doesn't mean anything. They are not on the front line. Their loved ones were not the ones who died. They are still going to be massively rich afterwards. They will still be massively rich. They are not in any real danger of being replaced or losing power. They will sell it to the people as a victory regardless.
 
Drewbot said:
What is wrong with the Russian army?

1. The 'good' troops weren't as good as the colonels were telling the generals, and the generals were telling Putin they were. The ranks have always been ravaged by alcohol and deep corruption. Units that were supposed to have 5 battalion groups, only had 2 or 3, but on paper they had 5. Units that were supposed to have 50 armored vehicles and crews, only had 12 or 15, but on paper had 50.

2. The 'Good' units in 1 are now gone, and new units are being thrown into the battle with little training and bad equipment.

3. The higher ups had no idea of the superiority of Western weapons and tactics. The yes men have been saying to their leaders for 50 years that the Russian troops and tactics were superior.
Click to expand...

As a corrolorary to 1 it seems that what few good troops that remain are being badly used, eg tankand anti-air crews used as assault infantry, paratroopers and navy personnel used as first line defenders, etc. And it seems to have been worse for support and logistics troops, these were being used as front line meat from day one.
 
Interesting comparison between the "failed" Ukrainian Robotyne offensive and the "highly successful" Russian Avdiivka offensive. Both compare territorial gains after 43 days.



The Russians are taking, on average just 40 hectares a day.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
"Vladimir Artyakov, deputy general director of Russia's defense conglomerate Rostec, was cited by state-run news agency Tass as saying that Russian weapons "'have long been recognized as one of the best in the world.'"


:dl: :dl: :dl:
Click to expand...

He didn't say whether or not the opinion was supported by facts.
 
"One of the best" isn't bad company. Especially when the alternative is "ridiculously expensive alien space magic". There's a reason China licensed and/or stole the Soviet tech and designs. It's only very recently that people are starting to question whether the Russian stuff does what you paid for.
 
Probably pretty good stuff if your sole intent is to just go marching up and down the square in an effort to display how big and powerful you are.
Not so hot if your plan is putting it to use out in a battlefield application.
 
ginjawarrior said:
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/11...r-ukrainian-logistics-near-krynky-bridgehead/

Pontoon bridges reported in Kherson regoin

Go on you boys
Click to expand...

The pacing on the river crossing has been interesting. Usually, the crossing is executed quickly followed by an effort to expand the bridge head as fast as possible to protect the crossing site and develop a high number of troops to stop counter attacks.

Here, the early crossings were slow and supported by bridge equipment used as rafts to avoid making them an easy target for artillery. The Russians should have been able to stop this quickly. The land taken back on the left bank of the river is fairly low and open ground. Not great cover for Ukraine.

After weeks of crossings and raft supported work, the Ukrainians are still there and expanding. They only way the Russian responses here make any sense is that they first regarded it as a diversion. The Ukrainian effort might even have started as a diversion. But if there is no response, they keep pushing the Russians.

Then there is the chance that this is a trap designed to get Ukraine to commit important assets and then the Russians knock out the bridges and destroy the Ukrainian forces. If that was the case, we should see something within 24 hours of the bridges being set up. But instead, we see a continued slow expansion on the Ukrainian side followed by not much of anything useful by the Russians. This could still be a trap. But the chance of it working drops by the hour.
 
Mike! said:
Probably pretty good stuff if your sole intent is to just go marching up and down the square in an effort to display how big and powerful you are.
Not so hot if your plan is putting it to use out in a battlefield application.
Click to expand...

Wait, are you talking about systems with proven battlefield records like the Su-27 derivatives and the T-72 upgrades? Or the actual vaporware systems like the T-14, the BMPT, and the Su-57?
 
Doubt said:
The pacing on the river crossing has been interesting. Usually, the crossing is executed quickly followed by an effort to expand the bridge head as fast as possible to protect the crossing site and develop a high number of troops to stop counter attacks.

Here, the early crossings were slow and supported by bridge equipment used as rafts to avoid making them an easy target for artillery. The Russians should have been able to stop this quickly. The land taken back on the left bank of the river is fairly low and open ground. Not great cover for Ukraine.

After weeks of crossings and raft supported work, the Ukrainians are still there and expanding. They only way the Russian responses here make any sense is that they first regarded it as a diversion. The Ukrainian effort might even have started as a diversion. But if there is no response, they keep pushing the Russians.

Then there is the chance that this is a trap designed to get Ukraine to commit important assets and then the Russians knock out the bridges and destroy the Ukrainian forces. If that was the case, we should see something within 24 hours of the bridges being set up. But instead, we see a continued slow expansion on the Ukrainian side followed by not much of anything useful by the Russians. This could still be a trap. But the chance of it working drops by the hour.
Click to expand...

There is a third alternative, Russian attacks at Adviivka (sp?) and elsewhere earlier in they year could have resulted in complete denudations of whole sections of their defensive line and Ukraine are exploiting the gap they think is the most advantageous.

I'm thinking the trap scenario is very unlikely. Even when operating with supposedly fully trained units Russia had awful problems carrying out operations less complicated than this one would be. Plus Putain has his own version of the Hitler "no retreat" order.
 
Doubt said:
Then there is the chance that this is a trap designed to get Ukraine to commit important assets and then the Russians knock out the bridges and destroy the Ukrainian forces. If that was the case, we should see something within 24 hours of the bridges being set up. But instead, we see a continued slow expansion on the Ukrainian side followed by not much of anything useful by the Russians. This could still be a trap. But the chance of it working drops by the hour.
Click to expand...

I get the impression there are no bridges. It is a bridgehead without a bridge.

Many points to load up on the east bank, many points to unload on the west bank. Zero permanent targets for Russia to hit, at most a few boat ramps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom