• 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.
Another 10 million and Putin might even consider it noteworthy. :rolleyes:

Putin won't notice that, because he'll either be long since defenestrated, or partying up in UAE well before Russia hits 10 mil casualties.

You think Russia can absorb casualties that are a third of their male military age population?!
 
Last I heard, roughly half of Russia's military budget is currently being used to try to attract bodies for the meat grinders. That's quite the burden and it's one that's only been increasing as things get worse and worse for Russia in Ukraine. Either way, if Ukraine can weather this Russian offensive with Russia gaining as little and as slowly as Russia has been, that does help set conditions for Ukraine to make notable gains as the Russian assault peters out.
 
In Nam, US troops often, perhaps usually in some areas, rode on top of M113s, using sandbags for some degree of protection. This was due chiefly to the danger of mines.

Vietnam war started in '55, Korea started in '50, the BMP-1 didn't even start service until '66. So yeah, you find previous doctrines before the IFV is even invented :p

it's like saying, but, hey, they didn't use airplanes in the Franco-Prussian war :p

Well, d'oh :p
 
Last edited:
Putin won't notice that, because he'll either be long since defenestrated, or partying up in UAE well before Russia hits 10 mil casualties.

You think Russia can absorb casualties that are a third of their male military age population?!

No, the 10 million figure was hyperbole on my part but 2 or 3 million maybe.

Then again the Soviet Union had more than double the 10 million in total casualties (including civilians) and the Russians consider that a great victory.

Either way, Russia has 10+ years more operating at these loss levels IMO before there's even a squeak of protest.
 
Last I heard, roughly half of Russia's military budget is currently being used to try to attract bodies for the meat grinders. That's quite the burden and it's one that's only been increasing as things get worse and worse for Russia in Ukraine.

Which means that they will have to find more cost-effective ways of recruiting. One way would be to expand conscription (and allow conscripts to serve in the New Russia), another would be to ramp up the sense that Russia is under immediate threat from the West and that it's every loyal Russian's duty to serve - as they did in the Great Patriotic War.

How successful these efforts might be is a good question.

Either way, if Ukraine can weather this Russian offensive with Russia gaining as little and as slowly as Russia has been, that does help set conditions for Ukraine to make notable gains as the Russian assault peters out.

Very possibly, then again pundits have ben saying essentially the same thing for well over a year, that Russia is punching itself out against the Ukrainian defence and that as a result, Ukraine will soon have excellent offensive opportunities - I hope it turns out that way, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
No, the 10 million figure was hyperbole on my part but 2 or 3 million maybe.

Then again the Soviet Union had more than double the 10 million in total casualties (including civilians) and the Russians consider that a great victory.

Either way, Russia has 10+ years more operating at these loss levels IMO before there's even a squeak of protest.

Well considering that Russian front line troops are cuurently equvalent of thr Volksturm units of the Battle of Berlin, 2 million is a massive exaggeration.

PS the USSR's losses in WW2 mostly happened amomgst the subjugated peoples of Ukraine, eastern Poland and the Baltic states. Outside of St Petersburg and Volgagrad ethnic Russians suffered very light casualties.
 
Last edited:
Well considering that Russian front line troops are cuurently equvalent of thr Volksturm units of the Battle of Berlin, 2 million is a massive exaggeration.

PS the USSR's losses in WW2 mostly happened amomgst the subjugated peoples of Ukraine, eastern Poland and the Baltic states. Outside of St Petersburg and Volgagrad ethnic Russians suffered very light casualties.

Russia seems to be following the same pattern with a disproportionate number of combatants and casualties from ethnic minorities and/or remote oblasts
 
Well considering that Russian front line troops are cuurently equvalent of thr Volksturm units of the Battle of Berlin, 2 million is a massive exaggeration.

PS the USSR's losses in WW2 mostly happened amomgst the subjugated peoples of Ukraine, eastern Poland and the Baltic states. Outside of St Petersburg and Volgagrad ethnic Russians suffered very light casualties.

According to Wikipedia, the Russians themselves were about half the casualties. By percentage of the regional population the 5 other Soviet republics suffered worse than the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
 
Something of a side note related to a while ago, but still of relevance -

Here’s the critical sentence from that declassified report. “[redacted] 2022, Russian military officials proposed delaying the Russian withdrawal from Kherson until after the midterms to avoid giving a named US political party a perceived win before the election.”

And, indeed -

Finally, on Nov. 8, everything seemed to happen at once. Reports of Russia’s retreat seemed to be coming in by the minute. They were gone from one position, fleeing from another, and often leaving equipment behind in their haste to depart. What happened on that day that finally delivered the final straw to this long-suffering camel? Nov. 8 was Election Day in the United States.

Not only did Russian forces go tumbling back from their positions on Nov. 8, but one day later, Russia officially announced that it was withdrawing from Kherson city and the area west of the Dnipro River.

That does help clarify some questions from back then, really.
 
According to Wikipedia, the Russians themselves were about half the casualties. By percentage of the regional population the 5 other Soviet republics suffered worse than the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

There's no ethnic breakdown in that link. There are and were an awful lot of non-Russians living in Russia, for instance the many muslim steppe groups living in the south around the Caucasus and the steppes.
 
??

Vietnam war started in '55, Korea started in '50, the BMP-1 didn't even start service until '66. So yeah, you find previous doctrines before the IFV is even invented :p

it's like saying, but, hey, they didn't use airplanes in the Franco-Prussian war :p

Well, d'oh :p

??

I was just pointing out the threat that mines pose to infantry transporters.

Dunno why the snarky tone, but we all indulge in that sometimes. A widely shared character defect.
 
Is either side winning this war?

Moscow has already lost. It remains to be seen if Ukraine will win.

I myself am hopeful. Moscow eventually withdrew from Afghanistan. Moscow gave up its Warsaw Pact vassals. Bleed them enough, and I think Moscow must sooner or later give up Ukraine.

The only question is, do you support this happening sooner rather than later?
 
Last edited:
Moscow has already lost. It remains to be seen if Ukraine will win.

I myself am hopeful. Moscow eventually withdrew from Afghanistan. Moscow gave up its Warsaw Pact vassals. Bleed them enough, and I think Moscow must sooner or later give up Ukraine.

The only question is, do you support this happening sooner rather than later?

It also depends somewhat on what one is actually calling winning, too. In the beginning, there was the widespread expectation that Ukraine would fall entirely in short order to Russia's mighty military. A long time later, Russia's only managed to hold onto some of what it gained early on and is ever increasingly hard pressed to even hold onto that, so they're trying to cut off Ukraine's foreign aid by using underhanded tactics to try to manipulate policymakers in Ukraine's allies.

Ukraine's overwhelmingly exceeded expectations in practice and Russia's overwhelmingly underperformed. Ukraine's military has largely been becoming stronger and better equipped, while Russia's military is being slaughtered and their equipment and stockpiles are being run out. That's certainly grounds to say that Ukraine's winning and Russia's losing. A final victory is far from certain, though.
 
Last edited:
Russian supply is a main target, they are the ones with sketchy supply lines. Old man winter in that region is brutal. Even if they send the troops enough food and issued winter gear there is no guarantee it's going to get to front lines.

Ukrainian troops just having warm clothes, food and ample munitions is a huge advantage.
Russian conscripts are not going to be comparable even if in greater numbers.
 
Russian supply is a main target, they are the ones with sketchy supply lines. Old man winter in that region is brutal. Even if they send the troops enough food and issued winter gear there is no guarantee it's going to get to front lines.

Ukrainian troops just having warm clothes, food and ample munitions is a huge advantage.
Russian conscripts are not going to be comparable even if in greater numbers.

Exactly the same thing was being said last year but sadly the Russian line largely held through the winter. Hopefully this winter will be different.

I'm not that optimistic (but then again I never am :o), Russia has just launched a big offensive involving up to 100,000 men at multiple points along the Eastern front.
 
A 6 minute Youtube from Anders Puck Nielsen discussing the rationale behind Russian "meat wave" tactics.



It's certainly food for thought

tl;dr version

- Because they can
- Because they work (for certain values of work)
- Because it demonstrates intent

He concludes however, that they're very counterproductive
 
Last edited:
I myself am hopeful. Moscow eventually withdrew from Afghanistan. Moscow gave up its Warsaw Pact vassals. Bleed them enough, and I think Moscow must sooner or later give up Ukraine.
Those events happened under a leader who did not want to see himself as a dictator, but actually wanted to improve the lives of the citizens.

Today, Russia is led by a fully fledged dictator whose only care is to ensure his continued rule, and to reinforce the loyalty of his most powerful supporters.

Giving up Ukraine, or even a part of what Russia has conquered would jeopardise Putin’s power, and even cost him his life. So, no, I don’t think Moscow will give up voluntarily, but Putin might grant the Ukrainians an armistice which can be his way out of a very difficult position.

In previous wars, like the First World War, we have seen how calls for a peaceful solution have been impossible precisely because of the huge casualties that had been taken. The idea was that the casualties needed to have a purpose, and so only a complete victory was acceptable. I fear that we are at this stage now with Russia, that public opinion in Russia, after being indoctrinated to think that this is a war of survival against “the West”, will not accept anything less than a complete victory. Putin knows this, and he will do anything to deliver.

Huge casualties only reinforces the story, and makes peace even more difficult.
 
Exactly the same thing was being said last year but sadly the Russian line largely held through the winter. Hopefully this winter will be different.

I'm not that optimistic (but then again I never am :o), Russia has just launched a big offensive involving up to 100,000 men at multiple points along the Eastern front.

Masses on unprepared men on a front have a short expiration date. Time to use them, or use them up is fairly quickly before dissent and desesperation cause them to be a liability to R commanders.
 
How's the offensive going Russia?

Attack on Ukrainian bridgehead over Dnipro with 150 tanks/apv's failed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWar...491/21_dec_unbelievable_ukrainian_bridgehead/

3 SU-34's, shotdown.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWar...today_on_the_southern_front_ukrainian_forces/

Meatwave attack countered by US supplied DPICM's.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWar...he_afu_repelled_a_fairly_big_russian_assault/

Russian's even dying while waiting in line at the recruitment office.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWar...ssia_34yearold_fyodor_kuzmin_died_in_line_at/
 
That bridgehead seems to have a lot more staying power than I expected. I figured that as soon as it became a nuisance, Moscow would send a BTG, and the Ukrainians would withdraw.
 
I expected the bridgehead either to grow or fail. Neither appears to be happening.

It must be an especially dismal part of the front line with the extra stress of having the river at your back constraining how you can move. I'm sure I also read of the Marines' frustration that the bridgehead they secured isn't being exploited by regulars, and wondering why they bothered to capture it.
 
That bridgehead seems to have a lot more staying power than I expected. I figured that as soon as it became a nuisance, Moscow would send a BTG, and the Ukrainians would withdraw.

I think I was a bit more hopeful, given the unmitigated success of the precursor when it came to the larger goal of degrading the Russian military. Even if they failed to secure enough territory to secure a defensible crossing point, which was reasonably likely, so long as Russian assaults need to get through the artillery cover from the other side of the river, the Russians were going to take very heavy casualties. At that point, it's not a major strategic win, perhaps, but it's definitely a major tactical win.

I was hopeful, too, that Ukraine would manage to secure the bridgehead they needed for a big territory sweep that would cut up Russian logistics and liberate a bunch of territory, but a bit guarded. Russia, of course, was put in a position where they can't really ignore the very real strategic threat that the Ukrainians created. That area is probably the least defensible for the Russians and Russia losing it would likely be a bit catastrophic for their situation as a whole. Russia may be dumb in a bunch of ways, but there was no way that that went unrecognized. Even if it was originally a Ukrainian feint or distraction, it would definitely get out of hand if they didn't respond. So, whether they wanted to or not, they had to strain their logistics even more and fight, however disadvantageous their position. All that hubbub about Ukraine potentially establishing a defensible bridgehead likely increased the pressure to respond, for that matter.

In short, it's pretty much a win-win for Ukraine, once they established control (not an easy task, that). Either they're able to inflict nasty and disproportionate damage on the Russians with the help of artillery that they couldn't really shift to other fronts anyways, advancing their overall strategy of degrading the Russian military or they're able to retake territory, with all the positives that that entails. The latter is, of course, what we'd prefer to see, but the former is also useful.
 
Last edited:
I expected the bridgehead either to grow or fail. Neither appears to be happening.

It must be an especially dismal part of the front line with the extra stress of having the river at your back constraining how you can move. I'm sure I also read of the Marines' frustration that the bridgehead they secured isn't being exploited by regulars, and wondering why they bothered to capture it.

I think Ukraine is waiting on additional aid packages passing Congress before deciding on any major offensives. Without it, they cannot afford any losses. They need to husband all they can for defensive purposes.
 
I expected the bridgehead either to grow or fail. Neither appears to be happening.

It must be an especially dismal part of the front line with the extra stress of having the river at your back constraining how you can move. I'm sure I also read of the Marines' frustration that the bridgehead they secured isn't being exploited by regulars, and wondering why they bothered to capture it.

Bollocks
 
I think Ukraine is waiting on additional aid packages passing Congress before deciding on any major offensives. Without it, they cannot afford any losses. They need to husband all they can for defensive purposes.

According to several news articles, Ukraine has been scaling back some operations due to a lack of aid.

Like I said, waning Western support isn't for Trump or anything else in the future. It's happening now.
 
According to several news articles, Ukraine has been scaling back some operations due to a lack of aid.

Like I said, waning Western support isn't for Trump or anything else in the future. It's happening now.

Yeah, I'm afraid its not coming from the USA, unless Biden can somehow win next year. The Senate is using the border as an excuse not to fund Ukraine, when in reality its because they know Trump is probably going to be POTUS again and they want to be in his good graces.

Ukraines hope now rests on Europe, and Scholz at least appears to be a staunch supporter. But that is unlikely going to be enough for an offensive, unless the Russian army just completely and totally exhausts itself on idiotic, relentlessly poorly planned and executed assaults... which they appear to be working towards doing.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine has suggested that it might wait until 2025 for the next big offensive, once it has all the gear it wants, in particular airborne.
 
Moscow has already lost. It remains to be seen if Ukraine will win.

I myself am hopeful. Moscow eventually withdrew from Afghanistan. Moscow gave up its Warsaw Pact vassals. Bleed them enough, and I think Moscow must sooner or later give up Ukraine.

The only question is, do you support this happening sooner rather than later?

Moscow withdrew from Afghanistan after far fewer casualties, spread out over a far longer time, from a polity with almost twice the population of current Russia and with a far better control of the media and information.
 
Moscow withdrew from Afghanistan after far fewer casualties, spread out over a far longer time, from a polity with almost twice the population of current Russia and with a far better control of the media and information.

Sad to say, but national leaders were less crazy back then. That's right, the ******* 1980s, height of the Cold War, two minutes to midnight, jellybeans and Alzheimers and all.
 
The Russian defence ministry is saying that Ukraine had used air-launched missiles to attack Feodosia and that the “Novocherkassk” large landing ship had been damaged in the raid.

Looking at the pictures being posted online it's been completely destroyed.

Ukraine’s military has said it has destroyed a Russian landing ship stationed in the Crimean port city of Feodosia using Storm Shadow missiles.

BBC video of huge explosion after missile strike.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-67822919

That's another port the Russians have lost.

In a separate news, the Ukrainian military said it had shot down five Russian fighter jets in three days, which, if confirmed, would mark one of the biggest weekly losses for the Russian air force since the war began.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom