lobosrul5
Philosopher
Hey now, lets not be giving Trump any ideas on efficiency gains here! /s
And the /s stands for silliness as well as sarcasm.
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
[Continuation] The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 9
- Thread starter Jimbo07
- Start date
Hey now, lets not be giving Trump any ideas on efficiency gains here! /s
And the /s stands for silliness as well as sarcasm.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Drones attack Russian T55 at front line.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...ut-then-russia-got-desperate/?sh=6c1218333a29
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...ut-then-russia-got-desperate/?sh=6c1218333a29
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
This must be that numerical advantage and huge reserve of older equipment that people keep warning us about.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Russia has no use for 155mm artillery shells; they use 152mm (6in) artillery pieces.
ETA: Beaten to the punch by Zig.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Contra icerat, nobody expects a protracted war with Moscow. NATO had enough ammo to reduce Moscow's army two or three times over, in the first week or so. Plus, manufacturing would start to ramp up before hostilities even started, and be in full swing very shortly after D-Day. Ukraine's problem is that the ammo is trickling in, and is perforce being used inefficiently, rather than in integrated synergy with the full NATO package. And it doesn't help that ammo manufacturing in the west did not ramp up right away, and is not rushing to reach full capacity as soon as possible.
Now, I don't know. Maybe after two years of funneling their ready stockpiles to Ukraine, and not rushing to backfill them, some NATO members are becoming concerned they might not have the three days of shock and awe intended for Moscow. On the other hand, Moscow is in no shape to push to Kyiv in three days, let alone Berlin. So NATO is probably pretty safe at the moment.
Plus, I'm old enough to remember hearing the same sort of thing during the first Gulf War. America is running out of Tomahawks. Turns out, the whole thing was over before the prophecy was fulfilled. Again, during the second Gulf War, same thing. And guess what? America and its allies never actually did run out of ammo.
There's a running joke on r/noncredibledefense, that the western MIC habitually overstates the west's weakness and its enemies' strength, in order to drum up business. That's the way I see these current reports. NATO members really should replenish their stockpiles sooner rather than later. If it takes some fearmongering, to nudge public opinion and loosen those government purse strings, fine with me. But I'm not seeing any real reason to be afraid.
---
On top of all that, we haven't even really touched our airborne stockpiles yet. Given the current state of Moscow's air force, it seems unlikely that NATO artillery would even get a proper look in, before hostilities ended.
ETA: Here's a video of all the air power the US-led coalition threw at Iraq, on the first day of Desert Storm.
Now, I don't know. Maybe after two years of funneling their ready stockpiles to Ukraine, and not rushing to backfill them, some NATO members are becoming concerned they might not have the three days of shock and awe intended for Moscow. On the other hand, Moscow is in no shape to push to Kyiv in three days, let alone Berlin. So NATO is probably pretty safe at the moment.
Plus, I'm old enough to remember hearing the same sort of thing during the first Gulf War. America is running out of Tomahawks. Turns out, the whole thing was over before the prophecy was fulfilled. Again, during the second Gulf War, same thing. And guess what? America and its allies never actually did run out of ammo.
There's a running joke on r/noncredibledefense, that the western MIC habitually overstates the west's weakness and its enemies' strength, in order to drum up business. That's the way I see these current reports. NATO members really should replenish their stockpiles sooner rather than later. If it takes some fearmongering, to nudge public opinion and loosen those government purse strings, fine with me. But I'm not seeing any real reason to be afraid.
---
On top of all that, we haven't even really touched our airborne stockpiles yet. Given the current state of Moscow's air force, it seems unlikely that NATO artillery would even get a proper look in, before hostilities ended.
ETA: Here's a video of all the air power the US-led coalition threw at Iraq, on the first day of Desert Storm.
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
We can probably add Moscow's heavily depleted air defense abilities to Moscow's cowardly, poorly trained, and greatly weakened air force to that assessment.
Welp, the Russians seem to keep on coming even though they're poorly trained, poorly motivated and poorly equipped.
Sadly, despite all of this, the latest update from ISW shows that the Russian army continues to advance - very slowly.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-7-2024
Quoting the labels from the various maps:
- Geolocated footage posted on February 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced north of Synkivka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced east of Yampolivka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 3 indicates that Ukrainian forces advanced east of Klishivka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 5 indicates that Russian forces advanced north of Bohdanivka
- A Russian source claimed on 5 February that Russian forces advanced north of Avdiivka
- A Russian source claimed on 5 February that Russian forces advanced southeast of Pervomaiske
- Geolocated footage posted on February 5 indicates that Ukrainian forces advanced northeast of Nevelske
- Geolocated footage posted on February 6 indicates that Ukrainian forces advanced south of Avdiivka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced northwest of Marinka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 3 indicates that Russian forces advanced north of Vesele
Discounting the Russian claims which have not been verified through geolocation, Russia is still advancing on multiple fronts though I'm sure that, like last year, the Russian collapse is imminent.
I know I'm very negative but ISTM that Russia does have significant reserves of men and materiel that they're prepared to use, that there isn't a major, widespread, morale problem (otherwise the meatwaves wouldn't keep on coming) and that they intend to keep on pressing forwards. I've said it many times but perhaps Russian regiments can keep on functioning because their unsophisticated tactics require less in the way of training, materiel or tactics.
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,805
Last year, during our holidays, we happened to stumble upon the grave of Erich von Falkenhayn in Potsdam.Welp, the Russians seem to keep on coming even though they're poorly trained, poorly motivated and poorly equipped.
Sadly, despite all of this, the latest update from ISW shows that the Russian army continues to advance - very slowly.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-7-2024
Quoting the labels from the various maps:
- Geolocated footage posted on February 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced north of Synkivka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced east of Yampolivka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 3 indicates that Ukrainian forces advanced east of Klishivka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 5 indicates that Russian forces advanced north of Bohdanivka
- A Russian source claimed on 5 February that Russian forces advanced north of Avdiivka
- A Russian source claimed on 5 February that Russian forces advanced southeast of Pervomaiske
- Geolocated footage posted on February 5 indicates that Ukrainian forces advanced northeast of Nevelske
- Geolocated footage posted on February 6 indicates that Ukrainian forces advanced south of Avdiivka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced northwest of Marinka
- Geolocated footage posted on February 3 indicates that Russian forces advanced north of Vesele
Discounting the Russian claims which have not been verified through geolocation, Russia is still advancing on multiple fronts though I'm sure that, like last year, the Russian collapse is imminent.
I know I'm very negative but ISTM that Russia does have significant reserves of men and materiel that they're prepared to use, that there isn't a major, widespread, morale problem (otherwise the meatwaves wouldn't keep on coming) and that they intend to keep on pressing forwards. I've said it many times but perhaps Russian regiments can keep on functioning because their unsophisticated tactics require less in the way of training, materiel or tactics.
He got me thinking about the cold mathematical mind he had, that he in 1916 could design something like the Battle of Verdun, especially in order to bleed the French army dry (and hoping that the French would bleed dry faster than what his own army would do).
And I found that what is happening now in Ukraine to be so similar, albeit in a much more technological advanced level, that it became very uncomfortable.
In my opinion, both sides use the mindset he pioneered, in the battles that are going on right now. (1)
The Ukrainians in setting up larger scale killing boxes and just let the Russians come and be killed.
The Russians by just keeping on attacking everywhere and grinding the Ukrainian forces down that way.
It's the epitome of an attritional war, at least at this moment.
No break throughs, no maneuvers, just throwing all your recources (weapons, ammo, men) against the resources of the other in the hope the other side runs out first.
(1) I say von Falkenhayn pioneered it, but a case can be made that what Grant did during the battles of the Wilderness was also an example of grinding down the resources of the other side, instead of going for a decisive win.
But von Falkenhayn definitely made it a crucial part of the design of his battle, so I do give him the honor of pioneering this type of battle.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
To be clear, what you're responding to was a small side tangent about NATO's air power being potentially matched up against Russia. Hence, not really a good launching point for your latest "Russian collapse is not imminent, contrary to all the claims" bit that, like before, seems rather dependent upon misconstruing the claims actually made. Had you responded to the recent T-55 comment or not used a quote at all, that could have worked, but not what you did.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The US has been up against those air defenses before. Iraq had probably one of the best-equipped and best-trained Soviet-model military outside of the Russian Federation. Including what were then state-of-the-art Soviet air defense systems.
What were then state-of-the-art, and are still state-of-the-art today, as Russia has not actually been able to advance significantly beyond what was deployed in Iraq in the late 1980s.
Those systems are already accounted for, in NATO doctrine and strategy. And I'm sure the ones currently deployed by Moscow are a pale shadow of what was deployed in Iraq.
Zelensky announced today that there will be a renewal of the leadership of the Ukr military, and Zaluzhny will still be "part of the team".
Zaluzhny is out as Commander in Chief, it isn't clear what role he will have now as "part of the team".
The new CiC is Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi. (twitter link). Syrskyi has been the ground forces commander. I don't know anything else about him yet.
I thought that control of the skies was a key part of modern military doctrine.
It certainly seems key for NATO.
If Russia has poor air defences and a cowardly air force then this should limit their combat effectiveness. This appears not to be the case, they are still slowly taking ground, apparently at great cost, using the tactics they've been employing since it became clear that manoeuvre warfare was beyond their military and logistical capabilities.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
For sure all of those guys are long overdue for a vacation. I imagine at this point burnout is a real concern.
Just scrolling through people I follow on twitter (including many Ukrainians) they don't seem happy about Syrskyi's appointment. This tweet gives some background on him:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
I thought that control of the skies was a key part of modern military doctrine.
It certainly seems key for NATO.
Air supremacy is certainly key for NATO, in particular, yes. Not so much for Russia or Ukraine with their far more land-based focuses. In Russia's case, there's also sea included, but Ukraine really doesn't have a sea part of real note (which is why Russia losing so much of its sea fleet and control of so much of the Black Sea is so embarrassing for Russia). Even so, it was a surprise when Russia failed to gain either air superiority or supremacy when they initially attacked Ukraine and that failure continues to today.
This argument fails in a bunch of critical ways. For example, Russia's failure to achieve air superiority HAS and DOES limit their combat effectiveness. Limiting combat effectiveness isn't the same thing as rendering combat effectiveness non-existent (and to try to invoke such a fallacy, yet again, as you have, is inane). Slowly taking ground, apparently at great cost, using the tactics they've been employing since it became clear that manoeuvre warfare was beyond their military and logistical capabilities is actually a pretty clear sign that their combat effectiveness is not very good, which is completely in line with "limited."
For another example of why this argument fails - it's utterly misdirected. Again, what was being pointed out would likely crush Russia's current air combat and air control capabilities is NATO's air capabilities. Ukraine is not NATO. Ukraine started off with a very large disadvantage in assessed air capabilities compared to Russia. That disadvantage has shrunk considerably since the beginning, certainly, with exactly what I described contributing (well, the cowardly part has limited their losses significantly, so that part has mixed effect), but no one even remotely suggested that Ukraine's air capabilities would crush Russia's. Add to that the issue of geography and force concentrations - Russia's apparently stripped most of their defenses of all kinds from its borders with NATO and its interior to be used in Ukraine, and NATO could likely easily crush the remnants at present if there was a real NATO attempt to take Moscow.
To poke at another angle here, Russia and Ukraine are largely waging different kinds of war. Russia's focus is very much on taking and holding land. Ukraine's focus has been far more on depleting Russia's combat capabilities and exploiting opportunities that open up because of the depleted combat capabilities. Russia making minor gains when it comes to land isn't automatically an overall loss for Ukraine strategically, even if it happening is unpleasant, and thus serves as a relatively weak argument to rely upon as proof of much of anything of note, in general. When that's put on top of the brazen fallacies in play, it becomes even harder to take your judgement seriously, regardless of the merits or lack thereof that what you push has independently of you.
Last edited:
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Been tons of conjecture on if Zaluzhny will be replaced, and even things getting a bit emotional on the two main Ukraine YT channels I watch. Denys Davidov being sure there was something going on but wanted Zaluznhy to continue in his current role, and UkraineMatters being in total denial mode. Also noted that two of Zaluzhny's more important subordinates turned the role down.
I hope this isn't "politics". Zaluznhy hasn't pulled a miracle and driven Russia out of Ukraine so he must be replaced??
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Not really a surprise, I think. Zaluznhy's popular and there's very real uncertainty when it comes to change.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I thought that control of the skies was a key part of modern military doctrine.
It certainly seems key for NATO.
If Russia has poor air defences and a cowardly air force then this should limit their combat effectiveness. This appears not to be the case, they are still slowly taking ground, apparently at great cost, using the tactics they've been employing since it became clear that manoeuvre warfare was beyond their military and logistical capabilities.
Bizarre analysis. Do you know the totality of NATO country air power?! The US Navy alone operates more, and generally better, aircraft than the entirety of Russia's air force. NATO has so far supplied zero fixed-wing aircraft to Ukraine. Because Ukraine doesn't have air supremacy, NATO wouldn't for some reaosn
Last edited:
Bizarre analysis. Do you know the totality of NATO country air power?! The US Navy alone operates more, and generally better, aircraft than the entirety of Russia's air force. NATO has so far supplied zero aircraft to Ukraine. Because Ukraine doesn't have air supremacy, NATO wouldn't for some reaosn
I don't know if NATO directly supplied Ukraine with aircraft, but member states turned over a number of Mig-29s and Su-25 from Poland and Slovakia. A number of other nations donated helicopters.
No western built aircraft yet, but some number of soviet-legacy airframes.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Some F-16s are headed/have begun to arrive in Ukraine recently, at last check. Dunno how much they're actually in use at present. Not at all a game changer, but certainly helpful.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Ahh, yes you are correct. There were some Soviet era planes sent to Ukraine from NATO countries. I should've said no western designed fixed-wing aircraft have been sent.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
None have been confirmed to be in country, yet. They're "on the way" has been the message for roughly a year now. But I do believe they'll show up sometime this spring.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
And it does. There's a reason Moscow couldn't take Kyiv in the first push. There's a reason the VDV and the 1GTA were rendered combat-ineffective. There's a reason Moscow has been reduced to Zeno's advance.
---
Not that it matters to The Don or his arguments, but you can still see the janky, disjointed remnants of Soviet doctrine in Moscow's prosecution of this war.
The Soviet Union never expected to achieve air superiority over NATO. Thus their doctrine evolved accordingly. Their air force would be strong enough to deny air superiority to NATO. This, in conjunction with heavy air defense systems on the ground, would greatly blunt NATO air power. This, in turn, would give Soviet artillery room to work. This would create the conditions for the Red Army to launch attacks all up and down the line, with large numbers of inferior troops and equipment. And this, in turn, would create breakthroughs that could be exploited by the "elite" units.
And we see that against Ukraine, which has even less air power than Moscow, the basic prinicple is sound. But Moscow is faltering, because it no longer has the necessary numbers of inferior troops, nor the requisite well-trained and well-equipped "elite" formations, to properly finish the job. What we're seeing now is that even under the Red Army's doctrinally optimal air power conditions, Moscow can only produce a sad parody of Soviet deep battle doctrine. Their artillery is too weak and uncoordinated. The battalion task groups falter. The "elite" formations are simply not there.
That's what NATO would be facing, today, if their air power were degraded to Ukraine's current level. And today, even without air superiority, NATO would eat this Russian army in Ukraine for lunch. But we already know, from Desert Storm, that even at its peak the Soviet air defense system was powerless to deny NATO control of the skies.
So if the conversation is about what this war in Ukraine can tell us about NATO's chances, then the answer is, NATO would have wrecked the RAF on D-Day. Three days to Kyiv? More like three days to Moscow. Indeed, if Ukraine had had just a couple more years to prepare, they could probably have achieved the same result with a fraction of NATO's power. Which is probably why Putin rushed things.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
As something of a side-note, Tucker's "interview" with Putin happened and it was apparently something special.
The kind of special where it was Poland's fault that Hitler invaded them, because they weren't complying with Hitler's demands to submit as inferiors.
Such a strong anti-Nazi stance from the leader of the country that's so actively fighting against Nazis.
The kind of special where it was Poland's fault that Hitler invaded them, because they weren't complying with Hitler's demands to submit as inferiors.
Such a strong anti-Nazi stance from the leader of the country that's so actively fighting against Nazis.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I'd assume he was trying to make a corollary with history. Because Poland allied herself with Britain and France, Germany had to, just HAD TO, invade them. Same as Russia had to, just HAD TO, invade Ukraine before they were allied with the eval's of the NATO empire. Which of course is just ridiculously dumb, Poland was getting invaded either way. Just like Ukraine.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As I recall, Churchill had a similar complaint about the Poland thing. It went something like, "if we had promised war over Czechoslovakia, it would have deterred Hitler, and we would have avoided war. By the time Hitler turned his sights on Poland, the situation had changed. Promising war at that point was a red flag to a bull, and pretty much guaranteed we would be dragged into a war we didn't want and weren't prepared to fight."
As I recall, he also implicated the Polish government, in cynically exploiting the circumstances to antagonize its enemies and inveigle the UK into making their fight its own. Like the psycho girlfriend who starts fights and then demands that her boyfriend get punched in the face on her behalf.
I don't know how strong that argument actually is, but I doubt it's stronger than my argument that Hitler and Stalin conspired to start a war with Poland and divide it between them. At worst, by the time of Poland, Chamberlain's government mismanaged a situation that was going to spiral into world war no matter what.
Anyway, Putin is a jackass who's lying to further his own rapacious agenda. Regardless of the nuances of Poland's role in kicking off WW2.
As I recall, he also implicated the Polish government, in cynically exploiting the circumstances to antagonize its enemies and inveigle the UK into making their fight its own. Like the psycho girlfriend who starts fights and then demands that her boyfriend get punched in the face on her behalf.
I don't know how strong that argument actually is, but I doubt it's stronger than my argument that Hitler and Stalin conspired to start a war with Poland and divide it between them. At worst, by the time of Poland, Chamberlain's government mismanaged a situation that was going to spiral into world war no matter what.
Anyway, Putin is a jackass who's lying to further his own rapacious agenda. Regardless of the nuances of Poland's role in kicking off WW2.
Last edited:
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Poland was in a truly awful and desperate situation by the late 1930's. Any war between the USSR and Germany would be fought largely in Poland. And that war was absolutely inevitable no matter what Poland did. Not to mention that they used to be part of the Russian empire and would've been an excuse for Stalin to invade them. Similar to Finland.
Although I do believe that Poland did some quasi-shady stuff to get the Allies to guarantee their independence. But I could also be remembering that from a TV series (Spies of Warsaw, starring David Tennant) that might not be totally accurate.
Last edited:
I found this piece: The Ukraine war is ultimately about Poland interesting enough to be worth recommending.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Same as it ever was. Moscow's imperialist ambitions have always been about Poland, and the rest of eastern Europe. And western Europe, too, if they ever thought they could get their hands on it. Hence NATO. Hence the rush of Warsaw Pact vassals to join NATO, once the Soviet Union collapsed.
Yup.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
And now we're actually encouraging Russia to attack NATO. JFC.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1756412015793279117
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1756412015793279117
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Thanks for the suggestion, I have. That the presidential candidate for a major political party in the USA is now openly encouraging Russia to attack NATO is IMO also relevant to this threads subject. Subject to moderator review, of course.
gabeygoat
Master Poster
It absolutely is relevant to the thread subject.
Russia has recruited as many as 15,000 Nepalis to fight its war. Many returned traumatized. Some never came back
Nepalis but not Gurkhas, they didn't serve with the British Gurkha regiment or in the Indian Army. The article mentions that some were veterans of the Maoist/Rebel side of the Nepali civil war and had also served as mercenaries/contractors in Afghanistan. But generally these guys have little real military training.
They just serve Russia for the money and a chance at citizenship in a nation much less poor than Nepal.
I lived in Nepal for a couple of years. It was nice, good people and nice culture. But dirt poor, especially outside the tourist areas and trekking routes. And I gather it has only gotten worse after I left now 25 years ago. I follow a few Nepali groups on social media and it seems most young men are just focused on getting out, they all feel a sense of despair for Nepal.
So Russia takes advantage of that and swoops them up as more cannon fodder.
Nepalis but not Gurkhas, they didn't serve with the British Gurkha regiment or in the Indian Army. The article mentions that some were veterans of the Maoist/Rebel side of the Nepali civil war and had also served as mercenaries/contractors in Afghanistan. But generally these guys have little real military training.
They just serve Russia for the money and a chance at citizenship in a nation much less poor than Nepal.
I lived in Nepal for a couple of years. It was nice, good people and nice culture. But dirt poor, especially outside the tourist areas and trekking routes. And I gather it has only gotten worse after I left now 25 years ago. I follow a few Nepali groups on social media and it seems most young men are just focused on getting out, they all feel a sense of despair for Nepal.
So Russia takes advantage of that and swoops them up as more cannon fodder.
Good to see the GOP continuing to carry Putin's water 
While the defence of Avdiivka hangs in the balance, due in part to a lack of materiel, the Republicans simply refuse to approve additional funding
If there was any doubt what will happen in the event that President Trump is reelected it should be gone now. Any suggestions that reasonable or moderate Republicans will eventually prevail are clearly nonsense.
Has there even been a whiff of censure over Trump's NATO comments ?
While the defence of Avdiivka hangs in the balance, due in part to a lack of materiel, the Republicans simply refuse to approve additional funding
If there was any doubt what will happen in the event that President Trump is reelected it should be gone now. Any suggestions that reasonable or moderate Republicans will eventually prevail are clearly nonsense.
Has there even been a whiff of censure over Trump's NATO comments ?
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Actually, Jake Broe is claiming that Kremlin insiders are very dissatisfied with the way the interview went, and are blaming Putin's handlers for not properly prepping him. Putin was supposed to talk about biolabs in Ukraine, genocide in the Donbas, and parrot other BS Kremlin talking points, rather than ramble about medieval European history for half an hour.