NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 13 2022 12:46 plasmidghost wrote: I kind of assumed this was the case, but it's good that people way smarter and more knowledgeable are confirming (as much as confirming can be done in the war). I do have to wonder if Russia comes up with any ad hoc way to stop HIMARS and I honestly don't think they can.
The immediate short-term answer would be to not have your expensive stuff lying about in big piles. Instead of one big ammo depot, have 20 small ones.
On July 13 2022 12:46 plasmidghost wrote: I kind of assumed this was the case, but it's good that people way smarter and more knowledgeable are confirming (as much as confirming can be done in the war). I do have to wonder if Russia comes up with any ad hoc way to stop HIMARS and I honestly don't think they can.
The immediate short-term answer would be to not have your expensive stuff lying about in big piles. Instead of one big ammo depot, have 20 small ones.
I don't know the logistics of that, but I'm sure it'll happen in some way. Would that necessitate more spread-out formations? I don't know all the jargon but my thought is that they'll need a lot more personnel spread out to use the air defense weapons that are now all over the place. I'm not sure of the HIMARS's different missile AoEs so I'm not sure how much area would be required to make that happen
Logistics is the achilles heel of the Russian armed forces. I saw a documentary long before the war about it and they are still reliant on railway and basically have post WW2 logistics. I think, that's also why the Ukrainian rail network was mostly kept intact when a quick victory was anticipated in the beginning. They would have needed the railways themselves to gain control of the country.
I don't know what kind of missiles were delivered for the MLRS systems so far, but if they were delivered ATACMS (up to 300 km) or precision strike missiles (up to 500km), strikes at the right logistics hubs deep in Russian territory are very realistic and might stall them for weeks.
I am confident in our technology above anything the Russians are able to field. The performance of their missiles seems pretty underwhelming and the modern ones are barely used anymore. We got some scary stuff and it will work as intended.
Rail Being reliant on railway isn't some backward tech. There is no better way to moving a lot of heavy equipment. NATO also utilizes rail a lot.
Striking targets inside Russia. Long-range missiles were not delivered to Ukraine for specifically this reason - NATO doesn't want Ukraine attacking targets deep within Russia using its tech.
HIMARS IMHO the main problem Russians have with HIMARS is that it seems to hit right below the threshold S-300 and S-400 were designed to fight. HIMARS missiles are smaller, cheaper, and there are a lot of them. It kinda looks like Russians have a strategic gap here, as main purpose of S-300 and S-400 is to fight: planes, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles etc.
On July 13 2022 17:08 Silvanel wrote: Rail Being reliant on railway isn't some backward tech. There is no better way to moving a lot of heavy equipment. NATO also utilizes rail a lot.
Striking targets inside Russia. Long-range missiles were not delivered to Ukraine for specifically this reason - NATO doesn't want Ukraine attacking targets deep within Russia using its tech.
HIMARS IMHO the main problem Russians have with HIMARS is that it seems to hit right below the threshold S-300 and S-400 were designed to fight. HIMARS missiles are smaller, cheaper, and there are a lot of them. It kinda looks like Russians have a strategic gap here, as main purpose of S-300 and S-400 is to fight: planes, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles etc.
GMLRS rocket isn't exactly cruise missile though. And even smallest S-400 missile is larger than GMLRS rocket. S-300/400 was designed for larger targets. SA-15 and SA-22 (Tor and Pantsir respectively) are more suitable counters, though they have less range, and probably aren't able to deflect a huge volley of GMLRS (especially combined with unguided rocket volleys from other, Soviet-era MLRS) if not concentrated en masse (which is hard to do on such large front, since you have a lot of stuff to cover).
And yeah, irresponsibility with ammo storage is a case with our army, especially in the areas that were previously considered unreachable to UA artillery (and most of the Tochkas were effectively countered, since they are easier target due to their mass and size).
Well thats precisly my point. And yeah I am aware that S-400 was adertised to be able to fight smaller rockets but I always was very sceptical of those claims. We have a saying here: Jeśli coś jest do wszystkiego, to jest do niczego". Which roughly translates to "If something is supposed to do everything, it does nothing".
We should soon be (hopefully) getting a solution to the grain exports and maybe the Russians setting the grain fields on fire. Still nervous that Russia will try to screw Ukraine and by extension a lot of the world over
On July 13 2022 17:08 Silvanel wrote: Rail Being reliant on railway isn't some backward tech. There is no better way to moving a lot of heavy equipment. NATO also utilizes rail a lot.
I'm aware of that and considering the land mass of Russia it's the only thing that makes sense. But everything around it is not well organised and without it they can't effectively advance or resupply. Look at the convoys being stuck and abandonment of equipment in the beginning. Reports about shortages, soldiers having to pillage. They prepared for that offensive for years? + Show Spoiler +
At least 12 months and I didn't see it coming btw, 2 days before thought it was another bluff...
Into a neighbouring country? A lot of NATO countries are on a different level in that department.
Striking targets inside Russia. Long-range missiles were not delivered to Ukraine for specifically this reason - NATO doesn't want Ukraine attacking targets deep within Russia using its tech.
Thanks, i thought so. There were attacks on Russian territory before but i'm all for not overescalating.
End of the day, the nuclear threat is the only real threat Putin has to offer.
The threat to Ukraine now is more in a very prolonged war going on for one or two more years, right? I mean it just kills the national economy and any opportunity of growth. Might even lead to problems in paying their soldiers, which would be very bad for morale.
Russian organization in the first offensive was built upon very fast movement and resupplying in the field - food from sympathetic civilians, for example. Taking Kyiv fast was the main objective and neither the Russians nor anyone else outside the country expected such fierce resistance. If i recall correctly there was an armored advance in the first days towards the region around Gostomel where the tanks had to pause before entering Kyiv. The supply convoy that followed them was then ambushed and they had to retreat.
On July 13 2022 22:26 schaf wrote: The threat to Ukraine now is more in a very prolonged war going on for one or two more years, right? I mean it just kills the national economy and any opportunity of growth. Might even lead to problems in paying their soldiers, which would be very bad for morale.
Russian organization in the first offensive was built upon very fast movement and resupplying in the field - food from sympathetic civilians, for example. Taking Kyiv fast was the main objective and neither the Russians nor anyone else outside the country expected such fierce resistance. If i recall correctly there was an armored advance in the first days towards the region around Gostomel where the tanks had to pause before entering Kyiv. The supply convoy that followed them was then ambushed and they had to retreat.
My speculation is that Russia is going to be forced to retreat by the end of the year. They're already at the point where they're having to bribe citizens to join the military, so you're going to see a ton of inexperienced people most likely go to the front lines and be meat shields, which I assume would cause any desire to join to collapse. Additionally, if the US decides to supply Ukraine with more HIMARS, which I feel like we will, the Russian positions in Ukraine will take too many losses. Russia is running out of resources (according to earlier posts in the thread) and I imagine that they're soon going to be out of enough weapons to maintain a presence in Ukraine. Obvious disclaimer that I'm just a very outside observer and have no experience in warfare and its consequences, so I could be completely wrong.
On July 13 2022 22:26 schaf wrote: The threat to Ukraine now is more in a very prolonged war going on for one or two more years, right? I mean it just kills the national economy and any opportunity of growth. Might even lead to problems in paying their soldiers, which would be very bad for morale.
Russian organization in the first offensive was built upon very fast movement and resupplying in the field - food from sympathetic civilians, for example. Taking Kyiv fast was the main objective and neither the Russians nor anyone else outside the country expected such fierce resistance. If i recall correctly there was an armored advance in the first days towards the region around Gostomel where the tanks had to pause before entering Kyiv. The supply convoy that followed them was then ambushed and they had to retreat.
No, the threat is an operational pause which allows RU to get more manpower and build up equipment for another chance to eradicate UA.
Update on Ukrainian weapons being supplied: The US gave 1000 Excalibur 155m shells to Ukraine, which, combined with the M777A2, will allow for GPS-guided artillery strikes with an accuracy of 3m on targets potentially 40km and further away, depending on caliber.
On July 13 2022 22:26 schaf wrote: The threat to Ukraine now is more in a very prolonged war going on for one or two more years, right? I mean it just kills the national economy and any opportunity of growth. Might even lead to problems in paying their soldiers, which would be very bad for morale.
Russian organization in the first offensive was built upon very fast movement and resupplying in the field - food from sympathetic civilians, for example. Taking Kyiv fast was the main objective and neither the Russians nor anyone else outside the country expected such fierce resistance. If i recall correctly there was an armored advance in the first days towards the region around Gostomel where the tanks had to pause before entering Kyiv. The supply convoy that followed them was then ambushed and they had to retreat.
The US is functionally paying them. The US is paying for almost everything including things like their national pension system (which was in a precarious condition prior to the war). The US (and world bank) recently announced it's paying Ukraine's healthcare workers. In addition, the US is paying for Ukraine keeping gas and electricity running in hospitals/schools, while also paying salaries of civil servants and teachers.
So in that aspect I'd say the threat is US politicians cutting Ukraine off for political expediency at home.
On July 14 2022 05:40 Mohdoo wrote: Since cutting off support for ukraine would be extremely unpopular in the US, it is likely that Biden will cut support very soon.
I imagine that happens and the US media nonstop broadcasts what's happening to the Ukrainians, further driving down his approval rating.
What I don't get is, why doesn't the US, since their goal is to help Ukraine repel and reclaim its territory, dump a ton of highly effective weapons like the HIMARs and munitions for it into Ukraine? That way, the prolonged global fuel and food crisis won't be nearly as bad and Biden can ride the wave of support that let's be real, most every American will give him because we love seeing ourselves or our allies win wars
On July 14 2022 05:40 Mohdoo wrote: Since cutting off support for ukraine would be extremely unpopular in the US, it is likely that Biden will cut support very soon.
I imagine that happens and the US media nonstop broadcasts what's happening to the Ukrainians, further driving down his approval rating.
What I don't get is, why doesn't the US, since their goal is to help Ukraine repel and reclaim its territory, dump a ton of highly effective weapons like the HIMARs and munitions for it into Ukraine? That way, the prolonged global fuel and food crisis won't be nearly as bad and Biden can ride the wave of support that let's be real, most every American will give him because we love seeing ourselves or our allies win wars
My understanding with the HIMARs is it takes 2-3 weeks to train the operators and pulling their best artillery people off the front lines all at once would lead to big gains for the Russians. There are disagreements on how fast or slow they should do that.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Also just read about Iranian drones potentially changing things in the fight. Need to look more into that
I'm reading over the claims, and could there be any counter by Ukraine should the Russians get these drones?
Since the extent of the west’s involvement is also controlled by optics and politics, Iran getting involved means the west can up their involvement as well. Keep in mind the US could dispatch the entire Russian incursion on their own, if they ignored the optics and politics of it. The slow drip of military increases as needed doesn’t really have an end. It is drops from a million gallon barrel.
“Iran is bombing Ukraine” is a really easy cover for upping western involvement. Iran will increase everyone’s involvement if they actually end up sending drones.
EPT
