EPTTo that end, against Ukraine they're trying to pound them into submission with terror, while against Western allies they're trying to cause economic hardship and influence public opinion.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 328
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
To that end, against Ukraine they're trying to pound them into submission with terror, while against Western allies they're trying to cause economic hardship and influence public opinion. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On December 25 2022 23:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dec 25th update on Bakhmut. https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1606982873445457921 This gives me a lot of hope for the new year. I really think that Ukraine can hold Bakhmut and stop Wagner and Russia from taking it over. I don't know how Wagner is going to respond to it, but their defeat will hopefully cause more of a schism in Russia | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3380 Posts
On December 25 2022 13:31 Manit0u wrote: It is a big hassle. 3-6 months of training at least, different ammo, different tech, changing the labels in the vehicles etc. So, let's have an estimate of about 6 months to be able to use western tanks in small capacity (more people can be brought on board as time progresses). It is a huge investment of people (who at the time aren't fighting at the front) and materiel. It all then depends on how long the war is going to last. If it'll be going on for another 3 years than the investment would probably be worth it in the long run as supply of warsaw-pact vehicles and ammo dwindles even further. The same was said for HIMARS, Gepard or Patriot. By now it really should be clear that when it comes to offensive weapons the dog will always eat the homework. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17610 Posts
On December 26 2022 00:52 pmp10 wrote: The same was said for HIMARS, Gepard or Patriot. By now it really should be clear that when it comes to offensive weapons the dog will always eat the homework. Himars and Gepard don't require as much training as tanks. Patriot systems are still not available to Ukraine. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17610 Posts
Russian pace has dropped considerably around the Bakhmut area. Intelligence agencies are reporting that Russia seems to be running out of ammunition. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On December 26 2022 08:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: A Ukrainian offensive has apparently reached the outskirts of Kreminna. https://twitter.com/AlexandruC4/status/1607143725872087040 https://twitter.com/warmonitor3/status/1607147358868967424 https://twitter.com/ItsArtoir/status/1607134405751083010 Adding onto this: | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Dec 26 (Reuters) - Three military personnel were killed as a result of wreckage from a Ukrainian drone falling on a military base in Russia's Saratov region, Russian agencies reported citing the country's defence ministry. "On December 26, at about 01:35 Moscow time, a Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicle was shot down at low altitude while approaching the Engels military airfield in the Saratov region," the Russian Defence Ministry said. "As a result of the fall of the wreckage of the drone, three Russian servicemen of the technical staff who were at the airfield were fatally wounded." The ministry added that aviation equipment was not damaged. Source | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
And yet, only Ukraine has made gains since the summer and seems to still have the initiative. Does this only come down to smarter leadership, better command and control, and more motivated troops? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
An update on Rogozin, as a result of his injuries he could be facing paralysis. "I am staying in bed, preparing for the operation, and tomorrow it should take place. The fragment is in my cervical vertebrae. It cannot be left [in the body - ed.] because of possible paralysis. It is also a problem to remove it. They [doctors - ed.] are thinking (about how to remove the fragment)." On his Telegram feed, Rogozin called the alleged shelling of a restaurant in Donetsk a "terrorist attack" and said that "not only his soldiers and comrades-in-arms" were injured there, but also the hotel staff. He also claimed to "get reports twice a day about each victim: what the dynamics of the condition are, what and who is treating them, and whether everything needed is provided." Rogozin also said that he "has long considered himself a citizen of Donetsk" and that he allegedly "participated in the battles for the liberation of Donbas". Source | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11717 Posts
On December 27 2022 00:31 warding wrote: Ukraine has fewer men (?), fewer tanks, armored vehicles in general, fewer artillery (launchers and rounds), fewer planes, fewer rockets. The only place where they seemingly have an advantage in hard numbers is in long range precision artillery. Meanwhile Russia has mobilized hundreds of thousands, is moving its economy into war production and some experts have been saying we overestimated the impact of sanctions and underestimated Russias industrial war production. And yet, only Ukraine has made gains since the summer and seems to still have the initiative. Does this only come down to smarter leadership, better command and control, and more motivated troops? Another important part seems to be that in modern warfare, quality can be superior to quantity. Ukraine has increasing amounts of high-quality western stuff, while Russia apparently only has soviet-era stuff in a bad state of maintenance. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5739 Posts
@warding Another issue is Russia's notoriously poor logistics, heavily reliant on trains. They allegedly do not use forklifts. They unload the shells etc. by hand. It's very inefficient. The situation was bad when they used to store ammo in massive dumps. After HIMARS, they started spreading them into smaller depos. They were already short on trucks prior to that. | ||
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On December 27 2022 00:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1607355691551064064 An update on Rogozin, as a result of his injuries he could be facing paralysis. Source This, like so many other things this war, is straight out of the Nazi playbook. The Nazis believed that factional competition drove the factions to excel. The SS competed with the Wehrmacht, the Wehrmacht with the Luftwaffe, the Luftwaffe with the Kriegsmarine and so forth. If the RuMoD give Wagner resources that’ll make the army less likely to be successful which will make them look bad. It’ll simultaneously make Wagner more likely to be successful which will again make the army look bad. If you can’t make the army look good then the next best option is to make Wagner look bad, there’s no upside to giving them shells. In the Third Reich this internal sabotage eventually led to parallel supply lines and corruption as the branches sought to obtain matériel from each other by any means necessary. A war cannot be fought like that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22051 Posts
On December 27 2022 00:31 warding wrote: My guess is the sheer power of modern weaponry. They are, apparently, such massive force multipliers that quality > quantity.Ukraine has fewer men (?), fewer tanks, armored vehicles in general, fewer artillery (launchers and rounds), fewer planes, fewer rockets. The only place where they seemingly have an advantage in hard numbers is in long range precision artillery. Meanwhile Russia has mobilized hundreds of thousands, is moving its economy into war production and some experts have been saying we overestimated the impact of sanctions and underestimated Russias industrial war production. And yet, only Ukraine has made gains since the summer and seems to still have the initiative. Does this only come down to smarter leadership, better command and control, and more motivated troops? We saw this when Ukraine received Javelins and images of destroyed Russian tanks started to pop up in droves. Having more tanks counts for a lot less when any trained soldier hiding behind a couple of trees can take one out. And we saw the long range artillery be a complete game changer. The ability to strike Russian command posts and fuel/ammo stockpiles with HIMARS strikes may have literally been the turning point in the war. And from what we have seen so far it appears that Russia has absolutely no answer for it. More recently Ukraine has received area HIMARS missiles, rather then just point precision ones, that destroy 'soft targets' in an area covering 4 football fields per rocket and as airbursting weapons are even effective against shallow trenches. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On December 27 2022 00:31 warding wrote: Ukraine has fewer men (?), fewer tanks, armored vehicles in general, fewer artillery (launchers and rounds), fewer planes, fewer rockets. The only place where they seemingly have an advantage in hard numbers is in long range precision artillery. Meanwhile Russia has mobilized hundreds of thousands, is moving its economy into war production and some experts have been saying we overestimated the impact of sanctions and underestimated Russias industrial war production. And yet, only Ukraine has made gains since the summer and seems to still have the initiative. Does this only come down to smarter leadership, better command and control, and more motivated troops? Ukraine has way more men. Warfare has a long tail, you don’t just need a tank crew, you need maintenance crews, logistics, people making and refining fuel, people making shells, people making chemicals to make shells, people making steel, people mining iron etc. For each guy in the army you need 50 men behind them. Ukraine has 50 Americans behind each man, Russia has 50 Russians. Then we look at what the military is doing. Russia maintains, in theory, a global navy, a satellite network, ICBMs, missions in Syria and Africa, garrisons across the longest borders of any country, deployments in the separatist regions, an intelligence network, and so forth and so forth. Most of that has no relevance on this war and the parts that do are still expensive and take away from men on the ground. Again, Ukraine outsources that to its allies. Ukraine doesn’t need satellite intelligence analysts, it just needs to read its briefings. Ukraine mobilized well over a million for the war within the first few months. It has enough that it can send divisions into Western Europe for training without compromising defence. It can fortify the Belorussian border while waging attrition in the north while liberating Kherson. It can rotate combat troops out regularly for r&r because it has men to spare while Russians have their experienced men die and replace them with newer men. The Russians are hopelessly outnumbered in this war and will be until Western support dries up. They knew this before they started, they made a plan that identified what their win condition was. They knew that to win they would have to force the Ukrainian government into exile, create a Quisling government, get the Quisling government to legitimize their actions, and portray the resistance as a lost cause of Ukrainian terror cells. Just create enough smoke and deniability that the West felt uncomfortable about funding and arming a resistance. Once that plan failed it was over. The West will happily fund the official Ukrainian government in Ukraine. Weapons shipments have someone in uniform signing for them, it’s all very normal and official and above board. Now we’re just waiting for Putin to take the L. It’s comparable to WW1 in that regard, the German plan in 1914 was for a rush on Paris and a repeat of the 1870 victory. That would force France to make peace, keep Britain off the continent, and isolate Russia. When the French won the battle of the Marne in 1914 the war was essentially over, the Germans had identified exactly one win condition against the combination of France, Britain, Russia and Italy and had failed to achieve it. They waited another 4 years before acknowledging they couldn’t win but their opening strategy revealed their identified win condition. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
