|
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 January 12 2023 00:13 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 21:37 Magic Powers wrote:On January 11 2023 21:00 pmp10 wrote:On January 11 2023 18:04 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't made that claim, though they certainly couldn't fight it without the west. Yes you have. Even in your analogy you said "you can both agree on sacrificing you". You are clearly saying that both Ukraine and the West are choosing to sacrifice Ukrainians. That is not the case. There is no both here. The West has repeatedly told Ukraine that it's up to them whether they continue fighting, negotiate a ceasefire/peace or even surrender. You are making it sound as if the west is not affecting Ukrainian decisions by delivering aid. Or that they are unaware that said aid will never suffice to beat Russia. 'sacrifice' is a strong word but they know well enough they are putting Ukraine in position with no good outcomes. We saw two big successful offensives by Ukraine in the very same year that they lost much of their territory, starting only half a year after the initiation of the invasion. In total, around half of the territory occupied or contested by Russia has been reclaimed by Ukraine. Or in other words three major withdrawals by Russian troops have been observed, and not even one by Ukrainian ones. Most of Russia's big successes came from their initial push, then it has slowly declined, and it's been almost radio silence for months with the exception of frequent terrorist strikes. The weather is certainly among the main reasons why we haven't yet seen a third major Ukrainian offensive, and that's with the many tactical and technological limitations that they have. From that observation it's more than just a stretch to claim that Ukraine can't beat Russia with the current stream of aid. How is that conclusion even remotely logical? Quite the opposite, the question of victory as defined by Ukrainian leadership is not so much an "if" but rather "how soon". That's one of the reasons why Ukrainian morale is high and perhaps rising, while Russian morale is low and perhaps deteriorating. I think you know that most Ukrainian victories were won before Russia completed first stages of mobilization. With both countries mobilizing the simple disproportion in resources means that Ukraine is in for a bad time, especially if the war is going to drag-out. Western powers are perfectly aware of that, it just doesn't change much from their perspective. Pretty sure more barely trained bodies of soldiers who have no desire to fight at all with bad and old equipment is not turning this war. Russia was losing, is losing and will keep on losing. Having to kill another few 100k Russians is going to delay the end of this war, not change its outcome.
This isn't ww2 where you can just zerg with untrained bodies and win. And if Turkey is selling them cluster ammo, and they already have anti area HIMARS, then its just more meat for the grinder.
|
The dominoes are indeed falling. The UK just confirmed that they're sending Challengers to Ukraine. It'll probably be the older-generation Challenger 1s as opposed to the newer Challenger 2s
|
Russian Federation618 Posts
People here seem to underestimate an importance of proper infantry coverage in modern warfare. In fact, with drones, MANPADS, ATGMs, thermals and proper comms to direct support assets (artillery and aviation) infantry is now much more potent than it ever was throughout 20th century.
And if we are talking about "human waves", it's really more applicable to Ukraine than to Russia, since throughout the war it's Ukraine who always had much more manpower under arms. And about "no further mobilization" - it's kinda strange to hear it after Ukrainian Parliament extended again the state of mobilization again - https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/ukraine-extends-martial-law-mobilization-for-90-days-until-feb-19/2733341
They simply did not stop with it since the start of the war.
Meanwhile Russia had tons of equipment, but no people to man it due to general understrength of newly formed divisions, a bunch of people who refused to fight in Ukraine (we discussed those "500s" or "refusniks" before) and the fact that a lot of regular infantry is still made of conscripts, which, besides couple of brief occasions, were not allowed to be sent to Ukraine (Chechen wars syndrom still holding). That's why (and that I know firsthand from two separate witnesses) the supposedly elite 4th Guards Tank Division went into Ukraine having more tanks than infantrymen (!) in their tank BTGs (literally 30 tanks were covered just by a platoon of 3 BMPs with around 20 dismounted soldiers).
So yes, Russians lost more equipment than Ukraine, but that doesn't mean they lost proportionally more men for that. Russian units, up until recently at least, were heavily mechanized (the exception being LDPR reservists, and Rosgvardia, though latter aren't supposed to be running tanks anyway), while Ukraine had 30 territorial brigades with no heavy vehicles at all, plus a bunch of separate rifle battalions as well as National Guard units which were just infantry with trucks and cars as their transport at most. So there is much more infantymen per one tank or IFV in Ukraine than it was in Russia, at least until mobilization kicked in.
Also increased supply by the West may just mean that Ukraine starts to run out of Soviet-era equipment. Even with all the trophies it is seen that Ukraine has problems with repair and maintenance. There are very little occasions of BMP-3 and BTR-82 being used, despite many claimed to be captured. Ukrainian tanks are often seen with tracks from different models (like T-72 running with T-55 or T-62 wheels) which is not a good sign, since different wheels just don;t work correctly on the tank of other type (especially if it's heavier one). What production Ukraine had before the war was hammered by cruise missiles as well.
Russia on the other hand still gearing up it's military production. I heard about the plans for 350-400 T-90M to be produced this year, and it doesn't include other models like T-72B3M (or after some recent upgrades I heard it's being called T-72B4M), T-80BVM and even T-62M. BMP-3 production is also gearing up with its production plant working with no weekends of vacations allowed.
So not to diminish AFU efforts, but it wouldn't be easy ride for them in 2023. If everything is going as well as UA officials were suggesting, Ukrainian military is supposed to be a million+ strong force. If they really butcher Russians 1 to 8, how did they even managed to lose Soledar within a week?
|
|
|
Ardias, what we've seen so far is an army (RU) with vastly greater stocks of artillery, armored vehicles, planes, rockets get their asses handed to them by Ukraine.
You're saying UA had a manpower advantage and that now RU may get an upper hand with more mobilized people to man their armored vehicles. Fair argument but what about:
- Piss poor organization and command and control in the RU army;
- Piss poor training in RU army, vs NATO training tens of thousands of UA troops;
- Vastly better intelligence capabilities by NATO aiding Ukraine;
- Better and better NATO systems coming online for UA. We've already seen the difference HIMARS did with only a couple dozen units.
I think there's this idea of Russia as inheriting the Soviet Union's reputation for being a manpower and industrial superpower. In reality, you only have to take Ukraine + the EU countries that have been the more hardcore UA advocates (DK, CZ, NO, FIN, SWE, NL, PL, LT, LV, EE, CZ) and you have a block with an economy 2.5 times bigger than Russia's, around the same number of people and a much more advanced industrial base. This without counting France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy, Turkey, or the United States.
So UA has what, 700k mobilized, is supported by a vastly superior industrial base with vastly superior military stocks than Russia, and Russia's advantage in artillery stocks seems to be dwindling. The only big difference I see is that UA is reluctant to lose men, while Russia's leadership does not give a rat's butt if they lose half a million lives.
|
We kinda really don't need to theorycraft this war. It is happening, and we will all see how stuff shakes out.
|
Question Ardias:
People here seem to underestimate an importance of proper infantry coverage in modern warfare. In fact, with drones, MANPADS, ATGMs, thermals and proper comms to direct support assets (artillery and aviation) infantry is now much more potent than it ever was throughout 20th century.
I think this is entirely correct, depending on the landscape though.
So not to diminish AFU efforts, but it wouldn't be easy ride for them in 2023. If everything is going as well as UA officials were suggesting, Ukrainian military is supposed to be a million+ strong force. If they really butcher Russians 1 to 8, how did they even managed to lose Soledar within a week?
Idk what you're actually referring to, but 1 to 8 deaths is kind of what you would expect for a defender in "normal" circumstances.
Is this a number somewhat believable, because i have heard better numbers been thrown out for Ukranians, and even they didn't sound too much out of place?
|
The Polish president said Poland is planning to send 14 tanks in a package with other countries, but before that we'll need the necessary permissions (probably Germany's).
I wonder if our government is willing to send more tanks later. Would be great if the US agreed to replace donated Leopards with Abramses instead of expecting us to buy them, but they're already paying the most so it would be kind of rude to ask.
|
On January 12 2023 01:22 Simberto wrote:
We kinda really don't need to theorycraft this war. It is happening, and we will all see how stuff shakes out.
You could be a politician, you pretty much mirror your country's state on the war. 
|
Putin has replaced the commander of Russian forces in Ukraine with Gen. Valery Gerasimov, who is the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. He will be replacing Gen. Sergei Surovikin, the so-called "General Armageddon" who directed the cruise missile and drone strike strategy the past few months.
I can't help but feel Surovikin displeased Putin or didn't get enough of his favour in the competition for his attention. Maybe Ardias knows what the Russian speculations are.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-names-new-commander-russias-war-ukraine-gerasimov-surovikin-rcna65307
|
On January 11 2023 23:16 plasmidghost wrote:
Poland's transferring Leopard tanks to Ukraine. I didn't see an exact number, but probably around 14. I assume with this, they both got permission from Germany and other countries like Finland may follow suit soon
I've seen people argue that keeping squads of modern tanks together is suboptimal. The main thing they have over older tanks is their sensor suites. Seeing the enemy first. If that is true then making them "command" tanks for squadrons of older tanks is a better idea, make them act like spotters.
The downside is of course that logistics becomes more complex when you mix things. But if you keep them on the same front service should be doable.
|
On January 12 2023 01:45 PhoenixVoid wrote:Putin has replaced the commander of Russian forces in Ukraine with Gen. Valery Gerasimov, who is the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. He will be replacing Gen. Sergei Surovikin, the so-called "General Armageddon" who directed the cruise missile and drone strike strategy the past few months. I can't help but feel Surovikin displeased Putin or didn't get enough of his favour in the competition for his attention. Maybe Ardias knows what the Russian speculations are. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-names-new-commander-russias-war-ukraine-gerasimov-surovikin-rcna65307 I assume failure to make headway and the lack of results from the infrastructure strikes.
|
Here's hoping Ukraine is prepared. As I don't think the Tanks, and other weaponry will be ready by then.
|
I figured this was coming but it still is very worrying. The new Western equipment like tanks will require at least 8 weeks of training from the press releases I've read, so I don't think those can be relied upon. I don't know how many troops Russia is going to throw at Ukraine, but it will be bloody. As one user replied to that tweet, this could be similar to Germany's failed 1918 offensive that accomplished little more than mass death and ended with them losing shortly after. Depending on the scale of this offensive, if it fails spectacularly, I don't see how Russia would be able to have another major offensive for a long time due to not just personnel shortages but equipment too.
|
On January 12 2023 01:23 Sent. wrote:
The Polish president said Poland is planning to send 14 tanks in a package with other countries, but before that we'll need the necessary permissions (probably Germany's).
I wonder if our government is willing to send more tanks later. Would be great if the US agreed to replace donated Leopards with Abramses instead of expecting us to buy them, but they're already paying the most so it would be kind of rude to ask.
There are still T72 and PT91 which will be sent as soon as replacements arrive in Poland.
But I wouldn't expect more Leopards as Poland has few enough that are actually running .
And they are being taken from active service this time, not the reserve.
All of 14 tanks can only be a political gesture to break that 'no western tanks' taboo and likely not worth the logistical hassle for the military impact they can make.
|
United States43673 Posts
If Russia had the ability to launch sweeping attacks that would rout the Ukrainian line then they would have already done so.
|
On January 12 2023 02:32 KwarK wrote:
If Russia had the ability to launch sweeping attacks that would rout the Ukrainian line then they would have already done so. My initial blind guess would be that a bunch of conscripts that actually received some training are ready to be deployed.
|
On January 12 2023 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2023 02:32 KwarK wrote:
If Russia had the ability to launch sweeping attacks that would rout the Ukrainian line then they would have already done so. My initial blind guess would be that a bunch of conscripts that actually received some training are ready to be deployed.
Yeah, I believe so too. On a similar note, I don't know if the Russian forces in Belarus will get involved in this offensive should it materialize. Last numbers I saw were 15k Russians in the country, with 50k Belarusian soldiers. The offensive last February had I think 50k Russian troops and failed to make lasting gains, so I would expect them not to use those unless Putin forces Belarus into the war too. Even then, those troops have no combat experience, so I would assume they wouldn't be able to do much
|
The source on this is pravda.ru quoting Daily Mail quoting a retired UK general who is basically saying the UK should send 50, not 12 tanks.
|
Where exactly could Ukraine be weak enough at this point for Russia to carve out a large space? I'm really having trouble finding anything right now. Is this claim of an offensive just a bluff for intel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
