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 August 08 2023 21:43 KwarK wrote: I wonder about the lessons that this war is teaching for future wars between peer adversaries. If we consider the huge manpower reserves of the Koreas that they consider that they need to defend against the huge manpower reserves of each other, perhaps that’s obsolete. Both Russia and Ukraine have struggled to bring manpower to bear on an extremely long front line due to the combo of MANPADS, mines, ATGMs, and air denial.
Just as the Napoleonic Wars became the standard model for nation state militaries before showing cracks in the American Civil War and being utterly discredited in WW1, so WW2 has become the template for what a future conflict might look like, only to be discredited in Ukraine.
In the American Civil War the machine gun and increasingly effective indirect fire showed the limitations of Napoleonic shock columns. We’re now seeing the limitations of armour, air power, and grouped infantry. Even the modern logistical engine is struggling with the threat of long range strikes which cost vastly more to defend against than to attack (you need to defend all points, the attacker may choose to overwhelm any single point).
I think the biggest shift in this war is the incredible increase into the static warfare between even skirmishes. Attacks behind the lines for strategic reasons are massive like you say but the attacks for tactical reasons are becoming massive. Excalibur rounds are like 100k a shot but if they're able to land on top of another piece of equipment it's the best value for money on the field. Same goes for accurate mlrs systems. The amount of damage a single HIMARS can do shoot and scooting if you've got a recon drone watching in a day is unfathomable compared to previous generations. The launcher doesn't get tired when the firing mechanism comes with the palatized ammunition. New types of fires comes by simply using the same box design and creating new software. Wild hornets on the other hand show the dark potential future of war like little else. FPV kamikaze drones with the kind of speed and agility straight out if a video game. They're made by hand from easy to source parts but what will happen when china and the us mic get factories to build them? What use are all these incredibly expensive tanks choppers planes and artillery good for then a $1000 maybe set-up can deliver it the same? Why train troops to do anything other than hold a trench when they just get blown up in their sleep anyway?
A lot of this effectiveness of counter battery in 2023 comes I think with how survivable a tiny glider craft can be in this war. Nations simply haven't had time to develop something like an anti drone drone to sit above any concentration of forces to protect them. The future looks like the end of battles and the beginning of an insane war of attrition where people die even faster than ever.
Western mass media is largely owned by big cash flows that direct the general tone and information bias. They lie about a lot of things, all the time, in a remarkably coordinated way. They are part of a banking network that is more or less separate from certain other countries and interests. The "free market" media is an illusion given by the very large amount of sources that follow the same root money, so if you only rely on following a number of different sources you will not get to the truth unless you read contradicting sources and sources that are outside their network. This is why for example RT was immediately blocked from our internet as Russia started its retaliation. TLDR read contradicting sources. Where the truth is isn't going to be obvious, but some sources can be more truthful than others and it may not quite be "your" side's. Sometimes you can't really tell what's actually going on and can only put a question mark, after all there's not a lot of evidence that is provided for most things so then it comes down to researching a specific topic or viewpoint. If you can't investigate, can't necessarily tell.
On August 08 2023 21:43 KwarK wrote: I wonder about the lessons that this war is teaching for future wars between peer adversaries. If we consider the huge manpower reserves of the Koreas that they consider that they need to defend against the huge manpower reserves of each other, perhaps that’s obsolete. Both Russia and Ukraine have struggled to bring manpower to bear on an extremely long front line due to the combo of MANPADS, mines, ATGMs, and air denial.
Just as the Napoleonic Wars became the standard model for nation state militaries before showing cracks in the American Civil War and being utterly discredited in WW1, so WW2 has become the template for what a future conflict might look like, only to be discredited in Ukraine.
In the American Civil War the machine gun and increasingly effective indirect fire showed the limitations of Napoleonic shock columns. We’re now seeing the limitations of armour, air power, and grouped infantry. Even the modern logistical engine is struggling with the threat of long range strikes which cost vastly more to defend against than to attack (you need to defend all points, the attacker may choose to overwhelm any single point).
I think what we're seeing is the consequences of neither side being able to establish air dominance because both sides are loaded to the teeth with anti-air weaponry and have a pretty limited aircraft arsenal. The war would probably look completely different if one side ruled the skies.
On August 08 2023 21:43 KwarK wrote: I wonder about the lessons that this war is teaching for future wars between peer adversaries. If we consider the huge manpower reserves of the Koreas that they consider that they need to defend against the huge manpower reserves of each other, perhaps that’s obsolete. Both Russia and Ukraine have struggled to bring manpower to bear on an extremely long front line due to the combo of MANPADS, mines, ATGMs, and air denial.
Just as the Napoleonic Wars became the standard model for nation state militaries before showing cracks in the American Civil War and being utterly discredited in WW1, so WW2 has become the template for what a future conflict might look like, only to be discredited in Ukraine.
In the American Civil War the machine gun and increasingly effective indirect fire showed the limitations of Napoleonic shock columns. We’re now seeing the limitations of armour, air power, and grouped infantry. Even the modern logistical engine is struggling with the threat of long range strikes which cost vastly more to defend against than to attack (you need to defend all points, the attacker may choose to overwhelm any single point).
I think what we're seeing is the consequences of neither side being able to establish air dominance because both sides are loaded to the teeth with anti-air weaponry and have a pretty limited aircraft arsenal. The war would probably look completely different if one side ruled the skies.
But is ruling the skies even possible against a peer? The US could do it because even trading inefficiently and taking losses at first would allow for SEAD. But would any other nation be able to trade extremely expensive planes for less expensive radar arrays?
On August 08 2023 21:43 KwarK wrote: I wonder about the lessons that this war is teaching for future wars between peer adversaries. If we consider the huge manpower reserves of the Koreas that they consider that they need to defend against the huge manpower reserves of each other, perhaps that’s obsolete. Both Russia and Ukraine have struggled to bring manpower to bear on an extremely long front line due to the combo of MANPADS, mines, ATGMs, and air denial.
Just as the Napoleonic Wars became the standard model for nation state militaries before showing cracks in the American Civil War and being utterly discredited in WW1, so WW2 has become the template for what a future conflict might look like, only to be discredited in Ukraine.
In the American Civil War the machine gun and increasingly effective indirect fire showed the limitations of Napoleonic shock columns. We’re now seeing the limitations of armour, air power, and grouped infantry. Even the modern logistical engine is struggling with the threat of long range strikes which cost vastly more to defend against than to attack (you need to defend all points, the attacker may choose to overwhelm any single point).
I think the biggest shift in this war is the incredible increase into the static warfare between even skirmishes. Attacks behind the lines for strategic reasons are massive like you say but the attacks for tactical reasons are becoming massive. Excalibur rounds are like 100k a shot but if they're able to land on top of another piece of equipment it's the best value for money on the field. Same goes for accurate mlrs systems. The amount of damage a single HIMARS can do shoot and scooting if you've got a recon drone watching in a day is unfathomable compared to previous generations. The launcher doesn't get tired when the firing mechanism comes with the palatized ammunition. New types of fires comes by simply using the same box design and creating new software. Wild hornets on the other hand show the dark potential future of war like little else. FPV kamikaze drones with the kind of speed and agility straight out if a video game. They're made by hand from easy to source parts but what will happen when china and the us mic get factories to build them? What use are all these incredibly expensive tanks choppers planes and artillery good for then a $1000 maybe set-up can deliver it the same? Why train troops to do anything other than hold a trench when they just get blown up in their sleep anyway?
A lot of this effectiveness of counter battery in 2023 comes I think with how survivable a tiny glider craft can be in this war. Nations simply haven't had time to develop something like an anti drone drone to sit above any concentration of forces to protect them. The future looks like the end of battles and the beginning of an insane war of attrition where people die even faster than ever.
There was a lot of focus put on solutions for taking out drones even before this war, getting even more focus now. Electronic warfare seems the most efficient followed by WW2 era anti air guns right now. The proposed solution is light based weapons since they run on electricity and thus can be cheaper than the drone while most other solutions are more expensive. This would keep ground combatants relevant since you don't want to bring those battery packs up into the air.
--- Regarding media in the west there is a bit of bias. Many large platforms are owned by a few people that push specific stories. Overall there are few lies but a lot of focus on how it should make you feel in a lot of places. Fox for example is famous for this, they lie (not a lot when compared to Russian media) but mostly focus on how a fact should make you feel. Feelings make money and impact how you think, facts just inform and thus you end up with fewer and fewer of those over time since they don't make money.
On August 08 2023 19:31 Magic Powers wrote: The situation is that Russia has been losing artillery, UAVs and AA at a strongly increased rate in 2023. I would guess this is because they've been relying more on those options to stop the counter-offensive. A lot of troops are also being lost, but overall less than during the battle for Bakhmut. Still, Russia lately has been suffering far more casualties than after the first few weeks of the invasion.
On the other hand, Russian losses of planes, helicopters and tanks have seen a strong decline. This could be because Ukrainian capability to destroy them has increased manifold, which forces Russia to keep them in reserve. UAVs and artillery are a much cheaper option.
What this implies is that Russian offensive capability is relatively low. If or when their artillery lose potency, that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, because then Russia would have little left to threaten Ukraine with, and the ball would stay in Ukraine's corner for the rest of the war.
I think the goal right now from Russia is to go all-in on defending in hopes they can control the conversation to indicate the offensive "failing" means Ukraine is screwed and its time to negotiate, even though the concessions Russia had to make to achieve that defense removed their ability to ever make an effective offensive in the future.
On August 08 2023 21:43 KwarK wrote: I wonder about the lessons that this war is teaching for future wars between peer adversaries. If we consider the huge manpower reserves of the Koreas that they consider that they need to defend against the huge manpower reserves of each other, perhaps that’s obsolete. Both Russia and Ukraine have struggled to bring manpower to bear on an extremely long front line due to the combo of MANPADS, mines, ATGMs, and air denial.
Just as the Napoleonic Wars became the standard model for nation state militaries before showing cracks in the American Civil War and being utterly discredited in WW1, so WW2 has become the template for what a future conflict might look like, only to be discredited in Ukraine.
In the American Civil War the machine gun and increasingly effective indirect fire showed the limitations of Napoleonic shock columns. We’re now seeing the limitations of armour, air power, and grouped infantry. Even the modern logistical engine is struggling with the threat of long range strikes which cost vastly more to defend against than to attack (you need to defend all points, the attacker may choose to overwhelm any single point).
I think what we're seeing is the consequences of neither side being able to establish air dominance because both sides are loaded to the teeth with anti-air weaponry and have a pretty limited aircraft arsenal. The war would probably look completely different if one side ruled the skies.
But is ruling the skies even possible against a peer? The US could do it because even trading inefficiently and taking losses at first would allow for SEAD. But would any other nation be able to trade extremely expensive planes for less expensive radar arrays?
That's a good question that I wish I had the answer to. There's been a lot of emphasis from the Ukrainian government for the need of aircraft so at the very least there is a perception among the Ukrainian government/military that additional aircraft would be effective on the battlefield. Until we actually see them in action their level of effectiveness in a peer-to-peer conflict like this is a complete unknown, but I like to believe they have good reasons for demanding aircraft as fervently as they have.
On August 08 2023 19:31 Magic Powers wrote: The situation is that Russia has been losing artillery, UAVs and AA at a strongly increased rate in 2023. I would guess this is because they've been relying more on those options to stop the counter-offensive. A lot of troops are also being lost, but overall less than during the battle for Bakhmut. Still, Russia lately has been suffering far more casualties than after the first few weeks of the invasion.
On the other hand, Russian losses of planes, helicopters and tanks have seen a strong decline. This could be because Ukrainian capability to destroy them has increased manifold, which forces Russia to keep them in reserve. UAVs and artillery are a much cheaper option.
What this implies is that Russian offensive capability is relatively low. If or when their artillery lose potency, that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, because then Russia would have little left to threaten Ukraine with, and the ball would stay in Ukraine's corner for the rest of the war.
I think the goal right now from Russia is to go all-in on defending in hopes they can control the conversation to indicate the offensive "failing" means Ukraine is screwed and its time to negotiate, even though the concessions Russia had to make to achieve that defense removed their ability to ever make an effective offensive in the future.
It's a bit more complex I think. On the one hand, at the rate that Russian forces have made advances as of late, it'd take perhaps a hundred years before Ukraine finally falls. In that sense they have no meaningful offensive potential. That being said, they are indeed advancing every so often. It's infrequent, but they've been grabbing a significant amount of territory. This shows that they're relying on both defensive and offensive measures to keep Ukraine's forces in check (as they should if they have any strategic understanding). So their strategy is not as simple as just holding on to the annexed territories. My hope is that one day Ukraine can achieve a scenario where Russian forces are completely frozen in place and only able to retreat. That day, if it comes, is probably in the far future years from now.
Public sentiment is finally majority against NATO's proxy war. This is good to see, of course, the US is an oligarchy, and this will have zero effect on policy from the federal government. Things have been winding down anyway, there's only so many Ukrainians NATO can throw into the meat grinder and they're almost out of bodies.
On August 08 2023 21:43 KwarK wrote: I wonder about the lessons that this war is teaching for future wars between peer adversaries. If we consider the huge manpower reserves of the Koreas that they consider that they need to defend against the huge manpower reserves of each other, perhaps that’s obsolete. Both Russia and Ukraine have struggled to bring manpower to bear on an extremely long front line due to the combo of MANPADS, mines, ATGMs, and air denial.
Just as the Napoleonic Wars became the standard model for nation state militaries before showing cracks in the American Civil War and being utterly discredited in WW1, so WW2 has become the template for what a future conflict might look like, only to be discredited in Ukraine.
In the American Civil War the machine gun and increasingly effective indirect fire showed the limitations of Napoleonic shock columns. We’re now seeing the limitations of armour, air power, and grouped infantry. Even the modern logistical engine is struggling with the threat of long range strikes which cost vastly more to defend against than to attack (you need to defend all points, the attacker may choose to overwhelm any single point).
I think what we're seeing is the consequences of neither side being able to establish air dominance because both sides are loaded to the teeth with anti-air weaponry and have a pretty limited aircraft arsenal. The war would probably look completely different if one side ruled the skies.
But is ruling the skies even possible against a peer? The US could do it because even trading inefficiently and taking losses at first would allow for SEAD. But would any other nation be able to trade extremely expensive planes for less expensive radar arrays?
That's a good question that I wish I had the answer to. There's been a lot of emphasis from the Ukrainian government for the need of aircraft so at the very least there is a perception among the Ukrainian government/military that additional aircraft would be effective on the battlefield. Until we actually see them in action their level of effectiveness in a peer-to-peer conflict like this is a complete unknown, but I like to believe they have good reasons for demanding aircraft as fervently as they have.
Airplanes Ukraine wants are not primarily bombers, they are multi role or fighters. Basically elusive missile carriers that would make it harder for Russia to launch missiles from their air platforms. While allowing long distance missiles that many NATO nations have in stock to be used more easily.
On August 09 2023 07:14 captainwaffles wrote: Public sentiment is finally majority against NATO's proxy war. This is good to see, of course, the US is an oligarchy, and this will have zero effect on policy from the federal government. Things have been winding down anyway, there's only so many Ukrainians NATO can throw into the meat grinder and they're almost out of bodies.
That's very obviously a picture of a pro-Ukraine (and pro defending Ukraine) rally. There are Ukrainian flags, a sign saying "Russian ship go fuck yourself" (a famous slogan of Ukrainian resistance), another saying "Putin go away" and so forth.
On August 09 2023 07:14 captainwaffles wrote: Public sentiment is finally majority against NATO's proxy war. This is good to see, of course, the US is an oligarchy, and this will have zero effect on policy from the federal government. Things have been winding down anyway, there's only so many Ukrainians NATO can throw into the meat grinder and they're almost out of bodies.
That's very obviously a picture of a pro-Ukraine (and pro defending Ukraine) rally. There are Ukrainian flags, a sign saying "Russian ship go fuck yourself" (a famous slogan of Ukrainian resistance), another saying "Putin go away" and so forth.
How embarrassing it must be to be you.
Right, because from the outset, it's been those people that have been at the vanguard of shipping 200$ billion dollars of US tax payer money to get Ukrainians killed in a pointless and ultimately unwinnable proxy war.
And now, despite their efforts, despite the media and government's efforts, the majority of people are now against the war.
That, or Jimmy's producer just picked a thumbnail in a hurry, either explanation isn't the slam dunk you want it to be.
I read last night that about 400 obituaries a day are being printed for Ukrainian soldiers, which is *down* from the height of 1000 a day they were losing at the end of last year. Either way, it's a terrible loss of life, but it does reflect that things are, as I said, *winding down.*
What's happening right now? Russia has set up defensive lines over the Donbas, the areas that voted to join Russia, and The Ukrainian military is snatching up teenagers and old men and throwing them into the meat grinder to go capture that land and people again?
If one is looking at this even a little objectively, it doesn't make sense, from the Western point of view. But if you consider the Russian POV, it starts to make sense.
It's clear that Russia is still looking to end this with a negotiated peace settlement, the last thing they want to do is roll over the rest of Ukraine and topple Kiev, because anyone with common sense knows that occupying an area that doesn't want to be occupied is a recipe for disaster.
I hope this does end soon, and peacefully, but realistically, it will end however and whenever Russia wants it too.
On August 09 2023 07:14 captainwaffles wrote: Public sentiment is finally majority against NATO's proxy war. This is good to see, of course, the US is an oligarchy, and this will have zero effect on policy from the federal government. Things have been winding down anyway, there's only so many Ukrainians NATO can throw into the meat grinder and they're almost out of bodies.
That's very obviously a picture of a pro-Ukraine (and pro defending Ukraine) rally. There are Ukrainian flags, a sign saying "Russian ship go fuck yourself" (a famous slogan of Ukrainian resistance), another saying "Putin go away" and so forth.
How embarrassing it must be to be you.
Right, because from the outset, it's been those people that have been at the vanguard of shipping 200$ billion dollars of US tax payer money to get Ukrainians killed in a pointless and ultimately unwinnable proxy war.
And now, despite their efforts, despite the media and government's efforts, the majority of people are now against the war.
That, or Jimmy's producer just picked a thumbnail in a hurry, either explanation isn't the slam dunk you want it to be.
I read last night that about 400 obituaries a day are being printed for Ukrainian soldiers, which is *down* from the height of 1000 a day they were losing at the end of last year. Either way, it's a terrible loss of life, but it does reflect that things are, as I said, *winding down.*
What's happening right now? Russia has set up defensive lines over the Donbas, the areas that voted to join Russia, and The Ukrainian military is snatching up teenagers and old men and throwing them into the meat grinder to go capture that land and people again?
If one is looking at this even a little objectively, it doesn't make sense, from the Western point of view. But if you consider the Russian POV, it starts to make sense.
It's clear that Russia is still looking to end this with a negotiated peace settlement, the last thing they want to do is roll over the rest of Ukraine and topple Kiev, because anyone with common sense knows that occupying an area that doesn't want to be occupied is a recipe for disaster.
I hope this does end soon, and peacefully, but realistically, it will end however and whenever Russia wants it too.
Russia can't occupy shit. They aren't about to "roll over" anything. They also clearly tried to take the entire country and had to shift they war goals because they failed. That part is not even debatable.
Only question is if Ukraine can take back any more land. You seem sure that they can't. Maybe that is true. I'm not so sure.
Both sides are losing people right now but it's not like Ukraine doesn't have a plan and it goes basically like this:
1) Get in range of railway hubs and shell the shit out of them (the farther east the better). 2) Attack to the west of this (towards Melitopol) to cut Crimea off. 3) Slow siege Crimea. 4) When you take it drop down a shitload of AA. and if the war hasn't ended yet. 5) Use your new F16 (above steps will take a while but if it goes well they will 100% get aircraft) to push black sea fleet into their harbours to the east. 6) Blockade all Russian trade through the black sea.
I think Ukraine is extremely unlikely to push out all Russians by force but their current actions are not pointless. If they succeed their negotiating position will be entirely different than if they don't.
On August 08 2023 21:43 KwarK wrote: I wonder about the lessons that this war is teaching for future wars between peer adversaries. If we consider the huge manpower reserves of the Koreas that they consider that they need to defend against the huge manpower reserves of each other, perhaps that’s obsolete. Both Russia and Ukraine have struggled to bring manpower to bear on an extremely long front line due to the combo of MANPADS, mines, ATGMs, and air denial.
Just as the Napoleonic Wars became the standard model for nation state militaries before showing cracks in the American Civil War and being utterly discredited in WW1, so WW2 has become the template for what a future conflict might look like, only to be discredited in Ukraine.
In the American Civil War the machine gun and increasingly effective indirect fire showed the limitations of Napoleonic shock columns. We’re now seeing the limitations of armour, air power, and grouped infantry. Even the modern logistical engine is struggling with the threat of long range strikes which cost vastly more to defend against than to attack (you need to defend all points, the attacker may choose to overwhelm any single point).
I think what we're seeing is the consequences of neither side being able to establish air dominance because both sides are loaded to the teeth with anti-air weaponry and have a pretty limited aircraft arsenal. The war would probably look completely different if one side ruled the skies.
But is ruling the skies even possible against a peer? The US could do it because even trading inefficiently and taking losses at first would allow for SEAD. But would any other nation be able to trade extremely expensive planes for less expensive radar arrays?
That's a good question that I wish I had the answer to. There's been a lot of emphasis from the Ukrainian government for the need of aircraft so at the very least there is a perception among the Ukrainian government/military that additional aircraft would be effective on the battlefield. Until we actually see them in action their level of effectiveness in a peer-to-peer conflict like this is a complete unknown, but I like to believe they have good reasons for demanding aircraft as fervently as they have.
Based on the video Perun did on it, Russia is ahead techwise, but not enough to force air dominance. They can, however, take advantage of the range disparity to get some effectiveness out of the air without risking losses. F16s should at least force a stalemate.
On August 09 2023 07:14 captainwaffles wrote: Public sentiment is finally majority against NATO's proxy war. This is good to see, of course, the US is an oligarchy, and this will have zero effect on policy from the federal government. Things have been winding down anyway, there's only so many Ukrainians NATO can throw into the meat grinder and they're almost out of bodies.
Ah, even more straight up propaganda parroting. Isn't echoing incredibly easily debunkable lies getting boring for you? Literally nothing you ever say or share has even a remote root in reality. Maybe take a step back and consider whether every pro russian outlets you keep swallowing whole might not be entirely good faith actors?
Believing Russia could "easily roll over and topple Kyiv" after they literally tried and got pushed back at the very start of the war is nothing short of insanity. Russia isn't unwilling to push Ukraine back for any political or moral reason, god knows a country engaging in active genocide doesn't have morals, they're barely holding out as it is. Digging down and making it harder for Ukraine to push is literally all they can do right now
On August 09 2023 03:33 Yurie wrote: There was a lot of focus put on solutions for taking out drones even before this war, getting even more focus now. Electronic warfare seems the most efficient followed by WW2 era anti air guns right now. The proposed solution is light based weapons since they run on electricity and thus can be cheaper than the drone while most other solutions are more expensive. This would keep ground combatants relevant since you don't want to bring those battery packs up into the air.
Yeah I guess the next step are some form of laser anti drone systems which can accurately bring down everything they have a clear line of sight to. Paired with some next gen radar / satellite system this would make all aircrafts pretty much obsolete and long term maybe even rocket systems. At least on sunny days ^^'
Good thing US is not the only country in the alliance. They're incentivized to keep sending military aid because many of their NATO partners are demanding it. It's also not even close to $200 billion that has been spent. More like 70 or 80, and a lot of that was existing stock anyway. The US has $26 trillion in GDP. The amount of money being sent is miniscule when compared to the potential return of a strong, resource-rich NATO ally at Russia's doorstep. Rationally, the US government is going to keep supporting Ukraine until the war ends. It costs almost nothing. So the fact that the American people are losing interest in the war shouldn't bother us too much. Even Trump would be very unlikely to withdraw support because of the pressure he'd face. However, he would likely not be interested in maximizing support, which would also be problematic.
EPT
