Jump to content

Ukraine: Are ya winning yet.


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is this actually significant… or more bluster?

Gerasimov put his foot in it by saying that all Russian soldiers must now shave and be presentable even on the battlefield. The Chechen soldiers immediately fired back saying this was a deliberate attack on Russia's (not-inconsiderable) Muslim population and the many Muslim soldiers fighting in the Russian army. A Russian Duma member who enthusiastically endorsed the plan has apparently now said that Chechen and other Muslim soldiers should be exempt, but the Defence Ministry has not themselves confirmed that yet.

Prigozhin has apparently backed Kadyrov that this is a calculated insult by the incompetent command staff.

There is a really interesting tinderbox building up there. Putin is really the only thing holding this coalition of chaos together.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Or to put another way, NATO did not invest in the possibility of needing to provide massive support for the defense of a non-NATO country.  If they had, they probably would have invested in a lot more of things like medium range artillery and millions of shells. 

 

I'm actually impressed with the degree to which the US and allies have been able to acquire artillery supplies, pieces and ammunition given the lack of the artillery doctrine in NATO and allied militaries.

South Korea could play a major role here as its artillery supply chain is formidable. As said a few pages back, the war could bizarrely turn into a proxy war fought by North and South Korea on Ukrainian soil if North Korea does supply more arms to Russia (although that seems to have been more promise than actuality, and Putin seems a bit put out that Kim has not stepped up more).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 

The delivery of Leopard tanks would apparently tilt the balance significantly into Ukraine's favor, as the Leo is apparently superior to Russian models (weapon range of several KM to 1.5 KM). And like I said, he is afraid of the Russians viewing it as German tanks being deployed. (check previous paragraph)

I don't think range is a criterion, but fire control, sights, and the probability of actually hitting your target, preferably with the first shot, as that will deny them the chance to shoot back. Western tanks are optimised for this, Soviet / Russian tanks ... apparently not so much. Some of the Russian tank fleet has modern fire control (bought from France) but apparently it's not common. Same on the Ukrainian side. Apparently there even is a a lot of indirect fire, i.e. they don't even see their target. It's the same with the artillery. They shoot a lot, but not very targeted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Loge said:

I don't think range is a criterion, but fire control, sights, and the probability of actually hitting your target, preferably with the first shot, as that will deny them the chance to shoot back. Western tanks are optimised for this, Soviet / Russian tanks ... apparently not so much. Some of the Russian tank fleet has modern fire control (bought from France) but apparently it's not common. Same on the Ukrainian side. Apparently there even is a a lot of indirect fire, i.e. they don't even see their target. It's the same with the artillery. They shoot a lot, but not very targeted. 

Especially on the Russian side, they seem to be using tanks as makeshift artillery pieces, which is not what they are designed for and they are not very good at it, but if there's enough of them firing in the general direction of the enemy, they might do some damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Especially on the Russian side, they seem to be using tanks as makeshift artillery pieces, which is not what they are designed for and they are not very good at it, but if there's enough of them firing in the general direction of the enemy, they might do some damage.

Which serves to wear out tank fun barrels very, very quickly.  Artillery barrels are at least designed to be fired that way many times per hour.  Tanks are not.  If we do see significant tank vs tank combat in the coming months, there's a good chance that those barrels will not shoot straight. 

Although there have also been reports of Ukraine using tanks for indirect fire as well, so it might be a very messy battle if it comes to pass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Especially on the Russian side, they seem to be using tanks as makeshift artillery pieces, which is not what they are designed for and they are not very good at it, but if there's enough of them firing in the general direction of the enemy, they might do some damage.

So.. tanks as the old style rank and file firing line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Gerasimov put his foot in it by saying that all Russian soldiers must now shave and be presentable even on the battlefield. The Chechen soldiers immediately fired back saying this was a deliberate attack on Russia's (not-inconsiderable) Muslim population and the many Muslim soldiers fighting in the Russian army. A Russian Duma member who enthusiastically endorsed the plan has apparently now said that Chechen and other Muslim soldiers should be exempt, but the Defence Ministry has not themselves confirmed that yet.

Prigozhin has apparently backed Kadyrov that this is a calculated insult by the incompetent command staff.

There is a really interesting tinderbox building up there. Putin is really the only thing holding this coalition of chaos together...

Perun's latest video is explicitly about the many different groups of militias, PMCs and other armed groups and the official Russian military, and how each is the military arm of a different high-level political player that Putin is using to maintain power as he plays them off against each other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Germany announced to finally send some Leopards immediately afterwards: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-send-leopard-2-tanks-to-ukraine-reports/a-64503898

So... was all that PR disaster really necessary? In another forum I have seen some users regard that as some kind of 5D-chess maneuver to make the US commit more than they initially considered, but I remain skeptical. It seems to be a lucky stroke where everyone tumbles through the same door after much of pushing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Oh hell yes. 

One thing that I've not noticed is talking about Russia's general lack of anti-armor weaponry, especially at the infantry level. Compared to Ukraine having one ATGM per person or more Russia has almost no capability there - meaning their anti armor is largely around their actual armor capabilities. 

And the M1 Abrams is built to just obliterate those Russian tanks. 

As far as Germany goes, what they wanted more than anything was not to be seen as the only country doing this; they wanted to be part of a coalition. They wanted to ensure they weren't the ones only escalating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it has been clear for a while now that it was just a matter of time before Ukraine got main battle tanks.  Apparently that time has come. 

Good news.  We'll see if F-16s are next.  I suspect they are, unless there's some indications that Ukraine doesn't particularly need them.

1 minute ago, Toth said:

So... was all that PR disaster really necessary? In another forum I have seen some user regard that as some kind of 5D-chess maneuver to make the US commit more than they initially wondered, but I remain skeptical. It seems to be a lucky stroke where everyone tumbles through the same door after much of pushing.

Germany has managed to send substantial support to Ukraine AND get a reputation for being a day late and a dollar short ever single time.  If this is a concerted effort in order to maintain it's position as the most pro-Russia nation of the large NATO countries, then mission accomplished I suppose.  But I don't know why they would even particularly want that title, let alone go to such embarrassing lengths to hold onto it. 

1 minute ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

One thing that I've not noticed is talking about Russia's general lack of anti-armor weaponry, especially at the infantry level. Compared to Ukraine having one ATGM per person or more Russia has almost no capability there - meaning their anti armor is largely around their actual armor capabilities. 

And the M1 Abrams is built to just obliterate those Russian tanks.

Sort of.  Artillery can knock out tanks as well.  I believe the majority of tank losses in the first month of the war were to artillery, not handheld weapons or aerial attacks.  The Russians still have an awful lot of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia still has quite potent anti-air capabilities in depth. I don't see F16s helping that much over HIMARS and other systems. Both allow destroying artillery and other things at ranges beyond Russian engagement. F16s would allow deep strike capabilities possibly, but would be a massive risk of that equipment being destroyed for less gain. Probably getting even longer range attack artillery would be the big request next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Oh hell yes. 

One thing that I've not noticed is talking about Russia's general lack of anti-armor weaponry, especially at the infantry level. Compared to Ukraine having one ATGM per person or more Russia has almost no capability there - meaning their anti armor is largely around their actual armor capabilities. 

And the M1 Abrams is built to just obliterate those Russian tanks. 

As far as Germany goes, what they wanted more than anything was not to be seen as the only country doing this; they wanted to be part of a coalition. They wanted to ensure they weren't the ones only escalating. 

It seems this has been what Deutschland was waiting for.  The Leopards will be released:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-send-leopard-tanks-kyiv-allow-others-do-so-spiegel-2023-01-24/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I am surprised by the ability of the Biden administration to get a lot of different countries on board in supporting Ukraine. Germany is by far the biggest win in that respect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Once again I am surprised by the ability of the Biden administration to get a lot of different countries on board in supporting Ukraine. Germany is by far the biggest win in that respect. 

I can quibble on a few of the details, but I continue to be very impressed overall with the Biden administration's approach to the war.  Just because a lot of countries want to help Ukraine doesn't mean that help actually happens.  But over and over again, the administration has delivered on substance, not just talk. 

I hope that voters reward him for that in 2024, but they probably won't. 

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I think Baerbock deserves some credit, too. She played an absolute blinder in her role as foreign minister. Upping the pressure on Scholz and baiting the Poles to send a formal request. 

That's fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I think Baerbock deserves some credit, too. She played an absolute blinder in her role as foreign minister. Upping the pressure on Scholz and baiting the Poles to send a formal request. 

I think that's fair, and there are a lot of people and countries that helped a ton here - Poland, the Baltics, Czechia...But a lot of this was only possible because the US took a leadership position while also allowing countries to do things in their own interest and initiative. It has been a very tough tightrope and the Biden admin has done a pretty great job of walking that rope, giving allies cover while providing a whole lot of value to Ukraine in ways that matter. 

It is the kind of foreign policy success that the US has largely not seen in decades. Off the top of my head the only thing that comes close is the first Gulf War. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next step is that medium range ammo for HIMARS which should double it's effective range. That should be a formality. ATACMS is the step beyond that which the US is holding in its pocket.

The US seems to be thinking that Abrams is pretty unnecessary and probably unsuitable for this theatre, but if sending a single company (14 tanks) in six months time gets Germany and its allies to send a fuckton more Leopards right now, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Sort of.  Artillery can knock out tanks as well.  I believe the majority of tank losses in the first month of the war were to artillery, not handheld weapons or aerial attacks.  The Russians still have an awful lot of that.

That was thanks to good Ukrainian and piss-poor Russian tactics. All those times when Ukranian artillery caught the Russians with their pants down as they were trying to cross a bridge or enter a town single file.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hope (though not neccesarily expect) that if the US provides missiles that can strike further than ever before, they wouldn't announce it until after those weapons are already in use.  The first week of using those weapons will be when they are at their most effective, and it would be nice if the Russians didn't know it is coming.  HIMARs were devastatingly effective the first month.  Since then they are still a very important tool for the Ukrainians, but the days of ammo dumps blowing up every night are over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...