Jump to content

Ukraine: Slava Ukraini!!!


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

Some surprisingly gloomy, possibly angry, statements on Russian television about what to expect from the China visit. There was a comment that China will get out of this visit exactly what it wants, and there is "not one shred of altruism in anything China does." They seemed to be annoyed about the possibility that Russia will become a subservient client-state of China, and trying to swallow it.

It looks like China is alarmed at a Russian collapse presaging a resurgence of western liberal success, but it's also alarmed at the possibility of a Russian civil war and collapse on their doorstep, with possible ramifications for refugee crises and so forth. To what degree China will be prepared to support Russia to prevent that is the question. It does look like China was planning to make big steps in ensuring its transition into the world's co-leading superpower or even leading superpower in the next decade or two, but may have to risk making those steps now or lose the window of opportunity to do so. But that comes with significant risks (such as the United States, at least nominally, having a dwindling but still notable military superiority).

The real question for Ukraine is indeed if it can retake territory, especially heavily-defended territory, and do so in a rapid manner whilst minimising casualties. A repeat of the autumn counter-offensive would be ideal, but there are question marks over whether the Russians have made similar mistakes in deployment that could allow a repeat of that strategy to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The real question for Ukraine is indeed if it can retake territory, especially heavily-defended territory, and do so in a rapid manner whilst minimising casualties. A repeat of the autumn counter-offensive would be ideal, but there are question marks over whether the Russians have made similar mistakes in deployment that could allow a repeat of that strategy to work.

The good (or perhaps less bad) news for Ukraine is that Russian supply lines into Zaporozhye, Kherson and Crimea Oblasts are pretty tenuous.  They can came over the Kerch Straight Bridge, or through Zaporozhye via Melitopol.  If Ukraine can advance enough to cut the line in Melitopol, then they can bomb the Krech bridge, and Russia will be forced to supply a huge number of forces via either boat or truck. 

Thus, I think there's a good chance that Ukraine might have to bite the bullet and accept some pretty brutal casualties in this spring offensive in order to take that rail line.  But once that is done, they could slow the pace dramatically as the Russian forces in 3 of the 5 occuplied oblasts wither on the vine.  Yes, they won't simply fall on their own, but it is quite realistic that with steady pressure from Ukraine the fighting would gradually turn in their favor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah taking kids you've just invested almost 6 years into training up and feeding them into the infantry meat grinder is some real "Saturn devouring his son" energy. Even if it worked at this point, it would make a pyrrhic victory seem aspirational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put another way, the way that nations fight wars is by sacrificing their future.  That applies to infrastructure - building tanks instead of dams.  It applies to economics - running up a massive debt that will need to be repaid with interest and that devalues your currency but allows you to keep fighting another year.  And most of all it applies to people.  Young college and high school graduates who don't work for 40 years, but instead are killed by bullets and shells by the thousands.  Educated professionals fleeing the country to avoid being drafted.  An entire generation setting aside their lives and livelihoods to go stand in the mud and cold and try not to get killed.

Russia is determined (in many ways even proud) of its willingness to make greater sacrifices than "the west".  But that doesn't change the fact that these sacrifices are very real and growing more dire every day.  I have a great deal more sympathy for the Ukrainians who did not choose this war, but there are victims on all sides. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting analysis from Rob Lee today that there has been disagreement in Ukraine about the value of holding Bakhmut. He thinks there was much stronger agreement about holding Vuledahr and the value of doing that with high kill ratios in Ukraine's favour. But Bakhmut has been a different story, and he thinks Ukrainian casualties there have been higher than officially claimed. The kill ratio is still in Ukraine's favour but it's not been as massively lopsided. There's also been indications that some of the later cohorts of Ukrainian mobilised reserves might have been sent to Bakhmut without sufficient training, as Ukraine has instead redirected experienced and veteran units to prepare for the spring counter-offensive: a brutal and perhaps logical decision, but also something of a demoralising one.

The current situation is that Russia has taken the high ground around most of the city and almost brought the main retreat route under fire, so if the Ukrainians want to pull out, they have to really go imminently. One big problem with Bakhmut's flanks is that the suburban areas around the town are lacking heavily fortified cellars, which Ukraine has used to superb defensive use almost everywhere else, so fire control points can be easily identified and destroyed, whilst in other areas destroying a building doesn't necessarily damage the cellars and allows infantry to keep fighting.

There were some successes last night: a major Ukrainian UAV attack on Crimea damaged the Dzhankoy Airbase and blew up the rail tracks leading from the Kerch Straits Bridge towards Sevastopol. Reportedly they hit a train mid-transit that was carrying a load of Kalibr cruise missiles for the Black Sea Fleet.

The EU has agreed to send 1 million artillery rounds to Ukraine in the next few months and the UK is to send depleted uranium tank rounds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia apparently "unhappy" with the British decision to send depleted uranium shells to Ukraine, citing their potential environmental damage (!).

Britain apparently unmoved since depleted uranium is not as hazardous to the environment and people as, say, novichok or polonium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Remember how late last Summer we thought it was amusing to see Russians shipping T-64s and T-62s to Ukraine to fight… guess what the Russians are loading up on flatcars now

On 3/17/2023 at 3:34 PM, Maithanet said:

There are more and more signs that the Russian military machine is creaking and groaning under the stress of this war.  I expect we're going to see T-55s by summer.

Didn't expect that prediction to come true quite so quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Remember how late last Summer we thought it was amusing to see Russians shipping T-64s and T-62s to Ukraine to fight… guess what the Russians are loading up on flatcars now:

 

These will do nothing against modern tanks. Their cannons are too small. I guess they could demolish a few more houses, which is the Russian specialty anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

These will do nothing against modern tanks. Their cannons are too small. I guess they could demolish a few more houses, which is the Russian specialty anyway.

I’m just waiting for them to start arming their infantry with pikes and sending them in mass wave attacks…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

These will do nothing against modern tanks. Their cannons are too small. I guess they could demolish a few more houses, which is the Russian specialty anyway.

There hasn't been much tank on tank warfare of late. Actually, of all the videos of exploding tanks I have seen since the beginning of the war, I don't remember a single case of one tank destroying another in frontal attack. It's usually artillery fire or drones. On the other hand, a 100mm gun is still a valuable asset on the battlefield. You may find this video interesting:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loge said:

There hasn't been much tank on tank warfare of late. Actually, of all the videos of exploding tanks I have seen since the beginning of the war, I don't remember a single case of one tank destroying another in frontal attack. It's usually artillery fire or drones. On the other hand, a 100mm gun is still a valuable asset on the battlefield.

If ammo for it exists in sufficient quantities, which is not a given. It's been an obsolete caliber for decades, and old shells have expired a long time ago and were probably scrapped. Maybe Russian factories kept producing some for exports, but they didn't keep large stocks of them.

And sure, new shells can be produced, but that takes production capacity away from modern 125mm shells.

Similar problem exists with Leopard 1s, no-one has 105mm shells in stock anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gorn said:

If ammo for it exists in sufficient quantities, which is not a given. It's been an obsolete caliber for decades, and old shells have expired a long time ago and were probably scrapped. Maybe Russian factories kept producing some for exports, but they didn't keep large stocks of them.

And sure, new shells can be produced, but that takes production capacity away from modern 125mm shells.

Similar problem exists with Leopard 1s, no-one has 105mm shells in stock anymore.

If T-55s become the Russian mainstay will Bradley’s not be more than capable of standing up to them?  T-55s lack an auto loader… don’t they?

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...