Is Ukraine about to have a war?

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by ORAC

…”In some cases, according to one source familiar with US intelligence, Ukraine is simply opting not to use the unfamiliar Western systems. For example, despite receiving hundreds of Switchblade drones, some units prefer to use commercial drones rigged with explosives that are more user-friendly.”….

That's the thing about weapons: some training required.
I'll offer the observation that it is a good idea not to use a weapon that one has not trained with.
Could end in tears, otherwise.

[Usertim]

How low is too low?

Twitter

[tdracer]

This is pretty damning if true:
SSU: Russia has come up with a new scheme to supply "cannon fodder" to the front (yahoo.com)

Russia's recruiting companies are looking for masses "volunteers" for the military, and requiring neither physical training nor military training.
The invaders are being offered good salaries

I suppose you can offer really good pay when most don't survive long enough to collect

[sycamore]

USERTIM,we would normally fly below treetop level; grass and weeds don`t do any damage,and the birds can sleep safely.....

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by tdracer

This is pretty damning if true:
SSU: Russia has come up with a new scheme to supply "cannon fodder" to the front (yahoo.com)
I suppose you can offer really good pay when most don't survive long enough to collect

There's forty shillings rubles on the drum ...

Spoiler

 

 

https://youtu.be/mzTPu9ChVDc



[NutLoose]

Fascinating read on the infrastructure in place to source and delivery weaponary to Ukraine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61816337

[NutLoose]

Twitter

[ORAC]

Things starting to turn in Russia. These are the hard core of those supporting the war…

https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status...fWtqSTdHPpvmBg

https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status...fWtqSTdHPpvmBg

“Sensible people need to get used (if someone hasn’t yet since May 2014) to a fact that the Russian state definitely cannot win this war BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WANT IT. Russian state does not want a red (ESPECIALLY red) Victory banner over Bankovaya. Russian state does not want Kyiv back in Russia. It does not want to crush the reptile that is Ukrainian nationalism.

Russian state does not want Russian victory, it wants an agreement. After the agreement there will be chance to live somewhere that is not Russia, to heal up in old age somewhere like Germany, Israel or Switzerland. To see how children with foreign passports walk around London and Paris. To realise the unspoken: “Well, okay, we were born and raised in this rubbish dump that is Russia/USSR, but the children, the children should go to the civilisation, should be raised and learned like the white people”.

This is how they are thinking. This is exactly and the only way they are thinking. Thus their lack of desire to win the war is completely understandable. And the long-term sabotage is totally logical.”…

[henra]

Originally Posted by ORAC

This is how they are thinking. This is exactly and the only way they are thinking. Thus their lack of desire to win the war is completely understandable. And the long-term sabotage is totally logical.”…

Probably their way of coping with being Butt- hurt about the real- life performance of the once dreaded Russian Armed Forces. Before the 'Special Operation' (You can lose a war but not a special operation - might be one of the reasons for the naming) many in Russia probably still phantasized about being capable of defeating the whole west militarily just to find out that they are massively struggling at invading a Country they would have considered as having them for Breakfast from a pure Military strength perspective alone.

I think they heavily underestimated: Invading <> Defending. Their big success in WWII was in defending their Country. The German Troops had to deal with the challenge of long range logistics in enemy territory while they were defending home turf like now the Ukrainians are doing. They wrongly extrapolated that invading would work the same way. Well, it doesn't. Totally different league. Not only from a motivation perspective. Also very much from a practical perspective.

[NutLoose]

Crikey,

US estimates that Russia has lost up to 20-30% of its armoured forces

Twitter

[Beamr]

Meanwhile in Russia the Izvestija (KRemlin supporter) is shouting out that the Ukrainian Air Force has been defeated (didnt they say that already in March) and that it will no longer pose a threat to the "allied forces" (whatever that alliance is).
Here's a typical line which is BS that smells to high heavens:

Originally Posted by izvestija.ru

“The Ukrainian air forces did not show themselves in any way during the special military operation , military expert Dmitry Boltenkov told Izvestia. "No heroic deeds were seen behind the air forces of Ukraine,” he said. - In air battles, the Russian Aerospace Forces did not lose a single aircraft. Our pilots beat Ukrainians during a special military operation. Two of our pilots received the title of Hero of Russia for air battles - this says a lot."
https://iz.ru/1350157/bogdan-stepovo...ili-pvo-rossii

Also, what is staggering are the numbers the Russians are showing. According to the Izvestija source the Defence Ministry stated that "In total, 203 aircraft, 131 helicopters, 1,211 unmanned aerial vehicles, 339 anti-aircraft missile systems, 3,558 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 524 multiple rocket launchers, 1,958 field artillery guns and mortars, as well as 3,623 special military units have been destroyed since the beginning.

One could argue that this is phenomenal performance by the RF armed forces as in February Ukraine had only 206 fixed wing aircrafts including all the transport and trainer aircrafts plus 146 helicopters in the inventory. I have no idea how these figures would be even remotely possible considering that Russia has not conquered Ukraine and subjected it.

[Tartiflette Fan]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

Crikey,

US estimates that Russia has lost up to 20-30% of its armoured forces

Since that is 20 -30% of their modern equipment ( although not necessarily the very best ), the real effect will be greater than the numbers show.

EDIT: Just realised that we don't know if that comment takes into account all the stocks of T62 etc.

[ORAC]

More intercepts from the Russian trenches… not going well…

https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status...4CN1IpbZMaZ-Vw

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Tartiflette Fan

Since that is 20 -30% of their modern equipment ( although not necessarily the very best ), the real effect will be greater than the numbers show.

EDIT: Just realised that we don't know if that comment takes into account all the stocks of T62 etc.

In light of the Russian experience, are tanks still a valid proposition for modern combat?
At $10mm apiece, they seem more ceremonial than combat effective. Perhaps Russia will learn from this, hopefully us as well.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by etudiant

In light of the Russian experience, are tanks still a valid proposition for modern combat?

It depends on what you are trying to achieve and what the terrain/fight is all about. For example, I don't think we sent any tanks into Afghanistan. There were MRAAPs and Strykers there at various points.
The US Marines are, apparently, now out of the Tank business.
A tank is a very effective direct fire platform; tanks have some uses in MOUT (Urban combat) but in that case they work best as part of a combined arms team with infantry, and you want overhead/air support as well. Trying frame it as "tank, pro or con" in isolation isn't a very useful question.

[NutLoose]

I would have thought everyone would be looking at ways to prevent drones taking out tanks and systems to take down those drones, once they have established a credible protection system, tanks will again have their place on the modern battlefield. At the moment Ukraine has opened everyone's eyes to the threat and they will take time to respond to that threat.

There were M1's in Afghanistan and Leopards too

Tanks in Afghanistan – Army Tanks

[Tartiflette Fan]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

I would have thought everyone would be looking at ways to prevent drones taking out tanks and systems to take down those drones,

There were M1's in Afghanistan and leopards too

Do you think drones are a big threat ? At $ 2 m each they are expensive and vulnerable: the 100 infantrymen with a $ 20 K NLAW each, represent a much more dispersed and - likely - less observable threat that is difficult to counter in top-attack mode.

[NutLoose]

I should have added them into the equation too, but as the west developed them one would have assumed probably wrongly that the west would thus equip their armour to protect it against similar systems, it is probably the use of cheap off the shelf drones with DIY bomblets that is probably the most significant change in tank warfare.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

There were M1's in Afghanistan and Leopards too

Tanks in Afghanistan – Army Tanks

Ah, thanks for the correction Nutty.

The United States did not deploy tanks in Afghanistan (M1 Abrams) until early 2011. In January of that year, tanks were sent to US Marines in Helmand province.

[Tartiflette Fan]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

I should have added them into the equation too, but as the west developed them one would have assumed probably wrongly that the west would thus equip their armour to protect it against similar systems, it is probably the use of cheap off the shelf drones with DIY bomblets that is probably the most significant change in tank warfare.

I don't really know the likelihood that someone could build a DIY shaped-charge, and a kilo (say ) of C4 exploding randomly isn't likely to do much more than destroy the 50 cal. The Switchblade 600 weighs 25 kg and carries the Javelin ATGM warhead with 8.4 kg of explosive.