Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Originally Posted by _Agrajag_
Absolutely this.
Ukraine has consistently shown that it's forces are extremely adaptable, technically very competent and tactically way better than Russian forces. They need a capability to strike well behind Russian lines. Cutting off logistic supply to Russia's front lines is key. Sure tanks, artillery, IFVs, MANPADS are great, but they don't solve the big problem.
If anyone doubts this look at the impact of HIMARS. Being able to accurately hit targets 50km behind Russian front lines has been crucial. Give Ukraine the ability to hit 200km and it would be decisive. This is not about slugging it out in trenches. We learned that lesson in WWI, the Russians learned it again in WWII (although they seem to have forgotten it). Flying over Russian-held territory is madness, given their AD. Using aircraft to launch stand-off precision weapons with a range of 200km or more would be decisive. Much safer to emulate what Russia's been doing to great effect. Launch from a stand-off range that makes the risk to the launch platform low.
Far better than ground-launched weapons that are always more vulnerable. A fire-and-forget long range weapon's launch platform will have long-since buggered off by the time the Russian's know the weapon's coming.
Ukraine has consistently shown that it's forces are extremely adaptable, technically very competent and tactically way better than Russian forces. They need a capability to strike well behind Russian lines. Cutting off logistic supply to Russia's front lines is key. Sure tanks, artillery, IFVs, MANPADS are great, but they don't solve the big problem.
If anyone doubts this look at the impact of HIMARS. Being able to accurately hit targets 50km behind Russian front lines has been crucial. Give Ukraine the ability to hit 200km and it would be decisive. This is not about slugging it out in trenches. We learned that lesson in WWI, the Russians learned it again in WWII (although they seem to have forgotten it). Flying over Russian-held territory is madness, given their AD. Using aircraft to launch stand-off precision weapons with a range of 200km or more would be decisive. Much safer to emulate what Russia's been doing to great effect. Launch from a stand-off range that makes the risk to the launch platform low.
Far better than ground-launched weapons that are always more vulnerable. A fire-and-forget long range weapon's launch platform will have long-since buggered off by the time the Russian's know the weapon's coming.
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
There's rumors Poland unfortunately sold their available units as spare parts and no longer has any.
Secondly, we need to respect they cannot allow for any gaps in airborne defence capability, be that a week let alone months or a year.
Slovakia did proudly in exchange for ground based tech, which has been successfully deployed.
However SVK border, geolocation, political stance, involvement so fare and stakes are effectively miniscule to Poland's. Not to mention them not razing Moscow ever.
Secondly, we need to respect they cannot allow for any gaps in airborne defence capability, be that a week let alone months or a year.
Slovakia did proudly in exchange for ground based tech, which has been successfully deployed.
However SVK border, geolocation, political stance, involvement so fare and stakes are effectively miniscule to Poland's. Not to mention them not razing Moscow ever.
Only half a speed-brake
Originally Posted by peter we
Poland shipped many of its mig-29's to Ukraine as parts. Including fuselages.
Let's hear some music instead:
Meanwhile the Poles completed their homework:
(click to expand the full view of the picture)
Originally Posted by _Agrajag_
Absolutely this.
Ukraine has consistently shown that it's forces are extremely adaptable, technically very competent and tactically way better than Russian forces. They need a capability to strike well behind Russian lines. Cutting off logistic supply to Russia's front lines is key. Sure tanks, artillery, IFVs, MANPADS are great, but they don't solve the big problem.
If anyone doubts this look at the impact of HIMARS. Being able to accurately hit targets 50km behind Russian front lines has been crucial. Give Ukraine the ability to hit 200km and it would be decisive. This is not about slugging it out in trenches. We learned that lesson in WWI, the Russians learned it again in WWII (although they seem to have forgotten it). Flying over Russian-held territory is madness, given their AD. Using aircraft to launch stand-off precision weapons with a range of 200km or more would be decisive. Much safer to emulate what Russia's been doing to great effect. Launch from a stand-off range that makes the risk to the launch platform low.
Far better than ground-launched weapons that are always more vulnerable. A fire-and-forget long range weapon's launch platform will have long-since buggered off by the time the Russian's know the weapon's coming.
Ukraine has consistently shown that it's forces are extremely adaptable, technically very competent and tactically way better than Russian forces. They need a capability to strike well behind Russian lines. Cutting off logistic supply to Russia's front lines is key. Sure tanks, artillery, IFVs, MANPADS are great, but they don't solve the big problem.
If anyone doubts this look at the impact of HIMARS. Being able to accurately hit targets 50km behind Russian front lines has been crucial. Give Ukraine the ability to hit 200km and it would be decisive. This is not about slugging it out in trenches. We learned that lesson in WWI, the Russians learned it again in WWII (although they seem to have forgotten it). Flying over Russian-held territory is madness, given their AD. Using aircraft to launch stand-off precision weapons with a range of 200km or more would be decisive. Much safer to emulate what Russia's been doing to great effect. Launch from a stand-off range that makes the risk to the launch platform low.
Far better than ground-launched weapons that are always more vulnerable. A fire-and-forget long range weapon's launch platform will have long-since buggered off by the time the Russian's know the weapon's coming.
What I conclude is that the West should be quicker in providing decisive military assistance, including munitions, armor and airpower. Plus I can hardly imagine the degree of hardship being suffered by civilians who have lost loved ones, homes and possessions. This needs to be ended as quickly as it can be.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
but I am concerned about the combat fatigue UKR forces must be experiencing and the short supply of replacement troops. Russia is in a better position.
44 million is a 'fair' amount. Maybe considering Crimea in 2014, Ukraine might have increased its army reserves/training etc?
As things are, I think everyone is hoping that the new tech west stuff will offset the quantity of personnel needed on the ground....
Russia is still making gains IMO. That slow, slow, grind. Thousands of 'meat grinder' men being promised 'vast' wages to protect the motherland!
I have a feeling, as this 'global' recession is supposedly coming due to us all this year, that UKR will (I hope), get back to its original borders - BUT - whether Ukraine has to give up Crimea and the West's support 'sort of satisfied' that its job has been done, what will the Wests voting public think...?
Last edited by Obba; 10th Feb 2023 at 06:06.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ukraine mobilised about a million men after the invasion when they went on a full war footing. They’ve been training since last summer. The absence of any Ukrainian offensive might be indicative of how many troops have been involved in training roles. Plus of course those trained in the UK, Poland etc.
Theyve all been equipped with top line personal equipment by NATO countries, the shortage is artillery and armour - but that’s also been arriving from the USA etc.
They started with around 250K men, so even believing 100K casualties they should have over 1 million trained troops available.
On the other side Russia started with about 200K deployed troops - the cream of their standing army of about 350K. They’ve lost about 200K of those. They’ve mobilised around 300K, but as reported extensively they’ve been fed untrained straight to the front and they are currently losing around 600-1000 a day in their offensives against static Ukrainian defences. That’s about a division a week.
Best estimates are Russia currently has about 300K men dispersed across all fronts in Ukraine with no real training establishment left in Russia. Similarly they have no inflow of new equipment. They have a couple of factories refurbishing old T-64 tanks etc, but no major arms production facilities to expand that with new equipment.
Any further recruits can expect to be also thrown directly t9 the front untrained and ill or unequipped.
Result? A Russian army outnumbered 3 to 1, when it needs to be the other way around to start an offensive and increasing not only outranges but outnumbered in artillery on which they rely.
Putin is expected to start an offensive in the next few days. There are no reports of mass troop or armour concentrations near the front (which would be being decimated by HIMARS), so even a local major breakthrough seems unlikely. If they attack uncoordinated across all fronts their current loses rates can be expected to rocket.
Theyve all been equipped with top line personal equipment by NATO countries, the shortage is artillery and armour - but that’s also been arriving from the USA etc.
They started with around 250K men, so even believing 100K casualties they should have over 1 million trained troops available.
On the other side Russia started with about 200K deployed troops - the cream of their standing army of about 350K. They’ve lost about 200K of those. They’ve mobilised around 300K, but as reported extensively they’ve been fed untrained straight to the front and they are currently losing around 600-1000 a day in their offensives against static Ukrainian defences. That’s about a division a week.
Best estimates are Russia currently has about 300K men dispersed across all fronts in Ukraine with no real training establishment left in Russia. Similarly they have no inflow of new equipment. They have a couple of factories refurbishing old T-64 tanks etc, but no major arms production facilities to expand that with new equipment.
Any further recruits can expect to be also thrown directly t9 the front untrained and ill or unequipped.
Result? A Russian army outnumbered 3 to 1, when it needs to be the other way around to start an offensive and increasing not only outranges but outnumbered in artillery on which they rely.
Putin is expected to start an offensive in the next few days. There are no reports of mass troop or armour concentrations near the front (which would be being decimated by HIMARS), so even a local major breakthrough seems unlikely. If they attack uncoordinated across all fronts their current loses rates can be expected to rocket.
Originally Posted by Beamr
There goes a terminator, the Russian pride of a AFV (and basically just a T72 with a new turret).
Fun part is that this is the first confirmed sighting of a terminator in action that I've seen, and it's already destroyed. It's not coming back.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status...20153748467714
Fun part is that this is the first confirmed sighting of a terminator in action that I've seen, and it's already destroyed. It's not coming back.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status...20153748467714
Or a glorified Gepard
I wonder how this changes things up, Russia is now lobbing cruise missiles not only over Moldovian airspace, but also that of Romania, a NATO country!
https://twitter.com/hashtag/Romania?src=hashtag_click
https://twitter.com/hashtag/Romania?src=hashtag_click
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
I, but I am concerned about the combat fatigue UKR forces must be experiencing and the short supply of replacement troops. Russia is in a better position, ironically, considering the relatively short period of time individuals are in combat, and the overwhelming superiority in manpower to endlessly replace casualties. I suppose western governments are not blind to these factors, though they give insufficient account of them, but in spite of the superior quality of the UKR fighting man, numbers and time are against them.
.
.
Obviously one hopes that the numbers of trained soldiers cycling through Poland, UK, US, Germany strengthens their ability beyond simply the numbers involved.
S-300 used ground to ground. Are they effective ?
I read reports this morning about Zaporzhiziha suffering a heavy attack from S 300 missiles ( 17 ). Since this was designed as a ground -to-air missile, what is the likelihood that it would have any kind of subsidiary system allowing its use as a guided ground-to-ground missile ? Personally, this would seem very unliklely, but since the cost of one missile is supposedly close to $ 1 000 000, it would be hugely expensive and ineffective to just point them in the general direction of Zaporzhiziha. Any ideas anyone ?
Putin continues to nudge the west to see what their reaction will be. And, as usual, the reaction is a joke. Western governments have no [email protected] The French are thinking about stripping him of a top French honour awarded him some years ago. Wow, that will really show him who's boss!
The following 3 users liked this post by FUMR:
Originally Posted by melmothtw
Is that the actual track, given the curvature of the earth? Genuine question.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by FUMR
Putin continues to nudge the west to see what their reaction will be. And, as usual, the reaction is a joke. Western governments have no [email protected] The French are thinking about stripping him of a top French honour awarded him some years ago. Wow, that will really show him who's boss!
Originally Posted by Tartiflette Fan
I read reports this morning about Zaporzhiziha suffering a heavy attack from S 300 missiles ( 17 ). Since this was designed as a ground -to-air missile, what is the likelihood that it would have any kind of subsidiary system allowing its use as a guided ground-to-ground missile ? Personally, this would seem very unliklely, but since the cost of one missile is supposedly close to $ 1 000 000, it would be hugely expensive and ineffective to just point them in the general direction of Zaporzhiziha. Any ideas anyone ?
Originally Posted by Tartiflette Fan
I read reports this morning about Zaporzhiziha suffering a heavy attack from S 300 missiles ... Since this was designed as a ground -to-air missile...
The following 2 users liked this post by Recc:
Aviation content,
Mi24 hit, but watching it do you think the other was recovering the crew from one that had a technical failure and it was then destroyed?
Mi24 hit, but watching it do you think the other was recovering the crew from one that had a technical failure and it was then destroyed?
Nice to see the losses on Russian armour near Vulhedar
Words fail me
Words fail me
