The War in the Ukraine

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
A nice annual review of the War in Ukraine was just published by the Austrian Army. A lot of stuff that we already heard, like the superior reaction time of Ukranian artillery, creative use of water to blunt Russian advances. Apparently, Ukraine maintained artillery parity with Russia for the first 1.5 months of the war, before it started running out of ammo. Russian arty stockpile was estimated at 10 million rounds, of which 7 million have been used up thus far. Apparently Russia can produce 3.4 million a year.

Also some interesting details on Pantsira intercepting HIMARS strikes against ammo depots, which were in turn destroyed by the AGM-88 HARM.

Curiously, they claim that the number of tanks in the Ukrainian army went up since the start of the war to a total of about 1,000, while the Russia’s tank force shrunk by almost half.
 
Last edited:

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
"Just a reminder of where things stand. In the grand scheme, Ukraine still has all the momentum, especially with new Western weapons arriving.

Soledar is a TINY town. You could drive through it in 10 minutes"

I mean I suppose it's a temporary win for Russians if you call taking a small town after almost a year of fighting 100km's from Russian border and tens of thousands Russians dead in this battle alone... a win?

This will likely be their last "battle victory" for the foreseeable future and I really do wonder what the reaction is going to be when Ukraine takes it back with its new armored vehicles and weapon systems this spring.
With the fall of Soledar, Bakhmut will be untenable soon as it will be cut off in the north. Up to 80k people stranded there with the supply and reinforcement significantly reduced. Russia can also go North and cutoff the Siversk front from reinforcement and supplies. The Ukrainians will soon have to fall back to the last frontline at Kramatorsk.

Get ready to do a lot more coping in the future.
 

sheogorath

Colonel
Registered Member
What would it violate? Those Ukrainian officers aren’t POWs or wounded people. Neither are the Wagner faking surrender to reach that command post.
I was thinking disguising as the enemy did infact violate the Geneva Convention and fell under Perfidy but turns out it doesn't for land warfare. Mind you it does puts you in a grey area if captured but not a war crime.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That said, the original source of the claim is an Ukranian telegram channel.
 

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
It is forbidden to dress up as the soldiers of the other side, this is perfidy.

But then again its Wagner and they're hardly a signatory to the Hague I guess?

It looks like @sheogorath is right. This is from a naval handbook but it has a section for “on land” part.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
12.3.1 At Sea. Under the customary international law of naval warfare, it is pennissible for a belligerent warship to fly false colors and disguise its outward appearance in other ways in order to deceive the enemy into believing the vessel is ofneutral nationality or is other than a warship. However, it is unlawful for a warship to go into action without first showing her true colors. Use ofneutral a flags, insignia, or uniforms during an actual armed engagement at sea is, therefore forbidden
12.3.2 In the Air. Use in combat of false or deceptive markings to disguise belligerent military aircraft as being of neutral nationality is prohibited
12.3.3 On Land. The law ofarmed conflict applicable to land warfare has no rule of law analogous to that which permits belligerent warships to display neutral colors. Belligerents engaged in armed conflict on land are not permitted to use the flags, insignia, or uniforms of a neutral nation to deceive the enemy

It’s illegal to use it at sea but only illegal in air or land if it’s a neutral nation.
 

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
It looks like @sheogorath is right. This is from a naval handbook but it has a section for “on land” part.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It’s illegal to use it at sea but only illegal in air or land if it’s a neutral nation.

I just found the other part of it under 12.5.3. Looks like it is 100% legal.

12.5.3 On Land. The law of land warfare does not prohibit the use by belligerent land forces of enemy flags, insignia, or uniforms to deceive the enemy either before or following an armed engagement.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
I'm curious what's the agent.

I'm not gonna expect any "serious" agent tho other than Tear gas. if dropped in trench or hideouts it can make life miserable inside and hopefully force the occupants to go out to open field.

Honestly, the chaps doesn't looks like a guy whom handling extremly dangerous chemicals.

If those containers really contain poisonous gas then they need to wear proper mask and full bunny suit .

Creating chemical warfare munition is quite complicated, those need special componets and mixing equipment, to create in situ the final substance from not or moderatly poisonous components.

Without that the handling of it is require full protection , and watching the guy ,storage and delivery equipment I am sure the cyanide gas would be more dangerous for operators/ home troops than for the enemy.
 

H2O

Junior Member
Registered Member
These "conventions or laws" only matter to the victor. In an existential war, everything would be used including throwing the kitchen sink at your opponent. The noise generated over the airwaves during the fighting is to set the stage to further humiliate the loser in the court of public opinion after the war.
 
Top