The War in the Ukraine

FriedButter

FriedButter

Colonel
Registered Member
Soldier30 said:
The American M777A2 howitzers came to Ukraine without the AFCS digital fire control system. The system allows for automatic correction of fire by GPS, which allows you to increase the pace and accuracy of shooting. Why this electronic unit was removed is not clear, perhaps because of fears that the howitzer will fall into the hands of the Russian army. There have already been reports that one howitzer has been captured by Russia. It is worth noting that the M777 howitzer is quite good and the lightest in the world. One of the problems when using it in Ukraine may be the cost of ammunition, the price of a projectile from $ 60,000.
Click to expand...

$60,000 was from 2016. These shells are far more expensive now compared to the regular shells the M777 uses.

2015 = $258,777 / unit
2016 = $68,000 / unit
-
2021 = $80,948 / unit
2022 = $176,624 / unit

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

2021 Budget for these rounds was $73.5 million or enough for 416 shells. If it was 2020 that would be like ~800 shells. I doubt they ev

Inflation must be hitting the army’s budget really hard. I wonder how much those Javelins and Stingers cost now.
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Abominable said:
The Russians letting Azov evacuate their wounded is a mistake. I know they are going to DPR, but still.

Azov's game is to delay. They aren't going to fight and they won't commit mass suicide like Hitler. Getting rid of dozens of injured with gangrenous wounds makes things easier for them as there are less mouths to feed. It will also free up their medics. We all know what's going to happen to these guys when they get to DPR (especially if they are Azov). If Azov want to get rid off their injured they should be made to do the deed themselves.

The correct approach would be either the entire garrison surrenders, or no one does. Doing this is just prolonging the inevitable.
Click to expand...
This was the reaction last night from the Ukrainian side when the news of the surrender first emerged:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1526103469622452224

And I quote:
InformNapalm does not understand yet the whole plan of the Russian command, but here are the key findings of what the Russians have planned for May 16-17: bring to Mariupol up to 2,000 POWs

send servicemen of a reconnaissance company to Mariupol, with strict orders to have gas masks, a full set of hazmat protective gear and additional small backpacks, the contents of which are unknown

send to Mariupol 6 tank trucks, the contents of which are unknown. The trucks must be accompanied by guards in armored vehicles.
Based on the data obtained, analysts of InformNapalm have grounds to believe that the Russian command could use the POWs to create a picture for the Russian propaganda media confirming that the defenders of Azovstal have allegedly surrendered
Click to expand...
Seems to me like if Kiev was busy softening the blow like this they do consider any surrender (particularly if there's a complete surrender coming in the future) to be a big negative.
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
4Runner said:
Do you really think that, with less than 200K deployed troops, the Russian army can hold onto those land along the Dnieper River? Well, I could go with that if (1) the Russian army does not have comm issues as speculated; (2) the Russian army can get replenished with enough long-range precision weapons; (3) the Russian army get better situation awareness. Otherwise, If the Russians continued with everything else being equal and I was the commander on the Ukraine side, I would move all-in on cutting off one chunk of the Russian forward deployment with everything US/NATO have thrown at me.
Click to expand...
They need more troops for sure. At the same time, if there's no bridge left on the Dnieper, it will be quite easy to guard the east of the country against attack from the west. It's a huge river and beside artillery and aircrafts going above it, no direct attack can be done. Only link to the west that need to be kept are the ones in Kherson.
 
Last edited:
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
FriedButter

FriedButter

Colonel
Registered Member
Temstar said:
The two are different, last night was about the injured troops, but it seems like a more general surrender is now forth coming
Click to expand...

Is it really all that different? They are still going to the DPR controlled land and It’s not like the “evacuated” injured will be let free after their medical treatment is done.
 
A

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
SampanViking said:
I think that once the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas are destroyed or captured. The Ukraine will not have much of an army left with which to occupy anything. Those that are left will be utterly demoralised.

If Russia continues the offensive after the Donbas, my bet is that they will go for areas such as Kharkov and Dniepro before turning their attention to West Coastal Regions. My reasons for this is that the Ukrainian army East of the Dnieper will still be in disarray, their supply lines will be smashed and the Russians will have all their offensive forces in position to roll on. Further after they take these objectives they will have a further Eastern Axis from which to launch an offensive West of the Dnieper.

Other very experienced and knowledgeable people disagree with me on this and say that despite the obvious advantages of following my strategy, that the strategic value of Nicoleav and Odessa outweighs my considerations and will be the next target.
Click to expand...
It's going to cost tens of billions to rebuild Mariupol. I have no doubt Russia can take Odessa, Myukolaiv, Kharkov or any city in the east of Ukraine using the same tactics. Is it worth it though? For Odessa it may be as it would cut Ukraine off from the coast, and allow the Russian navy to come back, and allow a link up with Transnistria. But otherwise Russia would want to capture these cities with as little damage as possible.

Odessa is a historical city with a lot of very old buildings. To Russians it would be like razing a city like Florence to the ground.
FairAndUnbiased said:
2 possibility IMO.

Russia controls the mouth of the Dnieper and there's a mismatch in Ukrainian manpower (central and east) and supplies (northwest on Polish border).

1. Southern offensive on Mykolaiv then Odessa would mean attacking on a relatively weaker front while Ukrainian forces are tied up in the east, and would force them to transport both supplies and manpower rather than have one or the other already present.

The immediate value would be cutting off any possibility of reinforcement from Romania through Moldova, elimination of even the possibility of counterattack on Kherson, and link up with Transnistria.

Long term, landlocking or near landlocking Ukraine would devastate their economy.

2. Central offensive up the Dnieper east bank towards Dniepro to fully consolidate Donbass and eliminate possibility of retaking Azov for Ukraine. This makes the Dnieper essentially unusable for Ukraine which is devastating.

The challenge here would be that Ukrainian manpower retreating through Donbass would be able to defend here and supplies shipped in from West Ukraine can be distributed to both central and east.
Click to expand...
Option 1 is a possibility. Although Ukraine is already effectively landlocked as nothing is coming in or out of the ports they still hold. Taking the coast would deprive Ukraine of the use of coastal anti-ship missiles.

Option 2, Russia is quite far from Dniepro for a central push. Pushng up the bank of a river when you don't control the other side is probably too risky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top