The War in the Ukraine

Eventine said:

Russia's main problem now isn't lack of man power, any way, but lack of equipment.

It is interesting that none of its allies came to its aid, while the US was able to force its allies to cough up support. The US seems to have a much tighter leash on its vassals - which was also demonstrated during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where the US was the invader but still got its "coalition of the willing" to follow along - and this is indeed a signal of Russia's decline.

Click to expand...

Russia would not accept aid from any country knowing that the bully USA would impose sanctions on it the next day. The exception is Iran, which has been under sanctions for years anyway.

The only Highway which remains to move in and out of Bakhmut marked.

tankphobia said:

Isn't this the much vaunted grey zone warfare that Russia pioneered? I never said NATO would/should send their troops in, my exact wording was, even if they did, so what?


Would you not argue that the West sending their own mercenaries in is also in their best interest? Just as they were invited by the Ukrainian government so there's really nothing wrong with western Mercernaries joining the fray, in the end a good outcome for Ukraine benefits the west.

Outside of internet warriors I have not seen any substantial support for the involvement of boots on the ground for NATO, your whole spiel is based on something nobody was even suggesting. Please read what I said carefully, no where did I say NATO should invade Russia, I said there is no point being sour grapes about any potential NATO involvement as this is exactly what Russia asked for when they chose to start this SMO.

Click to expand...

Outside of some Internet warriors I don't see any Russians complaining about the status quo either.

Its always nato that says "oh no Iran is not allowed to send their stuff to Russia!", "we think North Korea sent ammuonition, where's the outrage???!", "disabling infrastructure = genocide", "Wagner existing is unfair to the west!" and so on ad infinitum.

I mean there are Russian serial moaners like that one ex military whose name evades me right now but participated in the annexation of Crimea and became a favorite of pro Ukrainians because he is critical of the war.

But among the actual Russian state policy? I haven't seen where they ever cried foul about anything

Biscuits said:

View attachment 105620
lul

"they didn't lose it all" copium.

Not if you believe AFU's own reports where they lost 13000 men total... when even NATO mouthpieces say hundreds are lost every day in Bakhmut alone...

For Ukranians, when their own citizens are doing well in saturation attacks, they're the "elite NATO style forces" and "special forces of Azov", yet when they run into determined defense and get ground down, they become "conscripted human meat buying time for the REAL army", and the name Azov is forgotten after most their fighters died in Mariupol.

It is absurd to claim the Ukraine forces at Bakhmut are of any signficant worse quality than rest of the forces when there's not a single report on either Russia or Ukraine side that purports this.

Click to expand...

It's not copium. I'm pro Russian and anti nazi. I'm just saying the ukros didnt lose all their tanks yet so where are they hiding them? If it was my war I would disperse them along the rear lines of the front close enough together they are able to focus on one point, hide them garages warehouses schools hospitals. I'd hide them everywhere until the day of a final push. Russian MOD better be prepared for it because it's comming

Cue the dozen or so western tanks on the way, they will have a one time use offensive army at their disposal and they are going to use it somewhere. Just saying Russia better be prepared for it or ite going to face another humiliation

Biscuits said:

Arent the western mercenaries the exact same? Fighting on behalf of Washington against their government's enemies.

Click to expand...

Yes, western fighters are fighting on behalf of their government, but the western countries are not officially in the war, that makes those western fighters mecenaries. While Russia is an official warring party, that makes Wagners different.

Biscuits said:

Wagner are explicitly not militia but a PMC hired by the Russian government.

Click to expand...

My point is that regardless how these people are hired or volunteered themselves, they are fighting for their own country. Isn't one of the definition of mercenary is that they are not citizens of anyone of the warring countries?

Biscuits said:

I don't think anyone except westerners are complaining about the status quo of mercenaries.

Click to expand...

That is true because only western fighters are truly mercenaries. Making such complain is exactly "贼喊捉贼“ (thief shout catching thief) to deflect the attention.

tankphobia said:

Would you not argue that the West sending their own mercenaries in is also in their best interest? Just as they were invited by the Ukrainian government so there's really nothing wrong with western Mercernaries joining the fray, in the end a good outcome for Ukraine benefits the west.

Click to expand...

That is true but I have stated that I am not arguing against or for sending mercenaries. I am merely pointing out the difference between the two groups of fighters, one is citizen of a warring party, the other is not. Officially western countries are not in the war yet.

From a moral stand point, the two groups are the same, fighting for their perceived self interest. It is for this reason I refrain on judging them. But from a legal stand point, for any given moment, I prefer the proper label. If some day NATO declares war on Russia, then it becomes proper to call those western fighters as soldiers.

memfisa said:

It's not copium. I'm pro Russian and anti nazi. I'm just saying the ukros didnt lose all their tanks yet so where are they hiding them? If it was my war I would disperse them along the rear lines of the front close enough together they are able to focus on one point, hide them garages warehouses schools hospitals. I'd hide them everywhere until the day of a final push. Russian MOD better be prepared for it because it's comming

Cue the dozen or so western tanks on the way, they will have a one time use offensive army at their disposal and they are going to use it somewhere. Just saying Russia better be prepared for it or ite going to face another humiliation

Click to expand...

The big problem with putting them all over the place is fuel and crew... if they are spreaded, you will need to fuel them to meet and go for an objective. You will need to reserve crew too. It's possible but I cannot say practical.

MBT and armored vehicules are clearly not fuel efficients and they don't have unlimited range. If you take all the armored vehicules hidden in a 200km radius to mass them to do a push, you will need to refuel them, setting up huge fuel depots, lots of truck transport.

If you are full logistic unicorn, they are all full of ammo and will all be ready. In reality, a quarter of them after 250km of road will need repairs, another quarter will need towing, a quarter would be discovered and harrassed. Most of them will need ammo and will be possibly half crewed.

Atomicfrog said:

The big problem with putting them all over the place is fuel and crew... if they are spreaded, you will need to fuel them to meet and go for an objective. You will need to reserve crew too. It's possible but I cannot say practical.

MBT and armored vehicules are clearly not fuel efficients and they don't have unlimited range. If you take all the armored vehicules hidden in a 200km radius to mass them to do a push, you will need to refuel them, setting up huge fuel depots, lots of truck transport.

If you are full logistic unicorn, they are all full of ammo and will all be ready. In reality, a quarter of them after 250km of road will need repairs, another quarter will need towing, a quarter would be discovered and harrassed. Most of them will need ammo and will be possibly half crewed.

Click to expand...

I think this fuel and logistic thingy is a red herring.

M1 internal tank 504 gallons, fuel consumption 1.85 gallon/miles, means it can travel on internal fuel for 450 km.

Tank mass 67 tons, if you drop to the train next to the tank 4 tons of diesel then it will last until the next periodic maintanace, when the egnine has to be taken appart for seal replacement.

with 8 tons of fuel it will last until the replacement of the track and bogie wheels. Track weight is 6 tons, so for 8 tons of fuel the same weith of track/wheels/lubricants/seals and so on required.


Means the 67 tons tank for 1800 km range needs 16 - 25 tons of supply, depending on the replacement period of tracks. Doesn't sound terribly complicated from logistical standpoint. The tank transport still represent 60 % of the mass, if we include the road transport vehicle then 80% of the logistic burden is to transport the tank.

tankphobia said:

Even material support from Iran required them to give away su-35s.

Click to expand...

Su-35 may have export slots available since not got any deliveries with Indonesia and Egypt and i don think Su-35 is preferred aircraft over Su-57 for VKS.

Anlsvrthng said:

I think this fuel and logistic thingy is a red herring.

M1 internal tank 504 gallons, fuel consumption 1.85 gallon/miles, means it can travel on internal fuel for 450 km.

Tank mass 67 tons, if you drop to the train next to the tank 4 tons of diesel then it will last until the next periodic maintanace, when the egnine has to be taken appart for seal replacement.

with 8 tons of fuel it will last until the replacement of the track and bogie wheels. Track weight is 6 tons, so for 8 tons of fuel the same weith of track/wheels/lubricants/seals and so on required.


Means the 67 tons tank for 1800 km range needs 16 - 25 tons of supply, depending on the replacement period of tracks. Doesn't sound terribly complicated from logistical standpoint. The tank transport still represent 60 % of the mass, if we include the road transport vehicle then 80% of the logistic burden is to transport the tank.

Click to expand...

So if you have 300 of them.... with 12 types of ammo, 3 types of fuel, 8 types of tires and tracks, 10 types of engines with half of them out of fuel and ammo hidden in a barn without a trained crew 200 km away. Don't forget that you will need to do maintenance on half of them after being successful to gather them where you want to do your assault.

Do you thing it will be a walk in the park and that the ennemy will not know what you are planning ?

Biscuits said:

Outside of some Internet warriors I don't see any Russians complaining about the status quo either.

Its always nato that says "oh no Iran is not allowed to send their stuff to Russia!", "we think North Korea sent ammuonition, where's the outrage???!", "disabling infrastructure = genocide", "Wagner existing is unfair to the west!" and so on ad infinitum.

I mean there are Russian serial moaners like that one ex military whose name evades me right now but participated in the annexation of Crimea and became a favorite of pro Ukrainians because he is critical of the war.

But among the actual Russian state policy? I haven't seen where they ever cried foul about anything

Click to expand...

I think we agree in principle that moralising on both sides is nauseous and it's really just a endless propaganda war between NATO and Russia.

It's quite telling that some members are repeatedly putting words in my mouth rather than addressing the exact wording that I'm using. We'd better move off this topic now since it's getting pretty far off military and into geopolitics.

But I'd digress that since official Russian media sources such as TASS and RT which are commonly cited here are seen as credible, whatever that they report can be counted as official government stance.

That is true because only western fighters are truly mercenaries. Making such complain is exactly "贼喊捉贼“ (thief shout catching thief) to deflect the attention.

Click to expand...

That is true, but the West is obviously permissive of Wagner, otherwise they would label them as a terrorist group which would invite harsher sanctions across all Wagner activity.

Anlsvrthng said:

I think this fuel and logistic thingy is a red herring.

M1 internal tank 504 gallons, fuel consumption 1.85 gallon/miles, means it can travel on internal fuel for 450 km.

Tank mass 67 tons, if you drop to the train next to the tank 4 tons of diesel then it will last until the next periodic maintanace, when the egnine has to be taken appart for seal replacement.

with 8 tons of fuel it will last until the replacement of the track and bogie wheels. Track weight is 6 tons, so for 8 tons of fuel the same weith of track/wheels/lubricants/seals and so on required.


Means the 67 tons tank for 1800 km range needs 16 - 25 tons of supply, depending on the replacement period of tracks. Doesn't sound terribly complicated from logistical standpoint. The tank transport still represent 60 % of the mass, if we include the road transport vehicle then 80% of the logistic burden is to transport the tank.

Click to expand...

The Abrams tank guzzles quite a bit while standing still. An estimate I found via google is that the M1 needs 300 gallons every 8 hours. That's about 3.5 tons of diesel per day.