The War in the Ukraine

abc123 said:

Try to imagine if say US miltary is in war against Ukraine. There wouldn't be moving convoys, because all would be destroyed and US forces would be in Russian border by the end of first month. End of story.
That's the way such things are done. Not this.

Click to expand...

US had not gone to war with any country with decent air defense network. And there is good reason for such decision.

You can say what you like about Ukraine. But it had inherited USSR air defence network that was aimed at whole NATO. 250+ S-300 launchers and hundreds of BUKs are not joke. Especially considering that it is not export models. There is no European country that have such dense air defense network.

Tam said:

In this case, the tank is teetering on the edge of obsolescence in concept, by drones, ATGMs, and guided artillery. See all those trenches? Mines? See what happens to tank that runs over mines?

Click to expand...

Tank isn't really. It's current vulnerability is lower than was the case when most spectacular blitzkriegs were made, and lower still than compared to when it came into existence in later ww1.

abc123 said:

Try to imagine if say US miltary is in war against Ukraine. There wouldn't be moving convoys, because all would be destroyed and US forces would be in Russian border by the end of first month. End of story.
That's the way such things are done. Not this.

Click to expand...

The United States’ shock and awe doctrine which includes the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is a campaign of terror and mass destruction. Yes it leads to the quick capitulation of a hostile state and their inability to mobilize further fighting age men, but what do you think happens to the latter after the peace deal is signed?

They all turn into insurgents and blend into the civilian population.

Unless you are willing to mobilize hundreds of thousands of soldiers to occupy, garrison, and police the humanitarian disaster you have just created, you’re going to have an endless quagmire on your hands.

Which is exactly what happened to America in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The Russians to their credit understand the long term consequences of unleashing unrestricted destruction on a civilian population they intend to win over to their side, and have chosen a long and careful war with justification for every escalation of violence in order to undermine the credibility and popularity of the Zelensky regime.

For military planners focused on a rapid victory at all costs, this seems like the unwanted involvement of politics into the battlefield hampering generals.

Yet the last thing Russia wants is to fight a decades long insurgency trying to garrison hostile territory and a population which hates them. Let’s see who gets overthrown first: Putin or Zelensky.

tank3487 said:

US had not gone to war with any country with decent air defense network. And there is good reason for such decision.

You can say what you like about Ukraine. But it had inherited USSR air defence network that was aimed at whole NATO. 250+ S-300 launchers and hundreds of BUKs are not joke. Especially considering that it is not export models. There is no European country that have such dense air defense network.

Click to expand...

Iraq had no decent air defence network in 1991? Serbia in 1999?

Yeah right, it's allways some excuse for the Russians- if not export models ( and we have at least here in Ukraine saw that Soviet models are destroyed as easily as export ones ) then it's air defence network ( where's Russian vaunted S-400 btw- how come Ukrainean Air Force still exists? ) or something else...

The fact remains- if the US was attacking Ukraine instead of Russia, by the May 1st 2022, US troops would be in Lwow, Ukrainean armed forces destroyed and US losses minimal. As allways.

Bergepanzer-2 ARV in Ukrainian Army service.

abc123 said:

The fact remains- if the US was attacking Ukraine instead of Russia, by the May 1st 2022, US troops would be in Lwow, Ukrainean armed forces destroyed and US losses minimal. As allways.

Click to expand...

That's actually not a fact; you need to check the definition of a fact. That's called an imaginary scenario followed by an imaginary result. Imaginary is actually the opposite of a fact. And most people here thought Russia would do the same. It goes along the same lines as, "If I was in that fight instead of Emelianenko, that guy would have died; that's a fact."

Also, from recent American history, a US vs Ukraine fight would probably be more like American generals grimacing and sucking their teeth for a few minutes before recommending sanctions only and then finding a reason to pick a fight with a country like Sudan instead.

manqiangrexue said:

That's actually not a fact; you need to check the definition of a fact. That's called an imaginary scenario followed by an imaginary result. Imaginary is actually the opposite of a fact. And most people here thought Russia would do the same. It goes along the same lines as, "If I was in that fight instead of Emelianenko, that guy would have died; that's a fact."

Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought so too. But, after reality check- I'm not ashamed to say that I learned a thing or two about Russia and it's capabilities. Why most people on this forum still has such inflated opinion on Russia- it's beyond my comprehension.

About the facts- US during the Gulf War defeated Iraq by using 3 armoured, 2 mechanised, 2 airborne and 2 marine divisions. How many divisions used Russia in 2022 not to defeat Ukraine?

abc123 said:

Try to imagine if say US miltary is in war against Ukraine. There wouldn't be moving convoys, because all would be destroyed and US forces would be in Russian border by the end of first month. End of story.

Click to expand...

Russia may not want to attack every convoy to see where it ends up and it may also reveal early ISR deficiencies why the spot even exist that makes convoy ends up there. i am sure the strategy behind cruise missiles on fix target is this approach to look at end point where the skills soldiers will be using the equipment.

abc123 said:

That's the way such things are done. Not this.

Click to expand...

This is certainly not how things done. It is not in Russia interest to shorten the war. certain things are not directly said but need to be observe through third party and that party be highly credible in word matters.
the point i am making with this video of extremely low altitude pass with practical load as it is showing what was shown to Arabic media years ago in theory so there is degree of confidence about newer models of this chopper what they say about will be closer to reality.

similar situation will develop with other weopons that are entering soon and videos are made of it. 300kg of Oniks, 10,000kg payload of Su-57. now we cannot know ISR ability of Su-57 but it should match best of anything.

abc123 said:

Iraq had no decent air defence network in 1991? Serbia in 1999?

Click to expand...

They were not backed by 24/7 external AWACS and all the borders were practically sealed. even Syria turned against Irak.

Gloire_bb said:

Tank isn't really. It's current vulnerability is lower than was the case when most spectacular blitzkriegs were made, and lower still than compared to when it came into existence in later ww1.

Click to expand...

It's less vulnerable, more capable but at the same time incredibly expensive compared to tanks in older generation. I don't think any nation could churn out the newest tanks by the thousands like they used to do, since both production and training is much more compliced due to technological improvements. Hence you see both the Soviets and USA store tanks by the thousands.

In general tanks are just a lot less disposable than they used to be.