The War in the Ukraine

sheogorath said:

Russia retained more remanufacturing and repair plants plus a big chunk of the original manufacturers were also turned into repair plants, so there is likely a surplus refurbishment capacity over newbuild ones.

Click to expand...

Yep. There are production lines dedicated entirely to repairing/refurbishing certain models of tanks in Russia. So it would be way cheaper to utilize those existing lines to improve a T-62.

In the abstract, in a vacuum, it might be better to just build new stuff. But in Russia's existing industrial setup, several refurbishment lines are available [some, if only as job creation/retention programs.] There's even more incentive to refurbish T-62 if there's abundant ammunition and spare parts for them, as well as experience from reservists. [T-62 was deployed in combat as recently at 08.08.08.]

memfisa said:

im not so surprised by that. Its a logical choice really, but these are only 105mm guns and terrible armor. The Canadian Forces deemed them woefully inadequate for anything more than direct fire support during our tour in Afghanistan, totally obsolete for facing modern battlefield. It resulted in their replacement by Leo2s, and as with everything CF procurement, we got shafted on that deal too

Click to expand...

the Canadian army's problem is that it is the size of other army's divisions but it tries to do everything. better to just give up the heavy tanks and focus on less resource intensive capabilities like light infantry, drone operators etc. the key is to be rid of capabilities that are expensive and work on whatever is cheap.

aqh said:

Do you think the VKR will be used more extensively?

Click to expand...

I assume you mean the VKS? The VKS has been conducting frequent sorties in the Avdiivka/Marinka sector and are now dropping FAB 500s. They are also present in the Bakhmut area, but there's little information or footage of them in action.

Zichan said:

What else do you expect in war? Everyone is going to be biased one way or another.

Unlike most analysts, Mike has been several times on the battlefield lines in Ukraine. Just 10 days go he visited Bakhmut to witness first hand the intensity and complexity of the urban combat taking place there at considerable risk to himself.

Click to expand...

Mr. Koffman visited Kherson frontlines too when it was still Russian-occupied. He said he did not believe Russia would leave Kherson without being forcibly evicted by force (i.e., Russia won't give up without a fight). He ended up very wrong...

“I’m skeptical [Russia] will abandon all positions on that side without being forcibly pressed out, but could be wrong on this,” explained Michael Kofman, the director of Russia studies at the Virginia-based think tank CNA.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

In-person experience doesn't mean much when his predictions are as good as a coin flip on one of the most pivotal and central moments of the war.

2nd Kinzhal Attack Hits NATO’s Western Command Center 80 meters Underground, 40 Killed​

IN western Ukraine a Russian Forces Kinzhal struck a bunker extending to 80 metres deep. The RF believes this bunker near Lvov was a NATO strategic command point used to control anti-aircraft systems. It’s still early days but the RF assumes there were up to 300 personnel in the bunker, 40 of which were high ranking foreign specialists, hence we can expect 40 body bags heading west in due course. Unconfirmed in the Nikolaevsk region the RF destroyed four senior militants, and a number of officers and planners.

Phead128 said:

Mr. Koffman visited Kherson frontlines too when it was still Russian-occupied. He said he did not believe Russia would leave Kherson without being forcibly evicted by force (i.e., Russia won't give up without a fight). He ended up very wrong...


In-person experience doesn't mean much when his predictions are as good as a coin flip on one of the most pivotal and central moments of the war.

Click to expand...

He said "forcibly evicted"

The Kherson situation was quite a hindrance for Russia due constant targeting of the bridge by HIMARS and supplying getting a lot harder. On this situation, i think it safe to assume that they were forcibly evicted there

RottenPanzer said:

He said "forcibly evicted"

The Kherson situation was quite a hindrance for Russia due constant targeting of the bridge by HIMARS and supplying getting a lot harder. On this situation, i think it safe to assume that they were forcibly evicted there

Click to expand...

Yep, at Kherson it was the choice of leaving in an orderly manner or getting mauled big time whatever the kill ratio achieved. Without adequate supplying and reinforcements, forces over there would have been exhausted. It was an humiliating but sound choice to leave.

The same choice was available for Ukrainian forces one month ago in Bakhmut but they choose to stay, we will see how it will end.

RottenPanzer said:

He said "forcibly evicted"

The Kherson situation was quite a hindrance for Russia due constant targeting of the bridge by HIMARS and supplying getting a lot harder. On this situation, i think it safe to assume that they were forcibly evicted there

Click to expand...

If they had left the right bank of Kherson sometime between March and September they wouldn't have lost the Kharkov territories. After the dash to Voznesensk failed, it didn't really make sense to keep that part of Kherson. Russia couldn't advance towards Nikolaev or Krivoy Rog, and they probably knew that. I don’t know why they kept those areas apart from a PR issue since they left all the Northern areas way before.

Had they left Kherson earlier the VDV coming from there could’ve held the line in Kharkov since there weren’t any existential supply issues like Kherson, which was in the other side of the Dnieper. Anyway, there will probably be a second round of battles for Kupyansk, Izyum, Liman, etc. in the late Spring/Summer time. Those territories need to be returned for a pincer on Kramatorsk-Slavyansk.

sheogorath said:

Russia retained more remanufacturing and repair plants plus a big chunk of the original manufacturers were also turned into repair plants, so there is likely a surplus refurbishment capacity over newbuild ones.



Turned out a lot of the countries offering Leo2's weren't that willing to give them, but are more willing to pay for repairing Leo 1's i storage.

Click to expand...

IIRC at one point there were pledges of 140+ Leo 2's after the German government gave its approval, but now it appears that Ukraine will be lucky if they get half that many.

Atomicfrog said:

Yep, at Kherson it was the choice of leaving in an orderly manner or getting mauled big time whatever the kill ratio achieved. Without adequate supplying and reinforcements, forces over there would have been exhausted. It was an humiliating but sound choice to leave.

The same choice was available for Ukrainian forces one month ago in Bakhmut but they choose to stay, we will see how it will end.

Click to expand...

yes similar discussions were had briefly at the time but it is a lot more apparent now. russian military leadership had the option of stepping back when such move made military sense, even if politically it didnt look good. in contrast, zelensky would throw out an entire playbook that the ukrainian military and NATO was putting together for the year just to score political points.