The War in the Ukraine

pmc

Major
Registered Member
It's so sad and kinda infuriating. like how she can even be in warzone in such condition in the first place. She's scheduled to be retired and not modernized soon, fine. But she cant defend herself because of such technical issue.. that's disrespectful to her crews.
there was RF-4 Phantom shot down in Syria in 2012.. After that not much heared about Turkey using F-4 phantoms again there.. the point is one mistake can make older system even modernized one out of action and put more stress on using modern systems. so in the absence of alternative most militaries will use the system they trained on. Russia is fortunate that they didnot perform half backed modernization of Moskova.
same thing happened to Ukraine. they modernized old Systems but not enough . now Ukraine airforce has practically zero role despite taking all the technical manpower and resources in previous years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Well I do scratch my head to be honest.
Can Moscow not find a few thousand extra troops to enter the Ukraine north of Kharkov to secure the border and stabilise that end of the front?
Russia has commitments in other places as well. It has already drawn many troops from other fronts.

There is also the self-imposed restriction of only using professional soldiers and not any conscripts. After all, you can't use conscripts and continue calling this war a "special military operation"
 

Kich

Junior Member
Registered Member
the fighting competency of USSR, especially in the style of warfare seem in Ukraine, where mass is unavailable and fighting style center around relative small maneuvering units that must adapt quickly to highly fluid tactical and logistical situations, was likely highly overrated to start with.

Only some of the problems the russians exhibited in Ukraine can be attributed to post soviet decline and failure to adapt to post cold war evolution in fundamental war fighting environment, Much of the problems actually reflect fundamental structural deficiencies inherited systen implemented by the soviet union

Well I do scratch my head to be honest.
Can Moscow not find a few thousand extra troops to enter the Ukraine north of Kharkov to secure the border and stabilise that end of the front?
They have not formally declared war for some unknown reason. This means they are severely limited in manpower. Professional troops are not involve as much and Putin doesn't want to use conscripts. They could use conscripts to secure captured locations, but nope.

The way the Russians are fighting this prolongs this war unnecessary which is bad for them cuase it gives NATO time to continue to rearm Ukraine and then more time for those weapons to reach the frontlines. At minimum they need 500K troops. 150K is laughably low. There's something going on internally in the Russian decision making and military brass that we don't know and probably is why they are fighting the way they are. Or maybe Russia is just this weak?

Meanwhile you have Ukraine essentially now a mini-NATO proxy backed by a million manpower to pool from.

The argument that Russia is saving its forces for NATO is weak and we all know conventionally they stand no chance against NATO. They have nukes to keep NATO in check so they shouldn't be afraid to use their all forces against Ukraine.

May 9th is the day to watch for. Will they formally declare war and fight this properly? I think they have to if they have any chance of even securing the East and taking the South.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
there was RF-4 Phantom shot down in Syria in 2012.. After that not much heared about Turkey using F-4 phantoms again there.. the point is one mistake can make older system even modernized one out of action and put more stress on using modern systems. so in the absence of alternative most militaries will use the system they trained on. Russia is fortunate that they didnot perform half backed modernization of Moskova.
same thing happened to Ukraine. they modernized old Systems but not enough . now Ukraine airforce has practically zero role despite taking all the technical manpower and resources in previous years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This article makes me think, many Ukrainians were employed by China to help on the J-11/15/16 family, surprising that there was no reversal of technical assistance. I read somewhere that even IAI had consulted with Chengdu for some technical assistance on the Romanian MiG-21.

I guess the big problem would be price since Chinese Flankers are high end equipment…
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
The Soviets would’ve steamrolled present day Ukraine.

In summer of 1945, it took the Soviets 11 days to annihilate a 1 million strong Japanese-Korean army and occupy Manchuko and North Korea. That’s a theatre the size of entire Western Europe and less than a third of time it took the Americans to conquer tiny Iwo Jima defended by a force 50 times smaller.


In manchuria the soviets had three massive advantages:
1. They had recently paid with 11 million lives for, and just received, best lessons which the most tactically proficient land force of the era, the German army, could teach.
2. They had a 3:1 advantage over the japanese in men, vastly greater advantage in tanks, air power and motorized maneuvering capability.
3. they had nearly total strategic surprise, the Japanese did not see the attack coming until the day it occurred.

The Japanese on the other hand, suffered 2 additional massive disadvantages:
1. The japanese army never gained any real modern maneuvering combat experience during all of WWII, thus by 1945 was indisputably, and by some margin, the weakest, least skilled, and most inadequately equipped “modern” army of any combatante in the area large scale maneuvering fiekd battles.
2. Even such as it is, the japanese kwangtung army has been totally hollowed out, with most of its combat units withdrawn to operate in southern china, pulled back to japan for home defense, or distributed in penny pockets to shore up what remained of japanese island defences. The forces that remained consisted largely of military police, security units, railway guards units, administrative troops, and a small smattering of troops withdrawn from other fronts for rest and reequipment. It was the thin hollow shell of the low quality army that faced the Soviets.

As to how the Soviet evaluated their own relative ability to conduct large scale mobile operation in open field battles after war, the Stavka, the Soviets general staff, concluded, under Stalin’s prodding, that the soviet army would be incapable of the duplicating the US army’s 60 division break out from the Normandy beachhead in late August 1944 and push across france to the German border in Sept, because the Soviet army lacked both the organizational skill and quality of staff work required to successfully plan such an operation.


I really doubt the Soviet Union would have stuck to a limited sized operation like this one and would have certainly avoided the whole "brotherly war" without disabling the entirety of the Ukranian communications infraestructure.

Russian tactics aren't even a half-assed attempt at soviet-derivative combined arms tactics. You have tanks going into areas, alone without artillery and air support. That's unthinkable in soviet doctrine.

yes, at least the Soviets would likely have remembered they had no qualitative advantage and would have brought quantity instead.
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
there was RF-4 Phantom shot down in Syria in 2012.. After that not much heared about Turkey using F-4 phantoms again there.. the point is one mistake can make older system even modernized one out of action and put more stress on using modern systems. so in the absence of alternative most militaries will use the system they trained on. Russia is fortunate that they didnot perform half backed modernization of Moskova.

Ah yeah. i think that was the first confirmed kill of Pantsyr.
Still sad tho for the Moskva.

Russia still does not want to call their reserves. And they are seemingly keeping a lot of their professional forces away from combat for rest and rotate them regularly.

They stll very confident i guess. Still tho some fronts e.g Kherson is concerning considering how close Ukrainian forces are.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
They have not formally declared war for some unknown reason. This means they are severely limited in manpower. Professional troops are not involve as much and Putin doesn't want to use conscripts. They could use conscripts to secure captured locations, but nope.

The way the Russians are fighting this prolongs this war unnecessary which is bad for them cuase it gives NATO time to continue to rearm Ukraine and then more time for those weapons to reach the frontlines. At minimum they need 500K troops. 150K is laughably low. There's something going on internally in the Russian decision making and military brass that we don't know and probably is why they are fighting the way they are. Or maybe Russia is just this weak?

Meanwhile you have Ukraine essentially now a mini-NATO proxy backed by a million manpower to pool from.

The argument that Russia is saving its forces for NATO is weak and we all know conventionally they stand no chance against NATO. They have nukes to keep NATO in check so they shouldn't be afraid to use their all forces against Ukraine.

May 9th is the day to watch for. Will they formally declare war and fight this properly? I think they have to if they have any chance of even securing the East and taking the South.
I don't know what difference a "declaration of war" is going to make. They could have a million troops and still be in the same position if they aren't willing to kill. Ukrainians aren't much different to Afghan soldiers, kill enough of them and their morale will drop and they will flee or surrender.

That said, the last few weeks have been much different to how the war started. Whenever I see footage coming from Russia, you can see the Ukrainian side heavily pocketed by artillery fire. Ukrainian logistical issues are starting to have an impact, worsened by how far away the front line is for them.

It's still not perfect - they should be targeting Ukrainian cities and infrastructure in the west properly instead of half arsed with ballistic missiles but I can understand the non military rational behind not doing so.
 

Kich

Junior Member
Registered Member
Even the Russian Wagner PMC are saying Russia needs to mobilize.
On their telegram channel Reverse side of the Medal they say "there will be a mobilization or we will lose the war." They estimate that they need 600K-800K to defeat Ukraine.

It was foolishly naive to even think Russia can achieve anything with just 150K troops agaisnt a 40 million population. US needed 700K for a 25 million Iraq population campaign.
 
Top