The War in the Ukraine

I don't know if there's been much release of information about the battlefield performance of NATO weapons. Western press releases tend to say that the Ukrainians thank them for x artillery piece, etc..., which are more accurate than their legacy Soviet equipment.

The actual information we're getting seems to concern the serviceability of the weapons: M777 has given Ukraine significant troubles. There are reports that they need to be sent back to NATO facilities for maintenance after a pretty short time in operation. Same with the PZH2000.

It seems as if UA is surprised by how quickly these artillery pieces require depot-level servicing. [With the M777, that's understandable, as it is of a lighter construction.] Maybe UA is treating the M777 and PZH2000 as hard as they would treat their own Soviet equipment? As opposed as to how NATO doctrine would use it? That's why the PZH2000 article suggests to me.

Reminds me of what I read about the Leopard 2 tanks. They apparently require storage in tents during winter exercises, which may have come as a surprise to the Polish army.

This gear all might be more precise, nicer to use, nice smooth powered traverse in the PHZ2000 and Leopard 2 turrets. So long as they are working. I guess this equipment requires more care than WP equivalents? Former WP countries accustomed to half-maintaining their equipment, running it hard, and still expecting it to mostly work?

Surpluswarrior said:

I don't know if there's been much release of information about the battlefield performance of NATO weapons. Western press releases tend to say that the Ukrainians thank them for x artillery piece, etc..., which are more accurate than their legacy Soviet equipment.

The actual information we're getting seems to concern the serviceability of the weapons: M777 has given Ukraine significant troubles. There are reports that they need to be sent back to NATO facilities for maintenance after a pretty short time in operation. Same with the PZH2000.

It seems as if UA is surprised by how quickly these artillery pieces require depot-level servicing. [With the M777, that's understandable, as it is of a lighter construction.] Maybe UA is treating the M777 and PZH2000 as hard as they would treat their own Soviet equipment? As opposed as to how NATO doctrine would use it? That's why the PZH2000 article suggests to me.

Reminds me of what I read about the Leopard 2 tanks. They apparently require storage in tents during winter exercises, which may have come as a surprise to the Polish army.

This gear all might be more precise, nicer to use, nice smooth powered traverse in the PHZ2000 and Leopard 2 turrets. So long as they are working. I guess this equipment requires more care than WP equivalents? Former WP countries accustomed to half-maintaining their equipment, running it hard, and still expecting it to mostly work?

Click to expand...

It could also be a means to swap in new equipment for damaged or destroyed ones, without on paper increasing the numbers.

Surpluswarrior said:

The actual information we're getting seems to concern the serviceability of the weapons: M777 has given Ukraine significant troubles. There are reports that they need to be sent back to NATO facilities for maintenance after a pretty short time in operation. Same with the PZH2000.

It seems as if UA is surprised by how quickly these artillery pieces require depot-level servicing. [With the M777, that's understandable, as it is of a lighter construction.] Maybe UA is treating the M777 and PZH2000 as hard as they would treat their own Soviet equipment? As opposed as to how NATO doctrine would use it? That's why the PZH2000 article suggests to me.

Click to expand...

Despite being excellent equipment, the Ukrainians have much more experience with Soviet equipment which is usually cruder equipment, less technological and less dependent on maintenance due to its extremely simple operation and construction material, except for the anti-tank weapons that the Ukrainians have been training since 2017. The M777 had great availability for those who used it in recent wars and it is something that is not having in Ukraine, because due to the lack of other howitzers, they must be using the M777 until it opens its beak in the front line and the M777 does not it was built for that.

The M777 is a fast-acting light howitzer at 155mm, not a heavy howitzer that aims for sustained fire for long periods of time, as was the case with the M198 or the recent ATHOS and FH-2000, with honorable mention to Denel's G6 . That is why there will always be a need to combine the two types of howitzers. This type of use has not been seen anywhere by the M777.

In fact, there is even a project within the DoD about heavy howitzers with barrels above 52 calibers, including 57 calibers, for fire support. When the US Army was offered a self-propelled under-wheel howitzer based on the M777, it was denied due to its inability to sustain sustained fire with large loads for an extended period of time. The rest of the equipment suffer the same harm due to low experience. Apparently the ones doing good damage are the HIMARS and I highly doubt it's Ukrainian operators using them.

zhangjim said:

In other words, the Germans seem to have a very problematic understanding of the war.

In the past, there were many video games and magazines that portrayed Western weapons as excellent, but in the future I think they will have to adjust the in-game data downward based on their actual performance.

Click to expand...

Surpluswarrior said:

he actual information we're getting seems to concern the serviceability of the weapons: M777 has given Ukraine significant troubles. There are reports that they need to be sent back to NATO facilities for maintenance after a pretty short time in operation. Same with the PZH2000.

Click to expand...

I think part of the problem, at least with more recent post-Cold War equipment and modernizations of Cold War ones is that the west has forgotten what a high intensity, near-peer war looks like and how they are fought outside of simulations.

30 years of the Global War on Terror, fancy name for colonial policing, seems to have withered their ability to make equipment able to sustain continued heavy use more than 50km away from the nearest McDonalds, depots with weapons manufacturer's contractors and high speed wifi

Surpluswarrior said:

I don't know if there's been much release of information about the battlefield performance of NATO weapons. Western press releases tend to say that the Ukrainians thank them for x artillery piece, etc..., which are more accurate than their legacy Soviet equipment.

The actual information we're getting seems to concern the serviceability of the weapons: M777 has given Ukraine significant troubles. There are reports that they need to be sent back to NATO facilities for maintenance after a pretty short time in operation. Same with the PZH2000.

It seems as if UA is surprised by how quickly these artillery pieces require depot-level servicing. [With the M777, that's understandable, as it is of a lighter construction.] Maybe UA is treating the M777 and PZH2000 as hard as they would treat their own Soviet equipment? As opposed as to how NATO doctrine would use it? That's why the PZH2000 article suggests to me.

Reminds me of what I read about the Leopard 2 tanks. They apparently require storage in tents during winter exercises, which may have come as a surprise to the Polish army.

This gear all might be more precise, nicer to use, nice smooth powered traverse in the PHZ2000 and Leopard 2 turrets. So long as they are working. I guess this equipment requires more care than WP equivalents? Former WP countries accustomed to half-maintaining their equipment, running it hard, and still expecting it to mostly work?

Click to expand...

Weapon systems optimised to be lights, precises, with lots of automation, electronics and exotic materials are excellent for fast conflicts with excellent logistics. But that kind of pinnacle systems don't have margins for misuses. Soviet wepons where mostly build heavy and crude with a lot of structural and operationnal margins.

For example, the m777 in Afghanistan were mostly static and used within FOB to shot at low intensity targets. In Ukraine it's intense fire on the run and under counter barrages in horrible roads without anytime to do maintenances. You also need training for maintenance that the Ukrainian certainly didn't have the time to do.

Just the commentaries of Russian pilots in 1992 when they got a ride with the blue angels f-18 can give some cue. They said that the American planes where splendid and like exotic supercars but not war machines. Right now Nato equipments are in war situation and yes they probably works splendidly until their high maintenance needs make them unusable.

Reading the accounts of Westerners who have been able to use both types of equipment, the Soviet equipment is rougher in operation, not as finely tuned. But is better able to operate in conditions of poor supply - the Western equipment is understood as requiring constant engagement with long supply lines.

Western literature about Soviet equipment tends to describe it as cruder, but also as requiring less training [we're talking export artillery and armour here, not S300]. It fits into the whole 'conscript peasant army' caricature we have in NATO countries. There's also occasional talk about 'ruggedness' and 'robustness.'

Soviets seemed to design their army partly for the kind of conflict that is happening in Ukraine right now. Where vehicle losses in the thousands are expected, and constant artillery barrage over 1,000 km fronts for months. Battlefield equipment will simply disappear into a black hole. You need lots of it, needs to be relatively easy to maintain, produce, and train on. Be able to pull earlier generations out of storage, hopefully having similarity (e.g. T62, T72) with one another.

Russia has created conditions in this conflict that are advantageous with regard to its legacy stock of Soviet weapons. Without them, they could not maintain this artillery barrage, or send hundreds of new tanks in.

The reality is complex - a lot of the backbone of Soviet equipment was relatively simple and rugged. They also had more complex systems, many of which were never exported. Technological limitations made some things more difficult to keep operational for them - their later MIGs and SU needed more frequent engine replacements because of lower operating hours.

The West no doubt has many rugged artillery and armour systems that it could put into Ukraine. The M777, as indicated, is not meant to be a front-line, fire-all-day trench howitzer. But various issues are preventing them from sending their 'best' into Ukraine right now, so Ukraine gets a lot of suboptimal stuff like M777 and M113. Plus experimental systems like Switchblade. HIMARS works, but is operating in small numbers. It risks getting consumed in Ukraine like everything else sent in.

Surpluswarrior said:

The West no doubt has many rugged artillery and armour systems that it could put into Ukraine. The M777, as indicated, is not meant to be a front-line, fire-all-day trench howitzer.

Click to expand...

The US pretty much switched to an all M109, M118 and M777 Army, so I don't think they have anything else more rugged to give to the Ukranians unless they start pulling M114 and M198 from Museums or pay other countries for theirs.

Surpluswarrior said:

...

Soviets seemed to design their army partly for the kind of conflict that is happening in Ukraine right now. Where vehicle losses in the thousands are expected, and constant artillery barrage over 1,000 km fronts for months. Battlefield equipment will simply disappear into a black hole. You need lots of it, needs to be relatively easy to maintain, produce, and train on. Be able to pull earlier generations out of storage, hopefully having similarity (e.g. T62, T72) with one another.

Click to expand...

You mean WW3 scenario a war with NATO which is exactly what we are seeing before us? What did the West build their equipment for? Fighting sandal wearing terrorists and leave all their equipment for insurgents who can't read worth several billions and has a "cooldown" timer before they can use them again?

I don't want to get into stereotypes, or unnecessarily denigrate any equipment. Both NATO and Soviet-derived equipment is capable of winning a war.

But yes, I would say that Soviets envisioned one form of WWIII being an attritional war. They had to simplify production as best as possible, since they potentially had to fight the entire Western world.

NATO equipment can be quite capable, but can be hungrier for maintenance and supplies. Downtime. Just look at the USAF readiness rate. Not good. And in their rush to introduce hardware in the 1980s, they were declaring readiness of 50-60% as "operational." Which was a lower standard than previous.

Active and former NATO soldiers like to contribute to on-line discussions, and one common theme is that equipment wears out quickly during exercises. Like, after 3.5 weeks, there's no more air support. Ground vehicles needing overhaul already. And initial readiness is not always great. During a Cold War mobilization, much ground equipment would be left behind, simply being unready.

What gets me is how surprised Western press and military 'analysts' seem to be at Russia's artillery stocks. Not just the new missiles, but they've been hoping the Soviet artillery stock and barrels run out. They didn't seem to believe that so much existed. Soviet Union actually seemed to be preparing for a real, mass conventional [or semi-nuclear] conflict. I'm not sure how ready NATO really was for Ukraine-styled WWIII over the scale of all Europe.


EDIT:

And yes, I do get the sense that pushing fascists out of Ukraine in a large conventional war is something that Soviet planners could have envisaged. Although this is still a "limited" war. One that is part of a much larger geopolitical conflict.

Surpluswarrior said:

And yes, I do get the sense that pushing fascists out of Ukraine in a large conventional war is something that Soviet planners could have envisaged. Although this is still a "limited" war. One that is part of a much larger geopolitical conflict.

Click to expand...

Why would the soviets have any plans or envisioning such a scenario? Ukraine and the USSR pretty much got dissolved within the same timeframe. Russia probably had their own contingency plans but I doubt the Soviets had any sort of things like that.