The War in the Ukraine

pmc

Major
Registered Member
Subs. Not much in the way of hardware to show yet, but a hell of a lot of their limited budget was devoted to the development of their next gen nuke subs. Also their carrier burnt a lot of cash that would have been far better spent elsewhere.
This ukranian talking. this largest display of active airpower in combat zone for extended period of time when combined attack chopper. this is not even counting cruise missile carriers. There is nothing close to this combat power post covid era.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
According to Ignat, Russia actively uses Belarusian airfields, which are about 430. The aircraft-helicopter ratio has changed since the beginning of the war. It used to be 450 planes and 250 helicopters, today helicopters have increased by 110 units more. Ignat explains this phenomenon with the frequent use of attack aircraft [attack helicopters] in support of Russian ground operations.

In addition to helicopters, Russia uses long-range bombers, fighter-bombers, and attack aircraft. “Despite all its problems and the lack of a sufficient number of high-precision weapons, Moscow managed to replenish losses, and the air force continues to torment the Ukrainian army,” Ignat said in his statement. According to him, the Ukrainian armed forces are experiencing difficulties against low-altitude unguided missiles fired from Ka-52 helicopters.

This Mi35 crew was doing combat sorties since Sept 5 on avg 5 or 6 in the region of Kharkov
i think there will be classified versions of the battles for customers that Russia is going to market these systems.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Given this, what's their way out now? Obviously, Russia doesn't have the resources to mount large offensives and what they currently hold is just about all they're going to get. NATO wants to fight this to the last Ukrainian and Ukraine is happy to oblige, so what's Russia's response?

Russia’s response is to not try to win this militarily, but economically.

Right now, they don’t need to win on the battlefield, they just need to not loose.

Keep up the pressure and attrition NATO weapons and ammo as fast as NATO can pump them into Ukraine while keeping its own combat losses, especially manpower, down as low as possible; while starving the Euros of energy and wait for the EU to collapse into internal chaos and infighting and/or stab Ukraine in the back to end the war before it ends their economies.

That is why Russia is taking its sweet time advancing, yet quick to withdraw and abandon equipment in favour of saving their troops’ lives whenever it looks like the Ukrainians might force them into a fair or even disadvantaged fight.

This is also why NATO had the Ukrainians make these crazy hailmarry offensives, to try to end the war before winter hits and the full economic damage is done. It’s also why all the crazies are coming out of the woodworks to suggest invading Russia itself. Someone is envious of Russia’s oil and gas fields again. That’s what the Ukraine gambit was all about from the start. Although it’s turned on it’s head where the Russians are absolutely crushing the economics war while massively underperforming on the battlefield while NATO is now desperate for an impossible lightning victory to stave off economic disaster.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
This ukranian talking. this largest display of active airpower in combat zone for extended period of time when combined attack chopper. this is not even counting cruise missile carriers. There is nothing close to this combat power post covid era.


This Mi35 crew was doing combat sorties since Sept 5 on avg 5 or 6 in the region of Kharkov
i think there will be classified versions of the battles for customers that Russia is going to market these systems.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hit me up when all the top end new fixed wing multirole fighters start pulling their weight instead of leaving all the heavy lifting to the rotor wing attack helicopters and Frogfoots.
 

pmc

Major
Registered Member
Hit me up when all the top end new fixed wing multirole fighters start pulling their weight instead of leaving all the heavy lifting to the rotor wing attack helicopters and Frogfoots.
atgms/rockets from chopper/Su-25 can more efficiently destroy much more armor and vehicles per sortie.

this was written on a ukranian site that i saved. why will adding fighters make a difference. infact flying at medium altitude will further disperse the moving target making it even more ineffective as they can observe missile launches from such distance. people here are underestimating the technological level of NATO.

it is impossible for the Ukrainian forces to shoot down high-speed Russian missiles, such as the Kh-22, Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, P-800 Oniks and 9K720 Iskander (ballistic missile system).

On the other hand, Ukrainian complexes use non-standard tactics to shoot down cruise and aviation missiles, such as the Kh-101, Kh-59, Kh-32,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and others, whose speed does not exceed 800 km/h
.

These are high-tech programmed missiles that travel low, adapt to the terrain, fly in riverbeds, and can change course.

“We use all possible and impossible means, even non-standard ones, to counter these missiles. No country has ever faced such massive enemy strikes. The Ukrainian Air Force, the Air Defense Forces of the Ground Forces and other units face such challenges every day and try to find different methods to shoot down enemy missiles.

We call this the art of war, military cunning, a non-standard approach. Russia is numerically and technologically superior, but we are on our land, we have a strong fighting spirit, we have nowhere else to go, and we will implement any solution that might protect our people and our country from the Russian horde.”
“Let’s say if a Tu-22 loaded with unguided bombs or a Tu-22 loaded with a 600km range bomb (about half of Ukraine’s territory) takes off from Russia or Belarus, then the alert must be activated according to the flight distance, even before these missiles are launched. If we get information that Kalibr missiles will be launched from the Black Sea and we know that these missiles can travel approximately 2,500 km, we calculate their route accordingly.

But, we know that these missiles can change course, so we must work with a special algorithm, which calculates all possible strike zones… and then the alert is activated. If missiles travel from the Caspian Sea (which means a range of 5,500 km) then the alert is activated all across Ukraine.
In such cases, they can strike anywhere, especially when five or six Tu-95 or Tu-160 planes take off, each carrying from eight to twelve killer missiles.”
 

muddie

Junior Member
On partial or full mobilization, should also add that if Russia were to mobilize (especially a fully mobilization), then Russia would need to advance beyond Ukraine itself, take over Baltic states and maybe more to offset the costs in additional lives and resources spent.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Given this, what's their way out now? Obviously, Russia doesn't have the resources to mount large offensives and what they currently hold is just about all they're going to get. NATO wants to fight this to the last Ukrainian and Ukraine is happy to oblige, so what's Russia's response?
Russia should be happy to oblige as well. Nothing wrong with fighting NATO to the last Ukrainian.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Given this, what's their way out now? Obviously, Russia doesn't have the resources to mount large offensives and what they currently hold is just about all they're going to get. NATO wants to fight this to the last Ukrainian and Ukraine is happy to oblige, so what's Russia's response?

I mostly agree with PLAWolfie's assessment, but I also think people are way overhyping the recent Ukrainian advances and underestimating Russian capabilities (again).

Russians are retreating for the same reason the Ukrainians retreated before. This stretch of land is indefensible. The geography favors the side that has the offensive momentum, but we should remember that momentum don't last forever and swings between the two sides.

The difference between the Russian retreat and the Ukrainian retreat is that the Ukrainians took a lot more losses in both their retreat and their advance.

Despite what many think, NATO supplies won't last forever. Europe isn't going to have an industry without Russian gas, and the supply line from the US needs to cross the Atlantic Ocean and the European continent. Russia has the logistic advantage here, and slowly grinding down the Ukrainian war machine is a perfectly viable strategy.
 

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
I have been quite puzzled at the unfolding of the Kharkov offensive. The Ukrainians, with a relatively small force of 9000, attacked. The Russians have known for a long time that this offensive was coming. They have many ways to exact a price of the Ukrainian troops. Minefields, artillery fire on incoming troops. But the high commands of the Russian military ordered their troops not to engage and just retreated. This comes after the heels of stunning success at the Kherson area. Talk of the area losing its strategic importance also did not address some of the points. Why did the Russians not simply retreated earlier in a more orderly fashion? Why did they not even try to cutoff the Ukrainian troops like so many times in the past? All the while, the Russians are hosting war games in the Far East with troops that they can deploy here. On the other hand, there were no significant battles so the Russians don't lose that many troops.

A thought experiment exposed a different reason why this could be the case. Imagine if the Ukrainian counter-offensives had been an object failure as it happened earlier in Kherson. Having spent their wat on the offensive, the Ukrainians would not be in a position to hold back the Russians. As it was, the Donbass theater was going very slowly be decidedly on the Russian favor. I was wondering why did it take this long for the Russians to make progress. Once things cracked, Ukraine stands to lose all of Donbass and the battle would quickly push to the Dnipro river. Couple with the failure of the offensive, war support would dry up in the West and Ukraine would be strongly pressured to fold as it was impacting the economies of Europe and to a less extend, the U.S. The whole thing would wrap up before the winter of 2022. However, since Ukraine folded, the West would not have to provide any concession to Russia. However, if Russia were to lose to the Ukrainians during their so called counteroffensive, there would be continue support of the war from the West and the whole thing would drag to the winter and beyond. Ukraine is just a platform. Russia needs concessions from the West. He needs Ukraine to stay in the war until winter. He needs the West not to fold too early. Call me crazy, but I think Putin sees signs that Ukraine is about to throw in the towel and this is his way of keeping Ukraine and the West in the fight.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I have been quite puzzled at the unfolding of the Kharkov offensive. The Ukrainians, with a relatively small force of 9000, attacked. The Russians have known for a long time that this offensive was coming. They have many ways to exact a price of the Ukrainian troops. Minefields, artillery fire on incoming troops. But the high commands of the Russian military ordered their troops not to engage and just retreated. This comes after the heels of stunning success at the Kherson area. Talk of the area losing its strategic importance also did not address some of the points. Why did the Russians not simply retreated earlier in a more orderly fashion? Why did they not even try to cutoff the Ukrainian troops like so many times in the past? All the while, the Russians are hosting war games in the Far East with troops that they can deploy here. On the other hand, there were no significant battles so the Russians don't lose that many troops.

A thought experiment exposed a different reason why this could be the case. Imagine if the Ukrainian counter-offensives had been an object failure as it happened earlier in Kherson. Having spent their wat on the offensive, the Ukrainians would not be in a position to hold back the Russians. As it was, the Donbass theater was going very slowly be decidedly on the Russian favor. I was wondering why did it take this long for the Russians to make progress. Once things cracked, Ukraine stands to lose all of Donbass and the battle would quickly push to the Dnipro river. Couple with the failure of the offensive, war support would dry up in the West and Ukraine would be strongly pressured to fold as it was impacting the economies of Europe and to a less extend, the U.S. The whole thing would wrap up before the winter of 2022. However, since Ukraine folded, the West would not have to provide any concession to Russia. However, if Russia were to lose to the Ukrainians during their so called counteroffensive, there would be continue support of the war from the West and the whole thing would drag to the winter and beyond. Ukraine is just a platform. Russia needs concessions from the West. He needs Ukraine to stay in the war until winter. He needs the West not to fold too early. Call me crazy, but I think Putin sees signs that Ukraine is about to throw in the towel and this is his way of keeping Ukraine and the West in the fight.

Just because you see a punch coming doesn't mean you can block it.

The Occam's Razor answer is that the Russians held on as long as they could, and retreated when they were in danger of being out flanked.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I mostly agree with PLAWolfie's assessment, but I also think people are way overhyping the recent Ukrainian advances and underestimating Russian capabilities (again).

Russians are retreating for the same reason the Ukrainians retreated before. This stretch of land is indefensible. The geography favors the side that has the offensive momentum, but we should remember that momentum don't last forever and swings between the two sides.

The difference between the Russian retreat and the Ukrainian retreat is that the Ukrainians took a lot more losses in both their retreat and their advance.

Despite what many think, NATO supplies won't last forever. Europe isn't going to have an industry without Russian gas, and the supply line from the US needs to cross the Atlantic Ocean and the European continent. Russia has the logistic advantage here, and slowly grinding down the Ukrainian war machine is a perfectly viable strategy.

It's indefensible because the majority of people are not pro Russian. The Russians know that and that's why they don't have regulars and volunteer brigades guarding unlike the east and the south. All they have were valuable SF. They figured out its better to deploy their SF forces somewhere instead of letting them idle or die. The pro Russians appear to have been evacuated as much of the SF.
 
Top