The War in the Ukraine

tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
The previously posted crashed su-30SM had a Regata jamming pod attached, this is one of the latest jamming pods in use by the Russian forces, losing it this undamaged will mean that the west will know it's full capabilities for future conflicts.
o9khm6p1hgn91.jpg

Honestly this whole war has been a intelligence gold mine for the west on Russian EW capabilities, this is not the first time systems have been captured.
 
Staedler

Staedler

Junior Member
Registered Member
Pmichael said:
That's exactly the point. The Armored Brigade Combat Team is the smallest independent operating basic deployable unit of maneuver in the US Army. Meanwhile the BTG is the Russian counterpart as smallest independent operating maneuver unit. The paper properly explains the fundamental flaws of the BTG concept in a conventional war. Having artillery batteries on that level gives a BTG a remarkable firepower on paper but like stated the fact that they can't sustain any loses is the crucial factor here.
Click to expand...
The point here is what you are saying is meaningless.

Like I said, I could just make a new "independent operating" structure consisting of 20,000 troops. Is ABCT fundamentally flawed because it can't sustain the losses of a 20,000 men strong structure? You're not comparing apples to apples.

If you wanted a meaningful discussion, you could have compared 5-6 BTGs and how they handle losses vs a single ABCT. But you compared 1 BTG vs 1 ABCT, which is nonsense. Just because they're both "smallest independent operating basic deployable unit" doesn't mean they are actually directly comparable.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Pmichael said:
That's exactly the point. The Armored Brigade Combat Team is the smallest independent operating basic deployable unit of maneuver in the US Army. Meanwhile the BTG is the Russian counterpart as smallest independent operating maneuver unit. The paper properly explains the fundamental flaws of the BTG concept in a conventional war. Having artillery batteries on that level gives a BTG a remarkable firepower on paper but like stated the fact that they can't sustain any loses is the crucial factor here.
Click to expand...
The way BTG have been used and conceptualised in their doctrine is wrong.
The way Russia is using them is having them as their mainstay while in reality they should only be fighting as the tip of the spear in lighting attacks to expose weaknesses in an opponents lines.

By having the BTG fighting day in, day out in a grinding war it quickly wears them out and depletes their offensive potential (btw I think they should be increased in size by 1/3rd). Ideally you would want supersized bridages (or downscaled divisions) along with a couple or so BTG. The brigade would be the mainstay (daily grinding war) while the BTG would look at quickly exploiting various holes and punching through the opponent's weakness.

In reality though, Russia went along and transformed their military to basically be a BTG force only lol. Well, the tip of the spear is all good and done, but sometimes you want a bunch of hard stones and shields to keep the lines in order. You can't only have a glass-cannon only force which is heavily focused on offensive operations while being weak defensively
 
P

Pmichael

Junior Member
Staedler said:
The point here is what you are saying is meaningless.

Like I said, I could just make a new "independent operating" structure consisting of 20,000 troops. Is ABCT fundamentally flawed because it can't sustain the losses of a 20,000 men strong structure? You're not comparing apples to apples.

If you wanted a meaningful discussion, you could have compared 5-6 BTGs and how they handle losses vs a single ABCT. But you compared 1 BTG vs 1 ABCT, which is nonsense. Just because they're both "smallest independent operating basic deployable unit" doesn't mean they are actually directly comparable.
Click to expand...

Smallest deployable maneuver unit. US/NATO have a different concept than Russia and the fundamental problems of the BTG as maneuver unit are repeatedly showing in this war.
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Or you could, you know, just lie your arse off.

4 power plants where hit, but the Ukrainians shot down 9 out of 12 Russian missiles fired, so if you believe them that means they blew up the 4th power station themselves then.
Click to expand...
I'm not say that the number claimed of interceptions are true or false... it's just that if you use the same missiles the same way a multiple time for a long time, you give more chances to the ennemy to be accustomed to the weapon system and be able to do interception. It's a bit like the f-117 shootdown in Serbia..

The Ukrainian have support of Nato Awacs and got quite good air supression system still arround. Using all you types all the time give more chances to learn.

The same with Russian claimed interception of HIMARS, at first they were claiming they were hard to intercept and after a while they say they found some good way to intercept some of them.

Ukrainian are pounded each day... interception probably occur and like the patriot missiles'' interceptions'' in the gulf war, ''interception'' doesn't means that the intercepted missiles don't destroy or damage their objectives while going down...
 
S

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
tankphobia said:
The previously posted crashed su-30SM had a Regata jamming pod attached, this is one of the latest jamming pods in use by the Russian forces, losing it this undamaged will mean that the west will know it's full capabilities for future conflicts.
View attachment 97420

Honestly this whole war has been a intelligence gold mine for the west on Russian EW capabilities, this is not the first time systems have been captured.
Click to expand...

You should put up the source, that being Oryx, who apparently can tell a SAP-518SM apart from a standard SAP-518, which is funny given the guys can't tell a BMD-2 apart from a BMD-4M. Also no context for the image, that's just their claim they randomly found the remains of a Flanker nobody accounted for, because thats what you do, apparently.
 
A

anzha

Senior Member
Registered Member
tphuang said:
The point I wanted to make is how does this actually impact things? A lot of Ukrainian casualties in Kherson will seriously affect their ability to sustain war effort.
Click to expand...

I think there is a miss here a bit, so if I may:

Ukraine has always been personnel heavy, but equipment light. They have a LOT of people, but not enough tanks, APCs, machine guns, etc. We have all seen the pictures of Maxim machine guns (!!!) being used by the Ukrainians. If the West resupplies the equipment, the Ukrainians will have the bodies. Those bodies will have been trained as proper troops: we are nearing 7 months of war and not all of the volunteers for the war were moved to the front. There is plenty of evidence the Ukrainians are also rotating troops back and those can be used to train others. The Ukrainian government will have time to train their troops now as Russia is unable to amount major offensives without full mobilization.

I suspect for political reasons full mobilization is not doable. However, I could be wrong. I have been before and will be again.

tphuang said:
From what I can, the Russians fled too quickly for their to be a real degradation in their force structure.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. There is a case for that scenario. I think we need more information. That will probably come in the form of what happens next in Kharkov and Lugansk.

IFF (computer nerd time), the Ukrainian reports are true, it's quite possible the Ukrainians will blitz again somewhere else (perhaps even over the Oskii into Lugansk) and the Russians will be unable to defend. If the Russian withdrawal is true, then the Ukrainians will be unable to do so.

OTOH, it should be noted the Ukrainians did attack Pisky at the same time and that attack failed.

OTGH, we're just going to have to wait and see.

This war should have been over months ago. The Russians ought to have crushed the Ukrainians like a bug. The Russians did not. The how and why and what are going to be studied to no end in the future, both with data and bombastic navel gazing. Time may make it clearer what has happened, but if the Russians are unable to defend more than one front, we are seeing a massive degradation of the Russian army force in Ukraine. If that is truly the case, unless Russia fully mobilizes, the Ukrainians are going to bleed out the Russians faster than the Russians will bleed out the Ukrainians.

People here keep misunderstanding the Ukrainians, their rage and their determination.
 
P

Pmichael

Junior Member
Atomicfrog said:
I'm not say that the number claimed of interceptions are true or false... it's just that if you use the same missiles the same way a multiple time for a long time, you give more chances to the ennemy to be accustomed to the weapon system and be able to do interception. It's a bit like the f-117 shootdown in Serbia..

The Ukrainian have support of Nato Awacs and got quite good air supression system still arround. Using all you types all the time give more chances to learn.

The same with Russian claimed interception of HIMARS, at first they were claiming they were hard to intercept and after a while they say they found some good way to intercept some of them.

Ukrainian are pounded each day... interception probably occur and like the patriot missiles'' interceptions'' in the gulf war, ''interception'' doesn't means that the intercepted missiles don't destroy or damage their objectives while going down...
Click to expand...

Going to be interested to see how well the IRIS-T SLM will do in Ukraine, which are supposed to arrive this month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top