The War in the Ukraine

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Hitting power infrastructure alone is unlikely to stop Ukrainians from fighting anyhow, I don't think Russia can actually stop western arms from flowing into the front lines. The US couldn't do it in the middle east so why would Russia be able to?
I don't think that you can compare US in ME with Russia in Ukraine.

In ME US was facing guerilla war parties who move their weapons from almost every point of the borders, through all kinds of roads mostly dirty road, even tracks not marked on maps. The weapons involved are small arms that a ducky can carry. The targets are everywhere or nowhere.

Ukraine so far is still fighting a conventional war, transporting heavy weapons through well maintained and well marked road and railways. These can be better targeted. Repairing a road may be easy taking few hours, but a collapsed railway tunnel or bridge would take significant amount of time.

It is more appropriate to compare with US bombing of North Vietnam. In that case, north of 19th parallel line of Vietnam was off limit, so Vietnam could maintain weapon import from China. But in Ukraine, there is no such limit. Unless US can set western Ukraine as off limit to Russian bombing, Russia can do better than US in Vietnam. Of course, Russia doesn't have that much bombs that US had, but that is another question.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
As I said before, Russia is more than capable of disabling all critical infrastructure in Ukraine. If their main objective was "annihilation", they would've targeted dams, bridges, fuel stations, food processing factories loading and unloading facilities in ports and train stations, water and gas distribution facilities, heating facilities, critical elements of the power grid, all sorts of communication towers, regional and central decision making centers, sewer water treatement facilities, food and medicine depots, etc. They can even justify it by claiming that Zelensky has plans to eventually mobilize the entire population (though they don't need to given all those sanctions). This could easily be more devastating to ukraine than several tactical nukes. The fact they haven't destroyed even some of the targets I mentioned means they feel no real pressure on them. Russia appears to have some sort of a plan (or plans) in this war. The strikes on powerplants were probably a punishment to Ukraine for being "naughty" (for lack of a better word).
Sorry for the long rant.
Agreed, the plan seems to be to try and win the war by doing as little as possible.

The strikes that occurred today are only good if they are repeated every day for the rest of the war. Otherwise it'll just be a one off until the next successful Ukrainian action.
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
I don't think that you can compare US in ME with Russia in Ukraine.

In ME US was facing guerilla war parties who move their weapons from almost every point of the borders, through all kinds of roads mostly dirty road, even tracks not marked on maps. The weapons involved are small arms that a ducky can carry. The targets are everywhere or nowhere.

Ukraine so far is still fighting a conventional war, transporting heavy weapons through well maintained and well marked road and railways. These can be better targeted. Repairing a road may be easy taking few hours, but a collapsed railway tunnel or bridge would take significant amount of time.

It is more appropriate to compare with US bombing of North Vietnam. In that case, north of 19th parallel line of Vietnam was off limit, so Vietnam could maintain weapon import from China. But in Ukraine, there is no such limit. Unless US can set western Ukraine as off limit to Russian bombing, Russia can do better than US in Vietnam. Of course, Russia doesn't have that much bombs that US had, but that is another question.
In the early stages of the war Ukraine was able to hold of the Russian assault at their strongest at great human cost but using mostly infantry portable weapons, if the resurgence in Russian manpower put them in the same position again, I don't see how they can't fallback on the tried and true even without heavy vehicles.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
In the early stages of the war Ukraine was able to hold of the Russian assault at their strongest at great human cost but using mostly infantry portable weapons, if the resurgence in Russian manpower put them in the same position again, I don't see how they can't fallback on the tried and true even without heavy vehicles.
This is where the recent targeting of power, fuel and data comes in. Infantry in the winter is ineffective without having secure sources of warmth from electricity or burning fuel, and won't be able to move around much without fuel, and won't be situationally aware in bad weather without datalinks.

Ukraine isn't tropical Vietnam, you can sleep outside in Vietnam almost year round, you can wear nothing but a shirt, you don't need a fire, you don't even need to bring all that much water as you can drink rainwater. Ukraine is an environment not compatible with unaided human life during the winter.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
191 missiles launched today, according this account


At the moment, Ukraine supplies more electricity to other countries than it receives:

Which are mostly supplied by the nuclear power plants in Western Ukraine which weren't hit in the attack. for obvious reasons. Most of the attacks in this area not involving thermal powerplants was done against substations which retransmit energy to the rest of the country, which also means they can't really receive energy from the rest of europe either.

Devastating HIMARS/M270 strike against Russian artillery unit.

Pretty sure there old attacks in that video compilation in your second link. Which explains why no date or location are given, lol

One of the replies does give a location for the MSTA strike, which when you look at the map, is currently part of the territory controlled by Ukraine close to Lyman, further indicating these videos are old.
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
In the early stages of the war Ukraine was able to hold of the Russian assault at their strongest at great human cost but using mostly infantry portable weapons, if the resurgence in Russian manpower put them in the same position again, I don't see how they can't fallback on the tried and true even without heavy vehicles.
Did they fought most of the wars with mostly infantry weapons ever? They started with their own soviet era heavy weapons. After loosing them, they were pushed back by Russians, then they are supplied by western heavy weapons enabling them to pushed back Russians. I don't see them ever winning battles without heavy weapons. Let's be realistic, nobody could gain or hold a piece of land without heavy weapons, the Vietnamese (and Chinese in WWII) guerillas couldn't do it, Ukrainian won't do any better.
 
Top