The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
No. An Iskander is somewhat easy to replace for Russia. An air defense system is really hard to replace for Ukraine. More importantly, an air defense system threatens fighter jets and hinders the air campaign just by existing. If there are no other means, using a TBM to take out an area air defense system is a great trade-off.
Have you ever tried to load a 40 kg piece of metal into the cuck of a lathe ?
For a 5 kg shell the loading is a single person job, for a 40 kg shell it is three person job. Or a crane, 3 meters high monster industrial robot or whatever.
And now imagine the blacksmith tools for it.
It means say a 20 person team , in a 300 sqm workshop with small machines can make 1000 shells in a shift, but for 6" shells a 60 person team, in a 1500 sqm workshop required, with bigger machines.
The data is not real, just to show the magnitudes.
Another Krab taken out by Lancets. Ukraine received less Krabs than Pzh2000's but the latter has been largely absent from combat footage outside of puff pieces, either they are in reserve or are indeed massive depot queens and spend more time out of service than being of use.
Column of multiple T-90M's. No idea of location
Claims of Poland getting ready to send their Leo2 though that'll depend on Germany's aproval
The condition of one of the Humvees received by the Ukranians. Looks like it was pulled out of a scrapyard
Air defence, I guess
Column of multiple T-90M's. No idea of location
Claims of Poland getting ready to send their Leo2 though that'll depend on Germany's aproval
The condition of one of the Humvees received by the Ukranians. Looks like it was pulled out of a scrapyard
Air defence, I guess
General Sergey Surovikin (armageddon) has been reappointed from the head of the SMO to the deputy of the head.
General Valery Gerasimov has now been appointed as head of the SMO.
Russian MOD explanations
If anyone was wondering who Gerasimov is. The Ukrainian Commander in Chief, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi had this to say back in September
At the beginning of the war, the most common field artillery was of 75mm and 84mm calibre on both sides. By the end of the war, Germany fielded 5,000 heavy caliber guns, of which the 150mm howitzer was the most common.
Even if the shells were on average smaller, that does not account for the sheer discrepancy in numbers. This year the US is aiming to produce 250,000 155mm shells. Germany and Austria on average produced 120 million artillery shells a year in WW1. Germany fired 1 million artillery shells in the first day of the battle at Verdun. They had 1,200 guns of which 2/3 were of heavy or super heavy variety (202mm, 360mm and 410mm).
New large scale offensive brewing?. The whole "increase in the scale of operations" sounds ominous.
Also could explain why suddenly the west is in a rush to see who can deliver MBT's
i.e "we just made shit up".
I read the Russian official military chronicle and as usual I am a bit fucked.
Of course, just taking the Russian Defence Ministry's statements at face value is a bit naïve (as is its Ukrainian counterpart's statement at face value) ....
According to Russian figures, the Ukrainian armed forces have already lost more than their numbers.
It is said that the first casualty of the war is truth (the second is the original plan).
Rybar was not a bad Russian source trying to do a fairly objective job. But a few months ago he was harshly "reprimanded" by the Russian authorities with serious threats. Thus he became a mere conduit for the Russian government. And Lord of War is no more and no less than "the voice of his master", without any seriousness.
For more objective information we can refer to Admiral Blezhan's (EU Chief of Staff) hearing before the Defence Committee (16 November). He points out that by early November Russian forces had 60,000 killed and 3 times as many wounded (i.e. + 200,000 men out of action, which is a lot, and more than the commonly quoted figures), Russia would have lost 60% of its entire fleet of battle tanks and 70% of its missiles fitted for ground targets. Russia also lost 40% of its armoured personnel carriers and 20% of its artillery. For artillery ammunition stocks, estimates are more complicated. But the volume of Russian fire has dropped significantly in recent months (down by a factor of 3), and more and more reports from the Russian front indicate a lack of fire support, both in volume, accuracy and time (time needed for counter-battery). Even ultras such as Girkin emphasise that the Russian troops are severely lacking in artillery.
And France has just announced that it will supply the Ukrainians with AMX 10RC (without specifying exactly how many). Even if these wheeled armoured vehicles are a bit outdated (or even very outdated...) and their 105mm cannon is not the most suitable for anti-tank combat, it remains that this equipment, if used well (in "hit and run", or in flanking fire) can be effective. Above all, this is the first European delivery of armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine (previously it was either artillery or troop transport), so there is a growing force and, above all, pressure on the Germans to deliver Leopards to Ukraine.
With the colder weather setting in in Ukraine from Saturday and the ground frozen over, offensives will again be possible. The question is, where will the Ukrainians strike?
Of course, just taking the Russian Defence Ministry's statements at face value is a bit naïve (as is its Ukrainian counterpart's statement at face value) ....
According to Russian figures, the Ukrainian armed forces have already lost more than their numbers.
It is said that the first casualty of the war is truth (the second is the original plan).
Rybar was not a bad Russian source trying to do a fairly objective job. But a few months ago he was harshly "reprimanded" by the Russian authorities with serious threats. Thus he became a mere conduit for the Russian government. And Lord of War is no more and no less than "the voice of his master", without any seriousness.
For more objective information we can refer to Admiral Blezhan's (EU Chief of Staff) hearing before the Defence Committee (16 November). He points out that by early November Russian forces had 60,000 killed and 3 times as many wounded (i.e. + 200,000 men out of action, which is a lot, and more than the commonly quoted figures), Russia would have lost 60% of its entire fleet of battle tanks and 70% of its missiles fitted for ground targets. Russia also lost 40% of its armoured personnel carriers and 20% of its artillery. For artillery ammunition stocks, estimates are more complicated. But the volume of Russian fire has dropped significantly in recent months (down by a factor of 3), and more and more reports from the Russian front indicate a lack of fire support, both in volume, accuracy and time (time needed for counter-battery). Even ultras such as Girkin emphasise that the Russian troops are severely lacking in artillery.
And France has just announced that it will supply the Ukrainians with AMX 10RC (without specifying exactly how many). Even if these wheeled armoured vehicles are a bit outdated (or even very outdated...) and their 105mm cannon is not the most suitable for anti-tank combat, it remains that this equipment, if used well (in "hit and run", or in flanking fire) can be effective. Above all, this is the first European delivery of armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine (previously it was either artillery or troop transport), so there is a growing force and, above all, pressure on the Germans to deliver Leopards to Ukraine.
With the colder weather setting in in Ukraine from Saturday and the ground frozen over, offensives will again be possible. The question is, where will the Ukrainians strike?
So you think it's naive to take Russians MOD and rybar as objective sources but the EU chief of staff hearing is objective and should be treated as gospel?
Is this an oxymoron?