Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
In Iraq most infantry formations collapsed. Commanders were bribed or deserted, regular infantry abandoned their tanks and fled. Those that didn't mostly surrendered on first contact, or were annihilated. From that point on it was was largely a walk in the park compared to this. NATO could have rushed in quicker but didn't.

That hasn't happened on the eastern front in Ukraine. The Ukrainian army is present and fighting, albeit against a massive firepower disadvantage.

From what I can see, the Russians have achieved all of their objectives. A large uncontested formation outside of Kiev that can cut off and besiege the city, the elimination of Ukrainian air force and air defences, and the mass of the Ukrainian army on the back foot.

There have been some speed bumps - the poor maintenance or quality of Russian tanks and vehicles, the failure to completely supress the air force and air defences at the start of the conflict. CAS could also be better, and I think it's the one thing China could help Russia with to speed things up.

As far as I can see this war is over, it's just a question of how much infrastructure is destroyed and many Ukrainian/Russian soldiers die. Deaths will already be worse for the Ukrainians by a factor of around 1.5 as things stand and as Ukrainians start running out of ammo, supplies and hardware it'll only get worse for them. If it gets to the point where they're reduced to fighting urban combat it'll be around 10:1.

NATO seems to be treating Ukraine like it did the Afghans during the Soviet war. They're arming them to fight an insurgency, not a conventional war.
Yes indeed... Very few Iraqi units during the invasion of Iraq assembled themselves in mass formations - those that did - as soon as the invasion began, had their personnel mostly desert. If the Iraqis had decided to prepare themselves to fight in urban combat within cities along the route to Baghad, the Americans would have suffered much higher casualties, and would have needed needed to pummel all those cities to rubble.
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Novomayorskoye and Prechistovka, it could be that Russia and the Donetsk Rebels are tightening their grip on Donetsk. The battle of Volnovakha was a major, very intense battle over a small cut/large town that the Ukrainians used as a major base of operations in Donetsk. Since the beginning of this week it was confirmed captured by the Donetsk Rebels (DPR) and Russian Forces. But the battle itself has gotten little coverage in the Western Media.
In any case, If we compare Russian loss (said by the Ukrainian) and these Ukrainian loss (said by the Russian), it could be credible for two mostly even forces clashing each others.
 

MortyandRick

Senior Member
Registered Member
There were quite a few photos of Russian wheeled vehicles with busted or flat tires abandoned in off-road terrain.

Here you can see the rear tire of a Russian Pantsir completely torn apart after an attempt to tow it. I think it was Trent Telenko that conjectured this to be a consequence of very poor vehicle maintenance or lack of exercise leading to tire rot.
FMydRVkVcAEcbDY
I'm tired of people here rehashing the same picture.

This is not a new pictures. It was taken 2 weeks ago and was posted in another thread as well.


 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Lots of abandoned vehicules look like in good conditions. Even Ukrainian ones. Busting tire could be used also to prevent easy recuperation by the enemy side. You cannot stay stopped in the middle of a battle with lacks of fuel and ammo anyway... way better to get the hell out of there and maybe busting an easy replaceable component preventing direct use.

And is not like the Ukrainians have the knowledge nor the ammo for these weapons. And in the state they are in, they can't really move them far for it to be of any value to western intelligence, either. Makes for good pictures for the Ukrobots and the "Ukraine is winning" narrative, though.
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
In any case, If we compare Russian loss (said by the Ukrainian) and these Ukrainian loss (said by the Russian), it could be credible for two mostly even forces clashing each others.
I do not believe the extent of losses of reported by either side. I takes such reports with a grain of salt.

What I do believe, firstly, are claims of territory gained and towns captured or surrounded by one side, that are confirmed by the other side, or at least not denied by the other side. I do also mostly believe it when I see numerous videos and at times photos of the presence of troops in a particular location, especially ones in which a journalist is present. For example, there is sufficient evidence based on photos and videos that the Russians and Donetsk Rebels (DPR) are making steady progress in Mariupol. And there is clear video evidence to the extent of proof that Volnovakha was captured by the the Russians and the DPR.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
The source is my ass.

Is it? Because you still haven't provided the actual ratio which you claimed to have.

From the start of the ground war on February 24 to a week later on March 1, the percentage of combat-ready M1s only dropped from 93% to 91%. The percentage of combat-ready M1A1s actually increased from 93% to 95%. (p. 22).

Great, so you have the ratio for the Abrams in '91, for 1 week of operations. But you don't have Russia's ratio to compare yet. Also, here's something else in the report you cited: "According to some Army personnel, the inability to replenish parts reserves could have impeded sustained combat operations in a longer war." (pages 4 and 32)

In any case, you would need to apply weights your ratios and averages to balance things on relative terms. For example, we already know that the initial push of the US in the flat desert was slower than Russia's because they didn't want to over-extend. Russia clearly had a different operational plan, and a very different enemy with very different terrain. They wanted to quickly push deep while risking some over-extension. This doesn't necessarily mean the US's plan was better (it had its own problems at every level.) And you're comparing it to Gulf '91 which had very different objectives. Russia isn't simply trying to push Ukraine's army out of a region like Kuwait. The US left Saddam alone after his Army pulled back. Russia has very different victory conditions. And the verdict on the performance of its BTGs in relation to the operational plan they were tasked with, that's something that will take a lot of data to analyze after the war is actually over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top