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.
I don't disagree. In fact, you emphasized my point completely.
NATO could have rushed in quicker but didn't. They rushed in as quickly as their supply lines could support. I wonder if the Russians gave that any consideration.
The Russians have achieved their objectives, but the subject of the earlier discussion wasn't if they could be met, it was why the speedbumps were present in the first place. We were attempting to answer (or speculate, as some here seem to despise making conclusions) why abandoned vehicles appeared everywhere, and why overall army organization contributed to that phenomenon.
Regardless, the stage is set. The situation seems to have stabilized now after the chaos of the first week.
Is it? Because you still haven't provided the actual ratio which you claimed to have.
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.
You're right, I don't.
I was only thinking about logistics but now you're rambling that over-extension of supply lines isn't necessarily a bad thing. And apparently a "very different enemy with very different terrain" and a "different operational plan" means that over-extension is justified. That wasn't my point at all. I was only pointing out why abandoned vehicles are a likely indication of over-extension,
regardless of the reason for over-extension.
Guess I'll stop speculating. Sorry.
Let me tell Shilao to shut down his podcast while we're at it. He doesn't have any ratios and weights and balances.
Looks like we're not allowed to have fun here.
