Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
To continue with the above discussion with the exception of Javelin and NLAW missile wich are top atack and top of the line. We are not seeing even to try to mitigate the Anti-tank missile threat with samthing wich can be compared with this
T-72 will lose mobility with all this weight. I think that MBT are just not the tip of the spear anymore...

They will need some active anti-missile defence system with them to do so, like a mini Phalanx CIWS based on .50 or .300 caliber replacing the secondary machine gun mount.
 

Broccoli

Senior Member
It was bad weather and cloudy this week, not good forecast for next week. If they rely on visual dumb bombing it's pretty hard to do so above manpads range.

Dropping dumb bombs from +5km altitude isn't accurate even if the weather is perfect. Fighters have to drop whole payload and they maybe hit static target like a tank (big if) but forget hitting anything moving.

Reminds me of those scenes from Syria where Tu-22M bombers flew in high altiude and dropped their bombs like it was 1940's.
 

sferrin

Junior Member
Registered Member
It was bad weather and cloudy this week, not good forecast for next week. If they rely on visual dumb bombing it's pretty hard to do so above manpads range.
I mean for the entire conflict. Aside from the "Ghost of Kiev" nonsense has there been any air encounters at all?
 

4Runner

Junior Member
Registered Member
It’s amusing seeing people write Russia’s obituary when it’s literally pulling back to deliver the next big blow.

The Kiev push was a feint from the very start. The objective was to pull massive amounts of Ukrainian troops and assets to Kiev and tie them down there while the Russian military focus on the Ukrainian forces in the west.

There was never any attempt made to attack Kiev itself, and I would not be surprised if that infamous 40 mile long Russian column that was parked north of Kiev all these weeks were not just conscripts or even empty trucks parked there to be seen but which didn’t have anything like the combat potential as their numbers would suggest.

The strikes on fuel and maintenance facilities of late were just the final moves to lock the Ukrainians in place. I would expect the Russians would have also secured strategic choke points (not necessarily hold them, they could have zero’d artillery on key crossroads and left small special forces recon teams to watch them and call in the strikes when the Ukrainians try to cross) and are now ready just in case the Ukrainians try to reinforce the west.

Now the Russians are just going to grind away the key cities while also engaging Ukrainians on the move to destroy them in detail.

It will take time, but it should be far less costly for the Russians in terms of casualties.

I would not be surprised if there is even an air of deliberate stalling by the Russians to drag this fight out for as long as possible now that the Ruble is stabilised.

The grand strategic goal is to bleed the EU economically and NATO militarily as EU industry crumbles and NATO empty it’s own armouries to flood Ukraine with arms.

......

Good luck rearming NATO without rare earths.
Bingo! Now we are talking war and strategy. At the beginning, Putin started from a position of weakness, a weak hand in Texas Holdem. So he had to give and take in order to achieve his political goals. China also knew it, hence "no limited" crap. Chinese and "no limit" are usually oxthemoron.

I am not saying the battle field execution has been great. But the situation as is today is not bad at all as far as Putin could calculate and forsee at the get go. Many posts have great analysis on play by play. But Putin's original move was an all-in, while EU was playing as if he was bluffing.

As long as the Russian economy is not crashing, Putin definitely thinks he is going to win the showdown. The current situation is in his favor.

EU, as a larger, richer and more leveraged economic bloc, is definitely bleeding much faster and deeper than Russia, if the current situation doesn't turn to its favor.

Judging the readouts from the EU-China talks, China has no willingness to side with EU.

So EU is losing big time for sure, with a population of no fighting spirit.

Putin is winning.
US is winning.

China is telling everybody "I told you so" and counting its own chips while drinking 龙井.
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
60K troops for 5 weeks in not a feint, it is a half-assed commitment.

A 'feint' is tieing down massive amounts of Odessa troops and assets to Odessa by stationing a massive naval fleet and amphibious units outside the Odessan port. Russia never moved on Odessa, but it did tie down significant forces from reinforcing other fronts. This is a feint.


The objective was to rapidly surround the capital (by moving beyond advanced logistical supply lines) with hopes of scaring Kiev into suing for peace and a quick negotiated settlement. When this failed, they should re-group and concentrate on Eastern region.

Russia didn't start attacking Mariupol with front-line troops until it had Mariupol fully surrounded.

Russia wouldn't have started attacking Kiev proper with front-line troops until Kiev was fully surrounded... which they tried but failed surrounding Kiev.

So you are saying the 40 mile convoy was a theatre? That's a very expensive mistake, they should have concentrated on the eastern Donbass from the very beginning instead of trying a fancy 5-axis invasion to stun/scare the enemy into quick negotiated settlement.
Do you agree that:

1) The advance on Kiev was too speedy.

2) The resources of personnel necessary to surround and take Kiev that were committed were way too small.
 

Aegis21

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This article is interesting, the author posit that Russia didn't send a lot of troops that Western analyst and media claims, and that they only sent 50-60 BTGs which is around 50k-60k troops for the entire operation. Can anyone verify the claim?
I’m not sure how many they sent in but earlier reports states they had 120 BTGs around Ukraine. At this point, they’ve probably sent them all in.
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Do you agree that:

1) The advance on Kiev was too speedy.
NATO/US military advisors likely told Kiev that the initial thrust was meant for psychological effect (e.g., inducing quick suing for peace, psychological collapse) rather than achieving any military significance (e.g., capturing of Kiev or decapitation strike). Speed was a component to psychological warfare.

Now imagine what would happen if NATO/US was not giving strategy advice (e.g., continue to resist) ? Ukrainians might have folded much earlier to the intense missile strikes across all cities (including Lviv) and fancy 5-axis attack and Capital surrounded. The Russian plan could have worked if it weren't for NATO meddling.

2) The resources of personnel necessary to surround and take Kiev that were committed were way too small.
Yes. The original objective was not to capture Kiev, but to psychologically surround the capital to induce quick negotiated settlement. Russian hubris and arrogance made them dedicate as few troops as possible to Kiev because they thought Ukrainians would fold anyways once rapidly surrounded. The Russian invasion force was too dispersed along the 2000 mile border, it was meant for psychological effect to induce quick enemy collapse and peaceful negotiations.
 

Coalescence

Senior Member
Registered Member
I’m not sure how many they sent in but earlier reports states they had 120 BTGs around Ukraine. At this point, they’ve probably sent them all in.
In the article he claimed, that the number of BTG that surrounded Ukraine was overhyped by the Western media, and he said that the "Pro-Western" analyst that created this map:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, admitted that the number of BTG is overestimated and that Russia only sent in ~80 BTG. The author went even further and said that it was only 50-60 BTG because of the initial reports by Western media was around that.

I don't know what to trust at this point, but if what he said is true. I think we maybe overestimating the amount of troops committed in the operation, and the amount of potential Russian loses from this war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top