The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Ananda

The Bunker Group
even if the Russians win a small battle in an axis of advance; the Russians are still fighting in a manner that conforms to Ukraine’s strategy from day 1 — to trade space for time. Ukraine needs time to train more men as troops. Ukraine needs time for heavy weapons to arrive. As long as the weapons transfers keep going, Ukraine can’t be defeated. They may not always win every battle but they literally can’t lose.
Many analysts in mainstream media even some posts in here talking about time is in Ukraine side. Personally I do have big doubt on that. I do see after Donbas result, the time is in stalemate side.


I agree with him somewhat, the present situation, asside some creeping advance in Donentsk (as Russia seems going to capture Luhansk), all other Russian possitioning indicating they will dig in.

We see in South that Russian positioning is diging in after they manage to secure most Kherson Oblast administrative border. Most of Zaporozhye Oblast already under them save area in north around city of Zaporozhye it self. Even if Russian manage to claim most of Donentsk (just like they do with Luhansk), I do have doubt they will move either to Nikolayev or Zaparozhye cities.

Then the question will Ukraine can amass powerfull enough offensive against Russian Dig In possition ? This practically reverse positioning with what Russian do right know.

Mainstream media in West shown what happen in Kyiev and Kharkiv as prove of Ukraine abilities on doing counter offensive. Well doing offensive on retreating enemy possition is very different then doing offensive on harden defensive possition as what Russian do right now.

Some in West claim their weapons supply will turn the tide. Just like what US and UK did with USSR during WW2. Well that's big claim as West supply able to give USSR enough resources to hold the line. However turning the tide is USSR own production like T-34, IL-2, etc.

Problem is USSR MIC more or less able to stay intact as they manage to relocate them behind Ural, outside German range.While Ukraine itself aknowledge their MIC is practically destroy and all Ukraine supply line still within many Russian air and missile reach.

Our industry assesment also shown that if Russian able to secure most of those four oblasts and dig in, and the War will become more or less stalemate line. I open to hear any argument saying Ukraine will be able to do large offensive if Russian hold the line after taking most of those four oblasts. However I don't see Ukraine able to do that in the foreseable future, if the situation reverse (they are the one who has to conduct large offensive).

Rellying on Western supply will make them to hold most og the line (outside Donbas). However until they can rebuild their own MIC (and that's big if), under Russian constant missile attacks (that already destroy most of their MIC and much supply line). Then what they can do is playing hold the line.

Yes, Russia need to invest more resources to break the stalemate outside this four oblasts. However they have those resources. That's very doubtfull to be said on Ukraine. Western mainsteam media buying in on large Russian losses, what about Ukranian losses ? Nobody talk much on this on western media (especially mainstream ones). Afterall this is protrected attrition war.
 
Last edited:

Rob c

Well-Known Member
Some in West claim their weapons supply will turn the tide. Just like what US and UK did with USSR during WW2. Well that's big claim as West supply able to give USSR enough resources to hold the line. However turning the tide is USSR own production like T-34, IL-2, etc. Problem is USSR MIC more or less able to stay intact as they manage to relocate them behind Ural, outside German range.
I would agree that it is debatable as to how effective the western weapons supply helped the USSR, I think they certainly helped but the main help I think was the huge supply of American trucks for the logistical side of the USSR army, but the supply of weapons was still substantial, including ,400,000 trucks and jeeps, 14000 aircraft, 8000 tractors and 13000 tanks. These numbers I would say would have made a huge difference and in particular I would doubt that the red army could have been effective in attack without the trucks to support their logistics.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
would agree that it is debatable as to how effective the western weapons supply helped the USSR
Don't get me wrong, I do agree US land lease is helping a lot to USSR. Especially helping them holding the line and makes times to relocate and rebuild their own MIC. Without that the Red Army got more probability to be overwhelmed by Wermarcht. However turning the tide mostly come from USSR own production.

That's the base on my argument (that I also base on some analysts within my Industry). The US and NATO supplies will give Ukranian resources to hold the line. However to turn the tide and do counter offensive to reclaim Russian gains, that's what I (and many in my Industry) doubt it.

Ukraine need to rebuild their own MIC and rebuild their own supply lines (including supporting infrastructure), if they want to do strong counter offensive. This is what we doubt they can do. Thus why we believe unless something else happen, this war will most probably end up in stalemate after Russian solidify their position on whatever area from those four Oblasts they are satisfied with.
 

Twain

Active Member
Interesting post on the Oryx loss data. In essence Oryx is about 20% undercounting russian losses of equipment. Granted it is a small sample size but it does give us data to work from.


"With these two added, we can draw a ROUGH conclusion that: Oryx's counting does not exaggerate the actual loss of the Russian Army; on the contrary it represents some 77-82% of actual Russian loss."

BTW if you look at the Oryx count right now, he has been away for several days and is about 5 days behind. His current backlog is reported as 300+



BTW this also indicates that the Ukrainian claims are 20-30% high when compared to expected actual losses in some categories. (I don't believe the Ukrainian claims on aircraft losses at all)



Related, here's a thread that talks about the amount of Russian stored equipment that is actually in condition to be used.


"Facing huge losses of equipment in Ukraine, Russia has mobilised stored vehicles. But here, too, the situation appears to be bad: according to Ukraine's military intelligence service, Russia's 4th Tank Division found that only 1 in 10 tanks mobilised from storage was usable."

Not sure I believe that only 10% was usable but I have seen several reports that the amount that are combat ready is only 30%.

"Note that many of these vehicles are very old. Remember that figure of 10,000 tanks? It includes at least 2,800 T-55s, 2,500 T-62s, and 2,000 T-64s - all of which are obsolete. Some many be 60 or more years old and would stand no chance in a Ukraine-style conflict."

Are these numbers accurate? (Feanor?) If they are and you take into account current losses, Oryx is at 3732 with a backlog of 300+, add in roughly 20% that Oryx doesn't account for and we're suddenly at 4800 significant pieces of military equipment. I understand that this is back of a napkin math but even pessimistic numbers amount to very large losses of equipment in just 3 months. Much of it equipment that can only be replaced by vehicles in storage since the sanctions appear to be shutting down russian production of much new equipment.

Some more back of the napkin math on tanks:

10,000 in storage minus 7300 that are considered obsolete leaves 2700. Even if we assume that 50% are able to be used either as is or after repairs. That almost leaves russia in a position of just being able to replace losses. I guess the t-64's could be modernized, if Russia actually has the parts to do so but whether or not they have these parts is an open question due to the sanctions.

As everyone has seen, the main russian advantage appears to be in the amount of artillery. We've yet to see this fully and properly addressed by donations, This may get addressed to a larger degree with the next round of military equipment in the $40 billion aid package Biden just signed.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong, I do agree US land lease is helping a lot to USSR. Especially helping them holding the line and makes times to relocate and rebuild their own MIC. Without that the Red Army got more probability to be overwhelmed by Wermarcht. However turning the tide mostly come from USSR own production.
The point I was more concerned in regard to lease lend was the logistics, as without the huge number of truck supplied I think the red army would have had a serious logistical problem and would have struggled to be able mount attacks in the style they did, even supplying for the massive artillery could have been beyond them, let alone their other logistical requirements.

The advances after the tide was turned was enabled by being able to support and supplying that advance. I did read in another article that by june 1944 the US had supplied three hundred thousand trucks to the USSR. Logistics is an often overlooked requirement by some, but it is vital and without it an army goes nowhere fast.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The point I was more concerned in regard to lease lend was the logistics, as without the huge number of truck supplied I think the red army would have had a serious logistical problem and would have struggled to be able mount attacks in the style they did, even supplying for the massive artillery could have been beyond them, let alone their other logistical requirements.

The advances after the tide was turned was enabled by being able to support and supplying that advance. I did read in another article that by june 1944 the US had supplied three hundred thousand trucksto the USSR. Logistics is an often overlooked requirement by some, but it is vital and without it an army goes nowhere fast.
I agree wholeheartedly. If it wasn't for those trucks the Red Army would've been in deep doodoo. A good comparison actually is the allied logistics and the Wehrmacht logistics capability.

The allied field logistics was truck based and the GMC and Studebaker trucks were ubiquitous. However the vast majority of the Wehrmacht field logistics was horse drawn and if you look at the aftermath of the Battle of the Falaise Gap where the USAAF and RAF did the most damage to the trapped Wehrmacht forces, there were a very large number of horses killed and wagons destroyed. Remember this is July 1944. The photos and movie reels from the time are pretty graphic.

On the Eastern Front when the Soviets launched OP BAGRATION in June 1944, they had that huge fleet of trucks providing logistical support, and they always started with a humungous artillery and rocketry barrage, from a huge number of massed guns and rocket trucks. I believe for the attack across the Oder River and on the Seelow Heights, Zhukov had the largest concentration of artillery ever with guns wheel to wheel for miles. The thunder of the opening barrage could be heard and felt in Berlin. It's reputed to be the largest gun line ever. The stockpiling of ammo for that must have been stupendous and logistics equally tremendous. Don't forget that Rosskovskiy was also advancing on Berlin from the south through Hungary, so that's two full Soviet frontal armies that have to be supported at the same time, far from the motherland.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

STURM

Well-Known Member
The allied field logistics was truck based and the GMC and Studebaker trucks were ubiquitous.
The thousands provided to the Soviets as part of Land Lease went a long way in enabling the Soviets to do what they wanted to do. Often not realised is that large quantities of chemicals were also sent; used for making explosives.

However the vast majority of the Wehrmacht field logistics was horse drawn and if you look at the aftermath of the Battle of the Falaise Gap where the USAAF and RAF did the most damage to the trapped Wehrmacht forces, there were a very large number of horses killed and wagons destroyed.
Heartbreaking looking at the pics of dead horses. The bulk of personnel however escaped [2nd SS Panzer Korps played a pivotal role keeping the gap open] and had they not escaped the Germans would have been hard pressed to mount the Ardennes offensive months later.

I believe for the attack across the Oder River and on the Seelow Heights, Zhukov had the largest concentration of artillery ever with guns wheel to wheel for miles.
Indeed and Heinrici's decision to pull his men back to secondary defensive positions paid huge dividends.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I would agree that it is debatable as to how effective the western weapons supply helped the USSR
Various types of American and British tanks and aircraft were found by the Soviets to be ill suited for their requirements. What they really valued were the large quantities of lorries, jeeps, radios, medical supplies; chemicals, boots and winter clothing.
 

lezo

New Member
Hello, I am new here.

After reading about that war, I think Russian forces lack of electronics (Armata is out production, the only tank factory in Rusia stopped the production because lacks of imported parts and it is used electronics taken from washing machines.

So I think that using about a hundred F18 & F16 with enough AA and air-ground missiles could be stopped Russian bombing and stop war in a month.

The aircraft would shut down any Russian aircraft and shut down any armored vehicles in the Donbas region
We (Europe & USA) must pay only by shut down planes.
I ask here to this forum if it is enough and if the F16&F18 would fit with the mission.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tonnyc

Well-Known Member
Hello, I am new here.

After reading about that war, I think Russian forces lack of electronics (Armata is out production, the only tank factory in Rusia stopped the production because lacks of imported parts and it is used electronics taken from washing machines.

So I think that using about a hundred F18 & F16 with enough AA and air-ground missiles could be stopped Russian bombing and stop war in a month.

The aircraft would shut down any Russian aircraft and shut down any armored vehicles in the Donbas region
We (Europe & USA) must pay only by shut down planes.
I ask here to this forum if it is enough and if the F16&F18 would fit with the mission.
Hi, Iezo. The moderators really don't like what-if scenarios like this. Since you're new you probably aren't familiar with this forum's culture. It's a pretty serious forum with a significant number of ex-military people. For the scenario you posted above, you probably want to ask elsewhere.

The serious answer is that there's no point in those hypotheticals, because neither the US nor any of the European will do it. That would be a declaration of war against Russia that can't be papered over and none of the NATO nations see a point in declaring war against Russia on behalf of Ukraine at the moment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lezo

New Member
Hi, Iezo. The moderators really don't like what-if scenarios like this. Since you're new you probably aren't familiar with this forum's culture. It's a pretty serious forum with a significant number of ex-military people. For the scenario you posted above, you probably want to ask elsewhere.

The serious answer is that there's no point in those hypotheticals, because neither the US nor any of the European will do it. That would be a declaration of war against Russia that can't be papered over and none of the NATO nations see a point in declaring war against Russia on behalf of Ukraine at the moment.
Thanks Tonnyc, I have been working in an aerospace company for 10 years, only to say that is a suicide to Ukrainian to make a counteroffensive without air coverage.

Here I have seen that Russian tanks are old and obsolete and perhaps needs to be pulled to move from one side to other, but they are shelling to Ukranians very hard.

In our civil war it was received airplanes in both sides without provoke SGM
 
Last edited by a moderator:

STURM

Well-Known Member
only to say that is a suicide to Ukrainian to make a counteroffensive without air coverage.
In general this applies to everyone; not only the Ukrainians but ultimately it also depends if the other side is actively and successfully deploying his airpower.

Here I have seen that Russian tanks are old and obsolete
My view is that we have to avoid the notion that Russian MBT losses are a result of them being ''old and obsolete''. If they had APSs, newer generation ERA; better infantry support and air cover; they probably would have suffered less losses.

On another matter this is interesting. I had no idea that the TB-2 came with periodic software upgrades sent to customers. Like an I Phone.


''You don’t just buy it,” Mark Cancian, a military-procurement specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me. “You have married the supplier, because you need a constant stream of spare parts and repair expertise.” Turkey has become adept at leveraging this relationship. ''

''Buyers are also supported by Baykar’s programmers. The TB2, which Bayraktar compares to his smartphone, has more than forty onboard computers, and the company sends out software updates several times a month to adapt to adversarial tactics. “You’ve seen the articles, probably, asking how World War One-performance aircraft can compete against some of the most advanced air defenses in the world,” Bayraktar said. “The trick there is to continuously upgrade them.”


In another article I read [can't remember where it is now]; apparently the TB2 is quite resistant to jamming. Prior to this war; like may others I had great doubts whether the Ukraine would be able to effectively deploy drones/RPVs/UAVs/UASs given the Russians have an extensive tactical EW capability. I also assumed that like it the Donbass the Russians would also effectively deploy UASs as part of a strike/recce complex at a tactical and operational level. Perhaps they are and it's just that we're not hearing much about it.

 
Last edited:

lezo

New Member
''Buyers are also supported by Baykar’s programmers. The TB2, which Bayraktar compares to his smartphone, has more than forty onboard computers, and the company sends out software updates several times a month to adapt to adversarial tactics. “You’ve seen the articles, probably, asking how World War One-performance aircraft can compete against some of the most advanced air defenses in the world,” Bayraktar said. “The trick there is to continuously upgrade them.”
Russia claimed shot down 17 drones in a day.
Perhaps lasers works or they managed to do that in another way.

One method to avoid lasers is to cover drones by reflective painting, it is possible reflect more than 96% of laser power
If it is a RF hamming method is to change all comms systems, it is impossible by a simple software upgrade
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Goldman's financial conditions index for Russia is now tighter than immediately after sanctions were imposed. They predict a deep recession of the Russian economy. "Ruble recovery is an illusion".


If their analysis proves to be even half right, then it's difficult to see how Russia will manage to keep this war going in the long run.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Goldman's financial conditions index for Russia is now tighter than immediately after sanctions were imposed. They predict a deep recession of the Russian economy. "Ruble recovery is an illusion".


If their analysis proves to be even half right, then it's difficult to see how Russia will manage to keep this war going in the long run.
Hopefully the case but surplus old kit (especially artillery) and enforced conscription may prolong this horror show for sometime yet. There is also the possibility of convert Chinese support albeit somewhat remote given the hassles this invasion is causing for China (and other semi-Russian friends).
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Russia claimed shot down 17 drones in a day. Perhaps lasers works or they managed to do that in another way.
I seriously doubt that Russia has any operational lasers deployed. My guess is that most UAS kills were by MANPADs and flak. It's possible that some were downed by EW.

Like various other things we will just have to wait for confirmation: still early days. After 80 over days of war there's a lot we know but also a lot we still don't know.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Various types of American and British tanks and aircraft were found by the Soviets to be ill suited for their requirements. What they really valued were the large quantities of lorries, jeeps, radios, medical supplies; chemicals, boots and winter clothing.
One aircraft they really loved was the Bell P-39 Airacobra. The American & British weren't that keen on it because of its poor performance at high altitude, but the Russians loved it for it's low altitude performance and heavy armament which was ideal for ground attack. The 37mm cannon firing through the prop hub, and four 50cal MG made it a flying destroyer. They were the largest users of both the P-39 and the P-63 Kingcobra. In the video below the Kingcobra has the larger vertical stabiliser of the two.

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This appeared in this mornings NZ Herald claiming that Putin is the reason for the Russian failures in Ukraine. Apparently he's micromanaging everything down to battalion level and just because he achieved the highly exalted rank of lieutenant in the artillery and claims to have lead a howitzer battalion as a lieutenant (??????) he thinks that he is gifted like Napoleon being a supreme strategist and tactician. Jeez I though corporals were bad enough when they had delusions of grandeur.

Russia-Ukraine war: Putin is 'isolated' and 'alone' as he micromanages country's failing war - NZ Herald
 
Top