The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Ananda]

Maybe I am missing something but why are we assuming UKR has lost more in manpower than RU?

Why you are assuming Russian lossing more ? Base on Oryx ? Or some Ukranian calculation ? My point on Ukranian have more losses not only Man Power and Equipment but most importantly their MIC.

for equipment, UKR has more thanks than they started with, based off of Oryx data and deliveries of other tanks form former WP nations. Do we have good estimates of tube, rotor and airframe losses as a % of pre-war

More ? From where ? Oryx is calculating based on video and pictures taken. However Ukraine known have better abilities to conceals photo of their losses toward online exposures.

Let me put this way, if Russian losses as high as Western online sources claim, while Ukranian loss is much smaller as those similar sources claim, then not only they (ukraine) not lossing teritory, but they are already in Crimea, Mariupol and claiming back the lost azov sea coast.

Calculation varies depend on each sides claim, that's why it is very hard to considered any sides claim. I'm just talking on realities in the ground. They (Ukraine) will not be on defensive possition as it is now, but already rolling back Russian if the claim of their losses is true.

Does UKR have any tank production capability ?

Where their T-64 and T-84 coming from ? Where those T-84 they are exporting to Thailand coming from ? The facilities in the Kharkiv is the ones that Russia destroy first in the early of War. Even Ukranian themselves admitting their MIC practically destroy. Ukranian do have substantial MIC as they inherited much of those from USSR.

Put the video of their facility before Russian invasion.

 

[Vivendi]

3. If the Ukrainians could fight at an armoured brigade level — a tank battalion advancing in support of 2 or more battalions of IFVs (with a battery of 155mm SPHs in direct support for fires superiority), the battlefield geometry will change drastically. The US must have deployed a security force assistance brigade into Europe and are quietly training Ukrainian Forces — somewhere.

Thanks again for providing excellent posts, I really appreciate your input and analysis.

At the same time I wonder if your estimates in this case are too optimistic -- the number of UKR soldiers available 12 months from now will equal the number of UKR soldiers available today + those being trained - losses (killed or wounded). I am concerned that the UKR losses have been (and will be) much higher than what is known. Thus, even if the US and the UK (supported by other countries) train a significant number of soldiers in the coming months, the number of soldiers available 12 months from now may still not be sufficient to fight at brigade level. My gut feeling is the losses they have suffered have been very deep indeed.

I hope I am wrong and that you are right.

 

[Aerojoe]

I get all the technical rational for why Ukraine armed forces are unlikely to collapse but in addition I would proffer that a force defending and seeking to retake its own sovereign territory will always hold the upper hand in a game of attrition - they and the civilians around them are fighting for their homeland.

 

[Vivendi]

Why you are assuming Russian lossing more ? Base on Oryx ? Or some Ukranian calculation ? My point on Ukranian have more losses not only Man Power and Equipment but most importantly their MIC.

Why are you assuming Ukrainian losses are larger than Russian? Based on some Russian calculations?

We don't know the Russian losses and we don't know the Ukrainian losses. We do know that Ukraine managed to win back significant land areas in the early phases, that Russia then made some incremental gains, and that the last weeks Russian progress has for the most part stopped. Would Ukraine have managed to stop the Russians this summer, if the Ukrainian losses had been much bigger than Russian losses?

I think it's quite safe to say that both have suffered huge losses, but I don't think you are in a position to make any claims stronger than that. If you do, please back up your claims with credible sources.

As for equipment: As long as "the West" (including countries like Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and Japan) support Ukraine with new equipment (in most cases much better than what they had before) I don't see an equipment issue for Ukraine. It's a pity that countries like Spain, Italy, Germany, France have not fully stepped up yet, however, hopefully they will do so in 2023. If they make up for the lack of 2022 donations during the next year, it would also not be all bad since I doubt countries like the Baltics and Poland will be able to provide the same level of support in 2023 as they are doing this year.

 

[Feanor]

Why are you assuming Ukrainian losses are larger than Russian? Based on some Russian calculations?

Recent reports from Ukrainian social media like the situation in Peski, coupled with the overwhelming firepower provided by Russian artillery. This has turned into an artillery war, and Russia has much more of it while using systems like Iskanders, BM-30s, BM-27s, and even loitering munitions, to try and negate the advantage offered by longer-ranged western artillery, which remains a minority among employed systems. It seems highly likely that Ukrainian forces are taking larger losses in this stage of the fight.

 

[Ananda]

think it's quite safe to say that both have suffered huge losses, but I don't think you are in a position to make any claims stronger than that. If you do, please back up your claims with credible sources.

Read my post carefully. I say they (Ukranian losses) are higher because most importantly they are loosing their MIC. Something that Russian are not loosing that. Do you claim that Russian loosing their Industrial capabilities to support the war ?

Ukrainian does, and that losess is much bigger on any attrition war. They are loosing their MIC to support the war effort, makes their losses are higher in any term. I already put in my other post that no claim from each side can be truly verified. So read the post carefully before you attack me on credibility sources.

 

[Ananda]

We do know that Ukraine managed to win back significant land areas in the early phases, that Russia then made some incremental gains, and that the last weeks Russian progress has for the most part stopped.

Win back or Russian pull back. That's a significant difference on that. However winning back the east and south which are Russian aim from beginning, is different matter.

 

[Vivendi]

Read my post carefully. I say they (Ukranian losses) are higher because most importantly they are loosing their MIC. Something that Russian are not loosing that. Do you claim that Russian loosing their Industrial capabilities to support the war ?

It is not clear to me what you mean by "Ukrainian losses". I assumed you meant loss of UKR soldiers (either killed or wounded). Is this not what you meant?

 

[Vivendi]

Recent reports from Ukrainian social media like the situation in Peski, coupled with the overwhelming firepower provided by Russian artillery. This has turned into an artillery war, and Russia has much more of it while using systems like Iskanders, BM-30s, BM-27s, and even loitering munitions, to try and negate the advantage offered by longer-ranged western artillery, which remains a minority among employed systems. It seems highly likely that Ukrainian forces are taking larger losses in this stage of the fight.

Russia has more artillery, but had recently issues with supplies due to attacks on ammo and fuel depots negating some of the quantitative advantage. In any case, I was talking about total losses, since February 24, not just losses during this stage. I suspect it's impossible to tell which side has has had the largest total losses, unless you have access to classified intel.

 

[Ananda]

What I mean the loses on man power and equipment is large on both sides, despite each claims. However Ukrainian losses is higher as they are loosing their MIC bases to support the war. Loosing your industrial bases means you are depends only on external supply. That's bad on any attrition war.

As for manpower and equipment, personally I believe they are loosing more than Russian (base on progress of war). However as I have put each claim from each sides are hard to verified. Thus why more losses on Ukrainian sides more on their Industrial capabilities.

The fog of war is too thick in this war, too really knows the real losses. However if your own industrial capabilities gone or much more depleted, that's matter for any sides to conduct war of attrition. That's mean you are loosing more on any term.

 

[Hone C]

the number of UKR soldiers available 12 months from now will equal the number of UKR soldiers available today + those being trained - losses (killed or wounded). I am concerned that the UKR losses have been (and will be) much higher than what is known. Thus, even if the US and the UK (supported by other countries) train a significant number of soldiers in the coming months, the number of soldiers available 12 months from now may still not be sufficient to fight at brigade level.

There's no doubt that attrition and force generation are issues affecting both sides. Russian demographics aren't great, Ukrainian demographics even worse; neither side has an endless supply of young men to throw into the fight.

Another aspect to consider is the very short duration of the Western training provided. The UK for example are running 3 week courses with a very basic syllabus. This is no doubt better than sending civilians straight to the front but isn't sufficient for crewing/operating complex systems or conducting the brigade level offensive actions being discussed above.

UK to offer major training programme for Ukrainian forces as Prime Minister hails their victorious determination

During a visit to Kyiv, Prime Minister Boris Johnson offered to launch a major training operation for Ukrainian forces.

www.gov.uk

 

[Vivendi]

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is teaching some dangerous lessons to countries that don't have nukes, or are not under the nuclear umbrella of a trusted ally.

It will definitely motivate North Korea to not give up their nukes, whatever promises other countries would be making. It may also motivate some countries like Iran that currently don't have nukes, to get their own nuclear weapons.

However it also teaches dangerous lessons to countries having nukes -- perhaps China will consider using "offensive nuclear deterrence" in dealing with Taiwan and other "troublesome" countries in the region.

There are many reasons why we cannot let Russia win this war, and this is another one. Forcing Russia out of Ukraine, would help in restoring at least partly the integrity of the nonproliferation regime.

How Russia's Nuclear Double Cross of Ukraine Teaches Dangerous Lessons

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the West's support for Kyiv has been tempered by an ace up Vladimir Putin's sleeve: the potential use of nuclear weapons. But other countries are taking notice, which could imperil world stability even further.

www.rand.org

 

[Vivendi]

What I mean the loses on man power and equipment is large on both sides, despite each claims. However Ukrainian losses is higher as they are loosing their MIC bases to support the war. Loosing your industrial bases means you are depends only on external supply. That's bad on any attrition war.

As for manpower and equipment, personally I believe they are loosing more than Russian (base on progress of war). However as I have put each claim from each sides are hard to verified. Thus why more losses on Ukrainian sides more on their Industrial capabilities.

The fog of war is too thick in this war, too really knows the real losses. However if your own industrial capabilities gone or much more depleted, that's matter for any sides to conduct war of attrition. That's mean you are loosing more on any term.

In most cases I would agree with you -- that loss of MIC would be a huge issue. However is this case Ukraine is drawing upon support from a large number of countries, several of which have committed to long term support. Thus Ukraine will prevail.

 

[OPSSG]

Donations to form ABGs take time to train

In most cases I would agree with you -- that loss of MIC would be a huge issue. However is this case Ukraine is drawing upon support from a large number of countries, several of which have committed to long term support.

1. Australia alone has donated 28 M113AS4 APCs and 60 Bushmaster MRAPs. Likewise, Canada donated 39 Super Bison LAVs. When you add a tank company or two of T-72M1Rs donated from Poland, you have enough vehicles for a single ABG. Keeping in mind that in Apr 2022, Poland’s prime minister confirmed the country supplied its Soviet-designed T-72M1 and T-72M1R tanks to Ukraine

2. Since Apr 2022, the Polish Government supplied to the Ukrainian Army 100 T-72M1/M1R (M1R has minor upgrades), quantities of BWP-1 IFVs. In the same month, Americans donated 11 Mi-17 transport helicopters, 200 M113 APCs, and 300 Switchblade loitering munitions. In the video below, you can see driver orientation training being conducted.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1562862074807455745

3. The Americans donated M113s and that alone is enough for 4 ABGs (and theare not in the fight, yet).

​

(a) It’s pretty clear, that these gifts from these 4 countries when combined are intended to operate as multiple ABGs, each with its own organic recovery vehicles and loitering munitions.​

​

(b) Each ABG is a very powerful force construct, if there are trained Ukrainians to operate these donated weapons systems. And it will take months to train them to use these APCs as a fighting ABG (with dismount drills), cover movement, other screening tactics and vehicle recovery drills.​

Thus Ukraine will prevail.

4. Only if the Ukrainians use these armoured vehicles correctly, in an ABG with the correct fire support and don’t squander them in small scale fights.

5. France donated 18 155mm Caesar self-propelled guns (SPGs); which is enough SPGs to provide direct support for 3 ABGs.

6. Beyond Polish T-72M1Rs, other European countries are also stepping up to transfer their Soviet era tanks to Ukraine via swaps. For example, Germany will supply the Czech Republic with 14 Leopard 2A4 MBTs and 1 Büffel armoured recovery vehicle from industrial stocks. The Czech Republic in turn will supply T-72 MBTs in support of Ukraine.

7. The fastest way to get tanks to Ukraine would be for the US to just drop a lot of its stored Abrams into Poland, and Poland sending all its remaining older PT-91 Twardy tanks to Ukraine.

8. The downside of these donations: Ukraine is now faced with operating multiple platform types including many different calibres of munition with different production capacities, and must also maintain and repair these platforms, some of which are considerably more challenging than others.

 

[koxinga]

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is teaching some dangerous lessons to countries that don't have nukes, or are not under the nuclear umbrella of a trusted ally.

It will definitely motivate North Korea to not give up their nukes, whatever promises other countries would be making. It may also motivate some countries like Iran that currently don't have nukes, to get their own nuclear weapons.

Nah, that lesson was already demonstrated by Libya.

NK have seen the consequences and they know to keep and expand their NK arsenal and use it as a bargaining tool than give it up and hope that the US and Western powers will reward it for their actions. Likewise for Iran, I don't see them giving up their program; JCPOA is aiming for a pause rather than encouraging the Iranians to give it up entirely.

However it also teaches dangerous lessons to countries having nukes -- perhaps China will consider using "offensive nuclear deterrence" in dealing with Taiwan and other "troublesome" countries in the region.

No I don't think so.

It is a out of context discussion but the short argument is Iran/NK have no other major geopolitical bargaining tool than their nukes. China on the other hand, have so many other non military (strategic/economic/financial) levers that they can pull before even arriving at the conventional military ones and nukes are far down the line.

 

[Ananda]

However is this case Ukraine is drawing upon support from a large number of countries, several of which have committed to long term support. Thus Ukraine will prevail.

Depends on what prevail in here means. If Prevail means holding 70%-75% of teritory, probable they can do it. However if prevail means to rolling back Russian, I'm highly doubt that base on their performances and supply sides so far.

Some in West think high that their supply will be enough to roll back the Russian. However I highly doubt the West will give more to replace what Ukraine already losses, including those ex USSR inventories and what their own MIC produces.

As I have put in my post, even with high amount of land lease program from US to USSR, the ones that rolling back the Germans in Eastern front was USSR own MIC production. The Land Lease mostly used as supplement war supplies and give USSR times for their own MIC to reach full production. Something that Ukraine don't have anymore.

However lets the time tell whose right.

 

[seaspear]

With regard to estimations of Russian losses and being unable to substantiate claims ,Russia has been shown to have put back into action from long term storage very old tanks including 1960,s era t-64 tanks ,its been reported to have provided reserve equipment from Belorussian stocks, its not something you would need to do if at the start of this war you had an overwhelming numerical advantage in.
Perhaps this type of training for recruits may not be long enough but may be effective
In England, Ukrainian Recruits Are Training for Frontline Battles - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
This is an interesting article supplying some historical context of events in Ukraine and present day
Ukraine Transformed Its Own Military, but U.S. Training Still Helps (foreignpolicy.com)

 

[swerve]

Depends on what prevail in here means. If Prevail means holding 70%-75% of teritory, probable they can do it.

Russia currently controls 20-22% of Ukraine & at the current rate of advance is unlikely to ever hold 30%.

 

[swerve]

Why you are assuming Russian lossing more ? Base on Oryx ? Or some Ukranian calculation ? My point on Ukranian have more losses not only Man Power and Equipment but most importantly their MIC.


More ? From where ? Oryx is calculating based on video and pictures taken. However Ukraine known have better abilities to conceals photo of their losses toward online exposures.

That's a huge assumption. Why do you think that Ukraine can conceal its losses better? If Russian forces are advancing, they should have a huge advantage in concealing their losses & exposing Ukrainian losses. They can take photographs of every wrecked Ukrainian tank, gun, etc. in the territory they capture, & Ukraine will not be able to do the same for Russian losses.

You haven't thought this through.

 

[Ananda]

Russia currently controls 20-22% of Ukraine & at the current rate of advance is unlikely to ever hold 30%.

Depends on the result on Donbas fronts. I have seen many analysts even from West that put the balance of this war, will be determine with Donbas results. If Russian fail in Donbas, the table can turn. On other hand if they win, it will be the other way around.

That's why I ask what's this means on Ukraine prevail ? Georgia (as example) loosing territories to Russia and it's proxy, but considering the nation of Georgia still exists, then it can be said Georgia prevail even with loosing territories.

You haven't thought this through.

No, I gave think this through. There are many attacks done by Russian missiles and artilleries behind Ukrainian lines. Will Russian can shown the results, on that area ?. Also your assuming Russian will shown all the results of their advance to online media. That's not seems what they are doing.

Add:
Just to be clear for my posts, I stated time to time Russian losses are big, but what I also say base on the result so far, Ukrainian losses also big. It is open to debate which ones has more losses, but for me with the loosing MIC (Military Industrial Complex), Ukraine is in worse conditions on this war of attrition.

Something that many in Western media and pundits seems not want to point that out. Only few shown opinion toward that. It is all back to who will have 'stamina' left in this war of attrition that this war has turned into.