The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Karl Franz]

I think that the logistics capabilities of the Germans and the Russians were decades apart and that's what was a war winner for the Russians. The Russians made great use of trucks, especially American Lend-Lease trucks which they given by the tens of thousands. From memory the vast majority were Studebaker and White trucks. So they were able to truck just about everything to the frontline. They also used their rail system efficiently and effectively, and it wasn't being destroyed like the German one was in Europe. Also Stalin placed Russia on a war economy immediately and moved the essential industries behind the Ural mountains, well beyond German strike capabilities.

Agreed, the Soviet logistics benefited greatly from mechanization and simply put the Soviets had the resources to have such a big logistic organization. I believe you are spot on about the trucks, they were the most important component of the land lease for the Soviets. They had enough tanks, guns, planes, but the trucks came in very handy.

On the German side, the Wehrmacht logistics was poor in comparison. They didn't have a large motorised logistics fleet comprised of trucks. Their logistics fleet was mostly horse drawn, as was their artillery. Even in 1944 this was so and graphic evidence of this an be seen in film and photos taken after finish of the Battle of the Falaise Gap in France in 1944, where Allied Forces decimated the German Army Group B, 7th Army, and 5th Panzer Army. Hitler also never put the German economy on to a war footing until 1942 and that was a mistake.

The Germans were behind on mechanization, but I think this was because of necessity not negligence, they simply did not have the fuel. I read that total German consumption of fuel during the war never reached British non-military consumption. As such even if the Germans produced 100k-200k trucks they would most likely be sitting at the depots with not enough fuel to use them. I am personally not too hard on German logistic planners as they had an uphill battle with megalomaniacs in both Hitler and OKH. They warned about German inability to conduct the successful invasion before the war and that the shortages of work manpower (sent into combat) would result in lower production of war materials at home, they were ignored.

 

[SouthernSky]

I clicked on this thread looking for the latest in the current Russian Ukraine war but instead got opinions on WW2.............

 

[swerve]

...
On the German side, the Wehrmacht logistics was poor in comparison. They didn't have a large motorised logistics fleet comprised of trucks. Their logistics fleet was mostly horse drawn, as was their artillery. Even in 1944 this was so and graphic evidence of this an be seen in film and photos taken after finish of the Battle of the Falaise Gap in France in 1944, where Allied Forces decimated the German Army Group B, 7th Army, and 5th Panzer Army. Hitler also never put the German economy on to a war footing until 1942 and that was a mistake.

Germany had a huge difficulty in mechanising army transport: fuel. Even if it could make enough trucks, it couldn't fuel them. So it had to use horses.

France had a big motor vehicle industry before the war, but it wasn't used by the Germans to anything like the extent it could have been after the fall of France, because the Germans couldn't have fuelled the vehicles the French could have made. The USSR, on the other hand, had all the crude oil it could use, & the USA providing refined products to make up for shortfalls in Soviet refining capacity, so it could use every truck the USA & Canada gave it: over 400,000 of them, not just tens of thousands.

 

[Karl Franz]

His works are essential reading but not easy reading; not for me personally. I highly recommend stuff done by Douglas Nash, George Nipe and David Stahel.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will try to get to them as time allows me.

Indeed and it's not so much that the Germans were bad at logistics but the fact that the German military was built for short continental wars; not protracted ones. German logistics actually improved as the war dragged on; it was a host of various issues [a lack of raw materials, the distances; Allied bombing; flawed policies at home; production capacity] and not bad logistics per see which hampered things. We also have to bear in mind that the Germans; unlike the Brits; didn't have the resources of a Commonwealth to fall back on and they didn't have an ally with the industrial capacity the Americans had.

As I wrote earlier I do not think German logicians were not up to the task, their concerns were simply ignored and they did the best they could with resources provided. The decisions they had to make were very difficult, the famous shortage of winter clothes for the Germans were not the result of there not being winter clothes but of the decision that ammunition, fuel, and food had the priority and not everything could reach the front. I read from one of the diaries of the quartermasters of the sixth army the discussion between them how many horses should be butchered for food and how many left for the logistics. This was the result of the Soviets scorched earth tactic and the army simply outrunning its logistics. Not to mention that the rails were not suited for German trains and they had to lay new rails as they advanced.

I clicked on this thread looking for the latest in the current Russian Ukraine war but instead got opinions on WW2.........

Sorry for taking too much time, we should really make a thread for discussing World War 2 and keep this one on topic.

 

[swerve]

An interesting take on the number of artillery shells used so far by Russian forces in Ukraine, estimated arsenal and production capabilities:

Key takeaways:
- between 1 - 2.6 million fired artillery rounds so far in the war
- he puts Russias useable number of artillery shells after the Cold war at between 5 and 15 million
- if they continue in Ukraine at the same rate, that would leave them to last at worst until March 2023, without counting new rounds that can be produced in the meantime
- regarding the production capabilities, everything they need wrt artillery ammo can be found domestically and will not be affected by sanctions (unlike certain others, technically more demanding munitions); he puts their production capabilities at around 1 million per year
- he claims the number of munitions Russia is losing in recent Ukrainian strikes on ammo depots is negligible because each one is consisting of a few days use of artillery at most but it puts additional strain on their logistics

At worst that'd give them not much more time than the war's taken so far. Worst case: 2.6 million fired so far out of 5 million, leaving 2.4 million, plus what's been made so far & what'll be made during the future fighting. At the same rate (& bear in mind that Russian ammunition use seems to have been lower early in the war than recently, so this is not quite worst case) it'd use up current stocks in 4.5 months by when it'd have made enough for another 6 weeks (roughly). It's using a year's flat-out production in 2.5 months.

If, of course, his numbers are correct.

 

[vikingatespam]

Most of the war it was literally the opposite, Barbarosa had 4 million german soldiers and Soviet Union had 2.5, its one of those myths like "Winter defeated Germany", or "it was Hitler fault that we lost", many generals in the new german army of the GDR had to cover the truth in the same fashion they created the "gentlemen war" myth of the Africa Korps and of course Erwin Romel figure.

Forces in the combat zone at the start of Barbarossa were about the same in the # of men, with a large plane/tank/tube advantage for the Russians. See Stumbling Colossus by Glantz. As the war progressed the manpower ratio continued to be in favor of the Russians.

 

[jref]

At worst that'd give them not much more time than the war's taken so far. Worst case: 2.6 million fired so far out of 5 million, leaving 2.4 million, plus what's been made so far & what'll be made during the future fighting. At the same rate (& bear in mind that Russian ammunition use seems to have been lower early in the war than recently, so this is not quite worst case) it'd use up current stocks in 4.5 months by when it'd have made enough for another 6 weeks (roughly). It's using a year's flat-out production in 2.5 months.

If, of course, his numbers are correct.

There is a more concrete number of art. shells fired and that is 1,793,373 (which is mentioned in the video and which I forgot to include in the takeaways) and it's the number off of which he based his worst case scenario. However, he also gave it a huge margin of error of 50% thus the 1 - 2.6 million.

And yes of course, if any of this is correct.

 

[STURM]

The Germans were behind on mechanization, but I think this was because of necessity not negligence, they simply did not have the fuel.

Even if they had fuel in abundance their industry was limited in the number of half tracks and lorries they could produce; not only due to material shortages but also because they had their hands full producing various other things and is why capturing the Skoda works was so important to them.
For Barbarossa a few hundred captured French lorries were pressed into service.

 

[vonnoobie]

Ok we have all have a good chat about WWII, If people want to continue it or about any other war might I suggest they start a thread for it so we can get this one back on track ... Just ome friendly advice before the admins wake up from their naps all grumpy

 

[Feanor]

At worst that'd give them not much more time than the war's taken so far. Worst case: 2.6 million fired so far out of 5 million, leaving 2.4 million, plus what's been made so far & what'll be made during the future fighting. At the same rate (& bear in mind that Russian ammunition use seems to have been lower early in the war than recently, so this is not quite worst case) it'd use up current stocks in 4.5 months by when it'd have made enough for another 6 weeks (roughly). It's using a year's flat-out production in 2.5 months.

If, of course, his numbers are correct.

That's assuming production remains at the same level. While producing advanced weapons may be more difficult under sanctions, producing regular dumb shells is quite doable and in principle scalable.

We have reports of Ukrainian forces leaving Seversk. Note the town sits in a lowland area, surrounded by taller hills, so it was always going to be hard to defend. I think Ukrainian forces will withdraw to the heights west of the town, and try to defend there.

EDIT: Other sources are suggesting that Ukrainian troops aren't leaving the town, instead some units are being moved towards a different section of the front line. I guess it remains to be seen.

 

[IC_IC_IC]

At worst that'd give them not much more time than the war's taken so far. Worst case: 2.6 million fired so far out of 5 million, leaving 2.4 million, plus what's been made so far & what'll be made during the future fighting. At the same rate (& bear in mind that Russian ammunition use seems to have been lower early in the war than recently, so this is not quite worst case) it'd use up current stocks in 4.5 months by when it'd have made enough for another 6 weeks (roughly). It's using a year's flat-out production in 2.5 months.

If, of course, his numbers are correct.

Factories on peace time dont produce 24/7 ammo ...
A grad rocket is basically a metalic tube, some low-end propeller and some HE. Same with 99% of those rockets/shells
Even non state actors can make them by the thousands like Hezbollah, it has been some months since the famous "No cruise missiles in March" and some 3 days ago they fired like 20 Kalibr.
Thinking that Russia will run out of those ammunitions is simply wishful thinking when we are talking about one of the major exporters of ammo in the World...
They even delivered 1 week ago another batch of Su-30SME to Myanmar ...
I shared the link already and in 2021 alone Russians exported 9000 metric tons of ammo to US civilians.

 

[ngatimozart]

I clicked on this thread looking for the latest in the current Russian Ukraine war but instead got opinions on WW2.............

But it is relevant because, as has been pointed out, there are a number of important similarities between the current conflict and WW2. In discussing the problems faced by the combatants on the Eastern Front during WW2, we can gain some understanding of the problems faced by the current combatants. Logistics is very important and similar problems are being faced by both combatants to that of the Germans and Russians during WW2.

 

[Ananda]

Colonelcassad

Кадры переброски нескольких десятков польских танков PT-92 Twardy (модернизация Т-72), предположительно, на Украину. Ранее уже были сообщения о передаче Киеву данных машин, взамен которых Варшава получит бывшие в эксплуатации американские Abrams. #Польша @new_militarycolumnist

t.me

Russian online sites already shown and claim asside previous T-72, Poland now already begin to transfer their PT-91. So far NATO seems still trying to get as much as possible all ex Warsaw Pact inventory or Equipment based on Sovyet design.

Thinking that Russia will run out of those ammunitions is simply wishful thinking when we are talking about one of the major exporters of ammo in the World...

I do have to agree on this. Russia despite all Ukraine or Western wish, still has their MIC running. However question will be if their MIC can come out with newer design production or has to stick with old USSR based tech design. Newer Russian design means more precision, but more microelectronics needs, which Russia own semiconductor production in big question can cover them.

Still it is not good prospect for Ukraine and NATO as Ukraine backer. This means most of Ukraine Guns and MLRS that coming from their ex USSR stocks face continue dwindling shortages of supplies, while NATO still can't provide enough West based Guns and MLRS to compensate. Ukraine own MIC is close to non existent, which Ukraine themselves already acknowledge two months ago. Ukraine own MIC that supposed to provide the supplies, as Ukraine MIC actually still bigger in capacity then all ex Warsaw Pact NATO members have on manufacturing USSR based ammo.

Don't get me wrong HIMARS is better then USSR based MLRS. However in this war of attrition, can one HIMARS outweigh 4-6 BM-30 Smerch ? (not counting much more numerous 122mm MLRS Grad). Because that's how the gap that at least need to be close

 

[STURM]

The Russians apparently have got their act together when it comes to countering Ukrainian UASs. This is in contrast to the early stages of that conflict when the impression we got was that it was the Ukrainians who were dominating the UAS war; the Russians in contrast despite having very effectively deployed UASs in the Donbas years previously were unable to deploy their UASs effectively.

Why Ukraine's drones are becoming ineffective against Russia: Experts

Experts told Insider how Russia now could have the upper hand over Ukraine in the drone war over Donbas.

www.businessinsider.com

"But Russia has learned from the humiliation by drones in the first months of the invasion. Experts told Insider that the drone wonder weapons are becoming increasingly ineffective because Russia has improved its defense systems and is downing and jamming many of Ukraine's drones

""What's happening now is that Russia's electronic warfare and air defenses have become better organized and fielded when compared to the earlier months of the war," Samuel Bendett, an analyst and expert in unmanned and robotic military systems"

"Drones were able to play such a role because the Russians were slow to set up an air defense system. They were slow to establish the combined arms operation (armor, infantry, artillery, recon, engineers, air defense) that their doctrine called for," he said"

"According to Cancian, Russia's air defenses are almost entirely short, and medium-range missiles and drones are especially vulnerable because they fly low and slow."

"Ukrainian pilots I have talked with say the role of drones is now limited as a result," he said.

Another area in which the Russians initially underperformed but seem to have caught up is EW.

 

[Feanor]

The Russians apparently have got their act together when it comes to countering Ukrainian UASs. This is in contrast to the early stages of that conflict when the impression we got was that it was the Ukrainians who were dominating the UAS war; the Russians in contrast despite having very effectively deployed UASs in the Donbas years previously were unable to deploy their UASs effectively.

Why Ukraine's drones are becoming ineffective against Russia: Experts

Experts told Insider how Russia now could have the upper hand over Ukraine in the drone war over Donbas.

www.businessinsider.com

"But Russia has learned from the humiliation by drones in the first months of the invasion. Experts told Insider that the drone wonder weapons are becoming increasingly ineffective because Russia has improved its defense systems and is downing and jamming many of Ukraine's drones

""What's happening now is that Russia's electronic warfare and air defenses have become better organized and fielded when compared to the earlier months of the war," Samuel Bendett, an analyst and expert in unmanned and robotic military systems"

"Drones were able to play such a role because the Russians were slow to set up an air defense system. They were slow to establish the combined arms operation (armor, infantry, artillery, recon, engineers, air defense) that their doctrine called for," he said"

"According to Cancian, Russia's air defenses are almost entirely short, and medium-range missiles and drones are especially vulnerable because they fly low and slow."

"Ukrainian pilots I have talked with say the role of drones is now limited as a result," he said.

Another area in which the Russians initially underperformed but seem to have caught up is EW.

Russia had the technology and the experience of dealing with UAS in Syria, but failed to implement at the start of the current war. It would have been an even more stupendous failure if after months of war, the Russian military still had no way of dealing with this. This was to be expected and is less of an accomplishment more of a bare functionality; reacting to the enemy at the institutional level.

EDIT: An interesting documentary on the LNR btln Spetcre (Призрак). It's definitely told from a pro-rebel perspective but it has interesting footage of rebel positions, and some combat action, including interesting use of PTRDs.

 

[IC_IC_IC]

The Russians apparently have got their act together when it comes to countering Ukrainian UASs. This is in contrast to the early stages of that conflict when the impression we got was that it was the Ukrainians who were dominating the UAS war; the Russians in contrast despite having very effectively deployed UASs in the Donbas years previously were unable to deploy their UASs effectively.

Why Ukraine's drones are becoming ineffective against Russia: Experts

Experts told Insider how Russia now could have the upper hand over Ukraine in the drone war over Donbas.

www.businessinsider.com

"But Russia has learned from the humiliation by drones in the first months of the invasion. Experts told Insider that the drone wonder weapons are becoming increasingly ineffective because Russia has improved its defense systems and is downing and jamming many of Ukraine's drones

""What's happening now is that Russia's electronic warfare and air defenses have become better organized and fielded when compared to the earlier months of the war," Samuel Bendett, an analyst and expert in unmanned and robotic military systems"

"Drones were able to play such a role because the Russians were slow to set up an air defense system. They were slow to establish the combined arms operation (armor, infantry, artillery, recon, engineers, air defense) that their doctrine called for," he said"

"According to Cancian, Russia's air defenses are almost entirely short, and medium-range missiles and drones are especially vulnerable because they fly low and slow."

"Ukrainian pilots I have talked with say the role of drones is now limited as a result," he said.

Another area in which the Russians initially underperformed but seem to have caught up is EW.

Russians have started using the Lancet en masse according to Ukrainian sources.

 

[STURM]

Russia had the technology and the experience of dealing with UAS in Syria, but failed to implement at the start of the current war.

Why? Was it because it failed to notice that the Ukrainians had learn vital lessons from the Donbas campaign and had significantly improved their UAS capability or was it simply because they assumed the Ukrainians wouldn't put up such stiff and determined resistance?

It would have been an even more stupendous failure if after months of war, the Russian military still had no way of dealing with this.

In your opinion what can the Russians possibly do to counter HIMARS? The obvious answer would be attempt to hit it with UASs and other means but locating them and hitting them before they relocate is a huge challenge.

Russians have started using the Lancet en masse according to Ukrainian sources.

If American claim that Russia is very interested in buying Iranian UASs is true; to me this is an indication the Russian industry isn't able to cope with the demand. Iranian UASs may lack sophistication but they can do the job and I'm assuming the Iranians can supply them in numbers.

 

[IC_IC_IC]

Russian cruise missile deploys ECM to counter an Ukranian AA.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1548238610624684032

 

[STURM]

I'm lost. Which was the Ukrainian missile; the 2nd object? What got jammed?

 

[Feanor]

Why? Was it because it failed to notice that the Ukrainians had learn vital lessons from the Donbas campaign and had significantly improved their UAS capability or was it simply because they assumed the Ukrainians wouldn't put up such stiff and determined resistance?

It's because Russia never properly scaled their reforms. In 2009-2012 the Russian military radically modernized but then Shoygu took over and instead of continuing the modernization and spreading the lessons and capabilities, the Land Forces focused heavily on forming additional units and increasing nominal strength. As a result we have situation like reports of the 90th Tank Div. not having a UAV service. Russia fought a number of small wars for which having a limited quantity of UAVs, automated command and control capabilities, and modern comms, sufficed. Meanwhile the bulk of the Land Forces received either very small quantities of these capabilities, or received less modern alternatives. As a result in a small scale conflict, they can look modern and capable, but at scale it's not there.

In your opinion what can the Russians possibly do to counter HIMARS? The obvious answer would be attempt to hit it with UASs and other means but locating them and hitting them before they relocate is a huge challenge.

I suspect the main problem is finding them, not hitting them. Better UAV surveillance, and more counter-battery radars might help.

If American claim that Russia is very interested in buying Iranian UASs is true; to me this is an indication the Russian industry isn't able to cope with the demand. Iranian UASs may lack sophistication but they can do the job and I'm assuming the Iranians can supply them in numbers.

Do they lack sophistication? Iran has been using UCAVs longer then Russia. It's all relative.