OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Targan]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

What Ukraine NEEDS is arms, ammo, and food... which is flowing in now. I still believe if the Ukrainians can hold on for 10 days, they can really hurt Putin's chances of victory. And I'm basing that on OUR (the US Army's) logistics consumption on the offensive. The Russians have a smaller "logistics tail" than we do and are using far more rockets and artillery than we would. Contrary to popular opinion, morale and logistics win wars [at the strategic level], not just firepower.

That's been my assessment in recent days too. The Russians have struggled with their logistics only a couple of days into this. If they can't achieve at least some of their objectives by day 10, they're going to be in a lot of trouble. Somebody in the Russian government or security services may even decide to put a stop to this with the application of some 9mm medicine.

[Mahatatain]

Is anyone else surprised by how poor the Russian troops have performed? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they are doing badly, but I thought that even without their heavy artillery they would make quicker progress than they have. Has the average Russian infantryman been proved to not be as capable as we expected them to be?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

Is anyone else surprised by how poor the Russian troops have performed? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they are doing badly, but I thought that even without their heavy artillery they would make quicker progress than they have. Has the average Russian infantryman been proved to not be as capable as we expected them to be?

I think that in addition to the myriad of logistical and command issues without motivation, and with literal kinship, there is going to be casual sabotage.

Oh we left our engines running overnight to keep warm.

Hmmm fork in a road and we aren't sure without signs. Let's go towards the sunrise (East) as that is a good marker.

I'll just nudge that to be a bit short of the target. If anyone asks I thought we had a tail wind.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by kato13

I think that in addition to the myriad of logistical and command issues without motivation, and with literal kinship, there is going to be casual sabotage.

Oh we left our engines running overnight to keep warm.

Hmmm fork in a road and we aren't sure without signs. Let's go towards the sunrise (East) as that is a good marker.

I'll just nudge that to be a bit short of the target. If anyone asks I thought we had a tail wind.

It doesn't help that they are unwilling conscripts. I remember Uncle Sam ALWAYS throwing the "YOU VOLUNTEERED FOR THIS!" mantra in our faces. Those poor Russian troops didn't even get that option.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by kato13

I think that in addition to the myriad of logistical and command issues without motivation, and with literal kinship, there is going to be casual sabotage.

Oh we left our engines running overnight to keep warm.

Hmmm fork in a road and we aren't sure without signs. Let's go towards the sunrise (East) as that is a good marker.

I'll just nudge that to be a bit short of the target. If anyone asks I thought we had a tail wind.

They're willfully using grid-square removers on civilian centers, I doubt there's much "literal kinship" happening.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

They're willfully using grid-square removers on civilian centers, I doubt there's much "literal kinship" happening.

I am not saying everyone but if 10% are lackadaisical or outright disruptive, it hurts the plan.

[Raellus]

One thing that I've found really curious about the video clips of shot-up Russian vehicle columns circulating widely is the lack of bodies on the scene. I'll post the link when I have a chance to find it, but there's one where a guy walks through a column of at least a dozen gutted Russian APCs and trucks and there's not a body visible in any frame. There's another clip showing Ukrainian troops rummaging through four or five shot-up Tigr LAV 4x4s and, again, there are no bodies, blood pools, or anything suggesting human casualties in sight.

This is very different than the "Highway of Death" images broadcast from Kuwait, 1991, where images of carbonized corpses abounded (a bit of a PR issue for the military back then, IIRC).

Either the Ukrainians are really good at sanitizing the scene, or the majority of the Russian crews abandoned their vehicles before the "ambush", or at the first sign of trouble.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Russians had 1300 MBTs staged and may have less than 500 left after just 1 WEEK of fighting. The Ukrainian Army had 1500 MBTs and are down around the same strength. That a loss of over 100 tanks a day. This rate of loss would literally WIPE OUT the armored forces of 9 out of 10 Armed Forces on the planet. The losses in Aircraft are even more significant. Ukraine is down to about a dozen operational jets in a week.

Source, please?

Assuming the above figures are accurate, I wonder how many of those losses are hard kills and how many are attrition due to mechanical break-down (i.e. how many of those losses are not recoverable v how many are).

-

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

One thing that I've found really curious about the video clips of shot-up Russian vehicle columns circulating widely is the lack of bodies on the scene. I'll post the link when I have a chance to find it, but there's one where a guy walks through a column of at least a dozen gutted Russian APCs and trucks and there's not a body visible in any frame. There's another clip showing Ukrainian troops rummaging through four or five shot-up Tigr LAV 4x4s and, again, there are no bodies, blood pools, or anything suggesting human casualties in sight.

This is very different than the "Highway of Death" images broadcast from Kuwait, 1991, where images of carbonized corpses abounded (a bit of a PR issue for the military back then, IIRC).

Either the Ukrainians are really good at sanitizing the scene, or the majority of the Russian crews abandoned their vehicles before the "ambush", or at the first sign of trouble.



Source, please?

Assuming the above figures are accurate, I wonder how many of those losses are hard kills and how many are attrition due to mechanical break-down (i.e. how many of those losses are not recoverable v how many are).

-

Sources...

DW News

Funker Tactical = who actually uploaded the pictures of that Ukrainian convoy which was smoked by Russian helos. That Kah-52 Alligator that got shot down was hit by a dual barreled 23mm mounted on a 5-Ton truck. I guess it came in too low. The pilot put it down and just walked away like a boss.

Radio Free America = The looting video came from them.

Some pictures from VOX News

The statement from Ukraine's security minister at the EU or UN emergency meeting where HE CLAIMED 600+ tanks destroyed. Most of the good video shots are being reused by every major network. How accurate these reports are is still in question.

My guess is that Ukraine's losses are "hard losses" mostly inflicted by bombing, helos, and the destruction of munitions depots.

The posted thermobaric explosion of the ammo depot outside Kyiv/Kiev reportedly claimed 100 AFVs that were rearming. I would guess that's accurate. It was a huge explosion and afterward, you can hear the "crackle" of munitions lighting off.

The Russian losses appear to be mostly mechanical issues OR running out of fuel. These are occurring mainly in the North where the conscript units are massed. As you already stated, the troops just up and abandon their equipment when the fuel and ammo are gone. The Ukrainian troops there are attacking the convoys from Belarus and the tanks are older T72s. Those troops have very poor discipline and some funny incidents have occurred... like a farmer stealing an unattended AFV with his tractor as the driver runs up and tries to stop him. And I thought the kids in Somalia were bad!

https://youtu.be/FHkST5SdS98

Sadly this is also where that young Ukrainian Engineer sacrificed himself to blow up that bridge to Kyiv. That probably slowed up the Russians too.

As far as I can tell, the Donetsk region seems to be suffering hard losses. That is where the Ukrainians are using those Turkish drones to designate for laser-guided munitions to the front and rear of a convoy where they stop it by destroying those vehicles. The Artillery then opens up on the remaining trapped vehicles, destroying them. I have seen a video of one column destroyed this way with the bodies under brown tarps. The other video is off a bunch of Hinds strafing a Russian column with rockets and missiles. Sadly, there are videos of the Ukrainians getting pasted here as badly as the Russians are. I think the difference here is that the Russian troops are blooded veterans working with the rebels from the area. They seem to have T80s and T90s... And of course, Kah-52 helo gunships.

The Crimea where the Russian Amphibs landed has those upgraded T55s that the Russian Marines use rolling across the country. Ukraine met them with T64s but the Russians seemed to have prevailed. The Russians are in pretty complete control in the South.

[unipus]

I'm assuming that low morale within the Russian ranks, and possibly even a hesitancy at command levels, is playing a major factor.

Unlike in, say, Iraq, it doesn't seem like there was any major effort to psych up the troops to go do their illegal war. The result seems to be that, far from feeling urraaaaaah about it, they are more than happy to find any excuse not to fight.

(It is however increasingly a myth that all/most Russian troops are conscripts. They've had a hybrid conscript/contract structure for years now, and it's been revised significantly again within the last decade)

I'm not calling any victors at this point, though. It took the US three weeks to take Baghdad, after all. Some people have been eager to say that the failure to take Kyiv in five days means the war is lost, and I just don't think that's remotely true. Or that taking Kyiv means the situation necessarily changes dramatically, anyway.

On the operational level, though, some stuff just doesn't make sense from my Western eyes. The real lack of attempt to secure air superiority, for instance. I know Russia probably has a shortage of precision weapons and might be concerned about their ability to replace them. But this aspect still puzzles me. My best guess is either they were concerned they'd take excessive losses, or they just simply absolutely lack the thinking/capability. Integration between the forces certainly isn't up to US levels, but this seems like barely even trying.

It also seems likely that even if/when the conventional phase of this war is over, many Ukrainians are now fully invested in defending their country, and a long insurgency could most definitely follow. It's a big country, it's well armed (and only getting more so), and you need morale to police an insurgency as well.

[Bestbrian]

Originally Posted by unipus

It also seems likely that even if/when the conventional phase of this war is over, many Ukrainians are now fully invested in defending their country, and a long insurgency could most definitely follow. It's a big country, it's well armed (and only getting more so), and you need morale to police an insurgency as well.

This. Anyway you slice it, this looks like the most enduring outcome. The Russians have bought themselves a long term occupation in a radicalized and hostile country the size of France with an aggrieved neighbor in Poland that is more than willing to throw gas on the fire. The only strategic outcome that makes sense (keep in mind, btw, that none of this makes sense) is that the two client states are enlarged at Ukraine's expense, and a puppet regime is emplaced to govern a rump Ukraine according to orders from Moscow; there's no way to achieve those goals that doesn't entail suppressing an insurgency/civil war. Good luck, Ivan.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by unipus

I'm assuming that low morale within the Russian ranks, and possibly even a hesitancy at command levels, is playing a major factor.

Unlike in, say, Iraq, it doesn't seem like there was any major effort to psych up the troops to go do their illegal war. The result seems to be that, far from feeling urraaaaaah about it, they are more than happy to find any excuse not to fight.

(It is however increasingly a myth that all/most Russian troops are conscripts. They've had a hybrid conscript/contract structure for years now, and it's been revised significantly again within the last decade)

I'm not calling any victors at this point, though. It took the US three weeks to take Baghdad, after all. Some people have been eager to say that the failure to take Kyiv in five days means the war is lost, and I just don't think that's remotely true. Or that taking Kyiv means the situation necessarily changes dramatically, anyway.

On the operational level, though, some stuff just doesn't make sense from my Western eyes. The real lack of attempt to secure air superiority, for instance. I know Russia probably has a shortage of precision weapons and might be concerned about their ability to replace them. But this aspect still puzzles me. My best guess is either they were concerned they'd take excessive losses, or they just simply absolutely lack the thinking/capability. Integration between the forces certainly isn't up to US levels, but this seems like barely even trying.

It also seems likely that even if/when the conventional phase of this war is over, many Ukrainians are now fully invested in defending their country, and a long insurgency could most definitely follow. It's a big country, it's well armed (and only getting more so), and you need morale to police an insurgency as well.

Combat Air CONTROL (CAC) is problematic for the Russians. Without the equivalent of an AWACS over the battlefield, directing the fighters where to go is very difficult. You cannot have an effective CAP (Combat Air Patrol) without the CAC directing things. The Russians have ONE AWACS per THEATER (6 planes total) and are probably afraid of losing the only one they have in the Black sea area. Their ships CAN direct aircraft but the range of ground-based radar makes CAC problematic. In addition, they failed to suppress the Ukraine's SAM defenses in the North and West, making overflights there dangerous. Add to that the sheer number of MANPADS the West gave Ukraine, and we can see why the skies are still contested.

Another thing I have noticed about some of the footage is just how "inaccurate" some of the cruise and ballistic missiles are. In some instances, missing their target by half a block. I wonder IF we might be screwing with their GLASNOSK/GPS system...

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

Is anyone else surprised by how poor the Russian troops have performed? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they are doing badly, but I thought that even without their heavy artillery they would make quicker progress than they have. Has the average Russian infantryman been proved to not be as capable as we expected them to be?

People don't realize that Ukraine had 240k people under arms and almost 1500 MBTs. The initial Russian assault was about 50k troops and 600 of their 1300 MBTs. They also failed to gain air superiority, a big mistske in my opinion.

The Russian advance was about as far a an AFV like those could go on a single tank of gas while fighting... so a "tactical pause" was inevitable for logistics reasons. The real issue is the ambushing of supply convoys as Russian logistics is simply not as efficient as Western logistics.

[swaghauler]

IF you are planning an occupation for "peacekeeping" reasons, looting is a bad idea. It makes the locals hate you even more.

https://youtu.be/OoM5yx1IVFY