sclaff said:

---

⚡️Ukraine destroys Russian echelon in Kherson Obast with HIMARS.

According to Odesa Oblast Administration, Ukraine hit a 40-car train transporting Russian troops, equipment, and ammunition from Crimea on July 31, killing around 80 Russian soldiers and injuring around 200.

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) July 31, 2022

---

That sounds impressive. Would the thing have to be stopped for a while for them to do that?

I've seen that reported on several sites- still waiting on further confirmation. I bet they had the railway zeroed in awaiting such an opportunity. Hit the tracks, stop the train, blast away

Technically, no. It would just be a difficult thing to time. HIMARS' rockets are generally going to hit a specific spot, not a moving target. Either the train just needs to happen to be there or they need to time it so that the train is passing through or at a stop.

⚡️Explosions heard in Russian-occupied Skadovsk, Kherson Oblast.

According to preliminary information, a Russian ammunition depot was destroyed in the southern port town in Kherson Oblast, local media “Most” reported. Eyewitnesses say thick dark smoke can be seen in the sky.

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) July 31, 2022

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Technically, no. It would just be a difficult thing to time. HIMARS' rockets are generally going to hit a specific spot, not a moving target. Either the train just needs to happen to be there or they need to time it so that the train is passing through or at a stop.

---

Hit the rails, give the train time to reach that spot and stop, then fire away.

74OA said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Technically, no. It would just be a difficult thing to time. HIMARS' rockets are generally going to hit a specific spot, not a moving target. Either the train just needs to happen to be there or they need to time it so that the train is passing through or at a stop.

---

Hit the rails, give the train time to reach that spot and stop, then fire away.

---

Actually, why aren't there more attempts to derail trains? How much advance notice would HIMARS need to fire at a track in short enough time to derail a train before the track is repaired?

Posting and starting to watch now. I'll post some highlights if I hear any really interesting ones.

12:14 - Unsustainable Russian losses among officers. They're recruiting soldiers and sending them to a short officer school to try to replace them.

13:03 - Western sanctions have been hitting Russia hard, to the tune of a 45% decline in the Russian GDP.

13:51 - Both parties in the US Congress support the transfer of long range HIMARS missiles.

15:38 - Hilarious "Move to Russia" advertisement.

17:00 - FIRMS data for Southern Ukraine shows most fires data is in the Russian-controlled area.

17:56 - That gash the Ukrainians cut into the Russian-controlled territory in the Izyum area appears to be holding strong.

20:45 - Russians tried to advance into Bakhmut but failed. They have gained a bit of ground on the outskirts, but nothing significant. IMO, they need to be pushed far back from Bakhmut.

21:55 - Discussion of Russians trying to fortify the Kherson area.

23:07 - Apparently the massive Russian artillery attacks on Mykolaiv a day ago was a bunch of impotent rage, and it didn't hit anything of military importance.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Technically, no. It would just be a difficult thing to time. HIMARS' rockets are generally going to hit a specific spot, not a moving target. Either the train just needs to happen to be there or they need to time it so that the train is passing through or at a stop.

---

This was the last major RR station about 25 miles SE from the Kherson RR bridge that was damaged about 2-3 days ago. The train was likely parked at the station because of the bridge damage.

ETA If they can hit the Brylivka RR station in they can also hit the nearby 400 ft long RR bridge over the fresh water canal to Crimea. The Orks just need to throw in the towel on this RR supply route to Kherson.

benchmark said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Technically, no. It would just be a difficult thing to time. HIMARS' rockets are generally going to hit a specific spot, not a moving target. Either the train just needs to happen to be there or they need to time it so that the train is passing through or at a stop.

---

This was the last major RR station about 25 miles SE from the Kherson RR bridge that was damaged about 2-3 days ago. The train was likely parked at the station because of the bridge damage.

---

This strike is impressive in several ways. The timing, precision and intel involved shows that the Ukes' capabilities are evolving quickly. Orcs main supply artery is the rail line. So anything to give them pause and cripple this method of transport is great.

Also, a little payback for the Azov POW massacre.

Seen a few takes recently arguing that Russian weapons don’t work well. Having spent time inside a number of Russian manufactured systems I thought I’d address why I think there is often a gap between Russian weapons on paper versus their performance in the field. 1/25

— Jack Watling (@Jack_Watling) July 31, 2022

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3110921/senior-defense-official-and-senior-military-official-hold-a-background-briefing/

Quote:

---

First observation is that, although we continue to see Russia failing -- failing on the battlefield, paying a high price for very little gain, and suffering domestic failures at home, I was really struck this week by how Russian rhetoric was trying to mask these losses, and what we saw was really very expansionist rhetoric coming out of Moscow.

---

Quote:

---

Q: Yeah, can you talk a little bit more about what we're seeing in the east, where the Russians are moving, where they're hunkering down? Any -- any more detail ...

(CROSSTALK)

... for Senior Military Official, of course.

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: I was going to give that one to [SDO], Tom.

Q: Yeah.

(LAUGHTER)

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: So we -- we're -- I don't want to say that it's a complete standstill because that would be inaccurate. There are gains on both sides but very -- back and forth, very small. You know, we've been talking -- and -- and so I'll go back -- I think it was probably three or four weeks ago -- in fact, it was probably the first time I did one of these pressers, we were talking about Severodonetsk and I had mentioned to you that, you know, they were -- the Ukrainians were withdrawing but they were withdrawing in a way that I thought we would probably study.

You know, they've gotten to a point now and have -- have created a level of defense that really has the Russians at a standstill, they've stopped. There are probably a lot of reasons for that. You know, we mentioned morale, we mentioned casualties. Those are certainly reasons that the Russians may have stopped. The other reason may be the Ukrainians have become very effective in finding and killing, you know, Russian command and control and destroying large levels of Russian materiel.

So I think what -- what we're seeing on the east is a result of that. And then if you know, if you just look at the axes from Izyum, those defenses have been stalwart now for coming up on three weeks. So the Russians again have been able to make very little progress.

You wonder, in the Russian leadership perspective, if they look at the small level of ground -- and again, as I said then, if you're a Ukrainian and you give up a foot, that's a big deal to you, but if you look at the small amount of ground, miles, that they advanced from Severodonetsk to the west, the Russians, and the gigantic costs they pay for that, you wonder if the Russians now are thinking to themselves "hey, is it worth another few miles?"

So we'll see where this goes.

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

74OA said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Technically, no. It would just be a difficult thing to time. HIMARS' rockets are generally going to hit a specific spot, not a moving target. Either the train just needs to happen to be there or they need to time it so that the train is passing through or at a stop.

---

Hit the rails, give the train time to reach that spot and stop, then fire away.

---

Actually, why aren't there more attempts to derail trains? How much advance notice would HIMARS need to fire at a track in short enough time to derail a train before the track is repaired?

---

Need to know the schedule and you don't know what else is using the track. You could end up derailing a passenger train.

Waffledynamics said:

---

23:07 - Apparently the massive Russian artillery attacks on Mykolaiv a day ago was a bunch of impotent rage, and it didn't hit anything of military importance.

---

Shells hit the house of one of Ukraine's top agricultural entrepreneurs. He and his wife were killed.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Red1 said:

---

The Russians are promising outlandish sums of money to new recruits who will get very little training. This tells me:

- The Russian Army is experiencing serious attrition to its soldiers.
- Inexperienced soldiers are easier to kill if they are forced to frontline units.

The advent of the P-51 in Europe was the bane to the Luftwaffe in WWII. In due time practically all the experienced German pilots were shot down. Their replacements had little experienced and were killed rather easily. This is an example of attritions and the ramifications of it.

---

What other signs of Russia suffering attrition do you see? It seems like they are still able to have marginal success. One would think scrub teams would get wiped out with no challenge.

---

Being a former Tanker I questioned the Russia's ability to repair broken down vehicles. I made the assumption Russia's plan would be fraught with the inability to meet the demand because they have shown to be logistically incompetent. I read an article that supports my assumption. True or not.

General (R) Keane confirmed what I suspected. The US military is using its intelligence to keep the Ukrainian military apprised of the Russians with tremendous detail. Like I said in a previous post, I would not be surprised if we are assisting the Ukrainian military plan for operations. The Ukrainians are doing the fighting, but we are in their corner by giving them overhead cover figuratively. If we want Ukraine to win then we should arm them better. Give them the weapons to achieve a decisive victory.

AGS-R-TUFF said:

---

benchmark said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Technically, no. It would just be a difficult thing to time. HIMARS' rockets are generally going to hit a specific spot, not a moving target. Either the train just needs to happen to be there or they need to time it so that the train is passing through or at a stop.

---

This was the last major RR station about 25 miles SE from the Kherson RR bridge that was damaged about 2-3 days ago. The train was likely parked at the station because of the bridge damage.

---

This strike is impressive in several ways. The timing, precision and intel involved shows that the Ukes' capabilities are evolving quickly. Orcs main supply artery is the rail line. So anything to give them pause and cripple this method of transport is great.

Also, a little payback for the Azov POW massacre.

---

The US military is painting the picture for the Ukes by using a wide spectrum of intelligence gathering.

Red1 said:

---

General (R) Keane confirmed what I suspected. The US military is using its intelligence to keep the Ukrainian military apprised of the Russians with tremendous detail. Like I said in a previous post, I would not be surprised if we are assisting the Ukrainian military plan for operations. The Ukrainians are doing the fighting, but we are in their corner by giving them overhead cover figuratively. If we want Ukraine to win then we should arm them better. Give them the weapons to achieve a decisive victory.

---

EXACTLY!
You shoukd not assume we want them to win decisively instead of creating a long drawn out military struggle.

When you ask yourself why we are not helping in the way that would achieve what you assume to be our goals you either must evaluate the competency of those creating policy or ask yourself whether our assumed goals are the actual goals.

I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.

Private PoopyPants said:

---

I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.

---

Yes, I don't think the US admin wants a quick victory which'll piss the Russians off. I think the US wants a long, bloody, slow vicotry that'll demoralize the Russians and won't escalate things. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just where we are.

Compassionate Russians assisting victims cross the river. Obviously a humanitarian disaster if the Ukes target these civilian barges. Anyone have the coordinates?

#Russian media showed how their methods to cross the #Dnipro river in #Kherson now work. pic.twitter.com/I7e8eZlXQt

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) August 1, 2022

UPDATE

In addition to 4 more HIMARS arriving, more news:

Quote:

---

Minister of Defense of Ukraine: Third brother in the Long Hand family - MLRS MARS II from Germany - has arrived in Ukraine

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/1-august-minister-of-defense-of-ukraine-third-brother-in

3rd and 2 said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.

---

Yes, I don't think the US admin wants a quick victory which'll piss the Russians off. I think the US wants a long, bloody, slow vicotry that'll demoralize the Russians and won't escalate things. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just where we are.

---

I see both sides of this. A quick victory would certainly leave them demoralized, but it may also leave a sense of resentment and the question of, "Should we have done more?" A longer conflict gives the impression that fought hard but just couldn't do it. The former invites another try, while the latter says it's not worth it.

However, there's a fine line between giving Ukraine what they need and putting ourselves at risk. If you see someone who lost their home in a fire, you don't give them your life savings to rebuild and get them right back on their feet. You give them what you can without putting your own finances in jeopardy. That's where we are.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

3rd and 2 said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.

---

Yes, I don't think the US admin wants a quick victory which'll piss the Russians off. I think the US wants a long, bloody, slow vicotry that'll demoralize the Russians and won't escalate things. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just where we are.

---

I see both sides of this. A quick victory would certainly leave them demoralized, but it may also leave a sense of resentment and the question of, "Should we have done more?" A longer conflict gives the impression that fought hard but just couldn't do it. The former invites another try, while the latter says it's not worth it.

---

Not only that, but there's a Putin X-Factor to this. How does he handle a decisive loss? Would he quietly saunter off into the corner and waste away his years out of the public eye, or would he go (literally) scorched earth in a "if I can't have it, no one can" response.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

3rd and 2 said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.

---

Yes, I don't think the US admin wants a quick victory which'll piss the Russians off. I think the US wants a long, bloody, slow vicotry that'll demoralize the Russians and won't escalate things. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just where we are.

---

I see both sides of this. A quick victory would certainly leave them demoralized, but it may also leave a sense of resentment and the question of, "Should we have done more?" A longer conflict gives the impression that fought hard but just couldn't do it. The former invites another try, while the latter says it's not worth it.

However, there's a fine line between giving Ukraine what they need and putting ourselves at risk. If you see someone who lost their home in a fire, you don't give them your life savings to rebuild and get them right back on their feet. You give them what you can without putting your own finances in jeopardy. That's where we are.

---

I think what people are insinuating is that the US government wants a long war to bleed the orcs dry and make them a non-entity as a geopolitical foe in the long term. The fact that it gives us an excuse to print money to feed the military industrial complex and thin out the older obsolete weapons platforms in our arsenals to be replaced with newer ones is just a bonus in the eyes of people who believe that. I don't have much faith in our government, but I can't say I am cynical enough to believe that we would sacrifice the good people of Ukraine towards such an end, though I guess we have done it before elsewhere in the world.

Why can't it be all of that? Why not bleed russia, get old equipment off the shelf, and watch the latest generation of warfare unfold to help inform what weapons to buy next? All while having widespread support.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Why can't it be all of that? Why not bleed russia, get old equipment off the shelf, and watch the latest generation of warfare unfold to help inform what weapons to buy next? All while having widespread support.

---

Agree with this. I'm all about helping but do remember Ukraine isn't part of NATO. We don't have to be there in any form or fashion so if we're going to help I don't have a problem making it to our advantage.

Nagler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Why can't it be all of that? Why not bleed russia, get old equipment off the shelf, and watch the latest generation of warfare unfold to help inform what weapons to buy next? All while having widespread support.

---

Agree with this. I'm all about helping but do remember Ukraine isn't part of NATO. We don't have to be there in any form or fashion so if we're going to help I don't have a problem making it to our advantage.

---

True.

But the last thing we want is an aggressive Russia and China at the same time. This gave us an opportunity to slap one down while the other now has to second guess Taiwan. Because they colluded betting we wouldn't do anything.

This has little to do with NATO and everything to do with world order. All the other stuff is a bonus. The Ukes winning or this war dragging out another year cuts Russia off at the knees. Enough that with the current military armament taking place amongst european countries, they can handle Russia on their own in the future if China decides to step out. Because we'll have to focus there with Japan, India, and Australia.

txags92 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

3rd and 2 said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

I think the goal is the long drawn out struggle.

---

Yes, I don't think the US admin wants a quick victory which'll piss the Russians off. I think the US wants a long, bloody, slow vicotry that'll demoralize the Russians and won't escalate things. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just where we are.

---

I see both sides of this. A quick victory would certainly leave them demoralized, but it may also leave a sense of resentment and the question of, "Should we have done more?" A longer conflict gives the impression that fought hard but just couldn't do it. The former invites another try, while the latter says it's not worth it.

However, there's a fine line between giving Ukraine what they need and putting ourselves at risk. If you see someone who lost their home in a fire, you don't give them your life savings to rebuild and get them right back on their feet. You give them what you can without putting your own finances in jeopardy. That's where we are.

---

I think what people are insinuating is that the US government wants a long war to bleed the orcs dry and make them a non-entity as a geopolitical foe in the long term. The fact that it gives us an excuse to print money to feed the military industrial complex and thin out the older obsolete weapons platforms in our arsenals to be replaced with newer ones is just a bonus in the eyes of people who believe that. I don't have much faith in our government, but I can't say I am cynical enough to believe that we would sacrifice the good people of Ukraine towards such an end, though I guess we have done it before elsewhere in the world.

---

I know what they're insinuating. I don't think slow playing the bleed Russia and leaving a hollowed out Ukraine benefits us or anyone else, though. Ukraine was a major manufacturer for steel and a major grain producer. The tin foil hat brigade will talk about how "the elites" want that to reduce the world population, but that makes a lot of things more expensive and throws monkey wrenches into many supply chains. They're not in NATO, but they're still a significant player in the world economy.

I think it would also be stupid to pretend Russia would become a non-entity in geopolitics or be relegated to a backseat by a drawn out conflict in Ukraine. They're just too big. You can hollow their military and cripple their economy, but they're still going to be a major O&G producer and they still produce a lot of key raw materials.

Except you aren't acknowledging that the majority of eastern Ukraine where all that grain and steel was made was under Russia control days into the war. Azov was the exception and they at least forced Russia to pretty much destroy the plant to take it.

The only way that would have been undone would have been for us to put boots on the ground. And I don't see that happening unless Russia does something really stupid (even for Russia).

AgLA06 said:

---

Nagler said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Why can't it be all of that? Why not bleed russia, get old equipment off the shelf, and watch the latest generation of warfare unfold to help inform what weapons to buy next? All while having widespread support.

---

Agree with this. I'm all about helping but do remember Ukraine isn't part of NATO. We don't have to be there in any form or fashion so if we're going to help I don't have a problem making it to our advantage.

---

True.

But the last thing we want is an aggressive Russia and China at the same time. This gave us an opportunity to slap one down while the other now has to second guess Taiwan.

This has little to do with NATO and everything to do with world order. All the other stuff is a bonus. The Ukes winning or this war dragging out another year cuts Russia off at the knees. Enough that with the current military armament taking place amongst european countries, they can handle Russia on their own in the future if China decides to step out. Because we'll have to focus there with Japan, India, and Australia.

---

Winner.
During the cold way, we certainly faced Russia and China at the same time, but the ChiComs were not nearly as capable as they are now. Keeping one slapped down these days is a bonus.

AgLA06 said:

---

Except you aren't acknowledging that the majority of eastern Ukraine where all that grain and steel was made was under Russia control days into the war. Azov was the exception and they at least forced Russia to pretty much destroy the plant to take it.

The only way that would have been undone would have been for us to put boots on the ground. And I don't see that happening unless Russia does something really stupid (even for Russia).

---

No, that goes without saying. Ukraine will, hopefully, retake all of that, but we aren't able to give them everything to do it immediately.

For one, they needed to prove themselves willing and capable first. If we provided weapons and they folded, we've given day weapons we need to an enemy who would love to get their hands on them and assess their capabilities. Most thought Ukraine would not last anywhere close to as long as they have, but they've shown incredible resilience and resolve. So far we've given what we can when it comes to weaponry, and we're planning more. The biggest holdup is training and familiarization. For two, as mentioned, we will not deplete our own stockpiles with a potential China conflict on the horizon. We aren't going to give them the quantities to overwhelm Russia with artillery and MLRS rockets and roll them tomorrow because that would take a lot of what we have. If China shoots down Pelosi's plane, we'll need all of that.

We don't want a hollowed out Ukraine. We ultimately want Ukraine to retake all of its territory for two reasons. First, it benefits us and the rest of the world to have that production back, however long it takes, and out of Russian control. Second, it serves as a lesson to other regimes that expansionism still comes with a very high risk. If even Russia couldn't achieve their goals with their nuclear threats, then what will it cost them and what will it gain?

A war that tears Ukraine apart and kills many of its best and brightest doesn't serve those goals very well.