Those TU-95's need to be taken out; easier said than done.
***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]
7,548,212 Views |
47728 Replies |
Last: 12 hrs ago by 74OA
Without air superiority. Ukraine blew its summer offensive. I'm now agreeing they're done.
As long as Ukraine exists as a free nation, it's not done for. If we wash our hands of them, then they will be done and that will be to our everlasting shame.
Remember, in 1994 Kiev agreed to give up its ex-Soviet nukes to Russia because we and the UK, France and Russia all agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and provided formal assurances that we wouldn't let Ukraine be subsequently attacked either economically or militarily after it surrendered its nuclear deterrent. Russia's word is of course trash, but does our word mean nothing, too?
Remember, in 1994 Kiev agreed to give up its ex-Soviet nukes to Russia because we and the UK, France and Russia all agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and provided formal assurances that we wouldn't let Ukraine be subsequently attacked either economically or militarily after it surrendered its nuclear deterrent. Russia's word is of course trash, but does our word mean nothing, too?
Like him or not, you gotta admit Zelensky has shown steel cahones all the way back to the opening days of the war when he refused to flee from Kiev.
Today's SITREP.
Today's SITREP.
74OA said:
As long as Ukraine exists as a free nation, it's not done for. If we wash our hands of them, then they will be done and that will be to our everlasting shame.
Remember, in 1994 Kiev agreed to give up its ex-Soviet nukes to Russia because we and the UK, France and Russia all agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and provided formal assurances that we wouldn't let Ukraine be subsequently attacked either economically or militarily after it surrendered its nuclear deterrent. Russia's word is of course trash, but does our word mean nothing, too?
Ukraine is going to run out of fighting men. And before that happens they will have civil unrest.
Even with arms I don't think Ukraine can hold on. Attrition will just bleed them out. Only if NATO threatened war is the only game changer at this point. Outin doesn't value life and will just grind them down, which then opens the door to complete failure and loss of the entire country. Which will probably happen in the next decade anyway.
It's much easier to play defense and then to go on offensives. The ukes don't have to do much in order to defend with Russia lacking any real ability to carry out offensives. This isn't 1943 anymore where Russia can simply throw meat into the grinder.
But, I hope they keep trying.Teslag said:
It's much easier to play defense and then to go on offensives. The ukes don't have to do much in order to defend with Russia lacking any real ability to carry out offensives. This isn't 1943 anymore where Russia can simply throw meat into the grinder.
I'd say neither country is anywhere close to running out of fighting men. This isn't WWI where you have literally tens of thousands of dead men from a few days.AlaskanAg99 said:74OA said:
As long as Ukraine exists as a free nation, it's not done for. If we wash our hands of them, then they will be done and that will be to our everlasting shame.
Remember, in 1994 Kiev agreed to give up its ex-Soviet nukes to Russia because we and the UK, France and Russia all agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and provided formal assurances that we wouldn't let Ukraine be subsequently attacked either economically or militarily after it surrendered its nuclear deterrent. Russia's word is of course trash, but does our word mean nothing, too?
Ukraine is going to run out of fighting men. And before that happens they will have civil unrest.
Even with arms I don't think Ukraine can hold on. Attrition will just bleed them out. Only if NATO threatened war is the only game changer at this point. Outin doesn't value life and will just grind them down, which then opens the door to complete failure and loss of the entire country. Which will probably happen in the next decade anyway.
Teslag said:
It's much easier to play defense and then to go on offensives. The ukes don't have to do much in order to defend with Russia lacking any real ability to carry out offensives. This isn't 1943 anymore where Russia can simply throw meat into the grinder.
Ukraine has to strike deep, and in volume, into Ryssia. Putin knows he has little threat to homeland. So Ukraine needs 300-500 cruise misses and start sinking shipping, navy and needs to lob many at Moscow.
Wr don't know Ukraines losses, but it has to be high.
The answer is no! And it hasn't for a long time!74OA said:
As long as Ukraine exists as a free nation, it's not done for. If we wash our hands of them, then they will be done and that will be to our everlasting shame.
Remember, in 1994 Kiev agreed to give up its ex-Soviet nukes to Russia because we and the UK, France and Russia all agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and provided formal assurances that we wouldn't let Ukraine be subsequently attacked either economically or militarily after it surrendered its nuclear deterrent. Russia's word is of course trash, but does our word mean nothing, too?
Last of the Old Army
74OA said:
As long as Ukraine exists as a free nation, it's not done for.
The first words of the Ukrainian national anthem are, "Never perished..."
Two points relating to the Uke potential to outlast Russia,
firstly, you have to consider that the capabilities (tech and hardware) of the Ukes would increase significantly over a period of a couple of years thanks to yours truly and NATO. If nothing else, a defense in depth would be hell for the Russians (just look at Bakhmut and Andiivka as examples).
secondly, Putin isn't going to be around for a real long time, he clearly has major health issues.....just hang on until then. This is his war.
firstly, you have to consider that the capabilities (tech and hardware) of the Ukes would increase significantly over a period of a couple of years thanks to yours truly and NATO. If nothing else, a defense in depth would be hell for the Russians (just look at Bakhmut and Andiivka as examples).
secondly, Putin isn't going to be around for a real long time, he clearly has major health issues.....just hang on until then. This is his war.
I think it's important that Ukraine win back its territory before there's any peace because of the difference between western countries (lumping Ukraine in here as they are on the trajectory towards joining NATO) and Russia. Russia has no qualms of starting wars / invading countries to seize territory; whereas that is now taboo among western countries. So once there's a peace, NATO is less likely to support UKR in starting a conflict
Recap of the strategy and tactics of the massive drone and missile attack
Ukraine fortifying and mining its border with Belorussia to better defend any attempt at a repeat invasion from the north. Sure hope they're making detailed maps of the minefield locations in hopes of future removal on some better day.
500,000
500,000
AlaskanAg99 said:
Without air superiority. Ukraine blew its summer offensive. I'm now agreeing they're done.
I'm there as well. Short of a Russian regime change it's just a matter of time. 1-2 years maybe.
Think this is the first step, protect and secure borders. Kind of like defense 101.
I don't think they're done. Stalemated for now, but they've established a significant artillery advantage. Russians are having to resort to Best Korean rounds and tubes, while we're ramping up production. Their air defenses have also come a long way. I think they'll have one more shot before they're "done," and they'll probably have to get creative. The Russians have the mass and numbers, but Ukraine really wants this. I think they can maybe do it, but it will take something unexpected and audacious, not a breakthrough somewhere.
That arty advantage is gone. The Russians are producing 2x as many rounds per month as all of NATO combined and most of that NATO production is going to restore inventories after the large draw downs last year. There is also no longer a uke drone advantage. The Russians are employing more FPV drones per day than the Ukes currently are.
The Russians are also training about 160k conscripts every 6 months. That's a lot of fresh soldiers when the Ukes are exhausted and don't have enough personnel to man the latest weapon systems we've sent them and are seeing the remaining able bodied men fleeing the country by the thousands.
Ukraine entered a war of attrition where they needed a 7:1 casualty ratio to succeed and they've basically been at ~1:1 with Russia during the past year.
Ukraine committed suicide this summer by half committing to their offensive. Their military leaders wanted to continue on the defensive in order to achieve high casualty ratios and Zelensky wanted to go on the offensive and reach the Sea of Azov.
Two weeks into the offensive after sustaining massive material losses and casualties, the Ukes gave up and went back to playing small ball achieving minimal gains with poor casualty ratios.
I don't know if the offensive was failed from the beginning due to a lack of air superiority or if it failed due to a lack of commitment. If 10k casualties per week was higher than they could stomach, it's unlikely they could have mustered more intensity if it came at a cost of 50k or 75k uke casualties in the first weeks.
This war is lost. The Ukes need to try to capture Belgorod and use that as a bargaining chip to trade for some of their territory.
The Russians are also training about 160k conscripts every 6 months. That's a lot of fresh soldiers when the Ukes are exhausted and don't have enough personnel to man the latest weapon systems we've sent them and are seeing the remaining able bodied men fleeing the country by the thousands.
Ukraine entered a war of attrition where they needed a 7:1 casualty ratio to succeed and they've basically been at ~1:1 with Russia during the past year.
Ukraine committed suicide this summer by half committing to their offensive. Their military leaders wanted to continue on the defensive in order to achieve high casualty ratios and Zelensky wanted to go on the offensive and reach the Sea of Azov.
Two weeks into the offensive after sustaining massive material losses and casualties, the Ukes gave up and went back to playing small ball achieving minimal gains with poor casualty ratios.
I don't know if the offensive was failed from the beginning due to a lack of air superiority or if it failed due to a lack of commitment. If 10k casualties per week was higher than they could stomach, it's unlikely they could have mustered more intensity if it came at a cost of 50k or 75k uke casualties in the first weeks.
This war is lost. The Ukes need to try to capture Belgorod and use that as a bargaining chip to trade for some of their territory.
I am not writing off Ukraine just yet. I think they are now playing the hold on and make them bleed game in hopes that something happens internally in Russia. I do think the offensive was a mistake as without air superiority (see Russia's inept offensive to kick things off) you really don't have a chance at moving the needle against an entrenched and motivated enemy. I am intrigued that what we are seeing looks a lot more like WWI than WWII- that's what no air superiority for either side still gets you over a century later.
Ukraine needs more arty and actually getting some F16s. Weren't they also starting to make 155mm shells, too?
LMAO ... as if you're the reality gatekeeper since Russia's invasion.nortex97 said:
Wow, good to check in and see some realism here. Their ammo production far outpaces that supporting Ukraine next year. Tubes are debatable though the same Austrian machines used for both, I think.
I don't think they're currently producing that many. They're ramping up to produce that, but they're not they're yet. We'll see exactly how successful they are.
Ukraine has lost many of their early advantages, but I wouldn't say it's a lost war. I think they were kneecapped this spring/summer by not having the hardware necessary. Their main issues were Russian helicopters and mines. They've found some ways to mitigate those, so we'll see how next year goes.
Ukraine has lost many of their early advantages, but I wouldn't say it's a lost war. I think they were kneecapped this spring/summer by not having the hardware necessary. Their main issues were Russian helicopters and mines. They've found some ways to mitigate those, so we'll see how next year goes.
Where did you see that number?lb3 said:
That arty advantage is gone. The Russians are producing 2x as many rounds per month as all of NATO combined and most of that NATO production is going to restore inventories after the large draw downs last year. There is also no longer a uke drone advantage. The Russians are employing more FPV drones per day than the Ukes currently are.
Ukraines biggest advantage is that Russia has no offensive capability. Defense in this war has been much easier than offensives and that won't flip any time soon. Ukraines best strategy now is to accept what they have now and focus on keeping what they have. If they fight a pure defensive war along their current lines there's nothing Russia could really do.
ABATTBQ11 said:
I don't think they're currently producing that many. They're ramping up to produce that, but they're not they're yet. We'll see exactly how successful they are.
Ukraine has lost many of their early advantages, but I wouldn't say it's a lost war. I think they were kneecapped this spring/summer by not having the hardware necessary. Their main issues were Russian helicopters and mines. They've found some ways to mitigate those, so we'll see how next year goes.
The 152mm shell and propellant production by Russia asserted by LB3 does not make sense. Ammunition isn't in as short supply for the Russians as gun tubes. Why would the Russians be ramping up shell production to a level that far outstrips their ability to deliver it to the gun batteries? Even more importantly, what about gun tube production?
Oryx documents confirmed Russian losses of 152mm guns that are devastating.
2S3 SP 114 destroyed, 7 damaged, 1 abandoned, 31 captured
2S5 Towed 48 destroyed, 6 damaged, 6 captured
2S19 Msta-S 125 destroyed, 11 damaged, 35 captured
2S33 Msta-SM2 17 destroyed, 6 damaged, 2 damaged, 16 captured
D-20 15 destroyed, 2 captured
2A65 Msta-B 67 destroyed, 11 damaged, 1 abandoned, 35 captured
2A36 31 destroyed, 4 damaged, 9 captured
Even if every damaged gun had been returned to service, the Russians have lost 553 152mm gun tubes. That is a huge number of lost guns, not to mention gun crews and fire directions troops.
Russian guns that are still operational habe fired probably 10x the number of rounds that would normally require the tube to be replaced. Gun tubes (howitzers, tanks, and APC) produced in Russia since the fall of the USSR seem to be of really poor quality metal with horrible manufacturing tolerances. They can't keep the guns they have left in decent condition and that's not getting better.
The Russians have been fuzing their 152mm projectiles almost entirely with PD fuzes which means that they have to till up a lot more ground against entrenched Ukrainian forces than they would if they had time fuzes to enter air bursts over trenches. Time fuzes have a short shelf life of about 20 years. It seems that corrupt Russian MoD didn't replace expired lots of time fuzes and pocketed thenfunding tk do so for the past 30 years. If materiel is in short supply, why not concentrate on producing time fuzes to make the 152mm projectiles more effective?
There is also photographic evidence that the Russians have imported 70 year old NorK D-20 howtizers and NorK projectiles and powders and transported them 4700 miles to the Donbas. That's not something that you do if you have your own production lines for guns and ammonhumming along.
Consider why and where the Russians would be using a D-20 howitzer with a 34 caliber length tube in the fighting going on today. At the highest propellant charge, a D-20 has a 17km as opposed to a 24km range for a 2S19 Msta-S with a longer 47 caliber length tube. A Russian unit using D-20s would have a life expectancy of of less than 10 minutes after firing because they would be deep within the range fan of Ukrainian 155mm artillery and GMLRS.
Of all the artillery problems that the Russians are facing, massive numbers of 152mm projectiles do not solve any of them. On the other hand, massive overproduction of an asset that cannot be used we'll would be exactly what Soviet trained military bureaus would do.
This WOULD explain it. Logistics has not necessarily been the strong suit of the Russians...ever.Ulysses90 said:ABATTBQ11 said:
I don't think they're currently producing that many. They're ramping up to produce that, but they're not they're yet. We'll see exactly how successful they are.
Ukraine has lost many of their early advantages, but I wouldn't say it's a lost war. I think they were kneecapped this spring/summer by not having the hardware necessary. Their main issues were Russian helicopters and mines. They've found some ways to mitigate those, so we'll see how next year goes.
The 152mm shell and propellant production by Russia asserted by LB3 does not make sense. Ammunition isn't in as short supply for the Russians as gun tubes. Why would the Russians be ramping up shell production to a level that far outstrips their ability to deliver it to the gun batteries? Even more importantly, what about gun tube production?
Oryx documents confirmed Russian losses of 152mm guns that are devastating.
2S3 SP 114 destroyed, 7 damaged, 1 abandoned, 31 captured
2S5 Towed 48 destroyed, 6 damaged, 6 captured
2S19 Msta-S 125 destroyed, 11 damaged, 35 captured
2S33 Msta-SM2 17 destroyed, 6 damaged, 2 damaged, 16 captured
D-20 15 destroyed, 2 captured
2A65 Msta-B 67 destroyed, 11 damaged, 1 abandoned, 35 captured
2A36 31 destroyed, 4 damaged, 9 captured
Even if every damaged gun had been returned to service, the Russians have lost 553 152mm gun tubes. That is a huge number of lost guns, not to mention gun crews and fire directions troops.
Russian guns that are still operational habe fired probably 10x the number of rounds that would normally require the tube to be replaced. Gun tubes (howitzers, tanks, and APC) produced in Russia since the fall of the USSR seem to be of really poor quality metal with horrible manufacturing tolerances. They can't keep the guns they have left in decent condition and that's not getting better.
The Russians have been fuzing their 152mm projectiles almost entirely with PD fuzes which means that they have to till up a lot more ground against entrenched Ukrainian forces than they would if they had time fuzes to enter air bursts over trenches. Time fuzes have a short shelf life of about 20 years. It seems that corrupt Russian MoD didn't replace expired lots of time fuzes and pocketed thenfunding tk do so for the past 30 years. If materiel is in short supply, why not concentrate on producing time fuzes to make the 152mm projectiles more effective?
There is also photographic evidence that the Russians have imported 70 year old NorK D-20 howtizers and NorK projectiles and powders and transported them 4700 miles to the Donbas. That's not something that you do if you have your own production lines for guns and ammonhumming along.
Consider why and where the Russians would be using a D-20 howitzer with a 34 caliber length tube in the fighting going on today. At the highest propellant charge, a D-20 has a 17km as opposed to a 24km range for a 2S19 Msta-S with a longer 47 caliber length tube. A Russian unit using D-20s would have a life expectancy of of less than 10 minutes after firing because they would be deep within the range fan of Ukrainian 155mm artillery and GMLRS.
Of all the artillery problems that the Russians are facing, massive numbers of 152mm projectiles do not solve any of them. On the other hand, massive overproduction of an asset that cannot be used we'll would be exactly what Soviet trained military bureaus would do.
Seeing ballistic missiles transferred on a flat bed trailer leads me to believe they will never learn. Still waiting for them to design equipment with fork lift provisions
The US is currently producing about 24k shells per month (288k /yr) with plans to increase that to ~90k per month in a couple years. The Russians are currently producing between 80k and 120k rounds per month (1 m -1.5 m /yr) depending on the source.
That's not to say the Russia aren't hungry for shells, they consumed ~800k per month over the past year which is actually down from their peak of around 1.8m per month early in the war.
Once they run through the Norks shells, the Russians will be dropping down from a current consumption rate of around 200k rounds per month to perhaps 125k rounds per month. I wish I had links handy. Mostly gathered from Reuters and info graphics posted on X.
That's not to say the Russia aren't hungry for shells, they consumed ~800k per month over the past year which is actually down from their peak of around 1.8m per month early in the war.
Once they run through the Norks shells, the Russians will be dropping down from a current consumption rate of around 200k rounds per month to perhaps 125k rounds per month. I wish I had links handy. Mostly gathered from Reuters and info graphics posted on X.
The US is not the only one producing materiel for Ukraine, though. Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. are producing a lot.lb3 said:
The US is currently producing about 24k shells per month (288k /yr) with plans to increase that to ~90k per month in a couple years. The Russians are currently producing between 80k and 120k rounds per month (1 m -1.5 m /yr) depending on the source.
That's not to say the Russia aren't hungry for shells, they consumed ~800k per month over the past year which is actually down from their peak of around 1.8m per month early in the war.
Once they run through the Norks shells, the Russians will be dropping down from a current consumption rate of around 200k rounds per month to perhaps 125k rounds per month. I wish I had links handy. Mostly gathered from Reuters and info graphics posted on X.
As for the US's part, the aid bills need to go through or this is a self-inflicted problem. I expect there will be a deal eventually. It's in the US's interest to not let Ukraine fall.
Looks like more drone attacks in the last 6 hours or so. Russia targeted:
- Khmelnitsky, Ternopil, Vinnytsia in Western Ukraine
- Odessa in Southwest Ukraine
- Dnipro City in Eastern Ukraine
- Khmelnitsky, Ternopil, Vinnytsia in Western Ukraine
- Odessa in Southwest Ukraine
- Dnipro City in Eastern Ukraine
"Freezing the Russian war in Ukraine on anything like the current lines enormously advantages Russia and increases the risks and costs to Ukraine and the West of deterring, let alone defeating, a future Russian attempt to fulfill Putin's aims by force. The current lines are not a sensible starting point for negotiations with Russia even if Putin were serious about negotiating a ceasefire on those lines. They are, rather, the necessary starting point for the continued liberation of strategically- and economically vital Ukrainian lands, without which the objective of a free, independent, and secure Ukraine able to defend and pay for itself is likely impossible."
TRUTH
TRUTH
Featured Stories
See All
24:46
12h ago
22k
'The Other Kid': A&M dismantles Mizzou in Weigman's return, 41-10
by Olin Buchanan
22:57
15h ago
15k
Post Game Review: No. 25 Texas A&M 41, No. 9 Missouri 10
by Kay Naegeli
138:15
22h ago
6.1k