Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,717
- Location
- Scotland
Happy Halloween Putin!
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
It's an expensive list, but not long enough, we can't back down from supplying Ukraine equipment and ammunition because that's not what they will be ultimately short of. If we're serious now rather than virtue signalling, why aren't we training crews on and supplying our remaining MBTs, we've no reasonable use for them (force projection by threat?).Buggered if I know.
Last edited:
The fact of the matter is the Russians have very little regard for human life which is well known.
They have a lot more people and very early on in the conflict they were cut off from SWIFT which meant they defaulted involuntarily on their debt obligations which means they have relatively little to lose.
So why would they then give up?
Now the article is saying that loses are in the six figures for both sides, the land is ******, the chance of negotiation is zero and its a grinding war of attrition.
Which leads me to believe this probably wasn't the best course of action and that a settlement should have been reached.
But of course it was easier for us to just say the Ukrainians should just fight to the last conscripted man...
It is an article by Time magazine, was well written and did not come across as weird or fantastical. I guess you're the sort that cheers on everyone dying and only want to hear good news?
The big problem now is, they're not indefinitely sustainable, but they are sustainable for the foreseeable future, I.E they can sustain the current loss rate of tanks into 2025 at least. I didn't think it was possible before but now with the wests attention potentially turning towards Israel/Hamas conflict, I worry there is actually a real possibility that western interest in helping Ukraine against Putin may go the way of western interest in helping the Syrian rebels against Assad
Syrian Rebels? Lol I remember that one. News turned quite quiet in the end if I remember
Because it achieved nothing, and the loss of life is stupid.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,876
This is a key point.
No amount of wonder weapons is going to win this if Ukraine does not have troops to take and hold ground. There is ample evidence that Russia is prepared, and has capacity, to accept huge losses to hold their positions and grind out the stalemate.
Dragging the war out might be value for money for the US, but it is coming at a cost in Ukrainian lives and giving Russia further opportunities to dig in and reinforce their positions.
Time is critical here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,429
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
I think Ukraine needed to follow some NATO type doctrine in acceptance of the support. Rather than the one they would have been far more familiar with which was basically the soviet one.
They did, and it didn't work.
They seem to have found a hybrid that sits between and is working fairly well.
Also I think they expected too much. They should have pushed far harder near Bahkmut. Russia had basically prepared little defence there as they had been on the offence.
In the South they had been digging in for almost a year. Even now as they fall back they start digging again. Slow crawl forwards keeps giving them time.
They did, and it didn't work.
They seem to have found a hybrid that sits between and is working fairly well.
Also I think they expected too much. They should have pushed far harder near Bahkmut. Russia had basically prepared little defence there as they had been on the offence.
In the South they had been digging in for almost a year. Even now as they fall back they start digging again. Slow crawl forwards keeps giving them time.
Bakmut has no stragetic value and doesn't further them to the final goal, which is Crimea. It's also hard to follow NATO doctrine when you don't have a key component: air superiority.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,429
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
The strategic value of Bahkmut was political and the potential to outflank the defences.
If it started collapsing Russia would have needed to either concede lots of the gained land (which would also make their supply situation more difficult), or start pulling more and more troops from the South to hold.
As it was they dug in hard and layered loads of troops in the South.
Agree in regards air superiority, which was my issue and point. They were clearly using NATO equip to NATO doctrine, but with limited success.
I suspect the senior military are hard to move from their historic position.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2006
- Posts
- 754
- Location
- North Wales
I think thats partly what they did/are doing. Hit Backmut, Russia defends it, so hit by Robotyne. Forces pulled here, hop over the Dniper river, pull resources again, move somewhere else, rinse and repeat. Russia has to go the long way round to get from one hot spot to another, Ukraine can go 'straight line' through their own territory.
FluffySheep
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,429
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
True its a very real risk that the Russian offensive and attempted cut off (encirclement) could actually be reverse uno on them with little notice.
Ukraine have the advantage that most of the terrain was under their control until recently and hence have a very good idea where the go / no go areas are.
Ukraine have the advantage that most of the terrain was under their control until recently and hence have a very good idea where the go / no go areas are.
I wonder if there is a window here for Ukraine to push the air war - I've written and discarded a longer post a few times because a lot of it is highly theoretical and/or not available right now but I reckon if Ukraine could rapidly put a Gripen w/ Meteor and Spears along with GlobalEye AEW&C into an aggressive air campaign there is a window right now they could do a lot of damage - Russia would ultimately respond to that so they'd have to play it smart and unlikely to be able to gain and keep the upper hand in the air but who knows - Russia's true strength in the air hasn't been tested though ultimately it would probably need a hard-hitting campaign pushed into Russia to cripple their capabilities.
Russia seems to be at their weakest currently in terms of being able to respond to that, but they aren't lacking the ability to respond it might just take some time with the apparent maintenance issues and unwillingness to fully spin up their S-400 systems currently.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,429
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Yeah agree.
IMO right now for Ukraine having Russia have to fully spin up the S400 would be good. Its highly likely to suppress Russian air as well
Plus I suspect we would see a few more go boom
Have they been given those planes? (Genuine question.)
Nope, there has been a lot of talk about F-16s and to a lesser extent Gripens but so far little real progress.
EDIT: The latest on that:
Russia is claiming they'll shoot down all F-16s in 20 days - not sure why 20 days.
Last edited:
I wonder what the pilot conversion time would be like for the Gripens? You wouldn't think they'd be a million miles away from the F-16s in terms of the way they operate (or even the MiG-29s).
Couldn't really say - the Gripen is very digital, compared to the stuff like MiG-29s which are very analogue - so probably quite rapid conversion for those pilots used to modern hardware but maybe a struggle for the more old school pilots.
Some Brazilian pilots here converted to Gripen in about 11 weeks (plus probably a couple of more weeks for the Combat Readiness training they mention) coming from F-5s (also known as a MiG 28
) so maybe wouldn't be that much of a leap for the Ukrainian pilots. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/brazil-saab-gripen-fighter-training
Last edited:
- Status