Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

I3BrigPvSk said:
I think western tanks would be destroyed if they were hit by Javelins or NLAWs, but they wouldn't get the "jack in the Box" effect when Western tanks store the ammunition differently than Russian tanks.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting they would survive a western missile strike but I would be surprised if they weren't used to optimize survivability and crew safety.

There are several things about this war that confuses me. We have mentioned the Russian air force quite often, where is it? The Russian road discipline and how they are just driving into urban areas and get badly hit by Ukrainian AT teams. The Russian logistical problems, the Russian communication problems, there are reports about the Russian commanders are using cell phones. They did that during the Chechen wars and the war in Georgia. It might explain why so many Russian generals have been killed. The Russian command structure doesn't work well.
Click to expand...

One aspect of this war where Ukraine is certainly winning is the propaganda war, as such it is difficult to get a good read on how things are really going.
The air force is interesting but it would have obligations throughout Russia and anywhere else it is stationed which will tie up a number of units, despite having roughly 2000 combat aircraft a sizable number will be grounded and given the state of Russian material so far it could be upwards of 50% so maybe they just don't really have the air force we thought they had.

My impression of Russian ground forces is that they lack discipline, the average soldier seems fairly backward, confused and more interested and distracted by shiny things he can steal than fighting a war, in every video I have seen of this war it amazes me how little teamwork and cohesiveness they show toward each other.


I have looked into the Russian battalion battlegroups and they are lacking the infantry for this kind of warfare. The infantry must clear urban areas and forest areas and using the mech and tank units as a support if the infantry face resistance. Now they are doing the opposite.
Click to expand...

I just don't think they have any cohesion, it is just a giant bunch of units doing random things, to a large degree they remind me of a medieval army and the officer corps seems like a left over from Georgian Britain with people moving up and down the ladder of power by who they know rather than what they know.
 
We all saw the Russian videos of their exercises. They really looked like a well trained army and the coordination between artillery, mech units, and close air support looked pretty good. Then the war started and to quote you, Monty. We got the war of WTF?

I have been thinking about the Russian command and control, it seems to be really bad. They had the same problems during the war in Georgia. The Russian must tried to do something about it. But I think and I am speculating now. They must have tried to get or develop functional communication equipment, but money ended up in somebody's bank account instead.

Russian tanks have the design flaw, they are lighter than the western counterpart and therefore have lesser protection than the western tanks. But the Russians aren't using their tanks well. They don't coordinate them well with the artillery and the infantry and are driving them as they were on a road trip and not in a war.

The Ukrainians are coordinating their armor, artillery, and the infantry much better than the Russians.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
We all saw the Russian videos of their exercises. They really looked like a well trained army and the coordination between artillery, mech units, and close air support looked pretty good. Then the war started and to quote you, Monty. We got the war of WTF?

I have been thinking about the Russian command and control, it seems to be really bad. They had the same problems during the war in Georgia. The Russian must tried to do something about it. But I think and I am speculating now. They must have tried to get or develop functional communication equipment, but money ended up in somebody's bank account instead.

Russian tanks have the design flaw, they are lighter than the western counterpart and therefore have lesser protection than the western tanks. But the Russians aren't using their tanks well. They don't coordinate them well with the artillery and the infantry and are driving them as they were on a road trip and not in a war.

The Ukrainians are coordinating their armor, artillery, and the infantry much better than the Russians.
Click to expand...

At a guess I suspect the Russians have tried to adopt the "small force" mentality hence the move to BTGs but they have failed to adopt the one thing that make them work in the form of NCO's and junior officers with initiative.
Basically they are caught between two forms of doctrine and neither are working well.
 
I think I have figured out why I have had trouble comprehending some of this war, for some strange reason I always thought Ukraine was flat but looking at topographical maps of the region show a fairly rugged terrain which explains why the Russians have been forced into sticking to the roads.
I still question why the Russians tried a river crossing when the opposition controlled the high ground on either side of the crossing point.
 
MontyB said:
I think I have figured out why I have had trouble comprehending some of this war, for some strange reason I always thought Ukraine was flat but looking at topographical maps of the region show a fairly rugged terrain which explains why the Russians have been forced into sticking to the roads.
I still question why the Russians tried a river crossing when the opposition controlled the high ground on either side of the crossing point.
Click to expand...

That is quite amazing. It can be the Russian command structure, the senior commanding officer orders them to cross the river and the unit must obey, regardless the reality on the ground.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
That is quite amazing. It can be the Russian command structure, the senior commanding officer orders them to cross the river and the unit must obey, regardless the reality on the ground.
Click to expand...

Years ago while in the TA we were given a lecture on Soviet small arms, the first thing the instructor said ''You must remember the average soviet soldier is an idiot''
He wasn't far wrong. To continue to try and cross a river that already been targeted is bloody daft beyond words.

!3 what are your feelings regarding Sweden and Finland joining NATO, good idea, bad idea, indifferent?
 
BritinBritain said:
Years ago while in the TA we were given a lecture on Soviet small arms, the first thing the instructor said ''You must remember the average soviet soldier is an idiot''
He wasn't far wrong. To continue to try and cross a river that already been targeted is bloody daft beyond words.

!3 what are your feelings regarding Sweden and Finland joining NATO, good idea, bad idea, indifferent?
Click to expand...

I think it is really good we (Finland and Sweden) join NATO, Finland and Sweden have since the end of the second world war belong to the west. Both Finland and Sweden have been dependent on NATO throughout the cold war and the post-cold war world. I don't really know what I shall call the time we are in right now. Cold War 2,0?

It is quite funny. Russia starts a war to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the EU , what happens is quite funny. NATO expansions, the thing Putin really hates happens when two new countries join the alliance.
 
MontyB said:
I think I have figured out why I have had trouble comprehending some of this war, for some strange reason I always thought Ukraine was flat but looking at topographical maps of the region show a fairly rugged terrain which explains why the Russians have been forced into sticking to the roads.
.
Click to expand...
Plus swamps in the north.
 
George said:
Who was it, Clausewitz (?) that said plans work untill put in use?
Click to expand...

That depends, I think it was more likely Helmuth von Moltke the Elder and not and Clausewitz who coined the phrase
No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces.
Click to expand...
in 1871 over time it has been modified and modernized and eventually attributed to Clausewitz.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I think it is really good we (Finland and Sweden) join NATO, Finland and Sweden have since the end of the second world war belong to the west. Both Finland and Sweden have been dependent on NATO throughout the cold war and the post-cold war world. I don't really know what I shall call the time we are in right now. Cold War 2,0?

It is quite funny. Russia starts a war to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the EU , what happens is quite funny. NATO expansions, the thing Putin really hates happens when two new countries join the alliance.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that this invasion has less to do with Ukraine joining NATO and more to do with rebuilding the Soviet union and resources, there was little chance of Ukraine joining NATO for years maybe decades to come but it is rather telling that the yuzovsky gas field was discovered in east Ukraine in 2010 and less than four years later an insurection armed with fairly modern Russian equipment breaks out.

The telling point is Putin's almost nonchalant reaction to Finland and Sweden looking at NATO especially given Finland's location to St Petersburg and western Russia.
I am convinced that even if Ukraine gave up eastern territory and Crimea Putin would be back for more in months and he won't stop until he reaches the other side of Moldova.
 
MontyB said:
My opinion is that this invasion has less to do with Ukraine joining NATO and more to do with rebuilding the Soviet union and resources, there was little chance of Ukraine joining NATO for years maybe decades to come but it is rather telling that the yuzovsky gas field was discovered in east Ukraine in 2010 and less than four years later an insurection armed with fairly modern Russian equipment breaks out.

The telling point is Putin's almost nonchalant reaction to Finland and Sweden looking at NATO especially given Finland's location to St Petersburg and western Russia.
I am convinced that even if Ukraine gave up eastern territory and Crimea Putin would be back for more in months and he won't stop until he reaches the other side of Moldova.
Click to expand...

Russia has also threatened Finland and Sweden if they join NATO, Putin also said Russia would never attack Ukraine. It is better to join NATO now when Russia is quite busy with other things.

I am not sure if he wants to rewind the clock so to speak. He wants a greater Russia but he can't get a greater Russia and influence in the west, he can probably get a greater Russia in the south and in the east.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Russia has also threatened Finland and Sweden if they join NATO, Putin also said Russia would never attack Ukraine. It is better to join NATO now when Russia is quite busy with other things.

I am not sure if he wants to rewind the clock so to speak. He wants a greater Russia but he can't get a greater Russia and influence in the west, he can probably get a greater Russia in the south and in the east.
Click to expand...

I think the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO is a good thing and if it comes down to it I would sooner see Turkey booted for touch.
It is interesting to see the military returning to Gotland, is there a specific threat or claim by the Russians or is it just a precaution?
 
Quite frankly I've never trusted Turkey, and as I have said before, I'd rather Finland and Sweden in NATO then Turkey, I'd like to see Turkey kicked to the curb. I don't know if I am having a senior moment but it appears to me that Turkey would rather be aligned with Russia then the Western Allies.
 
BritinBritain said:
Quite frankly I've never trusted Turkey, and as I have said before, I'd rather Finland and Sweden in NATO then Turkey, I'd like to see Turkey kicked to the curb. I don't know if I am having a senior moment but it appears to me that Turkey would rather be aligned with Russia then the Western Allies.
Click to expand...

I have been to Turkey a couple of times and found the people to be incredibly friendly but Erdogan seems like another text book dictator suffering from small man syndrome.

I don't see Turkey as a great fit for NATO and although they have been there a while it seems as though Turkey under Erdogan is taking a different path.

On a more interesting note it seem Denmark is sending Ukraine harpoon systems which should make life in the Black Sea interesting.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...de-harpoon-anti-ship-missiles-to-ukraine.html
 
MontyB said:
I think the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO is a good thing and if it comes down to it I would sooner see Turkey booted for touch.
It is interesting to see the military returning to Gotland, is there a specific threat or claim by the Russians or is it just a precaution?
Click to expand...

Sweden deployed troops to Gotland shortly after the annexation of Crimea. Gotland is strategically located in the Baltic Sea. The Swedes have always been quite paranoid about the the island. I would, however, if I were a Russian commander consider to capture the Åland and Mariehamn (The regional capital of Åland) It is a non-militarized zone, and it has been like that since the League of Nations. This is one of the few things that remain since the League of Nations. The Nation that have the obligation to overview the Åland archipelago remaining a non-militarized zone is Russia. The only people that can defend the archipelago are a few police officers. If the Russian capture it they get access to block the Gulf of Finland and the entire Baltic Sea north of Gotland.

There are a few misunderstandings between Finland/Sweden and Turkey. There isn't an arms embargo against Turkey. They can buy Swedish weapons if they want. Sweden doesn't support PKK nor YPG financially or with weapons. The AT-4s the Turks found were given to the YPG by the US and not by Sweden.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
There are a few misunderstandings between Finland/Sweden and Turkey. There isn't an arms embargo against Turkey. They can buy Swedish weapons if they want. Sweden doesn't support PKK nor YPG financially or with weapons. The AT-4s the Turks found were given to the YPG by the US and not by Sweden.
Click to expand...

Yes and I suspect Erdogan knows all this which really accentuates the question "what is his problem":
1. Is he playing for his home audience and intends to get something from an inevitable deal.
2. Is he placating Russia most likely for the gas, oil and trade which would make me wonder about his reliability to NATO as a whole.
 
MontyB said:
Yes and I suspect Erdogan knows all this which really accentuates the question "what is his problem":
1. Is he playing for his home audience and intends to get something from an inevitable deal.
2. Is he placating Russia most likely for the gas, oil and trade which would make me wonder about his reliability to NATO as a whole.
Click to expand...

I am speculating so I guess he wants something from the US. It can be new fighter planes. the Russian air defense system he bought might not be that good as he thought. Maybe he wants to get US made air defense systems instead. The Turkish economy isn't that good so he does this to get military hardware without buying them. It can also be his way to punish Europe for how the EU treated Turkey in the past when they wanted to join EU, but EU denied it

My personal thoughts about Erdogan are; He seems to want to reestablish the Ottoman empire. He is quite similar in this regard to Putin. The failed coup did something with him, he sounds quite paranoid at times
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top