Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

I3BrigPvSk said:
Drones aren't that new. The Israelis used drones during Operation Peace for Galilee, they are cheaper than regular airplanes. There are small drones used by the artillery to guide indirect fire and for infantry platoons for surveillance up to drones with a global reach.

The Ukrainian war has showed us what we knew in theory, but now we can see it in reality. How effective modern artillery is. Now it doesn't waste shells, instead it hits what you want it to hit.
Click to expand...

Drones will never replace classic artillery .Classic artillery kills more than drones,because it fires a multiple of firepower than the drones can do . And the precision of the drones is not a multiple of the precision of the classic artillery .
Drones were used in the Libyan Civil War,without forcing a decision , in the Caucasus, without forcing a decision ,since 2020 Turkey uses drones against the Syrian Kurds, without decisive results .
And ,about the precision of the drones : on 1 June 2022 Turkey fired (intentionally or not ) a drone on a clinic in the region of Tall Rifat . There was only material damage .
If the attack was intentional,the result was negligible,because of the imprecision of the drone .
If the attack was not intentional,the wrong target was attacked,proving that the drone was imprecise.
All this are examples that you can't hit what you want .
 
lljadw said:
Drones will never replace classic artillery .Classic artillery kills more than drones,because it fires a multiple of firepower than the drones can do . And the precision of the drones is not a multiple of the precision of the classic artillery .
Drones were used in the Libyan Civil War,without forcing a decision , in the Caucasus, without forcing a decision ,since 2020 Turkey uses drones against the Syrian Kurds, without decisive results .
And ,about the precision of the drones : on 1 June 2022 Turkey fired (intentionally or not ) a drone on a clinic in the region of Tall Rifat . There was only material damage .
If the attack was intentional,the result was negligible,because of the imprecision of the drone .
If the attack was not intentional,the wrong target was attacked,proving that the drone was imprecise.
All this are examples that you can't hit what you want .
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I didn't say drones will ever replace the artillery, I told you how artillery units are using drones to guide and correct fire. Modern artillery doesn't trash the area, it is more precise today than it was a few years ago. Especially its anti-armor/vehicle capacity has improved a lot the latest years.
 
There are many different reason for why the Russian war effort has so far failed. The Russian failed to achieve air superiority. The logistical planning didn't work. The Russian command & control is too strict for a modern war. It worked during the Second World War and should most likely work if the WP and NATO had a full shooting war.
The Russian didn't follow their own military doctrine with attacking in echelons to overwhelming the enemy. The use of civilian cell phones is really brave, but it cost the Russians dearly when they got their commanders killed.

What we can really questioning is the Russian military training. The units they deployed in the beginning of the war were professional soldiers and their operational skills were nonexistent.

The motivations plays a vital part in wars and the Russians aren't motivated to attack Ukraine. The Ukrainians are motivated and they have prepared for this since 2014. Their command structure is similar as NATO's and they know the Russian MO.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
What are you talking about? I didn't say drones will ever replace the artillery, I told you how artillery units are using drones to guide and correct fire. Modern artillery doesn't trash the area, it is more precise today than it was a few years ago. Especially its anti-armor/vehicle capacity has improved a lot the latest years.
Click to expand...

The claim that modern artillery is more precise today than in the past is meaningless and irrelevant .And also unproved .
To destroy an enemy position, not precision is needed ( the needed precision can not be achieved ),but more firepower : quantity will always defeat quality .
In WW1 the French said : L'artillerie conquiert le terrain, l'infanterie l'ocuppe.
The artillery conquers the terrain, the infantry occupies the terrain .
What the French said 100 years ago ,applies still today .
And, that the anti-armor/vehicle capacity of the artillery has improved is not very important ,because
a most of the armor/vehicles losses are non combat losses
b the importance of armor/vehicles is very exaggerated,especially as most wars are wars where the role of armor/vehicles is very subordinated .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
There are many different reason for why the Russian war effort has so far failed. The Russian failed to achieve air superiority. The logistical planning didn't work. The Russian command & control is too strict for a modern war. It worked during the Second World War and should most likely work if the WP and NATO had a full shooting war.
The Russian didn't follow their own military doctrine with attacking in echelons to overwhelming the enemy. The use of civilian cell phones is really brave, but it cost the Russians dearly when they got their commanders killed.

What we can really questioning is the Russian military training. The units they deployed in the beginning of the war were professional soldiers and their operational skills were nonexistent.

The motivations plays a vital part in wars and the Russians aren't motivated to attack Ukraine. The Ukrainians are motivated and they have prepared for this since 2014. Their command structure is similar as NATO's and they know the Russian MO.
Click to expand...
The reason for the present Russian failure is not lack of air superiority , but political .
The attack was David ( Russia ) against a stronger David ( Ukraine ) .
With 200000 men,the Russians could not
a defeat a mobilised Ukraine
b if it was defeated, conquer Ukraine
c if it was defeated and conquered ,the Russians could not occupy and ''pacify '' Ukraine .
The conclusion of these three points is that Russia could only win in a very short campaign ( not more than 2 weeks ) where the standing Ukrainian forces would be defeated, the Ukrainian leadership would be eliminated and,as result of this,a new pro Russian Quisling regime would replace Zelensky and would be accepted by the Ukrainians,which would give this new regime the strength to conquer ,occupy and pacify the country .
The Russians knew the reason of their failure in Afghanistan,which was,succinctly and generalized, the refusal of the Afghans to accept the new pro communist regime, this forced the Russians to do themselves the job that ,they hoped, the new regime would do .And the Russians had not the strength to do this .
The same is happening in Ukraine . And the lack of air superiority is only an excuse : the Russians ,and the US , had air superiority in Afghanistan, and ,..they failed .
Thus ....
 
lljadw said:
The reason for the present Russian failure is not lack of air superiority , but political .
The attack was David ( Russia ) against a stronger David ( Ukraine ) .
With 200000 men,the Russians could not
a defeat a mobilised Ukraine
b if it was defeated, conquer Ukraine
c if it was defeated and conquered ,the Russians could not occupy and ''pacify '' Ukraine .
The conclusion of these three points is that Russia could only win in a very short campaign ( not more than 2 weeks ) where the standing Ukrainian forces would be defeated, the Ukrainian leadership would be eliminated and,as result of this,a new pro Russian Quisling regime would replace Zelensky and would be accepted by the Ukrainians,which would give this new regime the strength to conquer ,occupy and pacify the country .
The Russians knew the reason of their failure in Afghanistan,which was,succinctly and generalized, the refusal of the Afghans to accept the new pro communist regime, this forced the Russians to do themselves the job that ,they hoped, the new regime would do .And the Russians had not the strength to do this .
The same is happening in Ukraine . And the lack of air superiority is only an excuse : the Russians ,and the US , had air superiority in Afghanistan, and ,..they failed .
Thus ....
Click to expand...

You don't know the difference between an asymmetric war and a symmetric war. If you had been in the military you had known the difference. The air superiority is vital to prevent the enemy from logistically support and move its forces. The enemy in an asymmetric war is hiding among the civilian population so you can't use your technological advantage so comparing this war with the Afghanistan doesn't work.
 
lljadw said:
The claim that modern artillery is more precise today than in the past is meaningless and irrelevant .And also unproved .
To destroy an enemy position, not precision is needed ( the needed precision can not be achieved ),but more firepower : quantity will always defeat quality .
In WW1 the French said : L'artillerie conquiert le terrain, l'infanterie l'ocuppe.
The artillery conquers the terrain, the infantry occupies the terrain .
What the French said 100 years ago ,applies still today .
And, that the anti-armor/vehicle capacity of the artillery has improved is not very important ,because
a most of the armor/vehicles losses are non combat losses
b the importance of armor/vehicles is very exaggerated,especially as most wars are wars where the role of armor/vehicles is very subordinated .
Click to expand...

This is not the first world war. The artillery is more effective today that it was during the first gulf war and the second gulf war.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
This is not the first world war. The artillery is more effective today that it was during the first gulf war and the second gulf war.
Click to expand...

Since the gulf wars,there has been only one classic war : the Ukrainian war ,and, there is no proof that in Ukraine the Russian or Ukrainian artillery is more effective : there is, after 8 months of fighting, still no break through in Ukraine .
The principal reason for this is that both sides can't fire the needed amount of explosives .
 
lljadw said:
Since the gulf wars,there has been only one classic war : the Ukrainian war ,and, there is no proof that in Ukraine the Russian or Ukrainian artillery is more effective : there is, after 8 months of fighting, still no break through in Ukraine .
The principal reason for this is that both sides can't fire the needed amount of explosives .
Click to expand...

No, there was a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia and a war between Russia and Georgia so you got that wrong again. The Ukrainians artillery is more effective than the Russian artillery, do your homework and you will see it
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
You don't know the difference between an asymmetric war and a symmetric war. If you had been in the military you had known the difference. The air superiority is vital to prevent the enemy from logistically support and move its forces. The enemy in an asymmetric war is hiding among the civilian population so you can't use your technological advantage so comparing this war with the Afghanistan doesn't work.
Click to expand...
1 Most present wars are asymmetric wars .
2 Air superiority was also used in asymmetric wars : the Russians, the Soviets, the US used their aircraft and helicopters in Afghanistan,Iraq and Vietnam to attack the enemy's logistical support ,but failed in these missions .The Soviets lost a lot of aircraft and helicopters in Afghanistan,the US also in Vietnam and Afghanistan .
Air defense and aircraft are not needed to cause aircraft/helicopter losses .
The war in Ukraine is a war,where both sides use only an insignificant number of aircraft and if the Russians had in March used a big number of aircraft this would not have helped them ,because the more Ukrainians these aircraft killed the stronger the resistance from the Ukrainians would be .Russia can not afford to kill tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians, as it needs the support of these civilians to win the war .
Ukraine has practically no air force ,thus what could do the Russian aircraft? What are the damages caused by the Russian air force ? Time is running against the Russians and air attacks will not change this .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
No, there was a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia and a war between Russia and Georgia so you got that wrong again. The Ukrainians artillery is more effective than the Russian artillery, do your homework and you will see it
Click to expand...

The Ukrainian artillery does not need to be more effective than the Russian one, as the strategy of both sides is totally different .
Both sides are unable to achieve a decisive success .
And you can't compare the 2 Caucasus wars to the Gulf Wars and the war in Ukraine .
 
lljadw said:
1 Most present wars are asymmetric wars .
2 Air superiority was also used in asymmetric wars : the Russians, the Soviets, the US used their aircraft and helicopters in Afghanistan,Iraq and Vietnam to attack the enemy's logistical support ,but failed in these missions .The Soviets lost a lot of aircraft and helicopters in Afghanistan,the US also in Vietnam and Afghanistan .
Air defense and aircraft are not needed to cause aircraft/helicopter losses .
The war in Ukraine is a war,where both sides use only an insignificant number of aircraft and if the Russians had in March used a big number of aircraft this would not have helped them ,because the more Ukrainians these aircraft killed the stronger the resistance from the Ukrainians would be .Russia can not afford to kill tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians, as it needs the support of these civilians to win the war .
Ukraine has practically no air force ,thus what could do the Russian aircraft? What are the damages caused by the Russian air force ? Time is running against the Russians and air attacks will not change this .
Click to expand...

Yes, most wars since the WWII have been asymmetric, but the war in Ukraine is not an asymmetric war, it's a symmetric war and yet you do terrible comparisons if you compare this war with the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. Read more and learn from what you read. The Russian had the numbers to get air superiority, but failed and haven't get it. the warring parties during a symmetric war who has the control over the air can prevent the enemy from moving his forces and really hit his supply lines.
 
lljadw said:
The Ukrainian artillery does not need to be more effective than the Russian one, as the strategy of both sides is totally different .
Both sides are unable to achieve a decisive success .
And you can't compare the 2 Caucasus wars to the Gulf Wars and the war in Ukraine .
Click to expand...

They were symmetric wars, that's why you can compare them to the war in Ukraine. All wars are different, but symmetric wars have similarities and asymmetric wars have similarities. You really need to learn the difference between them.

Two other terms that can be good for you to know are; interstate wars and intrastate wars. The latter can be divided into two categories, intrastate with foreign interventions or intrastate wars without foreign interventions
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, most wars since the WWII have been asymmetric, but the war in Ukraine is not an asymmetric war, it's a symmetric war and yet you do terrible comparisons if you compare this war with the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. Read more and learn from what you read. The Russian had the numbers to get air superiority, but failed and haven't get it. the warring parties during a symmetric war who has the control over the air can prevent the enemy from moving his forces and really hit his supply lines.
Click to expand...

To use their air force would have been counterproductive for the Russians .
To use it now would not help them as their air force can not stop the Ukrainians from moving their forces ,and if it could do it ,it still would not help the Russians : they need boots on the ground,and they don't have them .
To defeat the Ukrainian army ( not to stop the Ukrainian advance ),to conquer Ukraine and to occupy and pacify Ukraine,they need 1 million men . They only have 200000 men . And the intervention of a few hundred aircraft will not change this .These aircraft will not conquer and occupy/pacify Ukraine .
You see it much too narrow :the defeat of the Ukrainian army does not result in the end of the war .
 
Doesn't say her Nationality. Guess NZ didn't impose sanctions if the article is correct about her not violating NZ law. Russian propagandist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top