Exceptions prove the rule.
Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?
Exceptions prove the rule.
Massed artillery is not something of the past : all big battles in WW2 started with artillery fire :Market Garden, the Bulge, Barbarossa, Epsom, Alamein ,etc .
The war between Iraq and Iran was mainly a trench and artillery war .
The same for the war against ISIS in Syria.
Doctrine is theory and theory must adapt itself to reality and mostly it does .
That some one is in urban areas with civilians is not an obstacle for the other party to use artillery :Germans used artillery at Stalingrad, US at Aachen and Manilla .
The Russians started with 6000 pieces of artillery/rocket launchers,the Ukrainians with 2900 ones .
When,after their first setback (Ukrainians refused to surrender )the Russians tried to conquer Kiew (they were very flexible ) hoping that the fall of Kiew would result in the surrender of Ukraine, they were stopped ,not by Ukrainian ATW, but by Ukrainian artillery .
Source :Insider :"Ukraine's heavy artillery, not high-tech anti-tank missiles,is what stopped Russia's rush to Kiew .''
This proves that the Ukrainian war was an artillery war from the beginning on .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
The doctrine is how the military personnel are trained to conduct military operations in the context with other branches of the army, and/or the air force. The Russian military didn't follow its own doctrine. The Russian army didn't use its artillery as how it was trained to do, the Ukrainians did use modern artillery and still do when they get artillery from the west. The difference from WWII and it shows how little you understand and know about wars when you compare this with Stalingrad, Market Garden, and Manilla. The artillery has changed a lot since the second gulf war.
Have you served in the military?
It is wrong to say that the Russians did not use their artillery as they were trained to do ,as the training depends on the situation and the situation changed .
At the start of the war the Russians used their artillery to defeat the standing Ukrainian forces.
When this failed,they were forced to advance hoping that their advance would force Ukraine to surrender and the artillery was used differently .
Their is no single way to use artillery, its use depends on the circumstances .
It is also not correct to say that the Ukrainians used modern artillery and it is a big exaggeration to talk about the modern artillery they received from the West :
in 2014 the Russians had 4200 pieces of artillery/rockets and Ukraine 1900 . Til 2022 Ukraine received 700 pieces of artillery from the West,almost all of them old Russian weapons they received from Poland, the Baltics, etc ..
Source :NBCnews 10 November .
Since February Ukraine received 350 Western howitzers,a very small number ,of which a third is always out of action .
Source : NYT from 25 November with as title :''Artillery is breaking in Ukraine.It is becoming a problem for the Pentagon . ''
You still continue to give the Western support an importance which it does not have .
Reality is that Ukraine is fighting against Russia using mainly Russian weapons .
It is the same for the tanks : NATO tanks are almost invisible in Ukraine and most of them are not ''modern '' .
France is now promising (and every one knows the value of a promise of a French politician ) to send tanks to Ukraine,without,as one can expect, to specify the number of these tanks and to specify when they will arrive .
And promises from German ,British and other politicians have not more value .
Other point "to say that ''the artillery has changed a lot since the second gulf war '' is not correct ,as
1 THE artillery does not exist. Each country has its own artillery
2 That US artillery has changed a lot since the second gulf war does not mean that the Ukrainian and Russian artillery have changed a lot since the second gulf war .
3 The second gulf war is not the Ukrainian war and the Ukrainian army is not the US army . Thus,that the US artillery has changed has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine .
1 THE artillery does not exist. Each country has its own artillery
2 That US artillery has changed a lot since the second gulf war does not mean that the Ukrainian and Russian artillery have changed a lot since the second gulf war .
3 The second gulf war is not the Ukrainian war and the Ukrainian army is not the US army . Thus,that the US artillery has changed has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine .
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
This is exactly why I will not enter into discussions with the man, he prattles on about things he knows nothing about. I very much doubt if he has been in the military, he does not speak from experience, I have no idea where he gets his information from.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I found this rather interesting regarding helicopter losses...
| End of the helicopter | |
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Oh yes it has. The artillery has changed and when all armies are looking and learning from each other, the military is more or less trained in the same way. The differences are in the command structure and doctrine. NATO has a standard with calibers and doctrine.. To say the the support is not important shows how little you know about war.
Answer the question. Have you been in the military?
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
He reads a lot, but lacking the analytical skills. He doesn't know the difference between air defense systems and artillery systems. Other discussions have show he lacks knowledge about military affairs. A university teach the student different scientific methods. He has never been in the military nor to a university.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
The Soviet/Russian doctrine regarding helos is based on a different perception of them. The Russian view them as flying tanks while the NATO/West doctrine perceive helos differently. They are used more in a defending role and fire against the enemy from defensive position instead of flying toward the enemy's position like what the Russians do.
I have another question. The Wagner Group is in a slugger fest around Balmuth and losing a lot of personnel. How long can they continue with this and now they have recruited people without military experience. Even recruited from penitentiaries, criminals aren't good soldiers. Even the French Foreign Legion doesn't allow criminals to join the FFL
This is wrong and also meaningless .
The Russian army is not learning from the US army and the US army is not learning from the Russian army ,because both armies are not fighting against each other .
Where did I say that support is not important ?
Command structure and doctrine are not decisive . What is decisive is quantity,nothing more .
And NATO exists mainly on paper,as its members have all different doctrines, different standard,different calibers .
The Polish army is totally different from the British army which is different from the German army,etc ..
Besides:NATO forces exists mainly on paper :Britain has with difficulty one brigade available, Belgium a battalion, Germany has ammo for a few days of war and its ammo is only usable for German weapons .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
You don't remember what you are saying? You said and I quote "You still continue to give the Western support an importance which it does not have." and this is wrong. The support from the West is significant for the defense of Ukraine.
To say command structure and doctrine aren't decisive is wrong and here you show you don't have the education and military training. NATO's military uses the same doctrine all the NATO militaries are integrated into NATO's doctrine. In the 1980s NATO implemented the AirLand Battle doctrine, it has evolved since then. All NATO armies are integrated in one command structure. NATO has a decentralized command structure.
When you are comparing with WWII you are showing a lack of knowledge. The military doctrines, the weapon systems, and the ability of these systems and doctrines have improved a lot since then. You need to leave WWII where it belongs, in the history books.
NATO's doctrine through the cold war learned a lot from Israel and the wars they fought. NATO studied how the Arab countries utilized the Soviet/Russian doctrine to defend NATO countries. The Soviets studied how the West utilized the lessons from Israel to improve their own doctrine.
NATO and all others are watching the Russian war effort and learn from it.
But I think you have learned the difference between asymmetric wars and symmetric wars
When I said that ''you still continue to give the Western support an importance it does not have '', I did not say that support had no importance .
Your interpretation is totally wrong .
And :there is no proof for the claim that the (small ) Western support is significant for the defense of Ukraine .
When in March Ukraine did not have Western support, it still stopped the Russians . When today, 10 months later, Ukraine has Western support, its advance is stopped by the Russians .
Til the Autumn both sides fought with Soviet weapons, the Western support arrived in the Autumn and was not a game changer .
Besides : do not talk about NATO doctrine but about US doctrine .
Finally : who are ''all the others who watch the Russian war effort and learn from it ?''
Most of the world is totally uninterested in a war in Eastern Europe .
Is the Brazilian army interested? The army of Egypt ? Of Myanmar ?of Japan ? ( if we may assume that Japan has an army ) Etc.....
The only who can learn something of this war are Russians and Ukrainians,because Ukraine is not Brazil, etc ....
Brazil will not fight in Ukraine and ,if it is involved in a war in South America, what happened in Ukraine is without any importance,because LA is not Ukraine and the armies of LA are totally different from the armies of Russia and Ukraine .
The same for Canada, Australia, etc .All these countries will never be in the situation of Ukraine and Russia .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Grow up and stop behaving like a child with a tantrum and take responsibility for what you are saying. You said it, own it. If you begin to behave like an adult, you will be treated like an adult. You have never been to the military and you aren't well educated so shut the pie hole and listen to those who know things, you might learn something in the process. If you have a problem with the English language, do something about it. Ukraine gets a lot of military aid and getting more ammunition, spare parts, new systems maybe not everyday. They will get more and more NATO equipment. Bradley's and Marder's are coming. NASAMS, Crotale, MLRS, HIMARS, CEASAR etc are coming to their aid. They also get intelligence support from the west
Every dang defense college/university around the world study this war. Because that the profession of arms do. All professions study what others in the same field are doing. (you have never been to a university, if you had been to one, you had known this) Engineers study what other engineers are doing, the physisants study what other physisants are doing, and military personnel at the defense universities are doing exact the same thing. There is a NATO doctrine and all NATO countries armies are integrated in it. They got support prior the war, but I don't know, but I will tell them the next week about a Belgian child with tantrums are saying they didn't get any prior the war.
I have nothing to learn from some one who still claims that Western support ( Western means US ) is significant for Ukraine, for which there is no proof and for which there are a lot of indications which prove the opposite .
I have also nothing to learn from some one who still claims, without any proof, that an not important conflict in Eastern Europe,that is not more important than the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran ,is now monopolizing the interests of the whole world ,while most people on this planet are not only not interested in Ukraine,but can't even show Ukraine on a blind map . And what think tanks are doing is not important,as most of them are funded by the military-industrial complex .
And : FYI : Marders are not NATO equipment, but German equipment, most NATO members do not use Marders .
Ukraine is not the center of the world and there was and is no serious reason for the US to intervene in this war,unless that it gains the military-industrial complex ,its media and the 535 people on Capitol Hill a lot of money of the US tax payers .
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The question for me is how many personnel are Wagner Group and the Russian army really losing?
I don't doubt the high casualties but how many of the Russian casualties are press ganged residents of the Donbas region and how many are actually Russian soldiers, how many of the Wagner Groups dead around Bakhmut are professional Wagner mercenaries and how many are convicts just there to soak up Ukrainian ammunition and wear out the Ukrainian defence, while the professionals sit safely behind bidding their time.
Maybe they are not lying when they claim only a few thousand dead meanwhile they have marched most of the male population of the Donbas across the proverbial minefield.
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
An article
https://ecfr.eu/article/immediate-i...pons-are-already-helping-ukraine-halt-russia/
ISW website
https://www.understandingwar.org/
Intelligence support
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/world/europe/ukraine-weapons.html
And how depots began to go boom after the deployment of HIMARS.
So little Belgian child with anger issues (maybe autism and that's why you haven't been in the military) and tantrums. You need to learn because almost every time you say something you are exposing how little you know about military affairs. You know a lot about WWII and you shall creds for that. But the world has moved on and the military has most definitely moved on. The only time military personnel discuss WWI is in the bar or over a cop of coffee. WWII is irrelevant, you can argue the logistical part is relevant, but it isn't. We use the logistical parts of the two Gulf Wars instead.
And change your fxcking attitude, boy! and begin to behave as an adult!
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
It's good way to get rid of criminals. We should send our criminals, our prisons are crowded. A lot of PMC soldiers are from the elite units and/or special forces. Wagner group was and maybe still is in Africa and Syria. But this attrition rate and use a PMC in this kind of war will reduce the amount of trained professionals pretty fast.