Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

[I3BrigPvSk]

I think the Russians want to capture Bakhmut to have some sort of success after the Ukrainians were able to recapture land in the north and in the south. It has much more to do with prestige than any military necessity. The Ukrainians want to prevent the Russians to get this symbolic victory and that's why they are defending it like they do.

It might have been for the Russians if they had spent more resources on capturing the city Vuhledar instead. They have tried but failed.

It is hard to tell about casualties, but both sides have suffered heavy casualties, but the Russians have most likely suffered much more than the Ukrainians. I saw the Russians are deploying more T62s and they have returned to their old doctrine with meat wall attacks. The battle of Vuhledar have been a costly affair

 

[MontyB]

I think the Russians want to capture Bakhmut to have some sort of success after the Ukrainians were able to recapture land in the north and in the south. It has much more to do with prestige than any military necessity. The Ukrainians want to prevent the Russians to get this symbolic victory and that's why they are defending it like they do.

It might have been for the Russians if they had spent more resources on capturing the city Vuhledar instead. They have tried but failed.

It is hard to tell about casualties, but both sides have suffered heavy casualties, but the Russians have most likely suffered much more than the Ukrainians. I saw the Russians are deploying more T62s and they have returned to their old doctrine with meat wall attacks. The battle of Vuhledar have been a costly affair

Apparently they have reactivated 800 T-62s.
Given Russian tactics through the winter I really wonder whether they have the capacity for manoeuvre warfare anymore, in which case capturing Bakhmut is largely meaningless as they can't go anywhere and will put them up against an increasingly armoured and mobile Ukraine.

 

[lljadw]

Apparently they have reactivated 800 T-62s.
Given Russian tactics through the winter I really wonder whether they have the capacity for manoeuvre warfare anymore, in which case capturing Bakhmut is largely meaningless as they can't go anywhere and will put them up against an increasingly armoured and mobile Ukraine.

I don't see why manoeuvre warfare would help the Russians to defeat Ukraine, to occupy and to pacify Ukraine .
And I don't see why manoeuvre warfare would help the Ukrainians to stop the Russian offensives, to expel the Russians from Ukraine and to prevent new Russian attacks .
The front is some 1000 km long and both sides need manpower and firepower to defend their frontline . More mobility will not help them .
And, why should the Russians go farther if they capture Bahkmut ?

 

[MontyB]

I don't see why manoeuvre warfare would help the Russians to defeat Ukraine, to occupy and to pacify Ukraine .
And I don't see why manoeuvre warfare would help the Ukrainians to stop the Russian offensives, to expel the Russians from Ukraine and to prevent new Russian attacks .
The front is some 1000 km long and both sides need manpower and firepower to defend their frontline . More mobility will not help them .
And, why should the Russians go farther if they capture Bahkmut ?

Because it is a f**king long walk from Bakhmut to Lviv?

Your question only holds water if Bakhmut is Russia's aim for the war but given that it's fall is unlikely to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table they will have to go further, conversely if Ukraine wants to take back territory it isn't going to do it on foot either.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Apparently they have reactivated 800 T-62s.
Given Russian tactics through the winter I really wonder whether they have the capacity for manoeuvre warfare anymore, in which case capturing Bakhmut is largely meaningless as they can't go anywhere and will put them up against an increasingly armoured and mobile Ukraine.

To deploy MBTs that belongs in a museum. They must have suffered huge tank losses if they do that. They must spare more modern tanks if they end up fighting NATO. But we might see T34s pretty soon.

 

[MontyB]

To deploy MBTs that belongs in a museum. They must have suffered huge tank losses if they do that. They must spare more modern tanks if they end up fighting NATO. But we might see T34s pretty soon.

The Russian armour losses are quite interesting, they are being reported as roughly 40% of its prewar fleet and greater in some areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...of-key-battle-tanks-analysts-estimate-ukraine

Russia’s army is estimated to have lost nearly 40% of its prewar fleet of tanks after nine months of fighting in Ukraine, according to a count by the specialist thinktank the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS).

That rises to as much as 50% for some of the key tanks used in combat, forcing Russia to reach into its still sizeable cold war-era stocks. Ukraine’s tank numbers are estimated to have increased because of the number it has captured and supplies of Soviet-era tanks from its western allies.

Now before we start talking about T-34s lets not forget the Leopard 1 is not a modern tank it was designed in the 1950s and was built at the same time the T-62 was, hell the Leopard 2 is close to 50 years old.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

The Russian armour losses are quite interesting, they are being reported as roughly 40% of its prewar fleet and greater in some areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...of-key-battle-tanks-analysts-estimate-ukraine



Now before we start talking about T-34s lets not forget the Leopard 1 is not a modern tank it was designed in the 1950s and was built at the same time the T-62 was, hell the Leopard 2 is close to 50 years old.

Ukraine also got upgraded T55s with a 105mm British maingun.

 

[MontyB]

Ukraine also got upgraded T55s with a 105mm British maingun.

I am a little surprised the Brits offered up the Challenger II and not the Challenger I.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I am a little surprised the Brits offered up the Challenger II and not the Challenger I.[/QUOTE

I guess the British kept the chassis to the C1 when they upgraded their tanks to the C2. The majority of the upgrades of tanks are in the turrets so it is cheaper and easier to only create new turrets instead of making an entire new tank. The chassi gets new engines and transmissions. The chassi might get additional armor as well. I think it is the same for the Abrams and the Leos.

 

[MontyB]

I am a little surprised the Brits offered up the Challenger II and not the Challenger I.[/QUOTE

I guess the British kept the chassis to the C1 when they upgraded their tanks to the C2. The majority of the upgrades of tanks are in the turrets so it is cheaper and easier to only create new turrets instead of making an entire new tank. The chassi gets new engines and transmissions. The chassi might get additional armor as well. I think it is the same for the Abrams and the Leos.

Agreed but between Britain and Jordan there are 800 C1s looking for a home, built in the 80s and upgraded since it puts them years ahead of the L1s and pretty much everything in the Russian fleet up to the T-80
Ukraine wanted 300 MBTs, this would meet that requirement and leave them with a fleet that only requires one size round and set of spare parts.

Now I wonder how hard it would be to bolt say the L2 or any of the standard NATO MBT guns into the C1 or C2 to give them a single standard?

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Agreed but between Britain and Jordan there are 800 C1s looking for a home, built in the 80s and upgraded since it puts them years ahead of the L1s and pretty much everything in the Russian fleet up to the T-80
Ukraine wanted 300 MBTs, this would meet that requirement and leave them with a fleet that only requires one size round and set of spare parts.

Now I wonder how hard it would be to bolt say the L2 or any of the standard NATO MBT guns into the C1 or C2 to give them a single standard?

The new C3 gets a smoothbore 120mm main gun. I don't know how hard it is to remove and mount a new gun on the C2 turret. I guess to calibrate the new gun takes longer than to mount the new gun.

The Russian forces have tried to capture Vuhledar for about three weeks now, but failed. The city of Vuhledar is more strategically important than Bakhmut when the Ukrainians can hit the Russian supply lines between Crimea and Donetsk from it, and yet the Russian waste resources on Bakhmut

 

[MontyB]

The new C3 gets a smoothbore 120mm main gun. I don't know how hard it is to remove and mount a new gun on the C2 turret. I guess to calibrate the new gun takes longer than to mount the new gun.

The Russian forces have tried to capture Vuhledar for about three weeks now, but failed. The city of Vuhledar is more strategically important than Bakhmut when the Ukrainians can hit the Russian supply lines between Crimea and Donetsk from it, and yet the Russian waste resources on Bakhmut

Yeah I am stumped, they are fighting over a few kilometres.
At this point Blackadder goes forth seems more like a documentary than this war is modern and this from an army that thinks it can make it to Berlin, I guess they could but at the speed they are moving it would take about 2000 years.

It would be interesting to know more about how NATO saw a war with Russia playing out but I can't imagine it was going to be a WW1 reenactment.

 

[lljadw]

Because it is a f**king long walk from Bakhmut to Lviv?

Your question only holds water if Bakhmut is Russia's aim for the war but given that it's fall is unlikely to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table they will have to go further, conversely if Ukraine wants to take back territory it isn't going to do it on foot either.

Have the Russians now a war aim ?
Last year, Russian tanks could not go to Lviv ,thus why should they be able to do it now ? There was no Blitzkrieg last year ,thus why should there be one this year .
Besides,last year Russians had no territorial aims because they knew that they could not capture Ukraine and that the capture of a part of Ukraine would not force Ukraine to give up .There can't be negotiations at the negotiation table, only a total surrender .
Bakhmut has only a political importance, to impress the home front, China and India, Ukraine, Europe and the US .
The Russian aim is to transform Ukraine in a satellite,as an occupation of Ukraine is not possible, they try to convince the Ukrainian population that to continue the war is senseless .

 

[MontyB]

Have the Russians now a war aim ?
Last year, Russian tanks could not go to Lviv ,thus why should they be able to do it now ? There was no Blitzkrieg last year ,thus why should there be one this year .
Besides,last year Russians had no territorial aims because they knew that they could not capture Ukraine and that the capture of a part of Ukraine would not force Ukraine to give up .There can't be negotiations at the negotiation table, only a total surrender .
Bakhmut has only a political importance, to impress the home front, China and India, Ukraine, Europe and the US .
The Russian aim is to transform Ukraine in a satellite,as an occupation of Ukraine is not possible, they try to convince the Ukrainian population that to continue the war is senseless .

If Russia thinks it is getting a satellite state then it has made a grave error as all they have achieved is to solidify support for the current government and I can't see that changing.
At this stage in the war Russia's "allies" mut be wondering whether the have picked the right side, PR wise this war isn't leading anyone to think "wow Russia is cool" it is a demonstration of Russian bulls**t and bravado but bugger all else.

 

[lljadw]

If Russia thinks it is getting a satellite state then it has made a grave error as all they have achieved is to solidify support for the current government and I can't see that changing.
At this stage in the war Russia's "allies" mut be wondering whether the have picked the right side, PR wise this war isn't leading anyone to think "wow Russia is cool" it is a demonstration of Russian bulls**t and bravado but bugger all else.

Russia does not think it is getting a satellite state as Belarus,it is trying to transform Ukraine in a satellite state .
The reason is that it is not possible for Russia,even after a military victory in Ukraine to occupy and pacify Ukraine and to annex it to Russia .
How can Russia transform Ukraine in a satellite state ? Only if the Ukrainians consent and the bigger part of Ukraine is occupied,the bigger the hostility to Russia .
Bakhmut is the Ukrainian Verdun :the Germans attacked Verdun hoping to harm the French that much that they would surrender .The amount of German losses was not important .
It is the same for Bakhmut :the Russians attacked the city (they could also have attacked another one ) hoping that Ukraine would defend the city at all costs and as there are more Russians than Ukrainians,the danger that the Russian losses would be 3 times the number of Ukrainian losses is not very important .
If Bakhmut is captured and the Ukrainians are on the run,what will do the Russians ?Probably nothing,as there is no benefit for an additional part of Ukraine to be captured .

 

[MontyB]

Russia does not think it is getting a satellite state as Belarus,it is trying to transform Ukraine in a satellite state .
The reason is that it is not possible for Russia,even after a military victory in Ukraine to occupy and pacify Ukraine and to annex it to Russia .
How can Russia transform Ukraine in a satellite state ? Only if the Ukrainians consent and the bigger part of Ukraine is occupied,the bigger the hostility to Russia .
Bakhmut is the Ukrainian Verdun :the Germans attacked Verdun hoping to harm the French that much that they would surrender .The amount of German losses was not important .
It is the same for Bakhmut :the Russians attacked the city (they could also have attacked another one ) hoping that Ukraine would defend the city at all costs and as there are more Russians than Ukrainians,the danger that the Russian losses would be 3 times the number of Ukrainian losses is not very important .
If Bakhmut is captured and the Ukrainians are on the run,what will do the Russians ?Probably nothing,as there is no benefit for an additional part of Ukraine to be captured .

The problem for the Russians is that Verdun was as disastrous for the Germans as it was the French, both armies bled themselves white.

Also given the effort Russia has put into Bakhmut essentially its entire winter campaign and has bugger all to show for it, Ukraine could withdraw and still call it a strategic victory.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Yeah I am stumped, they are fighting over a few kilometres.
At this point Blackadder goes forth seems more like a documentary than this war is modern and this from an army that thinks it can make it to Berlin, I guess they could but at the speed they are moving it would take about 2000 years.

It would be interesting to know more about how NATO saw a war with Russia playing out but I can't imagine it was going to be a WW1 reenactment.

There are novels about a war between NATO and Russia. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact novels about a war between NATO and WP, they all are more or less techno porn, except for the novel Red Army by Ralph Peters. How a war between NATO and Russia would play out depends on what what either side want to achieve. If Russia wants to capture the Baltic states it might be able to occupy some of the Baltic territory, but the Russian forces have showed an incompetence on new levels, but It can be dangerous to underestimate them.

Btw, I read the Russians are preparing to mobilize 400 000 reservists.

It looks like I'm quoting myself. How do I change it back to how it used to be

 

[MontyB]

There are novels about a war between NATO and Russia. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact novels about a war between NATO and WP, they all are more or less techno porn, except for the novel Red Army by Ralph Peters. How a war between NATO and Russia would play out depends on what what either side want to achieve. If Russia wants to capture the Baltic states it might be able to occupy some of the Baltic territory, but the Russian forces have showed an incompetence on new levels, but It can be dangerous to underestimate them.

Btw, I read the Russians are preparing to mobilize 400 000 reservists.

It looks like I'm quoting myself. How do I change it back to how it used to be

It looks to be a problem with the final /quote command or you have too many of the initial quote commands.

I don't see the point in mobilising more troops if they can't adequately train and equip the last 300k, all they are doing is giving Ukrainian artillerymen plenty of targets, essentially trading lives for metres isn't a winning strategy.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

It looks to be a problem with the final /quote command or you have too many of the initial quote commands.

I don't see the point in mobilising more troops if they can't adequately train and equip the last 300k, all they are doing is giving Ukrainian artillerymen plenty of targets, essentially trading lives for metres isn't a winning strategy.

It will hurt the Russian economy even more if the mobilize additional 400 000. They are using the old meat wall tactic instead of a mobile mechanized warfare. But I think the Russians can't do that anymore. They seem to lack the coordination, the logistics, and the tools for it.

 

[MontyB]

It will hurt the Russian economy even more if the mobilize additional 400 000. They are using the old meat wall tactic instead of a mobile mechanized warfare. But I think the Russians can't do that anymore. They seem to lack the coordination, the logistics, and the tools for it.

It will be interesting to see how the Russian economy fares the general consensus was that it will be in trouble at some point this year.