Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

[lljadw]

Yes, it is. They cannot hit HQs, logistical hubs, military units without it. The information gathering and information sharing isn't like how it was during WWII

Yes : you can hit HQs ,logistical hubs, military units without it . A big part of these are hit by chance . A lot of British, German and allied cities were hit by malchance . The LW attacked Dublin thinking it was Belfast ,the Dutch cities of Enschede, Nijmegen and Arnhem were attacked by the USAAF, the pilots thought that they were attacking German cities .The LW attacked the German city of Freiburg, thinking they were in France .
But you can't hit them without the needed forces,even if you have the information about them .

 

[George]

Yes : you can hit HQs ,logistical hubs, military units without it . A big part of these are hit by chance . A lot of British, German and allied cities were hit by malchance . The LW attacked Dublin thinking it was Belfast ,the Dutch cities of Enschede, Nijmegen and Arnhem were attacked by the USAAF, the pilots thought that they were attacking German cities .The LW attacked the German city of Freiburg, thinking they were in France .
But you can't hit them without the needed forces, even if you have the information about them .

you're talking about navigational errors. Not even close to things located by intel. Do things sometimes happen by accident? Yes, but it's rare. One bomber being sent to bomb Rabaul got hit in the engine causing the bombs to be jettisoned, they just happened to land on an unknown ammo dump concealed on a small island. On the other hand Signal Intell & other intell can pinpoint high value targets. As was said lots of Generals seem to be croaking...

 

[lljadw]

you're talking about navigational errors. Not even close to things located by intel. Do things sometimes happen by accident? Yes, but it's rare. One bomber being sent to bomb Rabaul got hit in the engine causing the bombs to be jettisoned, they just happened to land on an unknown ammo dump concealed on a small island. On the other hand Signal Intell & other intell can pinpoint high value targets. As was said lots of Generals seem to be croaking...

It is not rare .
1 The NSA lobby is jubilating when after ( not BECAUSE ) front commanders used the NSA information,the attacks are successful , but the NSA lobby remains silent when the result is that there is no attack or a failed attack .
Look at the elimination of Bin Laden :every day countless informations arrived ,but nothing happened,because in most cases the information was wrong, because it was impossible to kill him,...
2 Most information is wrong,useless,without any value : how many Russian logistical hubs were attacked because of the NSA information, how many of the attacks were successful and what was the influence of the successful attacks ?
3 Correct information does not mean an attack.
4 An attack does not mean a success
5 A success does not mean that the attack has a big importance .
6 No information does not mean no attack, does not mean a failed attack ,a failed attack can have bigger results than a successful attack .
7 If an Ukrainian battalion commander receives the correct news that his opponent (the Russian battalion commander) has received 2 additional pieces of artillery ,what is the value of this news for the Ukrainian commander ? Answer : value is zero . And, as the Ukrainian commander can not know that the news is correct,what should he do ? If is there even one reason to do something ?
Most (more than 90 % ) of the Ultra Messages were useless and were thrown in the dustbin .
Why should it be different for the photos from the NSA ?
No commander will risk the lives of his men because of a photo someone in Fort Meade claimed that it was important .

 

[lljadw]

The absence of (reliable ) information can not be used as excuse for the failure of a military operation and the presence of (reliable ) information can not be used as the cause of the success of a military operation .
See :
Pearl Harbor
Barbarossa
The German advance to the Channel in May 1944
Overlord
The elimination of Bin Laden
The start of the Ukrainian war
The wars in Afghanistan
The Battle of the Bulge
Market Garden
Etc,etc......

 

[MontyB]

Ok, I know where this will go so right off the bat I will concede that it is coming from a Ukrainian source and as such it is biased but none the less I found it interesting and I think for the most part it lines up with my impressions nicely.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/19/7403035/

I honestly don't think the Russians had any plan other than was stated here and what I think we see now is Russia hopelessly entangled in a conflict they started but never believed they would have to fight which is why they are desperate for the west to stop equipping Ukraine and keep arguing that the supplying of Ukraine is dragging out the war.

It still hasn't dawned on them that it could all have been avoided had they stayed on their side of the border and Ukraine isn't going to accept an agreement that involves giving up territory (and neither should it).

 

[George]

Ok, I know where this will go so right off the bat I will concede that it is coming from a Ukrainian source and as such it is biased but none the less I found it interesting and I think for the most part it lines up with my impressions nicely.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/19/7403035/

I honestly don't think the Russians had any plan other than was stated here and what I think we see now is Russia hopelessly entangled in a conflict they started but never believed they would have to fight which is why they are desperate for the west to stop equipping Ukraine and keep arguing that the supplying of Ukraine is dragging out the war.

It still hasn't dawned on them that it could all have been avoided had they stayed on their side of the border and Ukraine isn't going to accept an agreement that involves giving up territory (and neither should it).

They expected Ukraine to collapse from the mental terror of a Russian attack. As they say, plans work until used...

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

you're talking about navigational errors. Not even close to things located by intel. Do things sometimes happen by accident? Yes, but it's rare. One bomber being sent to bomb Rabaul got hit in the engine causing the bombs to be jettisoned, they just happened to land on an unknown ammo dump concealed on a small island. On the other hand Signal Intell & other intell can pinpoint high value targets. As was said lots of Generals seem to be croaking...

That's why officers with a map are so dangerous

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Yes : you can hit HQs ,logistical hubs, military units without it . A big part of these are hit by chance . A lot of British, German and allied cities were hit by malchance . The LW attacked Dublin thinking it was Belfast ,the Dutch cities of Enschede, Nijmegen and Arnhem were attacked by the USAAF, the pilots thought that they were attacking German cities .The LW attacked the German city of Freiburg, thinking they were in France .
But you can't hit them without the needed forces,even if you have the information about them .

No, little Walt, they aren't hit by chance.

 

[lljadw]

you're talking about navigational errors. Not even close to things located by intel. Do things sometimes happen by accident? Yes, but it's rare. One bomber being sent to bomb Rabaul got hit in the engine causing the bombs to be jettisoned, they just happened to land on an unknown ammo dump concealed on a small island. On the other hand Signal Intell & other intell can pinpoint high value targets. As was said lots of Generals seem to be croaking...

Is it rare ?
Three may : US forces in Syria attacked an ISIS leader,there were also civilian casualties .
Countless civilians have been killed by US drones attacks,by Russian missiles ,... Missiles and drones are not gamechangers .
The precision of air attacks is today not bigger than in WW2 .
A drone attack in Kabul in August 2021 killed 10 civilians, most of the same family .
I do not condemn these attacks as civilians can not claim the right to be immune in a war ,but the claims from the computer and drone lobby that war has now radically changed because of drones is unproved, unlikely, nonsense, a lie .

 

[lljadw]

No, little Walt, they aren't hit by chance.

Oh yes you can:
there were two attacks against Rommel
1 in NA when British commandos attacked his HQ with as aim to eliminate him ;they failed :he was absent , not :BECAUSE he was absent .
2 in Normandy when his car was attacked by a British fighter :the attack eliminated Rommel,although the pilot did not know that Rommel was in the car.Rommel was eliminated by chance, malchance .

 

[MontyB]

When did everything become so black or white?
I will still argue that both options planned and accidental still happen but accidental is probably more likely in small local actions and far less common on the strategic level.
However, given the multitude of methods of gaining data and the speed at which it can be transmitted worldwide major events are unlikely to be accidental.

If we want to use WW2 examples, how many of the actions listed would have gone ahead in the manner they did if planners had access to the intelligence gathering mechanisms we have today?

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

When did everything become so black or white?
I will still argue that both options planned and accidental still happen but accidental is probably more likely in small local actions and far less common on the strategic level.
However, given the multitude of methods of gaining data and the speed at which it can be transmitted worldwide major events are unlikely to be accidental.

If we want to use WW2 examples, how many of the actions listed would have gone ahead in the manner they did if planners had access to the intelligence gathering mechanisms we have today?

Let us assume they had access to spy, communication satellites, and signal intelligence (usually airplanes) It would be much harder to surprise the enemy.

To compare the war in Ukraine with WWII is to ignore the technological development between 1939 to present days. We can take artillery radar, it is not really intelligence gathering, but it is really effective. The Artillery radar became operational in the 1960s and it has been developed further since then. The major difference from WWII to now is the communication technology with. Military graded communication is different from the civilian. To use cell phones in a war zone is to have a death wish. Russians are using civilian cell phones and they have paid for it. To intercept and pinpoint the Russian communication is the reason for why a lot of Russian commanders have been KIAs, this has also contributed to Ukrainians ability to hit logistical hubs. How do they get the info? They get it from the US/NATO intelligence

In the late 1990s early 2000 the latest RMA emerged. The information gathering and information sharing is used by all military branches in real time. Even platoon and company commanders get access to the information immediately. The Ukrainians don't have the same access as NATO forces, but they get access on a strategic level.

 

[MontyB]

Let us assume they had access to spy, communication satellites, and signal intelligence (usually airplanes) It would be much harder to surprise the enemy.

To compare the war in Ukraine with WWII is to ignore the technological development between 1939 to present days. We can take artillery radar, it is not really intelligence gathering, but it is really effective. The Artillery radar became operational in the 1960s and it has been developed further since then. The major difference from WWII to now is the communication technology with. Military graded communication is different from the civilian. To use cell phones in a war zone is to have a death wish. Russians are using civilian cell phones and they have paid for it. To intercept and pinpoint the Russian communication is the reason for why a lot of Russian commanders have been KIAs, this has also contributed to Ukrainians ability to hit logistical hubs. How do they get the info? They get it from the US/NATO intelligence

In the late 1990s early 2000 the latest RMA emerged. The information gathering and information sharing is used by all military branches in real time. Even platoon and company commanders get access to the information immediately. The Ukrainians don't have the same access as NATO forces, but they get access on a strategic level.

Wars seem to have "generations", Napoleonic wars ended with the Crimean war, the industrial age of warfare seems to have begun with the American Civil war and probably ended with Gulf War 1, I am not sure what this one is, Afghanistan, GW2 seem to kick off asymmetric warfare but Ukraine isn't in that category and it really isn't on the industrial scale.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Wars seem to have "generations", Napoleonic wars ended with the Crimean war, the industrial age of warfare seems to have begun with the American Civil war and probably ended with Gulf War 1, I am not sure what this one is, Afghanistan, GW2 seem to kick off asymmetric warfare but Ukraine isn't in that category and it really isn't on the industrial scale.

The Ukrainian/Russo war is a symmetric war and somewhat an industrial war. However, this war show what we have known for a very long time. A war of this scale and type spend a lot of resources, much faster than what Ukraine and others can produce. Months and even years of production can be spent in a very short period of time.

What can we learn or rather see from a practical viewpoint and not from a theoretical perspective. One thing is the use of drones in a symmetric war, not only for attacking, there is huge value of drones to be used on a tactical level. The artillery has been taken a huge leap since the last time artillery was used in a symmetric war. Helicopters haven't been successful during this war, the portable AA systems have pretty much neutralized them. The war has also caused the old question about MBTs to emerge again. The air forces on both sides don't participate much in this war

The information collection, processing, and sharing is extremely fast. Ukraine gets a lot of help with the information, which has an impact on the Russian logistical structure and to find where the Russian commanders are.

The first major war that can be described as an asymmetric war is the American Revolutionary War. I would say the asymmetric approach worked well during the wars in the post-WWII world.

 

[George]

Wars seem to have "generations", Napoleonic wars ended with the Crimean war, .

One author points out the first "World War" (because of colonies) was actually, for the British, the near continuous war they were in from the beginning of The American Revolution in 1775, especially when France became a belligerent, until 1815's Battle of Waterloo and Battle of New Orleans. It's quite a stretch to include the Crimean War, a gap of 38 years.

 

[lljadw]

When did everything become so black or white?
I will still argue that both options planned and accidental still happen but accidental is probably more likely in small local actions and far less common on the strategic level.
However, given the multitude of methods of gaining data and the speed at which it can be transmitted worldwide major events are unlikely to be accidental.

If we want to use WW2 examples, how many of the actions listed would have gone ahead in the manner they did if planners had access to the intelligence gathering mechanisms we have today?

If the Germans had more information in the night of 5/6 June 1944, Overlord would still be a success .The reason is that the Germans had not the needed forces to make Overlord a failure .
The Ultra lobby claimed that the French /British had information about the direction of the German advance on 10 May 1940,but that is irrelevant,as the allies had not the needed forces to stop this advance .
The US had before May 2011 information about the refuge of Bin Laden, but political considerations prevented an attack on Bin Laden .
Not that the elimination of Bin Laden was important : the death of Bin Laden did not mean the disappearance of AQ.

 

[MontyB]

One author points out the first "World War" (because of colonies) was actually, for the British, the near continuous war they were in from the beginning of The American Revolution in 1775, especially when France became a belligerent, until 1815's Battle of Waterloo and Battle of New Orleans. It's quite a stretch to include the Crimean War, a gap of 38 years.

Some argue that the Crimean war was the first industrial war but given that they were still using the tactics of the Napoleonic age I am not sure I agree especially when you put it up against the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 with was a vastly different affair.


I am not sure I can buy into the idea of the American Revolutionary war being assymetrical although it certainly contained aspects of it, I think it worth mentioning that the the Revolutionary war was still an "on and off" thing until the treaty of Ghent at the end of 1814 well into the Napoleonic age, it really wasn't until the Rush -Bagot agreement in 1818 that these things finally ended.

 

[lljadw]

The Ukrainian/Russo war is a symmetric war and somewhat an industrial war. However, this war show what we have known for a very long time. A war of this scale and type spend a lot of resources, much faster than what Ukraine and others can produce. Months and even years of production can be spent in a very short period of time.

What can we learn or rather see from a practical viewpoint and not from a theoretical perspective. One thing is the use of drones in a symmetric war, not only for attacking, there is huge value of drones to be used on a tactical level. The artillery has been taken a huge leap since the last time artillery was used in a symmetric war. Helicopters haven't been successful during this war, the portable AA systems have pretty much neutralized them. The war has also caused the old question about MBTs to emerge again. The air forces on both sides don't participate much in this war

The information collection, processing, and sharing is extremely fast. Ukraine gets a lot of help with the information, which has an impact on the Russian logistical structure and to find where the Russian commanders are.

The first major war that can be described as an asymmetric war is the American Revolutionary War. I would say the asymmetric approach worked well during the wars in the post-WWII world.

1 The Ukrainian war did not start as a symmetric and industrial war :the Russian aims were political and the Ukrainian strength was irrelevant .
2 To find where the Russian commanders are does not mean that you can eliminate them .
3 Not to find where the Russian commanders are ,does not mean that you can't eliminate them .
4 The elimination ( or not ) of a military/political commander has not the importance the lobby from Fort Meade and Langley is claiming it has .
See the elimination of Rommel, Yamamoto, Bin Laden, Koga, the head of ISIS .See the attempt to eliminate Zelensky .See the elimination of Diem and the elimination of the communist leaders of Afghanistan ,the elimination of Napoleon III .
5 The American Revolutionary War is not an asymmetric war ,because the Rebels were supported by France and Spain ,while a big part of the white inhabitants of the colonies remained loyal to the King .

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

1 The Ukrainian war did not start as a symmetric and industrial war :the Russian aims were political and the Ukrainian strength was irrelevant .
2 To find where the Russian commanders are does not mean that you can eliminate them .
3 Not to find where the Russian commanders are ,does not mean that you can't eliminate them .
4 The elimination ( or not ) of a military/political commander has not the importance the lobby from Fort Meade and Langley is claiming it has .
See the elimination of Rommel, Yamamoto, Bin Laden, Koga, the head of ISIS .See the attempt to eliminate Zelensky .See the elimination of Diem and the elimination of the communist leaders of Afghanistan ,the elimination of Napoleon III .
5 The American Revolutionary War is not an asymmetric war ,because the Rebels were supported by France and Spain ,while a big part of the white inhabitants of the colonies remained loyal to the King .

And yet you show you don't know the difference between asymmetric and symmetric wars. Wars are political and used as a method to change a political reality, regardless if the war is asymmetric or symmetric. To take out military commanders, especially if they have a centralized command structure has an effect on the performance.

Revolutionary wars are asymmetric especially in the beginning. Even asymmetric warring parties need financial and military support. Ukraine gets support from the West. Soviet Union and China supported Vietnam, the US supported Mujahideen during the war in Afghanistan. The Israeli wars were proxy wars

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Some argue that the Crimean war was the first industrial war but given that they were still using the tactics of the Napoleonic age I am not sure I agree especially when you put it up against the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 with was a vastly different affair.


I am not sure I can buy into the idea of the American Revolutionary war being assymetrical although it certainly contained aspects of it, I think it worth mentioning that the the Revolutionary war was still an "on and off" thing until the treaty of Ghent at the end of 1814 well into the Napoleonic age, it really wasn't until the Rush -Bagot agreement in 1818 that these things finally ended.

The Franco-Prussian war was different from the other wars in the 19th century, but the Modus didn't change much until 1918. However, the Prussians were changing their thoughts about war, the major change occurred after the great war.