Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

lljadw said:
And how many senior officers of 70 will be recalled up,and how many of them will go to Ukraine ?
10,20,40 ?
Or 100 ?
An increase of the manpower of the army (most of this increase will not go to Ukraine ) needs an increase of ''senior '' officers (colonels, generals ).
In September 1939 Germany also recalled up retired generals ..
Click to expand...

I don't know, the email from Vlad said he expected it to be somewhere between none and lots.

And while calling up octogenarians may have been the in thing in previous centuries, it does say something about the state of the Russian officer pool, I would also point out that by September 1945 Germany was a smoldering ruin.
 
I was watching a video on Youtube this morning and the guy was discussing drones and the best ways of bringing them down and I saw a picture of a couple of anti-drone guns that appeared to be made by Kvertus Technology Ltd and that reminded me of this post:

Kvertus Technology anti drone systems

Seems he picked the right industry to get into.

The video was this one and the image is at 3:55 minutes.

Moscow Attacked by Drones


It is a very small world at times.
 
MontyB said:
I found an MoD release on Reddit confirming that Russia has changed its recruitment ages to include 70 year old senior officers...

picture2357.png
Click to expand...

There is hope for Brit.

Hey Brit, have you called MOD to tell them you are available if the RAF or the RN want to use the Swordfish planes against the Russian navy. If you get the opportunity to do it, remember to aim for the rudder

The war has consumed Russian generals and there aren't many generals in any armed forces regardless country.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
There is hope for Brit.

Hey Brit, have you called MOD to tell them you are available if the RAF or the RN want to use the Swordfish planes against the Russian navy. If you get the opportunity to do it, remember to aim for the rudder

The war has consumed Russian generals and there aren't many generals in any armed forces regardless country.
Click to expand...

I posted that as a response/verification of this post...

Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

I had asked for validation of the claim and later found the UK MoD response.

Given the inability of Russian air defence to stop slow moving drones I think I would back the Swordfish.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I don't know, the email from Vlad said he expected it to be somewhere between none and lots.

And while calling up octogenarians may have been the in thing in previous centuries, it does say something about the state of the Russian officer pool, I would also point out that by September 1945 Germany was a smoldering ruin.
Click to expand...

Britain recalled thousands of retired officers in September 1939 and US had at the same period a reserve of 104000 officers that could be recalled . British soldiers and officers who fought in WW1 were recalled in WW2 ,age of conscription for soldiers was going up to 51 .
The Russians need more senior officers for Ukraine and take them from units that are not committed in Ukraine,to replace these officers a small number of retired officers is recalled and the age for recall is increased to 70 ,what does not mean that officers of 70 will be recalled .
People have been indoctrinated with the stories of millions of Asian hordes that will come to Europe, while the truth is that Russia has only a small armed force with a small reserve of manpower .
Only 2 million people have been drafted the last 5 years and the age of 70 as limit for the recall of senior officers is nothing new :it existed already before the war in Ukraine .
No one knows how many people of 70 have been recalled ,IF some were recalled .
 
I would argue that it isn't calling up 70 year old Generals that is the problem it is the need to call up these officers that is the problem as it indicates a weakness which for a country that drones on constantly about "strength" can be catastrophic.

As my old boss used to say "perception has value".
 
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk said:
There is hope for Brit.

Hey Brit, have you called MOD to tell them you are available if the RAF or the RN want to use the Swordfish planes against the Russian navy. If you get the opportunity to do it, remember to aim for the rudder

The war has consumed Russian generals and there aren't many generals in any armed forces regardless country.
Click to expand...

I wasn't a Rupert, I was only a spotty little Erk so they wouldn't take me, beside's I'd get sea sick on a aircraft carrier:???:

Strangely enough, I was watching ''Sink the Bismak'' yesterday:smil:

I wonder when Putin will lower the call up age to 12 years old?
 
Last edited:
Ok a slight redirection here but I have been thinking about the performance of MBTs both Russian and Western.

Despite the tendency of Russian tanks to blow up spectacularly the crew survivability of both Russian and Western MBTs seems quite high, the difference seems to be that western vehicles have a higher rate of recovery and repair.

Is this a reasonable assessment?
 
MontyB said:
Ok a slight redirection here but I have been thinking about the performance of MBTs both Russian and Western.

Despite the tendency of Russian tanks to blow up spectacularly the crew survivability of both Russian and Western MBTs seems quite high, the difference seems to be that western vehicles have a higher rate of recovery and repair.

Is this a reasonable assessment?
Click to expand...

I would say so. Western made MBTs aren't wonder weapons, but the Leo2 is made in blocks which are replaceable. I haven't seen the Abrams nor the Challenger in battle yet. The T72 was a decent tank in the late 1970s early 1980s. The Leo2 is also pretty old, they both have been upgraded several times. I have seen lesser of the "jack in the box" effect when Russian tanks have been hit. Most likely because they carry lesser amount of ammunition now

Both sides have changed their MO during this war. They rely more on infantry attacks and not on mechanized attacks. The indirect fire is more important. The Ukrainians are testing the Russian defenses to find weak spots and also to block the Russian forces in their defensive position. The Russian forces have been preparing their defense for months and it will take the Ukrainians longer to breakthrough.
 
BritinBritain said:
I wasn't a Rupert, I was only a spotty little Erk so they wouldn't take me, beside's I'd get sea sick on a aircraft carrier:???:

Strangely enough, I was watching ''Sink the Bismak'' yesterday:smil:

I wonder when Putin will lower the call up age to 12 years old?
Click to expand...

That is a pretty good war movie.

I vaguely remember a sitcom called "Dad's Army" the Russian version of it would have the title Granddad's Army.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I would say so. Western made MBTs aren't wonder weapons, but the Leo2 is made in blocks which are replaceable. I haven't seen the Abrams nor the Challenger in battle yet. The T72 was a decent tank in the late 1970s early 1980s. The Leo2 is also pretty old, they both have been upgraded several times. I have seen lesser of the "jack in the box" effect when Russian tanks have been hit. Most likely because they carry lesser amount of ammunition now

Both sides have changed their MO during this war. They rely more on infantry attacks and not on mechanized attacks. The indirect fire is more important. The Ukrainians are testing the Russian defenses to find weak spots and also to block the Russian forces in their defensive position. The Russian forces have been preparing their defense for months and it will take the Ukrainians longer to breakthrough.
Click to expand...

From what gather the C2 has been used in the east but I can't find anything concrete to back that up, i have read reports from Ukrainians talking positively about the survivability of western IFVs over their old Soviet ones.

I read pro-Russian accounts of how this counter offensive has been a failure but at the same time it has to be mentioned that even if it was called off tomorrow it would have taken four times the land that the Russian winter offensive did, I also saw a comparison that it took the allies six weeks to begin the breakout of Normandy.

I don't see this as a failure, Russia tried something in the north and that was stopped and pushed back, Ukraine is still pushing around Bakhmut in the east and is beginning to make progress in the south, only being held up by minefields.
 
I have read the Archer has been used in the east too, but I haven't seen anything how effective the Archer is.

I think the Ukrainians are adjusting to the realities on the ground. It is rather stupid to push harder and suffer more casualties if they don't need to do it. Much better to step back and use artillery instead. Mines are nasty, but cheap. The Ukrainian combat engineers have a tough job to clear the mines, especially if the Russians are shooting at them while they are doing it.

I think the Ukrainians are following the mission guided school of military operation, it is also called the German school because they began with the mission focused thinking during the Franco-Prussian war. The other approach the is the planned focused and it is also called the French approach. They are mixed, but the German way of thinking is more adjustable than the French.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I have read the Archer has been used in the east too, but I haven't seen anything how effective the Archer is.

I think the Ukrainians are adjusting to the realities on the ground. It is rather stupid to push harder and suffer more casualties if they don't need to do it. Much better to step back and use artillery instead. Mines are nasty, but cheap. The Ukrainian combat engineers have a tough job to clear the mines, especially if the Russians are shooting at them while they are doing it.

I think the Ukrainians are following the mission guided school of military operation, it is also called the German school because they began with the mission focused thinking during the Franco-Prussian war. The other approach the is the planned focused and it is also called the French approach. They are mixed, but the German way of thinking is more adjustable than the French.
Click to expand...

I have seen a number of videos where they have been given positive reviews by Ukrainian crews, one said they were using them for specific missions where there ability to drop three rounds almost simultaneously made them very effective, I wish I could remember where I saw this.

I am somewhat amused that the Germans have anything more flexible than the French.
;)
 
MontyB said:
I have seen a number of videos where they have been given positive reviews by Ukrainian crews, one said they were using them for specific missions where there ability to drop three rounds almost simultaneously made them very effective, I wish I could remember where I saw this.

I am somewhat amused that the Germans have anything more flexible than the French.
;)
Click to expand...

I searched Archer's in Ukraine on YouTube yesterday, but I probably didn't check close enough when I didn't see anything similar as the HIMARS videos

It was our old friend Otto who started it with the wars against the Austrians, the Danes, and the French. The French learned from watching the Prussian so they all went back to square one during the Great war. The Germans were back during the second one, and yet again all others learned again. The back side of the mission focused approach is; it can focus too much on the tactical level and ignore the strategic level
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I would say so. Western made MBTs aren't wonder weapons, but the Leo2 is made in blocks which are replaceable. I haven't seen the Abrams nor the Challenger in battle yet. The T72 was a decent tank in the late 1970s early 1980s. The Leo2 is also pretty old, they both have been upgraded several times. I have seen lesser of the "jack in the box" effect when Russian tanks have been hit. Most likely because they carry lesser amount of ammunition now

Both sides have changed their MO during this war. They rely more on infantry attacks and not on mechanized attacks.
Click to expand...

The change of the MO happened already after a few weeks and there were no tank battles in this war .Russian mechanized attacks as 80 years ago in WW2 ,are fruitless as their tanks could not advance to the borders with Poland and Romania .
This war is more a repetition of WW1 than WW2 :infantry and artillery .
 
The Russian forces have improved their EW capabilities. The Ukrainians are forced to locate and destroy these units before any attacks on Russian logistical hubs, formations, HQs, and other targets.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The Russian forces have improved their EW capabilities. The Ukrainians are forced to locate and destroy these units before any attacks on Russian logistical hubs, formations, HQs, and other targets.
Click to expand...
I still think there is an overly high expectation of what Ukraine needs to achieve in this offensive, there seems to be a perception that unless they make it Mariupol or Berdyansk it will be deemed a failure but in reality all they need to achieve is to advance far enough to be able to attack the E58 highway with more conventional weaponry and Russia's ability to supply the whole southern front is compromised.

Now I am just guessing here but if Russia cannot supply the region adequately then it seems unlikely they can attack from it, my personal belief remains that once the dam was destroyed and crossing the Dnieper became impossible they should have looked at reinforcing the Bakhmut offensive but they appear fixated on Crimea.
 
I think the Ukrainian approach works pretty good, there is no need to rush things and suffer more casualties than necessary. But the Russians are putting up with a good resistance. It wouldn't hurt the Ukrainians offensive if they had air support, I haven't seen any FAE weapons used by the Ukrainians, they can be used to clear minefields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top