Jump to content
H1nd

Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS

Recommended Posts

Well does Russia need a numerical superiority better than that, considering the better quality of the units and huge advantage in terms of force multipliers, if it has limited political objectives?

It depends. One has to compare apples to apples to the extent possible. Some of Russia's forces are superior to Ukraine's in terms of material, but others are probably no better. Russia's modernization is for sure not complete enough to outfit a very large force with all modernized equipment.

Then there is the civilian population. Saddam's conventional could have been defeated with the original proposed US force of some 80,000, but the country wasn't controlled with a force several times larger. A Russian commander who assumes that he won't have problems with the Ukrainian population is going to get a lot of his men killed.

 

Note, my scenario is not in 2017 (which is far away and quite honestly I can't say with certainty if the conflict would be ongoing at that point), but rather occurs during the spring-summer campaign of 2015 (probably closer to summer due to the obvious need to publish the final scenario before the time line comes up).

Yup, that's the assumption I'm going on too. Ukraine is currently fielding an armed force around 235,000 and is now in the process of increasing it to 250,000. As I said earlier, it can be presumed that Russia will face near 100% of Ukraine's military force and then add another large number to that in quickly raised units and irregular forces. Remember, Russia would be on a mission of conquest, Ukraine would be fighting for their homes. I think Ukrainians have proven they are willing to fight.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Russian commander who assumes that he won't have problems with the Ukrainian population is going to get a lot of his men killed.

 

As history shown us ukrainians will cooperate with occupation forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Ukrainian figures. This statement:

http://112.ua/glavnye-novosti/v-ramkah-mobilizacii-v-2015-godu-planiruetsya-prizvat-104-tys-chelovek-poltorak-170696.html

States that they plan to mobilise 50k troops for 90 days, and intend to keep the desired force size - 104k (and this is total, all things included in the Armed Forces of Ukraine). There were other (yet to be decided on) waves of mobilisations in late spring/early summer and late summer/early autumn, but they were not yet confirmed. That statement was after this one:

http://112.ua/obshchestvo/matios-v-2015-godu-pod-mobilizaciyu-popadut-200-tysyach-ukraincev-170217.html

Stating 200k being mobilised over the 2015.

 

Even though both could be correct, they would imply that:

- in best case scenario Ukrainian Armed Forces by spring-summer campaign would be made in half from the relatively green troops (there are funding problems to train and equip those) because the troops of the first mobilisation would have just finished basic training (less that 3 months in their units).

- In worst case scenario (which I don't really believe in), they expect to suffer extreme casualties and rebuild their Armed Forces 2-3 times during 2015.

 

It could also refer to the creation of 100k strong "reserve" army (a pool of reservists could be useful for them I guess).

 

In my opinion the 1st statement is closer to the truth, and hence would imply that the Ukrainian Armed Forces would go through a phase of quick growth, which would decrease the overall troop quality. 

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant believe this is being used as an argument

 

Why it cant?

You can reffer to ANY war what took place on the territory of the UA. They are not those glorius Belarus partisans and even the Russian ones. They have sayng "моя хата с краю" what means if something doesnt touch me i will not do anything to it.

They are not Kurds. They will cooperate.

Edited by Weer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me more about which ethnicities are reliable and which are sure to kowtow to occupiers.

 

Do certain ones get bonuses to Strength and Constitution scores too at birth?   :rolleyes:

Edited by Nerdwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad, sorry.

When Crimean events were happening everyone knows what there were russian troops in center of them. Even in Russia.

Someone should have told all the Russian posters on various Forums that. They didn't seem to know it. Putin also didn't seem to know it because he said they were Ukrainians who bought all the equipment on eBay.

Title says what there is OSCE dudes were close. If they said what thats okay - thats okay.

Modern Russian Federation equipment being viewed by OSCE monitors who are, by any reasonable definition, useless.

Well not all of the gear is 20 years old, but still you have no evidence what they manned by russian regulars.

I posted evidence in the other thread. And the BTR-82 is not a Ukrainian vehicle, so who was driving it? Or is the Russian Army in a habit of handing its vehicles to anybody that asks for one and then lets them drive into neighboring countries?

Russia used its right to keep about 60K (i dont remember the correct number) in Crimea.

(sigh) This is so totally and utter nonsense. Russia was allowed to keep around 25,000 forces in Crimea in designated locations. Surrounding Ukrainian military bases, the airport, the ferry crossings, etc. were not the designated locations. And certainly Russia did not file the proper paperwork three days ahead of time as per the agreement.

Only IF there is regulars.

If they dont recive orders from MoD they are terrorists. If they do - Ukraine must declare a war to Russia.

But only if there are regulars.

The counter offensive in August was based from Russian soil and involved artillery and ground forces. They were driving Russian Army tanks and APCs. Documents and prisoners were seized with Russian military identification. Putin even had to admit that some were Russian military and said they were "lost" or "on vacation". The evidence is there.

It is also completely inconceivable that Putin would sit back and do nothing while the Ukrainian Army wiped out the separatists. This is Russia's most important foreign policy issue and the Russian economy is being punished for it. Putin is not a weak leader, so of course he acted.

Who knows?

Anybody paying attention.

Still no evedences.

Just because you are unaware of it or dismiss it isn't the same as not existing.

And yes they are russians, Ethnic russains.

Some where, but many were Russian citizens born in Russia. Here are two very well known examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Borodai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin

These men were funded, in large part, by a group of right wing Russian organizations. In particular Durgin's Eurasian Youth Movement. The group were in charge of the "Novorussian project", which Putin effectively killed off after initially supporting it.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me more about which ethnicities are reliable and which are sure to kowtow to occupiers.

 

I know ukrainians personally. Thats not a joke - this is part of theyr culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me more about which ethnicities are reliable and which are sure to kowtow to occupiers.

 

Do certain ones get bonuses to Strength and Constitution scores too at birth?   :rolleyes:

There are people who are politically and culturally predisposed to closer ties with Russia, there are others who are not. Ethnic/cultural labels do not determine which way someone will lean. Opinion polls conducted for years ahead of the violence show that an overwhelming majority of Donbas did not want union with Russia, despite the majority declaring that they are ethnically Russian.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin also didn't seem to know it because he said they were Ukrainians who bought all the equipment on eBay.

 

 

He is the politic.

Modern Russian Federation equipment being viewed by OSCE monitors who are, by any reasonable definition, useless.

 

They are OSCE.

If you dont respect them thats your problem.

so who was driving it

 

Militants?

Thats the same BTR-80 but with different gun. 2A72 are used on some UA vehicles.

So whats the problem?

And yeas, RF give to the militants.

Surrounding Ukrainian military bases, the airport, the ferry crossings, etc.

 

Anyway that took place only after Crimean parlament said "cya" to the UA.

Documents

 

Where?

Show us some of them pls.

Putin even had to admit that some were Russian military

 

Is he said "regular troops with orders from MoD"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some silly claims going around here. Someone said 4 x Russian battalion tactical groups involved in ukraine in summer? That’s roughly 3200 men without additional logistical support. People throwing numbers around like that better give at least some sourcing. I have no knowledge or proof even a fraction of that was ever deployed. For a force this size it certainly is impossible to keep a low visibility, there must at least be some sort of video or photo documentation.

 

Also, I would greatly appreciate proof of monetary incentive for Russian servicemen to go operational in Ukraine. People seem to be confusing the amount of Russian Nationals involved in this conflict for members of Russian military. No one is denying logistical, advisory and limited SF support to the separatists, but further claims seem a little tinfoil hat-like with no actual proof.  

 

I don’t see the claim of Polish snipers as foolish. Other nationals were seen in various battalions, most notable example of that being a Swedish citizen in Azov. Looking at a plethora of mercenaries deployed in various conflicts, having radical polish citizens fight alongside radicalised ukrainians for whatever reasons (russophobia or else) is not something unlikely.

 

Further comments on how we are bias by nature because we live in a country that puts something on state-sponsored TV is insulting. Moreover, I’ve seen that episode, and all points of views were presented, from the most liberal, to most hardline like you’ve seen ripped out of context. Some of you live in countries which were witch-hunting WMD’s for some time in certain countries, yet we somehow restrain of bringing that into valid and otherwise interesting discussion.

 

Ikalugin is in the middle of putting together a good, in-depth analysis of what the force composition from the russian side would be, so I’ll defer to him until he sends it to me (Do it nao ;) ).    

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or are there quite a few new members here?

(paranoid mode)

Just checked your profile, and you joined these forums like 4 days ago? So far I think you have made a few valuable contributions. I think we can give the benefit of the doubt to any newcomers :)

Regarding the will to fight of the Ukrainians... A friend of mine, who lived in Luhansk and fled for Kiev last June, leaving behind his apartment and invaluable GPW documents collection, was very cynical about that. He pointed me to the example of the Russian Civil War, when the Ukraine became independent and was "retaken" with very little effort. According to him, most Ukrainians are too "civilised" as to contemplate total war against Russia. Also, in his reckoning, a sizeable proportion of the Ukranian youth isn't precisely looking forward to become "blue livers" in the Donbass.

That last statement might well apply to a substantial proportion of the Russian youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe we are still having this argument in 2015.

Russian units manned by Russian regulars using Russian equipment have been and are involved in the fighting in East Ukraine.

I don't understand why posters are still coming here and trying to argue they are not there. You will not convince anyone here and definitely will not help your credibility on other subjects.

Now the topic of this thread is on a hypothetical invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2017. I suggest we stick to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now the topic of this thread is on a hypothetical invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2017. I suggest we stick to that.

 

Actually this was already sort of derailed by me - current discussion is set around 2015 scenario I think.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a part of Russia that was historically largely inhabited by Americans and pro-American Russians (lets call it, say, Newamerica, for simplicity sake :)), and an armed uprising has toppled the Russian government, replacing it with a regime that people of Newamerica felt was unfair and dangerous for them, which led them to protest against it and demand broader regional autonomy, which led to said new regime threatening and intimidating them with nationalist forces and hired thugs, which led to Newamericans and their friends, relatives and sympathisers from American mainland organising into militia squads and arming themselves by capturing local police and SBU FSB stations (actions that were perpetrated with impunity just several weeks ago by their opponents in Lvov and Kiev Saint-Petersburg and Moscow), which resulted in them being pummeled by the new Russian regime's artillery, tanks and airstrikes - then yes, American help with weapons, supplies and advisers would not be an invasion, but aiding in defense of their own people.

 

Sorry for bringing up political questions, but could not just stay quiet. :rolleyes:

 

 

There acutally is a similar situation with the US.  We call the place Cuba.  It was a seperate nation but under the thumb of the US with many Americans living there and much of the business run by Americans.  The pro-American government fell, and the US used a large group of disidents and exiles to build a small army ordered it to invade Cuba.  This disaster was called "the Bay of Pigs Invasion", in American history.  The US denied responsibilty in the spirit of plausable denialitbility, but nobody believed it.  It was absurd.  Only the most extreme anti-communist partisan called it anything but an invasion despite the attacking force being mostly made up of Cubans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion You can read more about it here.  I never heard it seen as the Bay of Pigs uprising or Bay of Pigs civil war in English historiagraphy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...