Jump to content
Oleksandr

Ukrainian Side is Seriously Underpowered

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, IMHO said:
  1. Since Lostarmor is in Russian I'd explain what they do. They collect photos documenting equipment losses. So if they can't get hold of a pic they do not count it as a loss.
  2. Petro Poroshenko put the UKR losses at 60-65% of equipment available at front lines in a TV interview. Dmitry Tymchuk - a very pro-Ukraine Ukrainian MP - said Poroshenko told a Parliamentary session that Ukraine lost 58% of all available equipment http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3421866-ukrayna-poteriala-v-zone-ato-65-voennoi-tekhnyky

Thats refers to forces of ATO - meaning of those 50-70k Ukrainian soldiers deployed there. So ATO is not where all Ukrainian military is concentrated - those are only blocking forces. So from what ATO foces had yes it was around 60% but other 200 000 k lol are equiped as they need to. Back to ATO right after those news Ukraine switched on production of new T64's and T80's. So for example if in ATO there were used like 100 tanks - yes 60 of them were destroyed but not all tanks of Ukraine are located in ATO lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Since Lostarmor is in Russian I'd explain what they do. They collect photos documenting equipment losses. So if they can't get hold of a pic they do not count it as a loss.

Most of our destroyed vehicles have turned out on territory sieized by DNR/LNR forces (South pocket, Sector B and Ilovaisk, Debaltseve, Novoazovsk area). Thus, their photo correspondents and soldiers were hurring to make a shot of destroyed and captured "ukrop" armor - propaganda, no more (and this is right). But our soldiers also make photos of own destroyed or broken and decomissioned vehicles on rear bases. And post in social networks. So, Lostarmor results in Ukrainian part is close on 90 % to real picture.

Good example - in your table pointed 85 lost D-20 howitzers. This is almost 5 full battalions. D-20 were included in quantity one (later two) battalions in motorized rifle brigades - 56th, 58th, 59th in 2015. Where these brigades participated in what fierse battles during two years to lost almost all own brigade kit of arty ?   

 

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

So ATO is not where all Ukrainian military is concentrated - those are only blocking forces...

  1. Read Tymchuk. According to Tymchuk Poroshenko referred to 58% as a loss of all available equipment, not just frontline. As you see numbers from different sources are quite close.
  2. Nobody's trying to denigrate UKR military. Consensus opinion of both sides - UKR forces are now better trained and motivated than they were in the beginning of the conflict. It's just equipment numbers and experience and morale are two different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IMHO said:

Read Tymchuk. According to Tymchuk Poroshenko referred to 58% as a loss of all available equipment, not just frontline. As you see numbers from different sources are quite close.

By your link: Сейчас я могу об этом сказать, поскольку этого уже не существует, что на 60-65% военная техника в частях, которые стояли на первых рубежах, была уничтожена и не было чем защищаться. 

"60-65 % of all equipment.... stood on first lines and was destroyed". I didn't hear anything about tough tank clashes in Chernihiv, Kharkiv or Kherson direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what is interesting? That there are people who are not fans of Ukraine. 

I was like, "how this even possible?" 

Country that stands against empire of evil. 

On a western forum, related to a western game, about the country which is supported by the United States of America, there are people who are saying things against Ukraine. Can you believe that?) Well now I can lol.

Rethorically speaking, I wonder if there are any DPR supporters around here lol. 

I mean thos who would say "yeaay to DPR" lol

That would be simply anecdotic. 

But as I said without criticism the sense of a victory will not be full. 

Alright getnlemen - it was very nice to talk to you guys, as I've been informed - new content is on the way (i dont know what it will be and when but its on the way). So my job here is done.

For all of you who would like to talk  - please feel free to msg me. 

For all of you who disagree with me - Im sorry if I said something what you didnt like, it is life and people are not always match on their opinion. 

For all of you who willl critisize my sayings - thats perfectly fine gentlemen.

For all of you who will want to ask questions - send me a msg. 

For all of you who supported my idea that some new content for Ukrainian side would be cool - thank you and we will get it lol.

For all of you who supports Ukraine - THANK YOU!

Im glad we had this wonderful discussion, I bet many of you will keep on posting here (haters will hate lol one love tho lol), and I bet some of those posts would be interesting. 

Wish you all the best - and I bet we will see each other pretty soon in upcoming discussions lol. 

Oh and yes the most important thing: Glory To Ukraine, and God Bless America! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

By your link: Сейчас я могу об этом сказать, поскольку этого уже не существует, что на 60-65% военная техника в частях, которые стояли на первых рубежах, была уничтожена и не было чем защищаться. 

"60-65 % of all equipment.... stood on first lines and was destroyed". I didn't hear anything about tough tank clashes in Chernihiv, Kharkiv or Kherson direction. 

  1. @Haiduk, I gave the quotes verbatim. So the first quote is from TV interview and the other one is from the closed session of the Parliament. The former is 60-65% of equipment at frontline, the latter - 58% of all equipment available to UKR army. I don't know why he used different wording.
  2. IISS gives its estimation of equipment available to the armed forces at certain moment in time. They neither provide inflows/outflows nor the breakdown of reasons. Obviously not all reductions are attributable to fighting. Loss columns in the table are figures derived from 2016 and 2013 numbers so I guess the actual losses may be higher as some must have been offset by new procurement.
Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IMHO said:

58% of all equipment available to UKR army

In equipment also included trucks, not forget. Even on LA doesn't want to count its - its hundreds. Also Tymchuk said abot 58 % of mech.units park, not UKR army total  Ранее о потерях 58% парка механизированных частей 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

In equipment also included trucks, not forget. Even on LA doesn't want to count its - its hundreds. Also Tymchuk said abot 58 % of mech.units park, not UKR army total  Ранее о потерях 58% парка механизированных частей 

Yepp, agree. I'd just point out that IISS estimations and numbers in Poroshenko and Tymchuk interviews are remarkably close. Especially taking into account that equipment lost in Crimea and equipment seized by DNR/LNR are reflected in those IISS figures as well. So again, the relation between reduction and fighting loss is way more complex than a simple balance of two years.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Even the rather vocal two self-described Russophiles who have participated in this thread.

I'm proud to be one of those fellas, but it doesn't mean I have to in any way dislike the Ukraine or Ukrainians or even to take sides.....Frankly I wish both parties would see that they have a bloody sight more in common than they do to separate them and that the real enemy lies elsewhere. 

Qui Bono?  :mellow:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the original. Not a photoshop - two gun option was actually tested as 2C36 but found less reliable than one tube version.

a140a69a6dae756ef3985886b94f8dc3.jpg

koaliciya_180315_3.jpg

Zpoye.jpg

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IMHO said:

 

Here's the original. Not a photoshop - two gun option was actually tested as 2C36 but found less reliable than one tube version.

 

When I first saw, I thought someone out of the designers outplayed command & conquer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oleksandr,

Methinks you took Rinaldi's observation about Saddam's army entirely the wrong way. First, notice he talked about Saddam but also a guy named Gamelin. He was CINC for the mighty French Army, and despite a distinguished war record in WW I and a much bigger and stronger military, he lost the Battle of France in 1940 and much of the country outright, with the rest under puppet government Vichy control. The point here is that having the superior army, as perceived, is not at all the same as being able to turn it into combat power in time of war. Saddam Hussein had a highly experienced force after eight years of war. He had good-very good weapons vs Iran's, the near peer/peer force of concern to him. In Desert Storm, his forces were heavily dug in, with lots of mines protecting their positions, too. These sorts of positions had held time and again against massed Iranian attacks, and not only did he expect to stop the US and Coalition forces with his defenses, but Trevor Dupuy, who had done a lot of force on force modeling for the US Army put a book out based on his studies predicting 100,000 US casualties--in the first phase! there were also interviews and articles. 

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-05/news/mn-776_1_military-experts

Yet the actual figure for fatalities was ~300, of which half weren't from combat. Total US WIA amounted to 467. Mind, this is Pentagon math, and the Pentagon is very good at recategorizing inconvenient facts regarding casualties. Nor does the below factor in Gulf War Syndrome, DU exposure and other loveliness.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2020.html

My read is thst Rinaldi was simply trying to make a point whose message is looking good and being big isn't the same as being good. Mistakes of that sort have resulted in the fall of governments, the end of independence, etc. In no way was he slamming the UA by likening it to Saddam's army He was doing this from the perspectives of force size and firepower. Believe you saw gross insult and attack where there was none.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us recall the Ukrainian army in the title is the 'pre-lessons-learned' Ukrainian army of the game release date. They have since gained enough hard-won experience that they are now instructing Americans on how to battle the Russian army. But that's not the force that's in the game. There's a looong wish list on the topic of how one might update the Ukrainian army for a future module. But like the current in-game forces, that wish list will also be out of date as soon as the game is out. Its like trying to hit a moving target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here is anti-Ukraine so much as we can see that the mighty and glorious Ukraine couldn't stop a Russian field army driving for Kiev, and cannot be admitted into NATO while having a frozen conflict with Russia. Western countries might be willing to send winter coats and put some sanctions on Russia, but the risk posed by the Baltic counties to NATO is already huge, and that pales in comparison to the risk of admitting Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldstyle state-on-state wars are EXPENSIVE. The German invasion of France in 1940 took just six weeks. In that time Germany lost more men than the US lost in in the entire Korean war. Plus (roughly) 800 tanks and 1000 aircraft. There are few nations currently on a footing to absorb that level of loss. To quote an old political cartoon from the Spanish American war, 'Is the game worth the penny?' Putin may have his Czarist dream of a unified Slavic super-state but the costs in blood and treasure would be prohibitive for an economy the size of Russia's. How much has it cost the Russian government to date to grab a railhead at Ukrainian Donetsk for a transport link that only runs to the outskirts of Mariupol? Ukraine 2017 turned out to not be Georgia 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear one of Ukraine's major problems lies in inadequate numbers of properly trained officers and NCOs, as nicely depicted in the desired norm below where things are being handled properly . For those who don't know about the Roman legions, the gentleman on the left is a Roman centurion, roughly the equivalent of a modern Company Commander, yet in many ways operating as a senior NCO.  Centurions were the professional backbone of the Roman Army . This one has clearly just read out the luckless miles gregarius (ordinary soldier), who is bawling out some response after the centurion, whose gimlet eyes miss nothing, has bellowed some question into the soldier's ear. See that stick? It's called a vitis and is a tough piece of wood from a grape vine. It is both a symbol of authority and a real threat, for centurions could and did wallop their men with them! One centurion hit so hard when beating his men's backs he kept breaking his and would say to one of his aides "Cedo alteram" which means "Fetch me another." Mind, am not advocating that the vitis be issued to UKR Army NCOs and junior officers!  As some of you may know, I'm a big time Roman military buff, and this really got my attention when going through military collectibles on Etsy. Hey, a man can dream, right? But there's something else that makes this special. The sculptor is a Kharkivite named Roman Tkach, and his store is called MiniatureArmyShop. I mention this because he has some cool things spanning a lot of time, including something called Objekt 704, which was evidently the ISU-152 design which didn't make the cut. He sculpts, paints and does small dioramas, too. Much of what he does is custom work, which may take several weeks to complete.

il_570xN.1133254624_oz2r.jpg

Roman centurion circa 100 A.D. reads out an ordinary legionary.

Image Credit: Roman Tkach via Etsy

 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2017 at 9:53 PM, MikeyD said:

Oldstyle state-on-state wars are EXPENSIVE. The German invasion of France in 1940 took just six weeks. In that time Germany lost more men than the US lost in in the entire Korean war. Plus (roughly) 800 tanks and 1000 aircraft. There are few nations currently on a footing to absorb that level of loss. To quote an old political cartoon from the Spanish American war, 'Is the game worth the penny?' Putin may have his Czarist dream of a unified Slavic super-state but the costs in blood and treasure would be prohibitive for an economy the size of Russia's. How much has it cost the Russian government to date to grab a railhead at Ukrainian Donetsk for a transport link that only runs to the outskirts of Mariupol? Ukraine 2017 turned out to not be Georgia 2006.

State on state wars still happen - and let's just say that I have a feeling times may be changing - and could change quickly,

It may well be that the next great power war wil be quick and by "quick" I mean several months. However, as happened with the case of the Iran - Iraq War it s possible that  Great Power conventional war could drag on for far longer particularly if everyone is too scared to use nukes. Maybe we consider this unlikely. However, both sides in 1914 expected the war to be "Over by Christmas" Furthermore the Wehrmacht in WW2 was built for short Blitzkrieg Campaigns. The Germans did not expect the six year attritional struggle WW2 became. Likewise we should not confidently assume that the next Great Power Conflict will necessary be a short conflict. It will very likely be high intensity and high casualty  but what happens supposing there is no decisive battlefield result, no political solution and th nukes stay in the silos (at least for the time being) Then we might have a situation looking like a 21st Century version of the 1915 "Shells Crisis" Maybe not WW1 style trench warfare but certainly a temporary stalemate while both sides recruit new armies and search for new ways to break the deadlock. I am not saying it will happen like this but i is interesting to consider the implications.if it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×