BFCElvis

I created a password for rhe soviet side. Does that mean my opponent can't access them?
Thank you for the response. Hope you guys see this as constructive criticism. 

Many thanks!

Its the den mother and she has the flashlight...hide!

Hi there.
I have been a CMx1 player since CMBO beta and have all CMx2 WW2 titles. This thread is exciting and a lot of the arguments are very interesting. But I wonder if there is not sometimes an ethnocentric tropism in many of the analyzes presented. Let me share with you, not a structured argumentation, but just some thoughts from a guy who is far to be an expert.
Among the western allies, and unlike the Americans and the British, the German (WW2) and French (WW1) people know the price to pay for a war on their territory. Perhaps this difference explains a certain caution on the part of France and Germany to commit themselves too far in aid to Ukraine. When President Macron said that we should not humiliate Russia, we can see here an admission of weakness but we must not forget that for many Europeans the 2nd World War is partly the fruit of humiliation « diktat » of Versailles treaty of 1919.  These people know that humiliate an adversary is also to take the risk that he capitalizes on resentment and a desire for revenge. A Russian friend from Moscow told me that they (the Russians) were ready to fight to the last Siberian… From the point of view of western military logic (the 10 points developed by Steve), the Russians have already lost the war. But, this is only a western reading grid. Is there a Russian reading grid that would be different ? (For example, I have the impression that losses are hardly a factor to take into account for the Russians. See previous thought). Thank you.

Not wrong, but not entirely correct either.  Ukrainian defence was brilliant in the opening phase of this war.  We don't know much and likely will not get the full story for some time, however, the plan for the Phase I defence was decisive in itself.  If the UA had tried to fight the same way as the RA and sought decisive battle, it could have gone poorly.  Instead what we saw was a hybrid warfare campaign for the history books.
First Ukraine had (and still has) information superiority.  They are on their home ground and were also being fed western intel from before the war started.  This mean that in places like Hostemel, they could concentrate and defeat the RA initial moves in detail.  I think Hostomel is also a battle for the history books and was decisive in this war.  The RA tried to use SOF and Light in concentration and failed enormously, once again underlying that when misemployed SOF and Light are extremely vulnerable [aside: it is odd on all the talk of the "death of the tank" but we have not seen a lot on the "death of airborne/heliborne].  Russia made that airfield snap central to their main effort, it was their Plan A, and it collapsed in a couple days.
Second, Ukraine set up what I can only describe as an unconventional warfare defensive campaign.  This was hybrid in nature (a mix of conventional and unconventional forces) and looks a lot like what the Norwegians have set up in their Northern districts - for obvious reasons.  Basically, we had TD and irregular forces defending their local regions, backed up - and very importantly linked by UA SOF.  These forces were already in location along that very long initial front line and armed with next-gen smart-ATGMs, UAVs and comms.  Those comms linked them back to UA artillery creating an entirely distributed defence network - or at least that is my working theory.  The Russians sticking to road networks, lit up by ISR of all sorts were then hammered all along their own system - F ech, A ech, B ech and all the way back to SLOC nodes.  All that Russian armor/mech, the ready-force of the RA was cut to pieces in the first month of this war by that system; this wasn't "war amongst the people" this was war of the people. 
Third, Ukraine's political level, assisted by a massive social media effort allowed Ukraine to win the strategic narrative, even before the war crimes.  We all started to cheer for the little guy and realized that this war was an political and strategic opportunity.  All that money and aid, essentially the military industrial complex of Ukraine, was riding on getting this part right...and the Ukrainians did it very right.
I am not like Steve to be honest.  I had no idea how this war was going to go before it started.  It wasn't until about 72 hours in that it became very apparent that something was happening that no one in the business predicted.  That is when the sickness symptoms of the Russian system began to appear. 
Could Russia have won? Of course, no war is pre-determined.  Ukraine could have split or simply failed to resist - they could have ignored western intel, Zelenskyy could have run and/or capitulated.  Or the Russians could have had a much better plan - why they did not make the capture of Lyviv and disruption of all western support the main effort is beyond me.  But they did not, and now they really cannot.  No matter how this little dance in the Donbas goes, Russia has lost this war already.  There is no renormalization after this.  Sweden and Finland are not going to change their minds, those sanctions are going to stick as economies re-wire.  Ukraine is not going to "de-militarize" nor is it going to go quietly back into Russia's sphere with a friendly government.  Russian hard power is empty, to the point that I would not be surprised to see more disruptions in it near-abroad- Russia as a state might already be dead, it just does not know it yet.

The only real things that I see as going "right" for Ukraine is the early intel/ISR support from the west and the weapons pipeline getting into place prior to hostilities. The ISR support is probably the biggest game changer and advantage that they had going into this. I don't see where anything special went right for the UA on the tactical/operational side so much as their successes and tactics were just the net result of everything bad the RA did. 
Their overall operational plan. = Too many axis of advance, UA able to fight separate fingers instead of whole fist. Fail to black out comms. = Ukrainian crowd sourced recon and intel. Fail to control information. = Ukrainian government able to garner large amounts of international support by controlling the narrative. Didn't gain air supremacy. = UAF still hitting back, uninhibited UA logistics and no strikes beyond FEBA anymore. Failed logistics chain. = Reduced RA operational tempo, tons of abandoned equipment, low RA morale all result in giving the UA more time and better chances for defense. Failure to implement combined arms. = Easier defense for UA with higher losses to the RA. Poor force structure/lack of infantry. = UA and TD able to operate with lots of freedom behind the lines attacking logistics. Unescorted armor easier pickings.  Timing. = Weather and ground conditions prevented RA from maneuvering off hardened roads making all movements predictable. Kill lists/atrocities/war crimes. = Steeled Ukrainian resolve, concreted international support for Ukraine. Corruption. = Lack of top tier kit, undermanned units, under trained units, cobbled together units, patronage based promotions, etc that resulted in the paper bear of the RA. So really it boils down to the greatest advantage was that they were attacked by Russia and not someone with their poop in a pile. 
This also bleeds into the "Could the US have done better?", "How does this change western doctrine?" and "Does this war mean the death of the tank?" type questions that we see pop up from time to time in the MSM. It is really apples to oranges and the only big thing I can see coming out of this is the UAV numbers/usage/doctrine/etc. 
If you swapped out the Russian forces for US forces you would have pretty much the entire US army and couple Marine Divisions equaling less than 100 battalions or "btg" equivalents. Could the US defeat the UA? Absolutely. This scenario is completely upside down from the list above. Ukraine doesn't get the ISR advantage and is under the microscope itself. 8 out of 10 above suddenly don't apply, we can leave timing and operational plan in place. Apply basically a Desert Storm format with an air campaign that leaves no UAF and mitigated AA with UA units pounded for 30 days or more before ground forces go. Then that degraded force has to fight a real army with real training, top tier gear, effective logistics, good leadership and bunches of planes with JDAMs just waiting for targets. Oh, and pretty much every piece of equipment the UA operates is no longer competitive in range, accuracy or precision.  
I'm not saying it would be bloodless and I'm sure the remnants of the UA would fight like hell, but in the end there is no doubt to the outcome militarily. So is the tank dead and western doctrine outdated? No, Russia just sucks.
Could the US military complete the political objectives of the Kremlin? Absolutely not. As it has been pointed out here any army looking to occupy Ukraine would need millions of boots on the ground and it would still make Iraq 2006 look like a happy quinceanera on a warm summer day. 
I'm sure this war will be studied and picked apart for a long time and there will be a lot of lessons learned, but I see the majority of those lessons will be the what not to do's given to us by the RA. 

Mos Def some Elvis bait there.  In a good way
 

Copy, understood.

Impeccable taste, indeed.
BAT!!
Toast of London, if you need more of the genius that is Matt Berry.
Sorry for the interruption. I thought I was alone in my interests.

In this night Russians struck with heavy bombs from Tu-22M3 the place, under which was Azov's underground hospital. Reportedly one bomb, penetrated into the deep and caused partial destruction of the shelter. Surgical room is destroyed completely, there are casualties among injured soldiers and civilaians. Two days ago Azov showed photos from own underground hospital, where was about 500-600 injured. Medical teams still working in this hellish conditions and perform surgical operations. The hospital was deployed here on the second day of war, when was decided Azovstal would became the main base of Mariupol defense and its last stand.  
Here the photos, issued two daus ago:



 
 

And in the same day Russian TV showed as Azovstal employee, the engineer, collaborating with Russians, showed to them under which facilities of Azovstal passed underground communications and where the shelters located. Azovstal is huge plant, which bigger than some Ukrainain cities, for example it bigger than Lutsk. So, Russians before this bombed Azovstal randomly. But looks like after this betrayal they adjusted their attacks and achieved some success. Reportedly after heavy bombs exploded, Russian conducted about 50 single sorties with tactical jets and then shelled territory with naval guns.
After attacks finished, Ukr troopers became disassemble ruines:
 

Whatever, I'm still very much looking forward to it! 😃

No, it has been put on hold until you learn the difference between "too" and "to".
 

@BFCElvis @Battlefront.com Thank you for the update. Also I'm sorry for my tone in the other thread.

two mines with jet engines strapped to them
You can also say Moskva successfully demilitarized Ukrainian naval defenses by lowering the amount of our antiship missiles by two.

Some people already have their world engulfed in war and are fighting so others don't have to

Enjoy your "Night Rally" in LA. For our younger readers... No, work it out for yourselves.

This is my job and my headache %) 

I go way back to CM:BO but haven't been around for years. I knew this group would have interesting ideas and comments about Ukraine. Haven't been disappointed.
The scale of Russian losses at Trostyanets is staggering. This video is more on the topic with a good interview of a Ukrainian soldier talking about the tactics they use. Adding 130,000 Russian conscripts alone won't change anything but the body count.
 

This is a really great explanation of the thinking of our community here and something I have been trying to qualify, in these words, for the past few days.  Thanks for that. 
I really appreciate ALL you guys and what we have here.  

So I gotta start by asking: are you honestly engaging in a discussion here and want to explore ideas?  Because you are coming across as a guy whose mind is made up and no amount of rational discussion is going to matter.  I am honestly going to try here, you get exactly one shot based on your tone so far:
1 - Absolutely true, plans definitely do not survive contact, as old as warfare.  However, what is important is how fast one can re-plan and pivot.  In this the Russians have not demonstrated an ability to come up with a "new plan" and re-org to it.  They have had a pregnant pause which has allowed their opponent to organize/mobilize, arm up, dig in, dominate the narrative, and access billions in military support.  And then there is the quality of that initial plan.  Failing to establish some key operational pre-conditions (e.g. why does the internet still work for Ukraine?) is also not a very good sign. So let's see the quality of the second (or third) plan and then we might now better what is going on.
2 - You said "The Russians have taken losses, but they remain free to operate combat aircraft and helicopters over most of the country." That is not true, in fact it is very not true below about 10k feet.  The fact that Russian forces did not set the basic pre-condition of gaining air superiority is a demonstration of their problem, not Ukraine's.  Plenty of evidence of Ukrainian UAV strikes online to demonstrate that we really are in more of an airpower stalemate and that is bad for an invading force.
3 - The Russian Navy is definitely still a factor.  They have sea control and are hitting with missiles but 1) like everything else the Russians are doing, there appears little integration between naval, air and land power at this point and 2) the Russian amphibious capability is in serious question. If for the sole question, "why have they not used it yet?  that said sea control will likely not be decisive, nor has it been decisive so far.
4- Evidence of defeat (https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html), so that is coming up on 24 BTGs of tanks, look at the logistics vehicle, coming up on 485...that is bad.  But even if you refuse to believe this, then one has to ask "what losing looks like".  Over to you as you asked the question.  However, it is a layered issue.  Political defeat, military defeat, economic defeat - if we are talking military defeat, well then an inability to influence or shape negotiations in the direction of national interest is near the top for me.  And as we watch the bubble slide on the Russian side of the table, it is not looking good, but I will give you that the jury is still out. 
5- Well backwards, as on a map, is kind of a one dimensional view to be honest. The primary way Russia has "gone backwards" is in the will of the Ukrainian people.  This is not about terrain, it is about their willingness to fight.  I think if Russian had one a quick and fairly clean fight that will might have stayed relatively dormant; however, that "plan did not survive" and now the entire nation is galvanized in an existential fight...that is definitely "backwards" from a Russian perspective.  Economically, narrative and just about any other non-military metric you want to apply Russia has gone backwards severely and let's not even start on the diplomatic front as it has been a complete disaster.  But if you only want to measure ground, then I guess we have to see.
So we have discussed a lot on forces and comparisons.  Right now, conservative estimate is that UA and Russian manpower is pretty near parity in theatre.  Russia does have equipment advantage but it has failed to be able to really leverage that.  Why?  Well that is a million dollar question.  What we have seen is that Russian mass is not working, if it was that map would look a lot different.  I suspect it is either because the Russian war machine simply is not setup for this complexity and has fallen under its own weight, and the Ukrainians help them along with that.
You are correct on one point, this is coming down to Will.  The Russians can keep pouring men into this fight, even if they are dismounted and have no ammo or food but if they have the Will that is an option.  What you seem to be sidestepping is the other issue, the Ukrainian Will to fight.  They see this as existential and are acting as such, so that is a problem right there for the Russians, unless they want a decades old resistance blowing up in their face but frankly I can't even seeing them getting that far as that would mean the Russians actually have to control the entire country and not about 15% of it.  Until then arms and support will flow in from the west and Russians will bleed...but we will see who blinks first.
 Lemme just close with a very important point - this is not an internet argument that anyone can "win".  I know the reflex is there to play forum games and try to "out argue each other" but that is not what is happening here.  For the most part no one really has a full picture of that is going on so we are sharing information and trying to build the best picture we can.  So the usual internet argument games do not apply here.  If you have a different assessment based on information you have, present it and we can all get a better picture.  This is a real war and people are dying in droves, so I frankly do not care who is "right or wrong" on a given Thurs because the situation is too dynamic.  But if you honestly want to contribute then do so, but this is not a contest...it is a really violent and scary puzzle.  Finally, there are people posting here who are actually in range of all those guns so let's also try and keep that in mind.

With regard to the MiG 29 discussion and the related debate re blocking their transfer to UKR: I was pondering much earlier in this thread why the US did this, given that NATO have armed UKR in other respects, and the clear combat multiplier they would offer to a UKR counter offensive (which could be so significant as to completely roll over the Russians), as well as what I thought previously are perfectly feasibly solutions to circumvent the thorny issue of NATO "directly supplying them". So here's a hypothesis I've been mulling over that might explain the US inaction on this:

Firstly let's assume (and I think most of us would agree) that NATO MUST steer a path through this conflict that strikes a balance between NATO fighting proxy (by assisting UKR) but not going as far as escalating the conflict (because no one knows where that ends).

But secondly it's NATO's single strategic objective that the result of this conflict MUST result in an outright Russian failure to annex Ukraine, install a puppet Govt or be in any position to seek any sort of favourable terms (IOW it's put in a weak negotiation position). 

So I reason that both of these aims can be served by NATO carefully just doing enough in its military assistance to ensure that Russia is defeated in its aims, but stopping short of assisting UKR so much that it is seen to have smashed the Russians (due only to the help of NATO). The latter might be shaped for Russian public opinion by the Kremlin as not the "defensive NATO" it purports to be, but the former is perceived across the world as failure due to Russian military ineptitude. This result achieves the same end for the Ukraine conflict (militarily) but it mitigates to the maximum the possibility of further escalation between Russia and NATO. In addition, politically and diplomatically, it provides an excuse for the Chinese to bat off any of Putin's requests to back Russia up in any way, other than offer its sympathies.      

In conclusion then; given that its now not unreasonable to think that the Russians are slowly falling apart, and NATO intelligence must have been monitoring this development for a while, I wonder if senior NATO commanders knew already that those MiGs were simply not going to be required. "So that's a no go" as long as the war is projected to remain on course to a Russian defeat, a defeat for which, they will only have themselves to blame.          
 

I have been reading this topic everyday for the last two weeks and signed up to thank you guys.
This topic is the most informative source that I have seen on the internet for understanding the realities of the war in Ukraine.
 
Keep up the good work guys.

Gents, I wanted to take a second to thank you guys. This forum has turned out to be extremely informative. I'm an old grognard from the dosomefink days who hadn't been on this site for years and it's turned out to be one of the better places to get unregurgitated info. Elvis, thanks for luring me back and thanks to everyone else for the cornucopia of excellent information. Slava Ukrainyi, etc and so forth.

that's why I created a fictional crossroads for CMBS.  I don't want to be responsible for getting anyone killed. 😝