panzermartin
-
Posts
2,296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by panzermartin
-
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, well I get the no echo chamber part but I also should be able to make professionally based observations without being accused of being a blind apologist hooked on “copium”. And then when challenged by very weak counters and counter-challenge, I should not be accused of being a “commissar”. You are of course free to have an uniformed opinion but I am not evil because I point it out.
This entire thing is an observation that on a UA mine breaching disaster - no debate on that, and trust me I have forgotten more about mechanized minefield breaching than just about everyone else you may meet - that RA artillery was tepid to the point of being odd for the context. That suddenly turned into a crisis point of blind pro-Ukraine echo chamber building because in your opinion this observation was unmerited. You did not back that up by any hard facts and have even admitted it is too early to tell. Then when the freakin RA commander says through Russian MOD controlled media that his own artillery was very effective, your response is to crow on how that validates your own position. When pressed your response was “why would Russia lie about such a thing?” To which I provided 4 different reasons…and now I am an echo chamber commissar.
FFS, you brought the weak arguments to the table and now we are to be punished for pointing that out…how is that not creating another echo chamber of its own?
We have been hearing reports of problems with RA indirect fire for months, this could simply be another data point - not a verdict on the entire Russian defence. We will see in due time whether or not corrosive warfare will or will not work again. Not every counter-RA observation is pro-Ukrainian or vice versa. However, if you are going to start beaking off the least you can do is bring some actual facts or coherent observations to the party. Unlike whatever social media, school or your friends/family or whatever told you, your opinion is not worth its weight in gold. We do not respect it simply because you posted it. It need facts, experience or something to support it.
Honestly you are one of the last persons I could have issues in this forum. I respect your professional input , you almost by accident got in the crosshairs. Apologies for that. The commissar comment was totally not for you btw.
For the rest, we will have to wait I guess. Russia practically is against a coalition of 40 countries, is getting hit from unlimited state of the art weaponry, we saw how they lost 5 Mstas in a short time with precision strikes. They are really with their backs on the wall so chances are that at some point their arty might succumb.
-
20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Therefore, it is logical to presume that some sort of practical constraint, or multiple constraints, prevented Russia from carrying out what should have SOP for any nation, especially Russia, in similar circumstances. When coupled with other information it is highly probable that the reason Russia did not use artillery to the extent it should have, and traditionally has, is some combination of shortages. Either of guns or of ammo or both
Will the report of the russian commander that "our artillery was engaged in counter battery operations during the early stages of the attack" offer a small alternative hint? If we can trust the russian commander...that is. But makes some sense there could be busy in a heavy CB duel that we just couldnt realize from the short video. For what is worth, some of their guns could have been even out of action or supressed by the time of the video as well.
-
28 minutes ago, sburke said:
Sorry, just back from the emergency room. I rolled my eyes so hard they were stuck staring at my eyebrows. (which I also asked them to trim as they really needed it).
By that logic they should have immediately just said, "yep Moskva is on the bottom of the Black Sea." I mean after all it wasn't like she was going to return to port right?
Hahah, no need to be so dramatic to the risk of injury
Look, we are probably the only corner in the internet right now, that from all that incident, and from all the 67 things that went wrong for UA and right for RU, we focused mainly on the arty. But lets go again. RU lies a lot, but probably less than they used to,simply because you can't hide everything from today's all seeing eye.
Moskva was so shockingly embarrassing loss that I nearly understand the cope effort. Lying about artillery support in a *successful * mission (to lie to the public, to your commander, to the enemy) while the whole battle is filmed by your drones, makes 0% sense, I won't lie to you.
-
36 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Riiiight. So the Russians do not have a history of lying about things in this war. I mean why would they lie about this..hmmm, let’s see. Well to hide their operational shortfalls and weaknesses would be the first big one. The second would be to over inflate their success for domestic consumption. A third would be self-interest, the RA commander definitely does not want to highlight any issue he may have had in this fight. A fourth could be simply…it is the Russian narrative method - the same folks who brought us hundreds of destroyed Abrams and “those warcrimes were crisis actors”.
Look, your point on us not becoming a pro-Ukraine propaganda echo chamber is taken. However, I am not ready to take the RA commanders record of events after it has been pushed through the Russian state media machine as a reliable data point. Particularly when the visual evidence does not support it. An interesting thing about the 10th man principe is that the strength of the devils advocate position is a key consideration - and so far it is fairly weak.
There you said it. I dont want to participate in another echo chamber, there are lots out there. Its understandable that given the composition of this board, that we might be turning into a North Atlantic war room and less of a discussion board, which might raise morale but isnt interesting, productive or even helpful for UA in the long run, if thats what most are interested about.
@Grigb I never said that russian arty as a whole isnt' affected by a year's and a half campaign. I only pointed out that the specific 47th incident was not enough for a conclusion in that sector. You even said that this failed breach was a success in revealing the arty positions of RU arty reserves, the same that The_Capt said that they dont exist. I also don't think other posters here need lecturing like we are part of a military unit and we are briefed by the comissar. Thanks.
-
2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Seriously? So the RA Commander reports that his defence was well orchestrated and supported…and we are just going to roll with that as fact?
The Russians were aware a Ukrainian advance was underway. It was possible to cue artillery fire effectively. In Romanchuk’s account: ‘artillery units intended for counter-battery combat suppressed enemy artillery in firing positions. And then they continued to hit the forces and means of the first echelon units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.’
Artillery fire starts landing on the Ukrainian armoured infantry company. The video shows that one unidentified vehicle detonated. Another two started smoking. Source: Russian MOD
I don't see any point in them lying particularly about the use of artillery here...The whole battle was very much put forward on all media from the RU side, videos from helos, videos from the ground. They seem pretty eager to expose all the bits of their success.
And we indeed saw some guns firing. But it was a few seconds long fragment of video. The new info here is that some of their artillery were commited in CB that we couldn't conclude from the videos. Thats interesting. I'm sure you know better if a battery is assigned only CB or it can switch missions on the fly depending on the situation. So if a battery had to do both CB and fire support might be a sign that there werent so many available guns around.
But lets wait for a more detailed report from the UA on the receiving side, if there is any coming. That would be informative.
-
2 hours ago, Pete Wenman said:
The Wavell Room is always worth the read. Nothing really new in the article, but it is well laid out.
So the author doesn't agree with the suggestions here that RU got lucky and their arty was problematic in that particular sector.
Instead he describes an excellent defensive action in many layers.
-
BTW this is one of the videos I was talking about, from what I can tell it's the same sector and incident, different timing. There is some heavy artillery firing no doubt
-
18 minutes ago, sburke said:
Funny cause given the same situation the RA has been unable to do as much in 8 months as the UA has done in a week.
I'd slow down and catch a breath. You'll be needing to make a lot more excuses for Russian failure over the next weeks and months, no sense in wearing yourself out now.
Another possible reason for the lack of fires.
Russia bans use of large quantities of ammunition due to self-detonation – General Staff (yahoo.com)
If were actually commited in doing so, I would be exhausted by now, after the many fiascos Russians particapated. But long distance cycling taught me some lessons how to maintain my stamina I guess
-
11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, you are going to have to post some proof of this - I have not seen effective massed fires on an obstacle yet. The craters in the videos/pics I have seen are not fresh, nor concentrated. Most of those vehicles are showing clear signs of minestrike (blown tracks) and relatively few casualties. I watched a 4 min video of UA troops in the middle of a minefield that they took ATGM hits - so RA overwatch - as they de-bused and were extracting and not a single RA indirect fire round came in. That is way too long.
This is not "copium" it is professional assessment that I am not seeing effective RA concentration of fires on an obstacle, which is pretty fundamental. This on top of continuous reports of dwindling artillery rounds per day during the winter offensive, along with gun losses and reports from the Russian side of lacking fire support and dwindling ammo.
If "copium" means "seeing what is in front of you and not what you are afraid of" then guilty as charged.
The observation could probably be correct, I will provide the first video we saw here that it had definitely at least sparse heavy shelling when I find it.
It's the conclusion one could object. Here some russian "copium" points
1.Of course we are not talking about Bakhmut right now, it's a very large defense line that's spanning across all the south. One would expect the defender to not being able to cover all lengths and depths of this, even if it had thousands of tubes.
2. It was a probing, first contact away from the main defense lines of RU.
3. Artillery of the sector could be positioned deeper to avoid detection or getting wasted before the main weight of UA offensive force is committed. Or even deeper , if there is a fear of arty units being overrun from fast moving UA advanced elements.
4. It was deemed that the minefield, the atgms(?) and the gunships were enough to stop this armored column. And it probably proved correct.
I agree that given the russian artillery mentality it might seem strange they didn't resort to panicky massed volleys like we are used to see all the time. We can't exclude they have indeed lost/worn out a lot of tubes/shells in the last year, but before that there other explanations worth examining...
-
29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
That's really uncalled for and inaccurate. I don't think a single person here called the information fake. I challenge you to point to even one post, which even then wouldn't prove your point. Twitter comments, on the other hand, definitely show the usual "everything Russia puts out is fake, especially if it looks bad for Ukraine".
I have seen no evidence that these columns were hit by artillery. And anyway, nobody is saying that Russia has NO artillery in use. What is being said is that they should have a TON of artillery in action. Yet there isn't evidence of it.
As for the "myriad" of dense craters, you are aware that this has been a contested "gray zone" for almost a year and there's been plenty of artillery used during that time, right?
Yeah, well, this isn't even remotely accurate. But I understand this is your standard contrarian point of view, which often puts you out of step with the evidence right in front of you. I really don't think you're in that strong a position to cast judgement on others when your track record is quite spotty.
Steve
In all respect, you yourself among others objected the claims of posters here that photos were fake, like:
As for the artillery, I don't object that it could be from previous strikes but we still have some footage as the battle was unfolding. Plus it makes sense that they had enough firepower to halt the advance with mines, helicopters atgms etc and artillery remained largely in reserve, possibly not positioned to counter probing attacks and stay protected for the later stages. But it seems a premature conclusion that there is a lack of indirect RU fire, from a couple of short videos.
Lastly, I'm not here to judge others. I think I made an observation on the way we process info, that probably every outsider that's not passionate about one side or the other, would find obvious.
-
50 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
And still after all the videos, I have yet to see a significant RA artillery/indirect fire response countering the minefield breach. Everyone is too busy freaking out on the fact that western gear is allergic to explosives as Russian stuff; however, the lack of RA indirect fire support is far more interesting
Sometimes I'm surprised by the amount of copium in this forum. First we didn't even accept the authenticity of the photos published(!)Then came the videos. Then we supposed that the lack of indirect fire is an indication of insufficient artillery coverage by the RU (despite there videos and photos of the same sector with 1. Leopards slaloming between 152mm explosions and 2. Myriads of dense craters in the aftermath photos , only artillery could have caused.)
Then we said, ruskies have nothing else to show for days, apart from this column. They probably suck again in all other areas. But after a week of fighting, we are thrilled with the liberation of one small village with small RU forward guard in the buffer zone, that is filmed in the usual multi - cam hollywood quality. Truth remains russians wiped out a big unit, with very pricey and rare toys and the RU did this with relative ease and no significant documented losses. Shooting vikhrs from a safe distance like it was Apaches shooting T-72s in Medina Ridge. For a start they seem to have at least figured out how to use their gunships, they deserve this minimum credit I guess.
-
Russians don't have the means to recover a 64 ton Leopard 2 tank right? Or combined engineer vehicles can do the job.
-
Russian drones are having a field day. Losses must be much higher than the footage we've witnessed. I don't get the complete lack of AA umbrella of UA offensive
-
54 minutes ago, Kraft said:
Another too beautiful not to share MT-LB creation. No idea whoose this is
I know I shoudlnt think about scale modelling right now, but the ammount of options we've seen so far is never ending
-
There is shadow of the signpost on the vehicle though , this could be real photo
-
1 minute ago, Haiduk said:
Yes, they mostly guard bridges and infrastructure objects
Thanks, I had guessed that maybe they would be useful closer to the offensive?
Edit :Although I see the Ka52 using the maximum range permitted, and gepard has only 5.5 km effective range
-
Where are the geppards btw? Chasing Shakheeds in Kiev?
-
14 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
ISW
Interesting the extensive and effective use of jammers by the Russians.
-
This destroyed column was one of the multiple spearheads in the area I suspect? . Wonder what happened to the rest, Russians keep repeating videos from this sector.
Undoubtedly though, so far their finest battlefield moment since Feb24.
-
I had guessed some months earlier, RuAF will play a bigger role this time in trying to bog down UA offensive. I think particulalry helicopters are quite effective in a more fluid environment where the mobile short ranged AA assets are lagging behind the advanced exposed elements. Apart from the tractors, Ka52s and Mi-28s seem to have destroyed quite a few enemy armored vehicles so far with no own casualties reported. Contrast this with the early days of the war where they were falling like flies even hit from ATGMS when flying deep in UA lines...
And that brings us to the question. When was the last time an offensive succeeded without air support, if not air superiority? Napoleonic wars? (Not counting the summer UA one, as it was just chasing a rattled retreating and regrouping army, that was only prepared for a short offensive ) Maybe we'll have to wait for the F16s to really see UA making big gains to the South.
-
34 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
This is not a big problem. Much more danger problem is commanders of middle level, including the batallion level, who gave orders of such "Zhukov-style" maneuvers
Yes, this reminded me of your posts that some older UA commanders cannot adapt to newer western doctrine. This had some Soviet mindset, from the little we've seen. But maybe I make a broader conclusion from a small sample of info
-
3 minutes ago, Kraft said:
Yes, and lots of M113s. Its quite the **** show and definatively not just a probe or force in recon with the amount of vehicles (14 in camera shot) piling up and blowing in the same mine belt Id say its a high budget reenactment of the Russian offensive as of yet
I'm sorry but it seems miracles are expected from green crews straight from the NATO training centers in Europe, that probably haven't experienced combat before
-
Are these Leo2s smoking? Can't really tell from the always low res russian videos.
-
10 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
No, Russians did Nord Stream. If you go back far enough on this very thread you will see Russian ships being tracked directly over the explosion site before it happened.
Yes I remember, but this is bit more fresh and all over the place: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-russia/
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
For the record, the commissar comment wasn't for anyone else but Grigb exclusively for his strict suggestion to Butschi to stop supporting his "friend" his "lie" and his bold points with phrases like "end of story", meaning he had absolutely the last word.
I'm sorry I have been annoying and contrarian, it's not from a caprice but out of my desire for "justice" and "balance". I would do the same in a pro russian forum, I think one of the most dangerous things in society is being collectively in agreement or sometimes fixation to a certain point, even when there is not enough evidence to prove us 100% right. And how could that be, given the fog of war and the propaganda from both sides?
I've been here since the Iraq war and I had some familiar experiences. There was a trigger happy board full of testosterone and we know what happened. God knows how many personal attacks I received. In the real world, WMDs were never found, half a million of people died, Middle East is still a mess, refugees are getting drown in the Mediterranean as we speak... and US was led to discredit and isolation, and that even might have played a role in the rise of Trump, the current mess In Ukraine etc...
I feel our Europe is in deep trouble with this war, and constantly undermining Russia is a dangerous habit I won't support here, but point taken I will try to be more constructive in the future.