sross112

For Pete's sake, it is not RACISM!! Not everything is RACISM!! It's simple BIGOTRY for crying out loud!! If you want to be all woke and politically correct about this horse****, at least use the right friggin words. And personally, I don't agree with either of your positions. The people of Russia, I think the gray masses in Russia should suffer under sanctions for allowing a criminal regime to exist. They should be despised and ostracized from civilization until they change, but they should not be condemned to torture and death. The RA should be brutally killed to the last man for their heinous inhumane barbarous conduct to the Ukrainian civilians. They are friggin savages and should be treated like such. There is no difference between them and ISIS at this point. Their torture, rape and murder can't be condoned and every member of every unit is responsible for the conduct of that unit and especially it's officers and NCO's, but that does not alleviate private Ivan for following orders, doing it on his own or standing aside and allowing it to happen. You play, you pay. But I'm an idealist and believe in right and wrong, good and evil. A hate filled heart is not a bad thing when it is aimed at evil. If this was happening on my soil, to my people, to my family, Kraze would have to push me out of the way to take his turn on the kill, maim, mutilate merry go round on those bastards. Man, if I get any more fired up I might tell you how I really feel.

I've seen this 30% thrown around earlier in the thread too. I just don't see the significance or applicability of it. The amount of casualties sustained by a force before it can no longer sustain operations has a lot more factors than just a percentage. Airborne units in Normandy took over 50% losses in less than 24 hours and stayed in the fight. 1 Pz Div in Barbarossa had lost 72% of it's armor by mid August and stayed in the fight. 1st Marine Division and attached units suffered over 60% casualties at the Chosin Reservoir yet were able to sustain operations. The flip side is the French Army in May 1940 took less than 15% casualties. The Malayan Command in Singapore in 42 took less than 5% casualties before capitulating. The Afrika Korps in Tunisia in 43 took less than 30%. Etc, etc, etc. Copious amounts of examples for both sides throughout history. I don't think we can base anything on percent of casualties when it comes to being able to stay in the fight and sustain operations. Just too many other factors to weigh with morale and logistics being huge. Does the taking of casualties degrade ability? Sure it does. Is there an arbitrary number that we can assign to know when that unit can no longer sustain operations? Nope, except maybe 100%. The Spartans would disagree with any other number.

Got a good laugh out of this. If you watch about the 6 second mark you see a guy stick his head out of the driver's hatch. I instantly thought Ivan just woke up from his vodka induced coma, looked out the hatch and thought "Oh crap!" and then dropped back in to wake up the rest of the crew. It could happen! The farmers are so used to abandoned vehicles that they don't even check for crew before towing them away!

When I first heard of the Marines giving up the armor my reaction was the same: WTH? Then reading on the "littoral" brigade concept it makes sense. The other thing I read was the intent to get more in line with their traditional mission instead of being a heavy assault force like they've been used for awhile now. There was also an article awhile back talking about how the SEALs are changing it up as well moving back toward their traditional maritime missions. Really I think this does show that the Navy and Marines are looking toward the future and what their primary mission will be with the primary threat they need to contest. Logistically, especially after this conflict and considering that the mission of the Marines was to establish beachheads and ports for the heavies to follow, instead of 1 60 ton tank you get 60 tons of SMAWs/NLAWs/Javelins/drones, etc. That isn't even accounting for the additional space freed up by the support elements for the 60 ton tank. When considering the mission I reckon it is a sensible transition. Unless they are tasked with assaulting Fallujah again instead of maritime ops, in which case everyone will look back and think Berger failed. If they bottle up the South China Sea and wreck havoc then everyone will look back and think Berger was a visionary genius ahead of his time. History will be the judge.

Ok, does anyone know if the UA has any riverine capability or water capable SOF? I believe they have a Naval Infantry brigade but I'm not sure of their capabilities. Anyway, looking at the south around Kherson there are basically two bridges of the Dnepr. The UA holds part of the river north of them around Nikopol so they have access to the waterway. Seize them or destroy them? That puts an awful lot of RA forces in a pickle if the UA was able to put pressure on them at the same time. Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure this guy is just turning our thread into powerpoints. Here is his playlist: Sending their best: debunking the myth of cannon fodder in Ukraine (pointing out the 1st tier units in the invasion) Drones in Ukraine: Lessons for other countries. End of the tank: ATGMs and shoulder fired AT weapons in Ukraine Reservists and Irregulars in Ukraine: A people at war (talks of the Hybrid formations) I expect his next video to be on the importance of logistics or the internal political ramifications of Putin's venture.

From what I've read of the 2014 war the RA routinely hit the UA from bases inside Russia and the UA never responded across the border, not even counter battery fire. Would this strike in Belgorod be the first instance of a UA strike across the border?

With this helo story I think there are a lot of conclusions being drawn without knowing the facts. I don't know the facts either but earlier Haiduk advised that these helo ops were news to everyone. Makes sense as if you are running clandestine supplies in and medevacs out you probably don't want that on twitter for the RA to find. Legitimate question: Do you really think the Azoz command group would abandon ship? I don't know so I'm curious what people think. Unless it is about to collapse and even then I'd be surprised if the whole command group bolted. Just seems like too much passion, emotion and commitment to the cause for that. If the whole or majority of the defending remnants were attempting to extract I could see it but not just the command group.

The instant Mariupol falls Russia will demand an immediate cease fire and negotiations. They have to have something to parlay with as they haven't by any means crushed the UA. Their intent will be keeping the land bridge and as much of Kherson Oblast that they can while backing out of the rest of the territory they occupy. I can see the west trying to make that stick through pressuring Ukraine to compromise to end the war. Right now that is the best possible ending Russian can hope for and it is why I say Ukraine needs to do everything it can to not let Mariupol fall. With that said, I don't think Ukraine will agree to a cease fire as they know they have the RA on the ropes. They will continue with the negotiations but keep eating away at the RA. Hopefully settling for nothing less than get out and stay out in the end. I can see the US and other western nations trying to pressure them by discontinuing support in arms and supplies but I don't think the other border nations will stop giving them whatever they can to the bitter end. I believe that several of the other border nations see Russia and Putin for exactly what they are and they know that their priority will be to make sure the UA wins no matter what. They can always repair their diplomatic relations with the US and whatever other countries decide to puss out, but the biggest threat to the sovereignty has always been and always will be Russia.

The stuff in Bret Stephens article are consequences of this war, but I believe they are unintended consequences. Putin isn't stupid but he made a very poor choice initiating this conflict. He is now presented with a bunch of busted eggs that he needs to make an omelet out of. I don't think Putin falls after this. He will remain in power and his position will probably be strengthened when the dust settles. The failure in Ukraine gives the impetus for a lot of finger pointing and blame slinging and of course it will land on those that aren't 100% in his corner. He has removed the main public opposition and now he gets to clean up what other bumps may be in his way or he believes are in his way. It is easy to spin a defeat as he controls the information. He can feed the people his story of fighting the good fight against the evil western nazis and trying to protect the motherland. He can let them all know how it was all wrapped up before they were betrayed by whoever he wants to say dropped the ball. They were bribed by the west and sacrificed all your sons for their greed, but don't worry, they'll be taken care of. Then those people and all their friends and family are tried, sentenced and placed in gulag's. He comes out as the father that is doing his best for a nation surrounded by evil and whatever pain is caused by the sanctions and rebuilding the military to better size and capability must be heroically endured for the continued survival of good ole mother Russia. Of course the west will fall for the rhetoric as well, not really, but in order to lessen sanctions and get cheap energy several nations will resume business with them. I don't think private industry will be in a big hurry to go back in but maybe eventually. In the end it is all about money so with some super sweet incentives I'm sure it will happen. Over the next few years they will work really hard to open the new markets to the south and further strengthen economic ties to India and the middle east. They will be down but they won't be out. And they'll be back. Might take 20 years but Ukraine will always have to watch and wait. Ukraine will probably remain neutral and Nato will probably not want to try to induct them as they are scared and even after this will remain scared of upsetting Russia too much. What will probably happen is a new alliance of border nations. Poland, Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and I can see Turkey as well having a mutual defense pact. That should guarantee Russia is hemmed in for a long time. Russian can bluster all they want but they'd never be able to support a large enough military to confront that alliance. And all those countries except Turkey are rabidly opposed to Russia as they are neighbors and have dealt with their tendencies for centuries. Turkey I can see being part of it for economic and power reasons. They are expanding their military industrial capabilities and this would be a perfect market that they could join with some sort of caveat of being the sole supplier of certain weapons systems, etc. Just my thoughts and I'm probably wrong, but I could see it playing out that way. Of course there are 20 other ways it could play out and all we can do is make our guesses, watch, wait and see. No matter what plays out later I just hope after Ukraine finishes off the RA the west floods Ukraine with so much support to rebuild that it makes the Marshall Plan look like FEMA during hurricane Katrina.

So many of these videos strike me the same, especially this one. So much trash around positions and vehicles. Pretty indicative of the low professionalism and slack discipline of the RA. The position, construction and sighting of the defensive positions shows pretty low knowledge, training and experience. That was a good video documenting over half a BTG's worth of combat vehicles knocked out, but I think the most informative part is just being able to look over the positions. Shows a real lack of knowledge, skills and abilities. To me that is more of a reflection on a very poor quality NCO and officer cadre than on the troops themselves. I don't know if a good old USMC or USA First Sergeant would survive the stroke, heart attack or apoplexy that they would suffer if they rolled up on their troops occupying this dumpster fire.

I don't think the RA is out of the fight yet. They don't stand a chance around the capitol at this point but I don't think they are done at all. A couple days ago there was a report of 4-5 BTG's shifting out of the Kyiv advances and then today we see some VDV doing the same. Just those movements in and of themselves show that they still have supply and transport capability. Yes I know that their logistics have been a ****show from the beginning and that they have been significantly degraded, I'm just saying their value is still above 0. The same goes for the RA combat power, it is still above 0. Maybe not by a lot but they are still capable of attempting something, again, maybe not completing but they can still attempt. My bet is that those forces resurface on the Izyum axis. Putin's only hope for a "victory" is to secure the Donbas region. He has to do this at all costs and that is where we will see all the effort from here on out. The forces around Kyiv will continue to roll back and may even end up being a route back to the border but it is definitely a secondary effort at this point. As for the UKA in the south, looking at the maps and seeing the RA possibly getting ready to blow the Kherson bridges I'd think the best target would be Melitopol-Mariopul then advance along through Melitopol towards Kherson. Then they aren't trying to fight across the Dnepr as they are already behind it.

It seems the last few days there has been almost no mention of the RuAF. Anyone know if they are flying at all? For the big picture I'm waiting for the UKR reserves to show up somewhere as it has been mentioned there are substantial numbers of them. Just my opinion and I'd like to hear what others think, but I'm thinking the best move if there is a possibility of a credible attack would be to relieve Mariupol. If not relieved it will eventually fall and that is a big win for Putin's propaganda and lets them have a land bridge as well as the southern and southeastern forces being able to link up and work together against Donetsk. If it can be relieved that is serious mud in Putin's and the RA's eye (not that they aren't nearly blinded by the copious amounts applied there by UKR already). Thoughts?

Another part that I think has been a big blow to Putin's plan by the intel community is the outing of the false flag operations. It pretty much scrubbed out a lot of the propaganda they would have hung their hats on and I think it was aimed primarily at lessening resolve and support from the NATO/EU countries. Exposure might have been a big reason Belarus wasn't drug in early as well. I know there are a lot of other factors involved but I do think that pointing out the false flag ops before they kicked off was way better than trying to disprove them afterwards.

I may be wrong but was Kherson folding up and the failure to arm the TD in that area a success of the FSB plan? Maybe it didn't totally fail only like 97%. So it is still on par or better than the VDV!!

We've seen quite a few videos of RA prisoners the last couple days. Does anyone know of a source that would have good numbers on POW's? Haiduk or Kraze?

What are the naval principles and how would they apply/change land principles?

The CAPT brought up a good point about the drones and having to cover LOC's. We have been talking about the MBT's and IFV's, but they have changed the game for everything really. Look at how much arty has suffered because of them and I'd even say AA assets. So when we are looking at the UGV/UAV game won't the best target be the control centers? How do you see the centers? I understand the pilots for some of the US drones flying around the world are actually within the US so will all of these vehicles be piloted the same way or will there be a hierarchy of command posts (plt/co/bn/etc) in the forward battle area. Also, does anti-satellite become crucial? If that is the medium for control and you take out those then the whole fleet becomes a mass of lawn ornaments.

I don't know much about it but I'm sure several of you do. What effects would EMP have against the drones operating in theater? How about the proposed UGVs? Is it easy/hard/impossible to insulate against it? What about for the control stations and communication between control and vehicle? I'm more of a wood/metal guy, that electricity stuff is dark magic to me so even the simplest explanation will educate me. Thanks.

If we are mothballing the tanks, I vote for POWER ARMOR!!!!!!! Now it is only a matter of deciding: or If these options are not logistically friendly or something I guess mechs will suffice.

I agree and there's just no good answer. If every country had them we'd have multiple mushroom clouds by the end of the day. If no one has them it is perpetual world wars. The status quo has worked pretty good, but then as we see now it is almost impossible for a country to just be neutral. Even though I think most peoples of most countries just want to be left alone to live their lives and prosper they need to have a nuclear friend if they have an ***hole neighbor like Russia. Like a lot of things in life, it ain't fair and it sucks, but what is the answer?

War in Ukraine posted a new video with information for the last 24 hours: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP2QApi8G2TKc8NZmeDWSUg In the video he states that Ukrainian forces blew the floodgates on a damn and flooded the river to the west of Kiev, cutting off the 2 RA bridgeheads that had been established a few days ago. He advised that the river will be a km wide. Crush the bridgeheads or use them as helicopter bait for manpads? Imagine they will crush them to free up forces.

Have you seen the price of plywood lately?! Probably be cheaper to pay a Ukrainian farmer to tow a smashed up MTLB over the top of your hole!

I believe it was THH419 (sp?) that linked the youtube channel War in Ukraine showing yesterday's map and units with explanations of what is happening where. I found it very useful in helping put together the clips of stuff from all over. There is a new video showing events from the 18th. It looks pretty accurate from what I know, but maybe @Haiduk or @Kraze could confirm it as a good source or not?

How many times in military history have commanders based their plans on the last war? If you look to the Russian experience in Crimea and over the last few years in the other regions they see that for the most part their forces were able to achieve their goals with relatively light losses. I don't know a lot and most of what I do know is off the internet so I might be way off base but it appears the majority of the casualties their side suffered were in the separatist units. The Capt posted a good analysis document link probably a hundred pages ago that had a lot of lessons learned and showed the Ukrainian and Russian strengths and weaknesses. It looks like the Ukrainians learned an awful lot but the Russians figured if it worked then it would work now. So the intelligence failure is definitely there as has been pointed out a lot, but it is very possible that the Russian military told Putin "No worries, we got this." when he asked for the plan as they were basing their assumptions on the last confrontation without taking into consideration their foe had evolved.