sross112

A lot of good points so far. I would add: Others stated that it reduces the number of missile threats, but I would think that the threat from ship launched missiles is probably greater than the air launched (could be wrong, open to other's opinions). The air traffic and bomber fleets seem to be watched pretty good and give the AD good prior warning to the numbers and direction of incoming targets, whereas ship launched ones don't telegraph intentions and can probably be launched from closer ranges thus reducing the ability to counter them. Another thing is every platform removed is one less patrolling or monitoring Ukraine's sea operations. Which in turn gives them more flexibility for movement and raids. Lastly, they are big hits and impossible to hide. There are lots of videos of tanks going boom, but Russians can shrug and say they have thousands of tanks. They can also say it is a UA tank as they use the same models. Other than the "smoking incidents" propaganda attempts, it is really hard to downplay the loss of these assets to the Russian people or the world.

So what happened with Musk? I believe I remember him being pro Ukraine in the beginning. Even think he challenged Putin to personal combat. He got the Starlink over there quickly and was publicly praised for that. At what point and why did he appear to do a 180?

When it comes to escalation, other than WMDs, I agree that militarily they are pretty much out of options. Same goes for political as they have been cut off from most of the world. What about economic? Their economy is already on a downward spiral so they really don't have anything to lose and could really damage the global economy by cutting exports. They wouldn't even have to turn off the taps on their energy products. Nickel, copper, iron, steel, aluminum, grain, etc. Economic pressure = political pressure, might be the only thing a lot of countries would listen to. Would also give their supporters around the globe a nice soap box to stand on and shout their opposition to continuing to support Ukraine. Would the ruling faction be able to weather such a thing? Probably. As we've discussed there isn't much of an opposition movement and the "Woe is me" Russian culture would just add it to their list of woes. Their income wouldn't be affected too much as long as they kept the gas flowing. Sure would screw up a lot of supply chains and ratchet prices way up around the world.

What is the most damaging part of the Sevastopol strike; the drydocks damaged/clogged up or the loss of the vessels? Not sure what they have for other drydock facilities, but if they are out of service for months doesn't that mean that any other seriously damaged vessels are pretty much knocked out of the game until they are back online? I imagine the ships are a big blow as well, both symbolically and because Russia probably can't replace them anytime in the near future. Nicely done strike getting a twofer taking out ships and drydocks in one strike!

As it stands, counter-battery will be the deciding factor then. If both sides are able to put drones up for a good picture of where the other is and what he is doing and don't have effective counter-drone abilities, then the next best thing is to take away the other side's ability to act on their information. It appears that the UA has been doing this with their increased killing of artillery systems for the past few months. It also explains the small operational areas as the UA doesn't have enough resources to isolate large swaths of the front. Of course this doesn't solve for the FPV drones. So if we are looking at the future we really need to field a robust counter UAV system of whatever sort (lasers, guns, uavs, etc) that cleanses the sky under 2000 feet. I don't think EW is the answer as it is expensive and the trend towards autonomous will invalidate it or make it super-duper-stupid-expensive. If you can remove the drone threat then it is back to business as usual, if you can't, well, good luck. Is corrosive warfare a thing of the future or is it just what works for the UA considering all the factors that are present? Would they be using corrosive warfare if they had a USAF? Probably not. The SEAD and DEAD leads to air supremacy and the air supremacy leads to hammering of the towed/SP guns that are the big killers as well as everything else. This in turn enables the ability to maneuver and takes out the enemy's. Would they be using it if they has 100 HIMARS and 90,000 rockets? Probably not, as they would be able to neutralize large sections of the front and keep that neutralization going with the maneuvering elements. If they had hundreds of SP guns (Ceasars, Paladins, Archers, etc) and millions of rounds? Again, probably not. The control envelope is smaller, but the ability to dominate would still be there. So corrosive warfare really isn't the wave of the future for the US or NATO, but it probably is for those that don't have the enablers that they do. Other than an insurgency, how do you fight the guys with all those enablers? A ridiculously large pile of FPV drones. Those western powers need to solve for counter uav. If they can do that then like I said earlier, it is back to business as usual. If they can't, well, they should probably start teaching everyone Mandarin to make the transition smoother.

So, a question for those in the know. There doesn't appear to be a lot of tank on tank violence occurring so to me the DU ammo is great for when that happens, but how are the stocks of HE for the NATO tanks? Is this going to be another ammunition bottleneck where the UA is going to want a heck of a lot more than what is available, or are there massive stocks of it? I'm sure there is plenty of HEAT ammo out there, but it would seem that more blast and fragmentation would be desirable since the tanks are used for pummeling positions. Thoughts?

I'm waiting for the drones to start hitting the Moscow air defenses and a little surprised it hasn't happened yet. Big message sending and cancels the Russian narrative of their effectiveness. There is so much risk of bad PR from the building strikes that in my opinion they probably aren't worth it. Unless you can guarantee that only bad guys will be taken out and absolutely no collateral damage is incurred it is just a matter of time before it will backfire. Like, sure, you killed the bad actor that did such and such, but you killed his 4 year old daughter and two of her friends having a sleep over as well. Hit the Pantsir on top of the MOD and you mitigate chances of unintentional collateral damage while at the same time creating a whole new meme topic. That's like steak, with a side of steak!

Reading the bolded sentence about fire, would Napalm clear a lane through a traditional minefield? I know you can't drop it on people, but on an empty field should be fine and that is what we are mostly seeing with breaching operations. With PGM accuracy the collateral damage would be able to be mitigated from anything errant. Would the heat from the fire detonate or disable the mines under a Napalm strike?

I didn't see Prig being the catalyst, I just thought he was setting the stage for the coming events between Putin and the MOD. He states that Wagner is still loyal to Putin and only after the MOD, and the only power that the MOD can use to stop him is the Army. Considering the Army is either dead or in Ukraine, the taking of the LOCs from Rostov and Voronezh neuters the MOD. There will be no tanks at the Kremlin that don't belong to Putin and Wagner. Putin's speech condemning Prig's actions had to happen for the internal consumption. Putin is still playing the role of being deceived. Just like in a poor B movie script, the heroes (Wagner) will ride into town and deliver the irrefutable evidence to the king who will then understand that his inner circle have been against him feeding him lies and that the rebels are actually loyal servants.

Just my thoughts. I think Prig is working to save Putin and in doing so creating further opportunity for himself. He is telling the people that Putin was lied to by the FSB and MOD. This gives Putin the out that he needs. When stuff is terminally sideways Putin can ruthlessly purge the MOD and any rogue FSB elements left as well as anyone else he wants to tie to the conspiracy. Then he can pull what is left of the RA back into Russia and announce how he was misled and fooled by the bad actors he just had shot against the Kremlin walls. How they were responsible and did it because of whatever reason (greed, hate, or even a planned military failure that would dethrone him) and that he figured it out and is now, once again, saving the Russian people from a horrible mistake. Prig and Kadryov are close supporters of Putin and both have been naysaying the MOD for awhile now. My vote for the main scape goat is the MOD with a splash of FSB. I could see this all happening as a play to save Crimea, so possibly this summer. Putin announces withdrawal from Donetsk and Luhansk as well as any other occupied territories, except Crimea. He will use all his tankies to put pressure on the west and therefore Ukraine to cease hostilities. If we see an uptick in the propaganda when the RA really starts losing it will be a good sign that something along these lines is being prepared. His hopes are that the Russian people will believe his lies and he will remain in power, his well funded supporters in the west will parrot his lies and have a cooling affect on Ukraine, and that his apology for the schemes of others, not him, will allow the war to end with Crimea still Russian. So who strikes first? Putin or the MOD? The MOD have to realize they are the in the cross hairs and if they don't act first it will be all over. Will it happen after the first large scale collapse, or will it be when the RA has totally collapsed?

I read an article on the new weapons that was pretty good back when it was first announced. The pressures of the new round are insane, so I would agree that it would be surprising to get 12,000 round barrel life. The two main reasons that it sounded like a good change is for the body armor penetration and the paired optics. The article advised that Vortex was supplying the optics which are ballistically calibrated and are supposed to give the average rifleman the ability to consistently hit targets out to 800 meters. That is a significant advantage over most possible adversaries. The other downsides that you point out are valid and going back on the reasons for the earlier change from .30 to .223. It is a heavy weapon and bulky. Guess we will have to see how it does in large scale field ops.

Just thinking about the minefield and now the FPV/drone threat and newer western platforms. I think we can agree that the battlespace is very dangerous to all vehicles whether they are western or Russian. What are the advantages of the western vehicles? I'm no expert, but from the conversations on here it is basically crew survival and the optics/fire control systems. Is there something else? If the main advantage is better optics/fcs and specifically way better thermals, wouldn't the most advantageous time to use these be at night? I'm assuming the dismounts probably don't have 100% night vision/thermal but one would think that those were provided in some number along with other western kit. It doesn't appear that the invaders have much in their line units and it also appears that the lancets are only used during the day. So this should play to the strength of the UA and at the same time nullify the successful aspects of the RA. Yes I know that night operations are more difficult than daytime (night patrols in jungle terrain really suck), but if western platforms can identify, engage and destroy targets at longer ranges then you just need to solve for the dismounts. Illumination rounds on the enemy positions isn't perfect, but if you don't have NVGs for everyone it is the age old go to. Any thoughts on why this wouldn't be a better way to employ the new gear?

Military battlefield triage is generally considered pretty ruthless compared to civilian triage, but dang. Generally those that are expected to die are given a morphine syrette or two so they can pass on comfortably numb. Apparently in Russia it is just a 7.62 in the melon. I'm sure that works wonders for the morale of the troops witnessing it.

As @The_Capt noted, resiliency training is pretty important. The University of Pennsylvania put together the VALOR program for the US military and first responders a few years ago. It is very helpful with a good range of recognition and simple tactics for working through common psychological problems that are seen in combat scenarios. This program or another like it could be very helpful in maintaining the psychological health of the troops and the first line leaders.

We have looked at the military aspects of the damn blowing and what that means for both sides. Is it possible it is more of a political move by Russia? By destroying the damn Ukraine will no longer be able to irrigate a bunch of farmland. Estimates are that the wheat harvest would already be around 50% of normal, this will cut yields even further. A large chunk of the developing world depends on Ukrainian and Russian wheat. If in conjunction with the lower production from Ukraine, Russia can hold its wheat exports hostage. If Russia does this and uses the impending famine of millions as a bargaining chip ("We can't export what we have until a ceasefire is put in place because the shipping will be at risk from Ukrainian harpoons." or something like that) to press for a ceasefire? They know they are in trouble and will probably lose the land bridge. They likely really don't care that much about Luhansk and Donetsk, but several times on this thread people have predicted that the loss of Crimea could be the straw that breaks the regime. Most of us doubt that Ukraine will take back all of the occupied territories and Crimea this summer, but there is a good chance by the end of next summer they could be back to their 2014 borders. They also know that no one other than Russians really gives two small poops about Russia and most of the world wants to see them lose. This means they have to manufacture pressure that affects someone other than themselves in order for the world to press Ukraine for a ceasefire. I'm not an expert on Russia, but this looks like something that would be in their play book. Create a problem that they have a solution for in order to trade the solution for something they want. "We would love to export these millions of bushels of wheat to keep the children of the developing world from starving, but these evil Ukrainians will sink the ships without remorse unless there is a ceasefire. As soon as you can get them to stop killing us we will resume exports and save the world because we are the good guys." Or something like that.

I'm betting it is a combination of things that led to the detonation. Undoubtably the Russians mined the damn with explosives so they could blow it. The orders were probably along the lines of "mine the damn so we can blow it up when Ukraine starts their counter offensive". In the tradition of authoritarian states where mistakes like this are made when underlings are executing orders without thinking, the Ensign in charge of the night shift probably woke up at 0200 still half in the bag and heard TASS announce that Ukraine had started their counter-offensive. He immediately thinks he has dropped the ball, panics, and hit the red button. Some General this morning is dirty livid pissed because he has lost his forward fighting positions, probably has a lot of supplies and other goodies under water, and wanted to use the breached damn after the UA had committed to a river crossing. Or Private Conscriptovich dropped his cigarette while trying to steal some C4 to sell so he could buy more vodka. I would find either scenario equally plausible from the Russian dumpster fire they call the the army.

LOL, this is obviously just the 1st Gen prototype that will evolve into the Mobile Parking Garage (MPG). The MPG will allow the UA to phase out almost all other direct fire platforms (AFV, IFV, APC, etc). The next video will showcase the infantry dismount models that resemble out houses and telephone booths. The crew served weapons are humbly based on wood sheds for rural operations and kiosks for urban tactical options!

Did they bomb innocent civilians? I haven't seen anything released on what was targeted yet. As I said before I believe Ukraine would only target transport and logistics or actual military targets. I am not thinking that the civilian population will rise up and demand the end of the war. I am saying that it will add a lot of internal friction and degrade the internal messaging. A lot like the strikes on the airfields a few months ago that got all the "What air defense doing?" memes going. It undermines the false narrative that the Russian state and military are all powerful. It rubs it in everyone's face that Putin's 3 day SMO and all the rhetoric from the state media is a steaming ***t sandwich. To me it is a lot more messaging aimed at Putin and the Kremlin and battlefield shaping by forcing decisions on asset allocation. If you send those ten drones against military targets in the Donbas and manage to take out three vehicles, yay. You send those against the transportation network in Moscow and now the Kremlin needs to pull a couple dozen AA systems out of the Donbas to cover the capitol. That is a bigger pay off and a smarter use of the drones.

I see it as part of the shaping operations, a lot like the Russian invasion of Russia. Ukraine has struggled all along to defeat the missile strikes and drone strikes against their cities and has had to deploy significant air defenses around population areas instead of military targets or in support of military units. If these drone strikes make Russia redeploy anti air assets to protect Moscow (and if I were Ukraine I'd do the same to every city in range) that further degrades protection on the military targets. I would be surprised if Ukraine was stupid enough to attack kindergartens and hospitals, but there are plentiful legitimate targets (think transportation and logistics) in Moscow or any other large city. We have said from early on that Russia doesn't have sufficient assets to properly man the front line. These ops against Russian territory give the Kremlin more tough choices. Spread resources even thinner to protect everything to give their citizens piece of mind, or don't and watch the nats and sooner or later other citizens start howling that their government can't protect them. It is good strategy and puts the Kremlin between a rock and a hard place.

If they need a playbook on running an insurgency that has bases in neighboring countries with sympathy for the cause, pretty sure the NVA and VC could help them out. They could conduct an almost mirror image campaign with basing, supply routes, and support over the border with safe places to retreat to. Hit where ever the RA is weakest, evaporate, move to next location on list, rinse and repeat. If they have repeatable success they might be able to grow into a full blown insurgency or even a civil war situation. If they don't have meaningful success for their cause, it still helps out Ukraine by diverting resources to border defense. I'd think that Russia would absolutely have to commit some serious resources especially if they do a couple more raids in different places to fire up the nats even more.

Newest version of air to air combat. Still waiting to see drones with kinetic weapons fighting each other at some point.

Article on AP, seems Prig is sticking his neck out with official comments that contradict the party line. Prig openly saying more than 20,000 casualties in Bahkmut alone. Wonder how long he can keep this up before an accident happens? KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The head of the Russian private army Wagner says his force lost more than 20,000 fighters in the drawn-out battle for Bakhmut, with about 20% of the 50,000 Russian convicts he recruited to fight in the 15-month war dying in the eastern Ukrainian city. The figure was in stark contrast with widely disputed claims from Moscow that it lost just over 6,000 troops in the war, and is higher than the official estimate of the Soviet losses in the Afghanistan war of 15,000 troops between 1979-89. Ukraine hasn’t said how many of its soldiers have died since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Full article here: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-border-raid-4f63ade7fb3899b6fa903b562ada0e2c

Thank you for the responses on the F16 questions. If I understand it right, the announced ones were the old versions and those probably wouldn't add much. But even then it depends on what avionics, radars, auxiliary pods, and weapon models that are included. I'm feeling optimistic today. I'm going to bet that the west sends some fancy upgrades and maybe even newer models. Part of the psychological part of western weapons systems is their ability to out perform the Russian stuff. So I'm thinking the powers that be will make sure whatever package is given will be a good one to give the Kremlin another black eye and maybe make China raise an eyebrow. The messaging is probably just as or more important than the support itself.

I see the advantage of using an aircraft that can use all the standard NATO weapons and having a type of airframe that is ubiquitous for spare parts, training, and replacements. That all makes sense. In the last couple days someone posted a twitter thread that basically said the F16 would be at a disadvantage against the RuAF as it had inferior radars and shorter range missiles. It made it sound like they really wouldn't add much for capability other than maybe some cruise missile interception. Also said they would be pretty vulnerable to RA AAA systems. Don't know much about air war stuff, so the question to the airplane fellas; does the F16 bring anything to the table that will improve UAF capabilities? or is it just a filler and going to be all show and no go?

Too funny not to share.