G.I. Joe

Ok, this article is worth it for gems like this:
Antiauthoritarian platoon is combined with anarchists of different backgrounds, antifascists and football hooligans. It is not a secret that relations between different constituents of this body were not always easy.
https://www.militantwire.com/p/defensive-war-as-an-act-of-popular?s=w
...I'll be deeply disappointed if they don't  have moustachios and fling round bombs 💣
 
Splitters!
 

Totally worth it!  the shattered cities Putin has conquered and all the oil & natural gas they can't get to are definitely going to make this whole thing turn a profit! 
On the "what military plan would've worked" I still go back to it never being a military plan.  It was coup backed up by a military invasion via armored columns and airborne insertions.  Once the coup failed it was a disaster no matter how he decided to run the invasion.  He could've concentrated force in the donbas but Ukraine would've known that and moved their own forces accordingly.  RU couldn't really advance very far due to the logistics mess. 
Reminds me of how I used to always like to visualize how Germany could've won during Barbarossa.  As I got older and read more about the logistical end, I realized Germany needed Russia to give up by the time Germans reached Smolensk since they knew they'd have to stop to do major logistical pause (Paulus actually calculated this well beforehand and it's well documented).  And sure enough, they made it to Smolensk then had to pause. 
So Severodonetsk does now appear to be a target of opportunity for tying down & degrading RU forces.  Interesting and clever move.

Welcome aboard, Twisk! Always good to have someone new in the conversation.
I think it's partially a matter of definitions. The casualty-aversity discussion usually seems to be framed in terms of "modern" starting between the World Wars, if not later.
As for the "modern decadence" issue, I think most of us probably see the emphasis on limiting casualties as a feature, not a bug, of modernity... certainly on balance. Aversion to casualties is not inherently the same thing as a lack of resolve.

Welcome aboard, Twisk! Always good to have someone new in the conversation.
I think it's partially a matter of definitions. The casualty-aversity discussion usually seems to be framed in terms of "modern" starting between the World Wars, if not later.
As for the "modern decadence" issue, I think most of us probably see the emphasis on limiting casualties as a feature, not a bug, of modernity... certainly on balance. Aversion to casualties is not inherently the same thing as a lack of resolve.

I haven't seen any content posted by Haiduk lately, I hope he is doing OK. His updates were most enlightening. 

No, they won't be helpful in a conventional way. ASW warfare changed a lot since WW II, these Kilos are not U-Boats. They don't need to surface to release their weapons. Occasionally these diesel electric submarine will come at periscope depth for communication and recharge the battery, but that is still too deep for an ATGM. They need dedicated ASW plane to take care of. The only one in the region that has the capability is the USN. Even assume Ukraine got a squadron of  P-3C tomorrow ( plus couple more squadron of NATO fighters to protect Orion) that would not be helpful. ASW is a black magic that cannot be mastered by reading "ASW for dummies 101". It needs years of trainings, trails. 
 
The only way I can think about is the Reaper caught Kilos resupply in the naval base. But how to get rid of the SAM umbrella is another question.
 
Or, maybe, in best case scenario, one of the Kilo captain decided to surface, because he is bored with underwater patrol..... everything is possible. 

The Russian sailors in the Pacific are probably secretly happy that the Turks closed off the Black Sea to the rest of the ships in the Russian navy.

Russia Rattles Sabre in Pacific With Large Warship and Aircraft Exercises (msn.com)
I don't think anyone will look at Russian military exercises again in the same way....
 
 
As to casualties and the west.  Part of the problem in determining the willingness to sacrifice is dependent on the actual conflict.  A lot of the risk aversion talk stems directly from Vietnam.  The problem there is complicated.  US administrations were never honest with our populace.  From the very beginning we presented dishonest and inaccurate information as to the conflict both why we were there and the actual conditions on the ground.  Add to that the discrepancies as to who we sent and the political conditions at home and you have the basis for an utter fustercluck.  The next major engagement is Iraq and again you have a level of dishonesty in the rationale to go to war and the conditions on the ground.
In Ukraine you are seeing a people who feel they actually can trust what they are hearing and a cause they absolutely want to fight for.  My own feeling is that given those conditions you'd see a stronger level of commitment in any of the western nations.
 

Welcome aboard, Twisk! Always good to have someone new in the conversation.
I think it's partially a matter of definitions. The casualty-aversity discussion usually seems to be framed in terms of "modern" starting between the World Wars, if not later.
As for the "modern decadence" issue, I think most of us probably see the emphasis on limiting casualties as a feature, not a bug, of modernity... certainly on balance. Aversion to casualties is not inherently the same thing as a lack of resolve.

Welcome aboard, Twisk! Always good to have someone new in the conversation.
I think it's partially a matter of definitions. The casualty-aversity discussion usually seems to be framed in terms of "modern" starting between the World Wars, if not later.
As for the "modern decadence" issue, I think most of us probably see the emphasis on limiting casualties as a feature, not a bug, of modernity... certainly on balance. Aversion to casualties is not inherently the same thing as a lack of resolve.

Didn't mean to leave Australia out at all! Might be one of the easiest admissions to get through... Kishida's possible attendance at the NATO summit just had my mind focused on the geographic frontlines close to continental Asia. Australia is obviously a key player, I was just thinking in terms of who is most in danger of coming under direct attack and requiring assistance.

Great series of posts today, currently out of reactions otherwise I would upvote a lot more...
Agreed, hopefully everyone is being very careful on opsec.
I remember reading that Churchill wanted to watch the shore bombardment for D-Day from the bridge of HMS Belfast. King George VI put a stop to it by letting it be known that if the PM were to do so, he would insist on joining him...

We need to wargame this out Warren.
There is some real cutting edge stuff happening in Ukraine right now, but offensive success, on both sides, is not where it is happening. 
I agree 100% that striking the enemy throughout its depth, but mainly in the rear and along the MSRs is the most effective and quickest way to break up an enemy offensive... it has worked for the Ukrainians over and over again in this war.
I think there needs to be more work on how tactical (CM size) formations of Brigade-Battalion and below operate while on the offense... because frankly its at that level that both sides have had poor and underwhelming results so far... that is a missing ingredient that I think we can wargame and come up with a few possible concepts of employment... using distributed infantry forces, UAVs, artillery, rocket artillery, tanks (massed at key points and times), and information warfare. Those make up what I think of as the new-combined arms force and working out how they operate together would be an interesting experiment.

Uuu, time for a Sunday beer indeed! For more reading oriented ppl, I ran across an interesting thread by Gen. Mark Hertling:
 

Count the ANZACs out of the above - they look at different parts of the globe where a less than benign regime is chucking its weight around ...
Five Eyes Countries 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)
 

This is a real concern, but it should be a catalyst for action in Europe. I'm not sure if the message from the far right in the US is isolationist or self sufficiency, depends on how you read it, but the results could be the same. So hypothetically in 2 years the US aid stops. Does Germany and the rest of western Europe want to kowtow to Russia or do they want to be in a position to stand on their own? Without rapid and decisive action, especially on the economic/energy dependence front, they really are subject to the whims of Russia. Rebuilding their militaries to the point where they don't need to fear Russia also puts them in a position where they don't need to worry so much about the state of US politics. 
Energy independence is so important to national security and economies but seems to be something that isn't taken seriously enough by a lot of countries. Renewable energy is actually very beneficial in this but it is rarely promoted that way. 
Germany has been looked at as the leader and the voice of the EU for awhile now. A lot of the other countries and a lot of the people in their own country want more support for Ukraine, more visible, tangible military type support. They don't see it from the leader but they see it from the smaller and "less capable" countries and start questioning why they don't see more from the leader. Few factor in the Russian gun to the head of the leader in the form of their energy. Tough spot to be in. So does Germany act rapidly and decisively now and take the pain or does it shuffle along and end up forever under the Russian gun? It's a catch 22 when the right choice leads to lots of pain, probably the downfall of political careers, huge pressures from business, suffering of the people, etc even though the end product is the best result.
Don't envy the German leadership in this one.
I think a lot of the criticisms out there are based upon false assumptions. Most average joe people in the world think of Germany as a world and military power. When they think of a military power they think of the US or China (102 days ago I would have put Russia on the list too  ). They don't understand how militarily weak most countries are. Germany has a grand total of 2 panzer divisions and a rapid deployment division. That's it. I'd bet 99% of the people in the world would be surprised to learn that. So their commitment of 12 or so Pzh2000s is pretty much the same percentage wise as the 100 or so M777s from the US. Doesn't seem like enough from Germany but that is due to the perception that they have a large war machine when they don't. Same pretty much goes for most of the other European nations.
Then couple that with the amount of support everyone sees from Poland, Sweden, Czech, UK, Canada, Australia, Spain, the Baltics, etc. Perspective of these countries, other than probably the UK, is that they are smaller, militarily weaker or much further away and yet they appear to be doing more. 
Saying all that, I do think that Germany could be doing more. Especially with the old cold war stuff in storage. Besides, how could Russia spin Leopard 1A5's into any sort of an escalation against their super tanks? 

@Battlefront.com that would make sense though - for sure a Bradley crew will have more faith in their survivability than a BMP-2. I for sure do; I hate bmps with a deep abiding passion and have zero faith in their ability to survive anything heavier than HMG fire. I view them as a burden, if anything.
An interesting factor to model - vehicle type (and condition) affecting crew morale. Theres plenty of tines ive used an MBT with a damaged barrel to spot for other units; but I'm doubtful a RL crew would be too happy to oblige that, esp if theres hostile MBTs in the area.

Isnt that already the Russian tactical approach, since D-0?

This cartoon from 1982 aged like fine wine. 😀

Just because you don‘t share someone’s reasoning you can not (or least should not) call it BS. That is not a discussion, just flinging dirt.
Thanks for the warm words from the neighbours!
I guess Germany gets a lot of bashing because it is still seen as a big military power. It is not - it is a dwarf (relative to its economic power). The reason the Bundeswehr exists is because of the cold war. After that was won it had no perceived purpose at all (from the German public viewpoint) and it was underfunded into oblivion. That is where we are now. The promised 100b€ were just approved last week. It will be a while until this is a respectable army again.

Thank you for the input and kind wishes! I looked up War over the Steppes by Hooton (2016) to see what he had to say, and he pretty much corroborates, particularly underlining the shortage of aviation fuel for the Luftwaffe. I also found out about a gallant effort to supply the Warsaw Uprising from air, which forced the Luftwaffe to reallocate resources. Relevant to this thread - since there has been much discussion of how little intel and planning time Russian officers appear to have received before the invasion - here's how much heads-up the VVS had before Bagration (p. 210):
"No wire communications were permitted during planning, with corps and division commanders briefed five to seven days before the attack while regimental commanders had only a few hours notice. The physical strain was so severe that shortly before Bagration Golovanov collapsed with nervous exhaustion, and while he followed Stalin’s advice to rest at home and drink vodka, Skripko bore the brunt of ADD planning."

Ahh okay that makes sense.  Again though I think it is both left and right.  It is almost comical.  You take one issue and one ide will claim it as a right while the other calls it gov't over reach and then the next issue they flip sides.  it is enough to induce motion sickness.
as to beer, I don't often drink beer but when I do - Guinness.  Funny thing, my father who was only second-generation Irish hated it.  He drank PBRs, god awful stuff.  😜
Back to the war.
Russia blowing up bridges in Sievierodonetsk to thwart Ukrainian reinforcements -regional governor (msn.com)
How many bridges could there be and how important are they to sustaining the Ukrainian forces there?

I had to skip ahead (The Thread has been taking up most of my reading time since early March) to see what he has to say about Bagration. He does indeed make a strong case that the defeat of the Luftwaffe (not in a definitive sense of course, but a tipping point was reached) in the west earlier that year was the key factor: Luftflotte 6 had 100 single-engine fighters to cover Army Group Center, of which 40 were mission-capable and even they did not have adequate fuel. There were 600 Luftwaffe fighters (single- and twin-engine) on the entire Eastern Front when Bagration began, and against this the V-VS were able to deploy 5,417 aircraft, 2,528 of which were fighters, along the fronts taking part in the offensive. German commanders interviewed by the Allies after the war generally considered this to be the point where Soviet tactical airpower went from being a nuisance to a decisive factor.
Hope time and health do permit that for you soon, CMRT does look very interesting to get into.

Indeed...
"And knowing is half the battle!"
 
 
(I had to say it. )

Full agreement with team Steve that the Russians are just out of gas, and men, and morale.
Interesting graph, and an even more interesting interpretation.