ArmouredTopHat

Because they are not -making- hundreds of new tanks every year. 90% of 'new production' builds are them literally taking existing tanks and upgrading them. The only new tank the Russians make from scratch are T-90Ms, which have a monthly production rate in the low double digits at best despite the factory working 24/7. Everything else is reactivated or refurbished which is why we see such a disparity in tank types. Half the reason we are two years into this war is because we all genuinely underestimated how much corruption in the Russian system has compromised its ability to wage war and this was evident from the very start. You dont enjoy overwhelming advantages in more or less every category (in 2022 anyway) yet fail dismally at your surprise invasion without something being dreadfully wrong.

It is only because of the unique position that Russia has in that they had a large stock of cold war frames to work with that they have been somewhat able to keep up with loss rate. Its an increasingly finite supply and has its own problems that have to be taken into account. There is some excellent work from CovertCabal on this subject that makes for a great watch. Russian vehicle storage areas are being emptied at an alarming rate:
 
 

A huge thanks for the great discussions over the past few days, enlightening on many subjects.  And a special thanks to ATH for stepping in over the past couple of weeks to add another angle to the point/counterpoints.  This forum is excellent.
 

As a note to FPV usage in general, this is the first conflict that has truly demonstrated the value and potency of such system in widescale use. Against inventories of vehicles designed largely in the cold war its no surprise in many respects that FPV's have been so deadly. No one has really had to sit down and look at the reality as it stands on the battlefield to this degree before. 

I challenge the drone supremacy thinkers among us to think on this. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Historically new weapons or systems tend to be countered in some form of another, and we are only just at the starting point for weaponised drones. Is it not possible to consider that systems  could or will be designed in the future that heavily curtail drones? We already see plenty of systems in areas like EWAR that inflict pretty heavy losses on drone platforms, to me it feels a little strange to think that said systems will not evolve and be complimented by others, even as drones evolve themselves. I feel like the only certainty here is that there will be a race of sorts to be acted out, or just an extension of the rivalry between offensive and defensive systems that we have seen on vehicles since the first world war. 

Consider the following scenario. One nation goes all out on drones and unmanned systems while largely discarding manned vehicles, while another goes heavy on APS / drone killing technology on their own vehicles. Of course this is all entirely theoretical (I dont think anyone really can predict the future of warfare with any certainty) but just hear me out.

What happens if it turns out that a mass of new gen vehicles operating APS / drone countering systems are able to effectively deal with drones. Suddenly the other nation might be regretting getting rid of its tanks or manned mobile elements when its getting overrun by its enemy without a proper means to deal with them. 

I suppose the point I am trying (and likely failing) to make is that I am very wary of singular systems turning the whole system on its head, or assuming that other systems are going to remain exactly the same. Its obvious drones are going to be a very real and massive element on the battlefield, but I cant help but feel like systems currently in use will simply adapt like they do when any new fangled technology reaches the battlefield. 

I do apologise for the rambling. 
 

Because they are not -making- hundreds of new tanks every year. 90% of 'new production' builds are them literally taking existing tanks and upgrading them. The only new tank the Russians make from scratch are T-90Ms, which have a monthly production rate in the low double digits at best despite the factory working 24/7. Everything else is reactivated or refurbished which is why we see such a disparity in tank types. Half the reason we are two years into this war is because we all genuinely underestimated how much corruption in the Russian system has compromised its ability to wage war and this was evident from the very start. You dont enjoy overwhelming advantages in more or less every category (in 2022 anyway) yet fail dismally at your surprise invasion without something being dreadfully wrong.

It is only because of the unique position that Russia has in that they had a large stock of cold war frames to work with that they have been somewhat able to keep up with loss rate. Its an increasingly finite supply and has its own problems that have to be taken into account. There is some excellent work from CovertCabal on this subject that makes for a great watch. Russian vehicle storage areas are being emptied at an alarming rate:
 
 

Entirely fair to say, I am not suggesting such blobbing would work in Ukraine. I am merely pointing out that tanks previously would get utterly mauled in such a situation yet the Israelis have so far pretty much minimal armoured losses so far. (Heck it was the Israli experience of tanks in urban combat that pretty much instigated trophy development to begin with) Again struggle to think of what is the issue though when you plant an APS equipped tank in Ukraine, especially before FPVs. Stugnas and RPGs are not exactly that far apart from what Hamas have been using. Trophy specifically has top attack protection capability as well (Though I do not believe we have visual evidence of that. Its a credible claim given its record so far I would argue) 

The collateral issue is very much a concern yes, though Trophy have seemingly made that a goal to minimise as much as possible. Tanks were already not especially safe to be next to as infantry (certainly dont want to be on the sides of a 120mm gun when it fires) but at least its better than something like Drozd, which had 107mm rockets being shot at the problem. 

I am sorry if I am missing on replies here. Been trying to answer everything as best I can...

As a note to FPV usage in general, this is the first conflict that has truly demonstrated the value and potency of such system in widescale use. Against inventories of vehicles designed largely in the cold war its no surprise in many respects that FPV's have been so deadly. No one has really had to sit down and look at the reality as it stands on the battlefield to this degree before. 

I challenge the drone supremacy thinkers among us to think on this. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Historically new weapons or systems tend to be countered in some form of another, and we are only just at the starting point for weaponised drones. Is it not possible to consider that systems  could or will be designed in the future that heavily curtail drones? We already see plenty of systems in areas like EWAR that inflict pretty heavy losses on drone platforms, to me it feels a little strange to think that said systems will not evolve and be complimented by others, even as drones evolve themselves. I feel like the only certainty here is that there will be a race of sorts to be acted out, or just an extension of the rivalry between offensive and defensive systems that we have seen on vehicles since the first world war. 

Consider the following scenario. One nation goes all out on drones and unmanned systems while largely discarding manned vehicles, while another goes heavy on APS / drone killing technology on their own vehicles. Of course this is all entirely theoretical (I dont think anyone really can predict the future of warfare with any certainty) but just hear me out.

What happens if it turns out that a mass of new gen vehicles operating APS / drone countering systems are able to effectively deal with drones. Suddenly the other nation might be regretting getting rid of its tanks or manned mobile elements when its getting overrun by its enemy without a proper means to deal with them. 

I suppose the point I am trying (and likely failing) to make is that I am very wary of singular systems turning the whole system on its head, or assuming that other systems are going to remain exactly the same. Its obvious drones are going to be a very real and massive element on the battlefield, but I cant help but feel like systems currently in use will simply adapt like they do when any new fangled technology reaches the battlefield. 

I do apologise for the rambling. 
 

We have seen soldiers using shotguns to some effect against drones on the battlefield. Its really not a far cry to assume that a mounting for a shotgun type weapon that uses Trophy's detection system can do a decent job of defeating drones coming at it. 

I am sure we will see quite a bit of testing for such systems in the next few years given how prevalent FPVs are. 

Because they are not -making- hundreds of new tanks every year. 90% of 'new production' builds are them literally taking existing tanks and upgrading them. The only new tank the Russians make from scratch are T-90Ms, which have a monthly production rate in the low double digits at best despite the factory working 24/7. Everything else is reactivated or refurbished which is why we see such a disparity in tank types. Half the reason we are two years into this war is because we all genuinely underestimated how much corruption in the Russian system has compromised its ability to wage war and this was evident from the very start. You dont enjoy overwhelming advantages in more or less every category (in 2022 anyway) yet fail dismally at your surprise invasion without something being dreadfully wrong.

It is only because of the unique position that Russia has in that they had a large stock of cold war frames to work with that they have been somewhat able to keep up with loss rate. Its an increasingly finite supply and has its own problems that have to be taken into account. There is some excellent work from CovertCabal on this subject that makes for a great watch. Russian vehicle storage areas are being emptied at an alarming rate:
 
 

Not rambling but I would encourage you to widen your aperture - you clearly have demonstrated the potential in these discussion but I fear you remain somewhat restricted by conventional boxes.
The aim here is not to create "and all drone force" or "all APS c-drone force." and have them play smash-smash until one side wins.  The aim here is to evolve our land warfare systems to best effect. Hcrof has already outlined some very good ideas on how to do this and none of them include "and all drone force".
So I for one would stop investing in heavy metal...period.  We can find way to repurpose the metal we have, and yes, that will include protections for it.  But heavy metal - and here I am talking armor, IFVs and AFVs will need to be re-rolled to a greater or lesser degree.  So what do I want?
- C4ISR - best in the world.  I want a fully illuminated battlefield in real time that can integrate all my shooters in a cloud-like concept.  I see targets early and can pull from that cloud of a self-healing network of offensive systems.  From sub-surface, surface, air, space and cyber - I want See, Hear, Understand superiority.  With that I can beat just about anyone.
- Precision (see C4ISR).  I want a precision based force.  300 bullets means 300 kills.  I want that precision linked and able to swing on a dime to bring massed precision to any point on the battlefield.  I want to be able to melt an opponents operational system in quick time from front end to industry.
- Unmanned (see Precision and C4ISR) - I want humans doing what they do best - battlespace management.  I want fewer of them but they are the owners of the nodes, not mass.  Mass needs to be machine based because it is 1) sustainable as dead metal has much less effect on human will, 2) cheaper in the longer term (humans are very cheap in the short), 3) much less prone to errors and friction.  I want unmanned to be the front edge of battle. I want it armed with Precision and ISR.
- Fires.  Strike is not going anywhere.  If someone told me I have 5B dollars..."where do you want it?"  A good slice would be into over-the-horizon fires - guns, missiles and loitering.  I do not want an "unmanned force" - I want a Firepower Force.  See it, kill it, repeat.  I want to use fires as manouevre.  
- Infantry.  Not for mass but there is a reality that people will be needed forward. Likely paired with machines but the human brain is still the most powerful processor in the universe (that we know of) and war is still all about people.  I want light, fast and dispersed infantry.  Crawling into everything like sand up the bikini, and they can take the machines with them.
All of that means Denial at worst and crushing corrosive warfare at best.  I would take that up against any military on the planet right now.  I do not care if an opponent comes at me with f#cking dragons with wizards on them; I will be able to see and hit from so many different angles that there is no force protection in existence that will allow them to advance.  Wrap your tanks in bubble wrap, I will hit logistics back to the break rooms. Further, that advancing would be capable of terrifying offensive effects.   
I want mass precision beats everything.
Now I am not going to get that, but I want investments to take us in that direction and not backwards.  Why?  Because there is a lot more evidence coming from this war, and the ones before it, that this is the direction where things are heading. More than any way we have fought in the past. As a student of military history, I can see the writing on the wall - we are looking at a shift, again. We will continue to negotiate with the future, everyone does, but we can at least be smarter about it. 

I feel like this is where larger UGVS might see some real mass use first. Using them for logistics frees up a lot of manpower and EWAR is less of an issue further behind the lines. Less need to protect them to the same degree as manned systems means a cheaper force overall that does not have to deal with many of the downsides of unmanned systems that currently exist. 
 
This seems a strange attitude to have when first generation APS systems have more than proven their value in combat. Next gen APS systems actually integrated with the vehicle from the start instead of being an add-on will only get better and cheaper, especially if armies are sensible enough to make them reloadable in the field. 

The cost is literally negligible when you consider an APS can save a vehicle that would otherwise be destroyed. The notion that the majority of missile threats can be somewhat reliably prevented from striking a vehicle is value enough, factor in potential dual role of FPV / loitering munition interception and you massively increase the value of a vehicle for a fraction of its cost. 

Whenever you believe in tanks or not, there -will- be manned systems of some sort on the field of battle for a long time yet, and they need every bit of protection possible. APS is literally a no brainer to not only saving vehicles and their cost but also the lives of the people crewing them. 
 
With the correspondingly wide array of varying results...not to mention some truly...questionable practises. 

We have seen soldiers using shotguns to some effect against drones on the battlefield. Its really not a far cry to assume that a mounting for a shotgun type weapon that uses Trophy's detection system can do a decent job of defeating drones coming at it. 

I am sure we will see quite a bit of testing for such systems in the next few years given how prevalent FPVs are. 

Animarchy making a fantastic point about the survivability of MaxxPros, or at least keeping their people alive inside. 

Animarchy making a fantastic point about the survivability of MaxxPros, or at least keeping their people alive inside. 

This actually brings an interesting point up. The Soviets during WW2 had at least a counterpoint to their soldiers suffering greatly, namely that they were quite honestly in a fight to the death. Many of said soldiers had seen their homes occupied and horrible abuses suffered to the people who were left behind, to say the least of the general death, misery and displacement even before death squads arrived. There was a wide and pretty profound desire amongst Soviet soldiers not only to fight and stop this but to also gain revenge, especially as they retook lands and discovered the true extent of what had been happening. That undoubtedly helped with their overall willingness to put up with a lot of hardship: there was no other choice. Fight or die. 

Compared to today? Putin can call this an existential war all he likes, and while some might buy the whole nazis in Ukraine propaganda that permeates media channels. But at the end of the day everyone knows that Russia is really not in a life or death situation (Putin is probably though). No one is going to invade their actual sovereign territory with the intention of permanent occupation. One wonders just how much patience the even heavily censored Russian people have for what is in effect a offensive war of conquest against a country that plenty of Russians have personal connections or family in. Already heard some pretty depressing cases where families have one relation in the AFU and others in the RGF. 
Outside of that, they have been told since day one that the Ukrainians will 'collapse any moment now' and that just one final push is all that is needed. Based on how soldiers reacted to that attitude during the first world war, there is a breaking point that might be reached sooner than expected when the bubble of lies finally bursts. Its not going to be pretty when it does.

Further to this, the Russians talk up a lot about their 'Slavic stoicism' compared to others and how it will win them the war, while completing ignoring that the Ukrainians are quite literally of the same heritage. They certainly suffered just as much during the second world war as anyone else in the Soviet union, and their capacity for resilience has been clearly demonstrated by this point in this current conflict. The Russian propaganda also seems to conveniently ignore that they were very much at their limit in 1945 in terms of manpower and cracks were really starting to show. (Average rifle division strength at that point was getting shockingly poor) The same propaganda seems to forget that Russia today is not at all like the soviet union was and probably has a far poorer ability to endure this conflict. 

This actually brings an interesting point up. The Soviets during WW2 had at least a counterpoint to their soldiers suffering greatly, namely that they were quite honestly in a fight to the death. Many of said soldiers had seen their homes occupied and horrible abuses suffered to the people who were left behind, to say the least of the general death, misery and displacement even before death squads arrived. There was a wide and pretty profound desire amongst Soviet soldiers not only to fight and stop this but to also gain revenge, especially as they retook lands and discovered the true extent of what had been happening. That undoubtedly helped with their overall willingness to put up with a lot of hardship: there was no other choice. Fight or die. 

Compared to today? Putin can call this an existential war all he likes, and while some might buy the whole nazis in Ukraine propaganda that permeates media channels. But at the end of the day everyone knows that Russia is really not in a life or death situation (Putin is probably though). No one is going to invade their actual sovereign territory with the intention of permanent occupation. One wonders just how much patience the even heavily censored Russian people have for what is in effect a offensive war of conquest against a country that plenty of Russians have personal connections or family in. Already heard some pretty depressing cases where families have one relation in the AFU and others in the RGF. 
Outside of that, they have been told since day one that the Ukrainians will 'collapse any moment now' and that just one final push is all that is needed. Based on how soldiers reacted to that attitude during the first world war, there is a breaking point that might be reached sooner than expected when the bubble of lies finally bursts. Its not going to be pretty when it does.

Further to this, the Russians talk up a lot about their 'Slavic stoicism' compared to others and how it will win them the war, while completing ignoring that the Ukrainians are quite literally of the same heritage. They certainly suffered just as much during the second world war as anyone else in the Soviet union, and their capacity for resilience has been clearly demonstrated by this point in this current conflict. The Russian propaganda also seems to conveniently ignore that they were very much at their limit in 1945 in terms of manpower and cracks were really starting to show. (Average rifle division strength at that point was getting shockingly poor) The same propaganda seems to forget that Russia today is not at all like the soviet union was and probably has a far poorer ability to endure this conflict. 

Is it just me or does the RA seem a little more ragged lately?  We have been here before but there seems to be a steady stream of some weird signals again.  I am starting to wonder if they burned themselves out over the Winter-Spring trying to show everyone that they are not burned out.

This actually brings an interesting point up. The Soviets during WW2 had at least a counterpoint to their soldiers suffering greatly, namely that they were quite honestly in a fight to the death. Many of said soldiers had seen their homes occupied and horrible abuses suffered to the people who were left behind, to say the least of the general death, misery and displacement even before death squads arrived. There was a wide and pretty profound desire amongst Soviet soldiers not only to fight and stop this but to also gain revenge, especially as they retook lands and discovered the true extent of what had been happening. That undoubtedly helped with their overall willingness to put up with a lot of hardship: there was no other choice. Fight or die. 

Compared to today? Putin can call this an existential war all he likes, and while some might buy the whole nazis in Ukraine propaganda that permeates media channels. But at the end of the day everyone knows that Russia is really not in a life or death situation (Putin is probably though). No one is going to invade their actual sovereign territory with the intention of permanent occupation. One wonders just how much patience the even heavily censored Russian people have for what is in effect a offensive war of conquest against a country that plenty of Russians have personal connections or family in. Already heard some pretty depressing cases where families have one relation in the AFU and others in the RGF. 
Outside of that, they have been told since day one that the Ukrainians will 'collapse any moment now' and that just one final push is all that is needed. Based on how soldiers reacted to that attitude during the first world war, there is a breaking point that might be reached sooner than expected when the bubble of lies finally bursts. Its not going to be pretty when it does.

Further to this, the Russians talk up a lot about their 'Slavic stoicism' compared to others and how it will win them the war, while completing ignoring that the Ukrainians are quite literally of the same heritage. They certainly suffered just as much during the second world war as anyone else in the Soviet union, and their capacity for resilience has been clearly demonstrated by this point in this current conflict. The Russian propaganda also seems to conveniently ignore that they were very much at their limit in 1945 in terms of manpower and cracks were really starting to show. (Average rifle division strength at that point was getting shockingly poor) The same propaganda seems to forget that Russia today is not at all like the soviet union was and probably has a far poorer ability to endure this conflict. 

This actually brings an interesting point up. The Soviets during WW2 had at least a counterpoint to their soldiers suffering greatly, namely that they were quite honestly in a fight to the death. Many of said soldiers had seen their homes occupied and horrible abuses suffered to the people who were left behind, to say the least of the general death, misery and displacement even before death squads arrived. There was a wide and pretty profound desire amongst Soviet soldiers not only to fight and stop this but to also gain revenge, especially as they retook lands and discovered the true extent of what had been happening. That undoubtedly helped with their overall willingness to put up with a lot of hardship: there was no other choice. Fight or die. 

Compared to today? Putin can call this an existential war all he likes, and while some might buy the whole nazis in Ukraine propaganda that permeates media channels. But at the end of the day everyone knows that Russia is really not in a life or death situation (Putin is probably though). No one is going to invade their actual sovereign territory with the intention of permanent occupation. One wonders just how much patience the even heavily censored Russian people have for what is in effect a offensive war of conquest against a country that plenty of Russians have personal connections or family in. Already heard some pretty depressing cases where families have one relation in the AFU and others in the RGF. 
Outside of that, they have been told since day one that the Ukrainians will 'collapse any moment now' and that just one final push is all that is needed. Based on how soldiers reacted to that attitude during the first world war, there is a breaking point that might be reached sooner than expected when the bubble of lies finally bursts. Its not going to be pretty when it does.

Further to this, the Russians talk up a lot about their 'Slavic stoicism' compared to others and how it will win them the war, while completing ignoring that the Ukrainians are quite literally of the same heritage. They certainly suffered just as much during the second world war as anyone else in the Soviet union, and their capacity for resilience has been clearly demonstrated by this point in this current conflict. The Russian propaganda also seems to conveniently ignore that they were very much at their limit in 1945 in terms of manpower and cracks were really starting to show. (Average rifle division strength at that point was getting shockingly poor) The same propaganda seems to forget that Russia today is not at all like the soviet union was and probably has a far poorer ability to endure this conflict. 

This actually brings an interesting point up. The Soviets during WW2 had at least a counterpoint to their soldiers suffering greatly, namely that they were quite honestly in a fight to the death. Many of said soldiers had seen their homes occupied and horrible abuses suffered to the people who were left behind, to say the least of the general death, misery and displacement even before death squads arrived. There was a wide and pretty profound desire amongst Soviet soldiers not only to fight and stop this but to also gain revenge, especially as they retook lands and discovered the true extent of what had been happening. That undoubtedly helped with their overall willingness to put up with a lot of hardship: there was no other choice. Fight or die. 

Compared to today? Putin can call this an existential war all he likes, and while some might buy the whole nazis in Ukraine propaganda that permeates media channels. But at the end of the day everyone knows that Russia is really not in a life or death situation (Putin is probably though). No one is going to invade their actual sovereign territory with the intention of permanent occupation. One wonders just how much patience the even heavily censored Russian people have for what is in effect a offensive war of conquest against a country that plenty of Russians have personal connections or family in. Already heard some pretty depressing cases where families have one relation in the AFU and others in the RGF. 
Outside of that, they have been told since day one that the Ukrainians will 'collapse any moment now' and that just one final push is all that is needed. Based on how soldiers reacted to that attitude during the first world war, there is a breaking point that might be reached sooner than expected when the bubble of lies finally bursts. Its not going to be pretty when it does.

Further to this, the Russians talk up a lot about their 'Slavic stoicism' compared to others and how it will win them the war, while completing ignoring that the Ukrainians are quite literally of the same heritage. They certainly suffered just as much during the second world war as anyone else in the Soviet union, and their capacity for resilience has been clearly demonstrated by this point in this current conflict. The Russian propaganda also seems to conveniently ignore that they were very much at their limit in 1945 in terms of manpower and cracks were really starting to show. (Average rifle division strength at that point was getting shockingly poor) The same propaganda seems to forget that Russia today is not at all like the soviet union was and probably has a far poorer ability to endure this conflict. 

This actually brings an interesting point up. The Soviets during WW2 had at least a counterpoint to their soldiers suffering greatly, namely that they were quite honestly in a fight to the death. Many of said soldiers had seen their homes occupied and horrible abuses suffered to the people who were left behind, to say the least of the general death, misery and displacement even before death squads arrived. There was a wide and pretty profound desire amongst Soviet soldiers not only to fight and stop this but to also gain revenge, especially as they retook lands and discovered the true extent of what had been happening. That undoubtedly helped with their overall willingness to put up with a lot of hardship: there was no other choice. Fight or die. 

Compared to today? Putin can call this an existential war all he likes, and while some might buy the whole nazis in Ukraine propaganda that permeates media channels. But at the end of the day everyone knows that Russia is really not in a life or death situation (Putin is probably though). No one is going to invade their actual sovereign territory with the intention of permanent occupation. One wonders just how much patience the even heavily censored Russian people have for what is in effect a offensive war of conquest against a country that plenty of Russians have personal connections or family in. Already heard some pretty depressing cases where families have one relation in the AFU and others in the RGF. 
Outside of that, they have been told since day one that the Ukrainians will 'collapse any moment now' and that just one final push is all that is needed. Based on how soldiers reacted to that attitude during the first world war, there is a breaking point that might be reached sooner than expected when the bubble of lies finally bursts. Its not going to be pretty when it does.

Further to this, the Russians talk up a lot about their 'Slavic stoicism' compared to others and how it will win them the war, while completing ignoring that the Ukrainians are quite literally of the same heritage. They certainly suffered just as much during the second world war as anyone else in the Soviet union, and their capacity for resilience has been clearly demonstrated by this point in this current conflict. The Russian propaganda also seems to conveniently ignore that they were very much at their limit in 1945 in terms of manpower and cracks were really starting to show. (Average rifle division strength at that point was getting shockingly poor) The same propaganda seems to forget that Russia today is not at all like the soviet union was and probably has a far poorer ability to endure this conflict. 

This actually brings an interesting point up. The Soviets during WW2 had at least a counterpoint to their soldiers suffering greatly, namely that they were quite honestly in a fight to the death. Many of said soldiers had seen their homes occupied and horrible abuses suffered to the people who were left behind, to say the least of the general death, misery and displacement even before death squads arrived. There was a wide and pretty profound desire amongst Soviet soldiers not only to fight and stop this but to also gain revenge, especially as they retook lands and discovered the true extent of what had been happening. That undoubtedly helped with their overall willingness to put up with a lot of hardship: there was no other choice. Fight or die. 

Compared to today? Putin can call this an existential war all he likes, and while some might buy the whole nazis in Ukraine propaganda that permeates media channels. But at the end of the day everyone knows that Russia is really not in a life or death situation (Putin is probably though). No one is going to invade their actual sovereign territory with the intention of permanent occupation. One wonders just how much patience the even heavily censored Russian people have for what is in effect a offensive war of conquest against a country that plenty of Russians have personal connections or family in. Already heard some pretty depressing cases where families have one relation in the AFU and others in the RGF. 
Outside of that, they have been told since day one that the Ukrainians will 'collapse any moment now' and that just one final push is all that is needed. Based on how soldiers reacted to that attitude during the first world war, there is a breaking point that might be reached sooner than expected when the bubble of lies finally bursts. Its not going to be pretty when it does.

Further to this, the Russians talk up a lot about their 'Slavic stoicism' compared to others and how it will win them the war, while completing ignoring that the Ukrainians are quite literally of the same heritage. They certainly suffered just as much during the second world war as anyone else in the Soviet union, and their capacity for resilience has been clearly demonstrated by this point in this current conflict. The Russian propaganda also seems to conveniently ignore that they were very much at their limit in 1945 in terms of manpower and cracks were really starting to show. (Average rifle division strength at that point was getting shockingly poor) The same propaganda seems to forget that Russia today is not at all like the soviet union was and probably has a far poorer ability to endure this conflict. 

You know, you kinda show your true colours by referring to Kharkiv as Kharkov. Also interesting take on an offensive that very quickly bogged down and is now resulting in considerable Russian losses.

Your continued use of Kharkov instead of Kharkiv belies your intentions here. Everyone I have talked to in Ukraine, including Russian speakers since the invasion never refer to the Russian spellings for city names because the Russian propaganda pushes it so hard (To convey the notion that they 'belong' to Russia or otherwise legitimise their claim. They will -never- refer to these cities according to their Ukrainian names)

The fact you insist to use such nomenclature is a dead give away to me that you are not being genuine with us here, not to mention your lack of actual evidence supplied. 

Russians managed to lose a significant part of another S-300/400 battery from a GMLRS strike recently. More complacency about western weapons hitting valuable assets again. Why the hell are they not relocating such valuable assets the moment they knew HIMARS could hit them?