LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Modern wars are "come as you are". Thus loss of the plant would not change things much, if it happened during the all out war that is. There is potental for this to happen any time between now and June 2017. There have been violent clashes between pro Russian demonstrators and the Ukranian authorties in the city. Given that we cannot rule out the ossibility that serious fighting would spread to the city at some point which would make normal tank production difficult if not impossible. If this does not happen prior to the outbreak of war in June 2017 Kharkov would certainly be a key Russian objective during the early phase of the Russian invasion. The Ukranian army would very likely attempt a magor stand here given the strategic significance of the city. We would certainly have a Fifth Battle of Kharkov under these conditions and probably a sixth during the NATO counter offensive. This creates many scenario possibilities including both armoured battles outside the city and urban warfare. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Unless you could bypassing (and later reducing) a BTG while moving onwards to deep objectives a "battle", then sure, there would be one during the Russian offensive. And yet, wars are "come as you are", hence the loss of that factory in a short war ultimately won't matter. Also,remember, Ukrainian economy is in bad shape. Giving money to that plant would not only revitalise Kharkiv, but also other linked industries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 There's a political aspect to all this. Putin would like nothing better than to see photos of recognizably 'U.S.' equipment burning on the battlefield with a smiling ...ahem... 'separatist' posing next to it splashed across the internet. So the U.S. is unlikely to provide the Kremlin with that particular photo opportunity. Providing stocks of artillery shells or tank ammo would pass the 'photo op' test. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 The US has exported downgraded versions of the M1A1 to Australia, Egpyt and Iraq, and downgraded M1A2 tanks to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (to the tune of around 2000 vehicles all told). I don't see why they would never consider exporting some to Ukraine. And export models of ther possible contenders such as the Leopard II and Challenger are widely used so it may be thatKiev will examine these alternatives as well 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Unless you could bypassing (and later reducing) a BTG while moving onwards to deep objectives a "battle", then sure, there would be one during the Russian offensive. And yet, wars are "come as you are", hence the loss of that factory in a short war ultimately won't matter. Also,remember, Ukrainian economy is in bad shape. Giving money to that plant would not only revitalise Kharkiv, but also other linked industries. Kharkov is a key city on a major (and direct) route to Kiev. A battle for the city woukld certainly be likely given its' strategic and historical importance. Don't forget the city had the unfortunate distinction of being the scene of four magor battles of WW2 Not all th fighting would take place within the city itself. I would expect magor fighting nearby as the Russians envelop the city and combat in the suburbs would certainly occur. The Russians would want to control the city as it controls the road network the Russians would need to supply the push towards Kiev and is only 70km from the Russian border at Belgorod. Bear in mind this is one of the shortest routes to Kiev and therefore one that Russian generals planning the invasion of Ukraine would be looking at using. Likewise NATO genrals later in the warr when planning the counter offensive would be loomking to push the Russians back from Kiev. Hence I would anticipate that North East Ukraine would likely be the scene of some of the key battles - and quite possibly a decisive battle. Looking at the road networkk on Google Earth it could be that the area in the vicinity of Kharkov, Belgorod and Kursk might well be the scene of that decisive battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 It is on the major route, but the CTO Forces do not have units to spare, especially with expansion of the separatists forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 It is on the major route, but the CTO Forces do not have units to spare, especially with expansion of the separatists forces. The fact that Kharkov is on the shortest route to Kiev is why the Russian Army would want to capture the city when they go to war in June 2017. And, because of the strategic, economic and historical importance of the city NATO and Ukranian commanders would want to recapture the city later in the war. Hence heavy fighting and significant battles are likely to occur in the Kharkov area in the war depicted in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 A couple of interesting articles analysing the military issues http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31164822 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31146595 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27308526 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The articles are factually wrong on some points: - tech level is about the same for both sides heavy equipment wise. The odd T72B3s are not representative of separatist's tank inventory. - tech level of ATGMs matches that of the tanks - they were manufactures in about the same time period. However it got some things right: - correlation of forces and means is favouring the loyalists (yet they still loose engagement after engagement) yet not in a overwhelming manner. Note, that those figures are given for an already expansive VSU and counts the non VSU CTO Forces. - CTO Forces need better comms, but more than that they need better high level command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krater Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) The articles are factually wrong on some points: - tech level is about the same for both sides heavy equipment wise. The odd T72B3s are not representative of separatist's tank inventory. - tech level of ATGMs matches that of the tanks - they were manufactures in about the same time period. However it got some things right: - correlation of forces and means is favouring the loyalists (yet they still loose engagement after engagement) yet not in a overwhelming manner. Note, that those figures are given for an already expansive VSU and counts the non VSU CTO Forces. - CTO Forces need better comms, but more than that they need better high level command. I think the maintenance state of the equipment is playing a larger role than tech level. Ukrainian equipment serviceability levels are likely far below the separatists' (not to mention the regular Russian forces). As an example, when ~10 APCs and tanks were assembled for one of the thrusts in Donetsk airport counter attack, only 2 (or 4, depending on the source) actually made to the jump off area. The 70% of ATGMs being unusable are a reflection of this, of course. I agree with your point that Ukrainian high command perfromance has been lackluster - at best - up till now. The fact that separatists have dominance in C3I is a factor, but operationally Ukrainian forces have been extremely passive. Edited February 7, 2015 by Krater 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krater Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 MRAPs are totally reasonable. Once you get away from the US-specific counter IED and BFT stuff which doubtlessly wouldn't be part of the deal, it's something the military is trying to dump, and there's little other demand for. Not the most reliable things ever from my experience, but nothing on them was so complex as to demand PHDs to turn wrenches on. Also fits "defensive" weapons well as the MRAP is great at keeping people in it from exploding and not much else. One of the article I've read on Caiman MRAPs suggested that US army mechanics were unable to service them beyong very basic maintenance, and therefore almost any work on them required a trip to rear areas where civilian company personnel could work on them. That could be very problematic for Ukrainian military. During his tour in Afghanistan that was cut short by the large IED blast, Sampsell estimated that 90 percent of his vehicle’s maintenance was required to be performed by a “certified MRAP mechanic.” His soldiers were allowed to perform preventative maintenance, which he said was basically checking the tires and fluid levels. Company-level mechanics could be disciplined if they performed maintenance outside their authorized level. Every three to four months, when it came time to change the oil, Sampsell had to take all 22 soldiers in his platoon, in four MRAPs, to a forward operating base for the work to be done by contractors, a task he says could have easily been performed by his mechanics. Because some combat outposts are not equipped with contractor mechanics, this process put Sampsell’s platoon out of business for at least a day, which potentially created vulnerabilities for other units that could have used that platoon for IED patrolling. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/September/Pages/WhyTroopsLove,andSometimesHate,theMRAP.aspx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 One of the article I've read on Caiman MRAPs suggested that US army mechanics were unable to service them beyong very basic maintenance, and therefore almost any work on them required a trip to rear areas where civilian company personnel could work on them. That could be very problematic for Ukrainian militar When you go to Iraq/Afghanistan you have mechanics trained for what your normal vehicle fleet is, which to say things like tanks, Bradleys, HMMWVs, etc, etc, or out and out no mechanics if you were not an organization that had many vehicles to begin with*. The issue wasn't "MRAPs are hard to fix" it was "Army units don't have MRAP mechanics and the parts are not in the supply system" If you weren't worried about voiding the warranty and did not have the anti-IED or BFT type systems, they wouldn't be super-reliable, but your average large truck mechanic could likely keep them running okay. Not to mention we have so many of them, and might realistically use single digit percentage of the existing fleet in the future. *as an example an ABCT type company is going to have it's attached maintenance team, but if it's a tank company, they're tank mechanics with maybe a light wheeled mechanic or two tossed in. An IBCT infantry company does not have enough vehicles to require a mechanic team at all, and their stuff would be fixed by a smaller battalion level team if I recall right. So if you put an entire light infantry unit on MRAPs, they're going to need mechanic augmentation anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Germanys Merkel who has one of the few working relationships with Putin is trying to disuade the US from sending arms and potentially ratching up the tension. In her estimation Putin is not the sort of person who is intimidated and you don't really know what may come of it. What would be the reaction if in retaliation ISIS suddenly acquired sophisticated man portable SAM's to shoot at US and coalition aircraft operating in the Middle East? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Why would Russia supply ISIS? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Why would Russia supply ISIS? There is no love between Russia and ISIS, however if Russian tanks start blowing up due to Javelins supplied by the West and Russian aircraft start falling out of the sky due to sophisticated SAMs supplied by the West, Putin will be pressured to respond and I don't think sending bomber to probe the west or showing the flag with some warships will be enough. Sending a few sophisticated SAMs to ISIS and would send a clear message to the West. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krater Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 There is no love between Russia and ISIS, however if Russian tanks start blowing up due to Javelins supplied by the West and Russian aircraft start falling out of the sky due to sophisticated SAMs supplied by the West, Putin will be pressured to respond and I don't think sending bomber to probe the west or showing the flag with some warships will be enough. Sending a few sophisticated SAMs to ISIS and would send a clear message to the West. A few sophisticated SAMs are not likely to make a large difference, and a large number would pretty much spell the end of his one remaining client in the Middle East - Bashar Assad. Syrian AF is one remaining equilizer of the Syrian government. If ISIS can shoot down sigificant number of them, it's likely to result in fall of Damascus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Retaliation would be a tacit admission that Russian troops/equipment are being lost where they according to the Russian government does not exist. Further, jesus. Russia does shady stuff, but arming ISIS is like, beyond Tom Clancy comically inflated evil Russians level of behavior. They arm their pets in Ukraine, we arm the Ukrainians. It's a simple narrow exchange, while arming ISIS is just going to turn into something that'll make Russia even more of a pariah state. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 A few sophisticated SAMs are not likely to make a large difference, and a large number would pretty much spell the end of his one remaining client in the Middle East - Bashar Assad. Syrian AF is one remaining equilizer of the Syrian government. If ISIS can shoot down sigificant number of them, it's likely to result in fall of Damascus. Its not a question of trying to affect the outcome of the conflict in Syria. Its about sending a message to the west about displeasure about arming the Ukranians and getting involved in what he and many nationalistic leaders and ordinary Russians may feel is an internal affair that the West should stay out of. Putin could just as well arm the Syrians or send covert operatives to Syria to do the dirty work. Some have mentioned that Putin may not be the most stable person on the planet. His behaivor and some of the press and photos he's released in the past are somewhat odd in many ways. He is not someone to be taken lightly though. Put yourself in his shoes. You have reports that Ukranians using sophisticated American weapons are suddenly destroying tanks and shooting down aircraft. hardliners are demanding an appropriate response. Shooting down a US aircraft operating in Syria or Iraq and the quietly in diplomatic terms implying that more of the same is in the future if you don't stop supplying the Ukranians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Shooting down a US aircraft operating in Syria or Iraq and the quietly in diplomatic terms implying that more of the same is in the future if you don't stop supplying the Ukranians Russians are too good at history to hand the US a bloody shirt to wave. The one way to ensure the US keeps doing what it's doing, only LOUDER AND MORE ANNOYING is to tell it to stop. A better solution would be simply "OH NO WE ARE DEFEATED BY THE UKRAINE!" and drawing down very loudly and openly then waiting two or three weeks for the US to get distracted by Kayne West again before going right back to arming the rebels. American ADHD is by far more powerful than clumsy threats. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Retaliation would be a tacit admission that Russian troops/equipment are being lost where they according to the Russian government does not exist. Further, jesus. Russia does shady stuff, but arming ISIS is like, beyond Tom Clancy comically inflated evil Russians level of behavior. They arm their pets in Ukraine, we arm the Ukrainians. It's a simple narrow exchange, while arming ISIS is just going to turn into something that'll make Russia even more of a pariah state. Does sound crazy, but stranger marriages of convenience have been known to happen. As I mentioned in last thread Putin could just as well arm the Syrians and have them do the dirty work or he could easily send in operatives to do the dirty work. We are in a defacto economic war with Russia. Russia is an oil state and the recent collapse of oil and natural gas prices is hurting Russia. Desperate people do desperate things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krater Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Perhaps you could expand your scenario, so we can tell what you have in mind. Is Russia shipping a dozen Iglas to ISIS? Or a brigade package of S-400s? What will be the escalation sequence? There is a significant difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 We are in a defacto economic war with Russia. Russia is an oil state and the recent collapse of oil and natural gas prices is hurting Russia. Desperate people do desperate things. We are in no such thing. They banked heavily oil would keep rising and implemented policy to achieve same. The price reached a point where previously uneconomical methods of extraction became more economical than buying from historical sources. Hoisted by their own petard seems a bit more accurate here. As I mentioned in last thread Putin could just as well arm the Syrians and have them do the dirty work or he could easily send in operatives to do the dirty work. To seriously stand a chance of knocking down a US plane, it'd have to be a pretty obvious, and pretty powerful SAM system. Linking Russia to ISIS is entirely the last thing they need when they're trying to edge out a deal with Europe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I also don't think we have strong leadershipop that is feared or respected by our advesaries.That being said I think you need to pick your fights carefully and you can't just go around and save everyone. Russia has a past that was very violent and costly. They don't have the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to act as a buffer. NATO creeping up to their borders does not give many Russians the warm and fuzzy regardless of all the reassurances. The past proposal to put a BMD defense in Poland probably didn't make thing better either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Does sound crazy, but stranger marriages of convenience have been known to happen. As I mentioned in last thread Putin could just as well arm the Syrians and have them do the dirty work or he could easily send in operatives to do the dirty work. We are in a defacto economic war with Russia. Russia is an oil state and the recent collapse of oil and natural gas prices is hurting Russia. Desperate people do desperate things. And irritated Super Powers do irritating things, like hack Russia out of the international banking system, and go looking for some "freedom fighters" of our own. I am sure there is an ethnic minority or twenty in Russia with something to be unhappy about. I wonder how many of them are in close proximity to gas pipelines? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I also don't think we have strong leadershipop that is feared or respected by our advesaries.That being said I think you need to pick your fights carefully and you can't just go around and save everyone. Russia has a past that was very violent and costly. They don't have the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to act as a buffer. NATO creeping up to their borders does not give many Russians the warm and fuzzy regardless of all the reassurances. The past proposal to put a BMD defense in Poland probably didn't make thing better either. Yeah I bet if Obama put on a very angry face when talking to Putin he would back down! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.