How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

I think you are giving the Russian army far too much credit considering what it was able to accomplish when it was in a lot better shape and had some amount of tactical surprise... and hadn't been massacring Ukrainians till they were white hot with rage against Russia.  Russia even if it could force the line back hasn't the troops to hold it and resupply.  It is as unrealistic as any of the previous 8 plans Russia has had.

Holding a position in a city perforce means you have to take it first.

I hope you're right, but history tells us the Russians usually start a war badly and with huge losses. As unimpressive as their performance has been until now, they won't give up. 

[sburke]

Just now, Aragorn2002 said:

I hope you're right, but history tells us the Russians usually start a war badly and with huge losses. As unimpressive as their performance has been until now, they won't give up. 

Which history?  Afghanistan?  WW 1?  There is only so long the mythology of Napoleon and WW2 holds.  Russia doesn't have any serious allies nor a western alliance providing supplies.  They have what they brought and what they brought has been kicked in the face. There is no previous experience in Russia to compare with what is happening now.

either way the next week or two should tell the story.

[OldSarge]

Quote

In four weeks of combat, Russia may have lost 25 percent of its initial attacking force. These casualties are not on the scale of World War II but are large compared with the relatively small size of the Russian military today. Although reinforcements and replacements can offset some of these casualties, the loss of trained troops will impair military operations and eventually have a political effect.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russian-casualties-ukraine-reaching-tipping-point

I didn't see this posted here. How long can the RF maintain force cohesion if the casualty numbers being thrown around are in the ballpark and the counts of equipment losses are also realistic? Is 30% still a realistic highwater mark where the force  can no longer sustain operations ?

[kraze]

7 hours ago, womble said:

There, fixed that for you.

Collective responsibility for Putin's excesses is vastly different from asserting that every Russian soldier is a rapist and looter, and every Russian is a zombie who wishes to murder any Ukrainian they can get their hands on. Every. Single. Conflict. Ever. Has brought out the worst in SOME of the combatants. Generalisations can lead to tragedy.

Are you seriously saying that there are good russian invaders?

Are you really telling me only some russian soldiers who came here to kill and occupy us are bad people?

Are you serious?

[BeondTheGrave]

45 minutes ago, sross112 said:

When I first heard of the Marines giving up the armor my reaction was the same: WTH? Then reading on the "littoral" brigade concept it makes sense. The other thing I read was the intent to get more in line with their traditional mission instead of being a heavy assault force like they've been used for awhile now. There was also an article awhile back talking about how the SEALs are changing it up as well moving back toward their traditional maritime missions. Really I think this does show that the Navy and Marines are looking toward the future and what their primary mission will be with the primary threat they need to contest. 

Logistically, especially after this conflict and considering that the mission of the Marines was to establish beachheads and ports for the heavies to follow, instead of 1 60 ton tank you get 60 tons of SMAWs/NLAWs/Javelins/drones, etc. That isn't even accounting for the additional space freed up by the support elements for the 60 ton tank. When considering the mission I reckon it is a sensible transition. Unless they are tasked with assaulting Fallujah again instead of maritime ops, in which case everyone will look back and think Berger failed. If they bottle up the South China Sea and wreck havoc then everyone will look back and think Berger was a visionary genius ahead of his time. History will be the judge.

Ultimately the Marines have a pretty tough road, institutionally. In the US Congress simply will not pay what they need to to maintain two land forces. Even if they would, the Navy wont let the Marines get enough of that money, rather the sea force would much rather see that money going to ships not tanks, even if its technically their tanks. The USMC has always survived pressure from the Army and Air Force by asserting a unique identity, both on the battlefield and culturally. BUT! culture isn't as powerful a deciding factor to budget hawks as efficiency, and since Vietnam the USMC has slowly lost its unique battlefield identity vis-a-vis the conventional Army. Making things worse, those tanks totally undermine the argument that the Marines remain a uniquely amphibious force. If theyre integral to the TOE, youre building a force that is doing a mission the US Army could also train to do. Obviously bad for the unique tactical identity. So the change, beyond making strategic sense in the context of the SCS pivot, makes a lot of sense institutionally when it comes to explaining appropriations to Congress.

Unconfirmed report:

 

 

[Aragorn2002]

15 minutes ago, sburke said:

Which history?  Afghanistan?  WW 1?  There is only so long the mythology of Napoleon and WW2 holds.  Russia doesn't have any serious allies nor a western alliance providing supplies.  They have what they brought and what they brought has been kicked in the face. There is no previous experience in Russia to compare with what is happening now.

either way the next week or two should tell the story.

They have what they brought? You can depend on it that Putin is scraping the barrel this very moment and will not hesitate to mobilize all he can to send into the Ukraine. This war has only just begun. 

[kraze]

7 hours ago, Maquisard manqué said:

But that’s not what you keep typing. You just keep referring to Russians as an entire group. I can only take what you write at face value.

The whole point of denazification is that it opens peoples eyes, because you accept that people are capable of much better than they’ve shown. Shame on them. A million times over. Because they should know better.

But don’t degrade yourself by not respecting their fundamental humanity. Otherwise you don’t look much better than them.

 

Ok last "racist" reply for you and I'm done.

Typing "collective responsibility" is literally referring to the whole group. It's the same thing. Whole group is responsible. Every single one of them has to be held accountable or they won't stop.

Denazification wasn't about "opening eyes". Germans knew full well what their army was doing. They knew it all. Denazification was about punishing those that didn't want to change. Germany has punishment for even drawing swastika to this very day.

So why won't you try to explain that "fundamental humanity" thing to russians, because they clearly have no such concept?

Because telling me about it when I see streets filled with dead bodies of human beings tortured, raped and killed by "humane" russians - is a waste of your time, honestly.

That's about it.

Edited April 2, 2022 by kraze

[Machor]

58 minutes ago, akd said:

Initial reports only, so treat with caution, but I’ve already seen multiple images of dead civilians with hands tied from Bucha:

 

The Beeb is on this:

"Sixteen of the 20 bodies seen by AFP lay either on the pavement or by the verge. Three were sprawled in the middle of the road, and another lay on his side in the courtyard of a destroyed house.

An open Ukrainian passport lay on the ground next to the person who had his hands tied behind his back with a piece of white cloth. Two other people had white cloth tied around their upper arms."

"the town's mayor, Anatoly Fedoruk, told AFP by phone that all of the 20 dead had been shot in the back of the head."

War in Ukraine: Street in Bucha found strewn with dead bodies

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60967463

 

[danfrodo]

10 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

They have what they brought? You can depend on it that Putin is scraping the barrel this very moment and will not hesitate to mobilize all he can to send into the Ukraine. This war has only just begun. 

There's a huge swath of territory in the south from which Putin can make trouble.  I think UKR can contain it.  But "that's why they play the game" as we say in USA -- we don't know until there's either an offensive by RU or not, and what kind of gains RU can make.  I am voting for "RU drives down single roads w powerful armored columns which are cut off and destroyed". 

I think Aragorn is not saying RU will encircle or probably will, only that it is still a danger until we know more.

[sross112]

I've seen this 30% thrown around earlier in the thread too. I just don't see the significance or applicability of it. The amount of casualties sustained by a force before it can no longer sustain operations has a lot more factors than just a percentage. Airborne units in Normandy took over 50% losses in less than 24 hours and stayed in the fight. 1 Pz Div in Barbarossa had lost 72% of it's armor by mid August and stayed in the fight. 1st Marine Division and attached units suffered over 60% casualties at the Chosin Reservoir yet were able to sustain operations.

The flip side is the French Army in May 1940 took less than 15% casualties. The Malayan Command in Singapore in 42 took less than 5% casualties before capitulating. The Afrika Korps in Tunisia in 43 took less than 30%. Etc, etc, etc. Copious amounts of examples for both sides throughout history. I don't think we can base anything on percent of casualties when it comes to being able to stay in the fight and sustain operations.

Just too many other factors to weigh with morale and logistics being huge. Does the taking of casualties degrade ability? Sure it does. Is there an arbitrary number that we can assign to know when that unit can no longer sustain operations? Nope, except maybe 100%. The Spartans would disagree with any other number.  

[Haiduk]

I almost don't mean about Russian missile strikes, but every day dozens Kalibrs, Iskanders and Kh- are launching. In last week Russians systematically hit our oil storages in different places. Today mass missile strike badly damaged largest in Ukraine oil rafinery plant in Kremenchuk, Poltava oblast

[Aragorn2002]

11 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

There's a huge swath of territory in the south from which Putin can make trouble.  I think UKR can contain it.  But "that's why they play the game" as we say in USA -- we don't know until there's either an offensive by RU or not, and what kind of gains RU can make.  I am voting for "RU drives down single roads w powerful armored columns which are cut off and destroyed". 

I think Aragorn is not saying RU will encircle or probably will, only that it is still a danger until we know more.

Precisely that, Dan.

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Just too many other factors to weigh with morale and logistics being huge. Does the taking of casualties degrade ability? Sure it does. Is there an arbitrary number that we can assign to know when that unit can no longer sustain operations? Nope, except maybe 100%. The Spartans would disagree with any other number.

All the evidence so far is that the Russian Army is on the poor side of virtually every soft factor you can think of. And the Ukrainians in Mariupol are certainly coming back as EXTREMELY vengeful ghosts ,after fighting to the last man. I still can't wrap my brain around what they have done there.

Glory to Ukraine!

[db_zero]

When I look at the reports, the videos, the intelligence feeds I can only conclude the Russians are spent and done…

Yet Ukraine and Russia are worlds apart when it comes to a cease fire agreement…

and when I look at what Russia endured in Chechnya and what was endured before WW2-massive collectivization, purges, loss of millions in the opening stages of Barbarossa, relocation of factories to Siberia, the NKVD shooting of those retreating, penal battalions and other hardships Russians have endured…

My gut feeling is we’re only in the early stages of what will be a very long drawn out and brutal war.

Initial impressions are deceiving. Just look back to 2003 and the euphoria that took place only to be the opening stages of a long drawn out affair.

I don’t trust the 80% support for Putin, but I think at some point the complete humiliation of the Russian military could spark a deep resentment of the west, hardening of attitudes and a deep seated desire for Russians to redeem their national pride.

The Iraqis were a beaten and submissive people in 2003, but at some point attitudes changed.

[Maquisard manqué]

51 minutes ago, kraze said:

Ok last "racist" reply for you and I'm done.

…

Denazification wasn't about "opening eyes". Germans knew full well what their army was doing. They knew it all. Denazification was about punishing those that didn't want to change. Germany has punishment for even drawing swastika to this very day.

So why won't you try to explain that "fundamental humanity" thing to russians, because they clearly have no such concept?

Because telling me about it when I see streets filled with dead bodies of human beings tortured, raped and killed by "humane" russians - is a waste of your time, honestly.

That's about it.

Seeing what you’re seeing it’s understandable you’d question the basic humanity of the perpetrators. Every rational observer does but for you it’s even more. I get that.

I’ve also given thought to the comments here to let it go given what you’re country is going through. I disagree. What’s the point of claiming democratic values of respect for humanity and the rule of law if you don’t try to respect them?

But frankly, I’m pretty sceptical about the merit of denying the basic humanity of people. If you don’t do that, it’s got to be pretty hard to get a democracy to work as anything other than a tyrannical majority.

Zelensky is popular because he keeps aloof of Putins’ quagmire of racist crap and promises the rule of law. I’d encourage you to heed his example. It’ll go further with the democratic centre of the EU and US. 

You’re wrong about denazification. People don’t want to know things that are hard to accept. Thats whole “big lie” thing. Ask a German, but the majority of Germans in ww2 ignored or allowed things to happen because the price to them personally was too high to question it. Denazification was about showing to ordinary Germans what was done in their name. Showing them the basic humanity of their victims.

I’m now done.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Maquisard manqué

[keas66]

18 minutes ago, Maquisard manqué said:

Seeing what you’re seeing it’s understandable you’d question the basic humanity of the perpetrators. Every rational observer does but for you it’s even more. I get that.

I’ve also given thought to the comments here to let it go given what you’re country is going through. I disagree. What’s the point of claiming democratic values of respect for humanity and the rule of law if you don’t try to respect them?

But frankly, I’m pretty sceptical about the merit of denying the basic humanity of people. If you don’t do that, it’s got to be pretty hard to get a democracy to work as anything other than a tyrannical majority.

Zelensky is popular because he keeps aloof of Putins’ quagmire of racist crap and promises the rule of law. I’d encourage you to heed his example. It’ll go further with the democratic centre of the EU and US. 

You’re wrong about denazification. People don’t want to know things that are hard to accept. Thats whole “big lie” thing. Ask a German, but the majority of Germans in ww2 ignored or allowed things to happen because the price to them personally was too high to question it. Denazification was about showing to ordinary Germans what was done in their name. Showing them the basic humanity of their victims.

I’m now done.

I'd down vote you if I could . I think you are living very comfortably in a far away country passing judgement on those who are dealing with  death and destruction on a scale we can barely comprehend - and you are trying to come across as some holier than thou  arbiter of what is or isn't allowed ? Laughable .

Edited April 2, 2022 by keas66

[akd]

 

[Maquisard manqué]

4 minutes ago, keas66 said:

I'd down vote you if I could . I think you are living very comfortably in a far away country passing judgement on those who are dealing with  death and destruction on a scale we can barely comprehend - and you are trying to come across as some holier than thou  arbiter of what is or isn't allowed ? Laughable .

Fair enough. That’s certainly what’s weird about this social media war stream.

But tell me, when the dust settles, is the racism either way going to be right or ok?

No.

So why is it ok now?

[MikeyD]

Its odd to bring up the topic of racism when Putin's war is a bid to assemble a pan-Slavic empire. If everyone's the same 'race' is it raceism?

[Splinty]

4 minutes ago, Maquisard manqué said:

Fair enough. That’s certainly what’s weird about this social media war stream.

But tell me, when the dust settles, is the racism either way going to be right or ok?

No.

So why is it ok now?

What racism? Both sides are white Slavic. Racism plays no real role in this. Hating invaders who come to subjugate, rape, kill, and destroy is completely understandable. 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Somewhere on the East. Destroyed/abandoned Russian vehicles.

Interesting that there's a bunch of BMP-3s in those pictures.  This indicates that Russia has moved at least one of its highest quality units into the fight for Donbas.

Steve

[Maquisard manqué]

7 minutes ago, Splinty said:

What racism? Both sides are white Slavic. Racism plays no real role in this. Hating invaders who come to subjugate, rape, kill, and destroy is completely understandable. 

Er, thanks, this could constitute something I can agree on with Kraze.

I know that’s how this looks in the west but you must be missing a) the complex history and demographics that make up ethnicity b) the posts here about x people are all y.

Calling all Eastern Europeans Slavs is not accurate.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Maquisard manqué

[Taranis]

26 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting that there's a bunch of BMP-3s in those pictures.  This indicates that Russia has moved at least one of its highest quality units into the fight for Donbas.

Steve

You are right.
I could be wrong but the BMP-3 units were initialy "North" (Eastern Kiyv, Sumy and Nothern Kharkiv) or South (Kherson and Mariupol area) :
"North" : 4 GTD, 27 GMRB, 26 GTR/47 GTD (another source claim that 26 GTR had BMP-2 not 3)

"South" : 71 MRR/42 GMRD, 136 GMRB, 20 GMRD, 150 MRD

Edited April 2, 2022 by Taranis
20 GMRB was converted to 20 GMRD (update done)

[Holien]

4 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

Were either your comments or his have anything to do with troop movements in Ukraine? The performance of Russia's military? Or anything close to what we've said we want this thread to stick to? No. That means it was off the rails. See ya. 

For future reference, and advise for anyone else who's fortunate to get a warning rather than a vacation, the proper response to a post like I made is "sorry. My bad" and quitely move on. OR say nothing.

Gents please pay heed and take all this off line for heaven sake.

[Splinty]

9 minutes ago, Maquisard manqué said:

Er, thanks, this could constitute something I can agree on with Kraze.

I know that’s how this looks in the west but you must be missing a) the complex history and demographics that make up ethnicity b) the posts here about x people are all y.

Calling all Eastern Europeans Slavs is not accurate.

My point was there is NO racism here. Excuse the simplification.