How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[G.I. Joe]

4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

This is probably right on the money, but I would put a fair bit of value on breaking up bombing runs. Even if the bombs themselves are cheap, disrupting the currently more or less unimpeded bombing runs would be far more useful to the Ukrainians on the ground. Kills are not likely as you say unless the Ukrainians are able to 'ambush' targets. We have seen some pretty ingenious work from the Ukrainians so far on this front so who knows. 

Simply painting the offending jets with radar would probably be enough, no one is going to stick around to be shot at. 

Exactly. If an Su-34 has to break off its attack run and jettison its payload, it's still a "mission kill," even if the aircraft is unharmed.

[ArmouredTopHat]

Air combat aside. An eerie reminder that Russia really does think it gets to decide what it does with countries in what it thinks are its 'sphere of influence' 
 

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

4 hours ago, Carolus said:

Here are my reasons of why we support Ukraine.

a) it supports the UN charta, which has practical legal benefits

b) the ethical and moral arguments fall more in favor of it than against it

c) in a Machiavellian sense we are destroying the military capacity of an enemy that has been actively working on destroying the West for at least 15 years (albeit with non-conventional means), which support international terrorism and would be a potential ally / supporter / provider of military goods to another active enemy of the West in another war, like China, and it is done at the minimum cost imaginable

d) it allows to massively improve our own military potential via observation and remote learning as well as investments in production facilities, which have been woefully neglected despite active enemies building up their own potential and messaging their clear intent of careless murder on a global scale

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?

a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

[G.I. Joe]

14 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

AEW&C capability is something Ukraine has been lacking

I will admit I have often wondered how this war might have been different if Ukraine had been able to complete the An-71 "Madcap" program on its own after the breakup of the USSR (admittedly an implausible scenario, since it had a Russian radar)...

[Eddy]

37 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

This is good news! AEW&C platforms could be a big factor, especially if they arrive fairly soon.

It all depends on whether Ukrainian personnel have received training or not. Flying the thing should be easy enough for an existing pilot, as it's no combat aircraft. Likewise, maintaining the aircraft should be reasonably easy, in comparison to those snowflake fighters. But using and maintaining the AWACS systems? I dunno, but I suspect it'll take longer than a couple of hours in a classroom to get proficient. Multiple months to learn the systems. Maybe years to get expert.

So, unless the training has already occurred, I can't see these being operational soon.

There is one way around this of course. Swedish personnel could be part of the package as, erm, on-premises trainers, so to speak.

Don't get me wrong, still good news and very generous from the Swedes. Just don't expect them to pop up next Monday     

[Maciej Zwolinski]

23 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I could care less what we call it.  It is more the recognition that Europe was largely a global backwater in the evolution of warfare during this period. The major global powers were in Asia and Persia. It wasn’t until Europe gained superiority in maritime power that things began to shift in and around the 15th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medieval_great_powers#:~:text=The following is a list,%3B Timurids%2C 1400–1450)

The single largest military evolution (and operations) were within the Mongol Empire as they rose to be the largest empire in human history at that time (only surpassed by the British empire in the 19th and 20th centuries).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

The Mongol conquests killed an estimated 10% of the total human population of that day.  For reference that would equal about 800,000-1B people today - or a thermonuclear exchange essentially. The Mongols were the nuclear war of their era.  So if we are going to say “Going Medieval” it should be in reference to them and not a freakin Month Python skit.

That's waaay off topic, but I can't resist it so I will shoot-and-scoot one reply, and then go into (feigned Mongol-style) withdrawal.

European medieval states were not capable of Empire- toppling campaigns as the Mongols did or wars dragging on for years with WWI casualty levels in Chinese style. However, at other aspects of warfare they were the world leaders. Both their strengths and weaknesses often derived from the peculiarities of the political system prevailing in Europe at the time, feudalism.

1. Fortifications. While individual fortresses in the Eastern Roman Empire or the Islamic caliphates could be formidable and impress the Westerners, there was no other region in the World which would rival the Medieval Europe in the overall level of fortification, quality and quantity of the defensive architecture taken together. Individual feudal lords were expected to build castles, had the means to build castles and built them.

2. Individual Armour. From XI century to XV century it makes rapid progress, usually keeping abreast of the other  parts of the world. In 2 half of XIV century the full plate harness is introduced and no other armour in the world matches it until the discovery of Kevlars and similar materials in the XX century. Again, a feature of feudalism allowing an individual soldier the means to spend the equivalent of several dozen villages with villagers on his personal protection,

3. Gunpowder. Invented in China, adopted in the islamic world and the Great Steppe, it found its home in Europe. The progress in firearms in Europe was the fastest in the World. Connected with 1. and 2  - in the land of fortresses, both stationary and ambulatory ones, the ability to harness the chemical energy to defeat them was much appreciated. 

 

Edited May 29 by Maciej Zwolinski
drowsiness

[Endyamon]

As far as I know the only long range AA missile Russia has, is the r-37, which i don't how many they have in stock, since it's a pretty new missile. They have the old r-77 which should be less capable than the newer versions of the aim-120. There should be the new R-77-1 version which it's used with the su-57, but honestly, after the "mighty" t-14 armata, i have my doubts that these new missiles will ever be producted in good numbers (or even producted at all)

[Maciej Zwolinski]

11 minutes ago, Endyamon said:

As far as I know the only long range AA missile Russia has, is the r-37, which i don't how many they have in stock, since it's a pretty new missile. They have the old r-77 which should be less capable than the newer versions of the aim-120. There should be the new R-77-1 version which it's used with the su-57, but honestly, after the "mighty" t-14 armata, i have my doubts that these new missiles will ever be producted in good numbers (or even producted at all)

There are several kills attributed to R37. The reports seem fairly reliable, as they occurred in areas without Russian SAM coverage.

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, Carolus said:

I respect the right of my elders to be grumpy curmudgeons, but if a statement about how the Western refusal to allow Ukrain to act according to international law makes other people doubt how many other terms of international contracts some Western nations would adhere to makes you want to sit idly by and watch an invasion with genocidal or at least culturally genocidal intent, then it crosses the line into "boomer tantrum".

 

Come talk to me after you have been in a couple wars with weak partners who end up failing in the end after we spend blood and treasure trying to hold them up - then maybe you can call “boomer trantrum.”

I know exactly why we are bankrolling this thing and the reasons are similar to why we have attempted interventions around the world for over 30 years - and based on your response, that means I was likely doing this before you were born, trust me, I “get it” better then you do.

My point is that we have been burned by weak partners before and when I hear this continuing “The West sucks/the West is weak/the West is scared” repeatedly coming from citizens of a nation that we have spent over their annual national pre-war GDP on trying to save…well any grown up has to pause and ask themselves “just who are we supporting here?”  Is Ukraine South Korea or are they Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan?  I strongly suspect they are South Korea but the signals coming from some quarters - and there have been more than a few - leave room for some healthy caution.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

You may call me old and cynical, or just East European (and I am all of these things), but truly there should be no need to look for any more reasons for supporting the Ukraine if  c) applies. The West at a reasonable cost may undermine, hopefully crippple, the West's self-avowed enemy. What's not to like? What's more to think about?

a) and b) are obviously nice to have as arguments to use on the undecided or die-hard moral highlanders , but even if they were not applicable, c) clinches the deal.

So long a “c” doesn’t start WW3, I am all in.  The US/Western restraints and caution all center on the Russian Problem - too big and dangerous to fail fast.  I see an engineered and deliberate containment and eroding of Russian power at play here, which from a micro level can appear to be “fear and trembling.”  While the suffering of Ukrainians is real and very unfair it is leagues better than if the West had simply pulled back.  As this thing progresses the very real concern is “how much/how long?”  This balances our own political dynamics at home (slow economic recovery post-pandemic, general public angst) with pragmatic global security realities (escalation and expansion of insecurity).

This war made it clear that we are not going to keep Russia in the fold of western powers - Putin voted with his tanks.  So now we are trying to hold a line, but there are other lines behind that first one.  

Edited May 29 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

54 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

That's waaay off topic, but I can't resist it so I will shoot-and-scoot one reply, and then go into (feigned Mongol-style) withdrawal.

European medieval states were not capable of Empire- toppling campaigns as the Mongols did or wars dragging on for years with WWI casualty levels in Chinese style. However, at other aspects of warfare they were the world leaders. Both their strengths and weaknesses often derived from the peculiarities of the political system prevailing in Europe at the time, feudalism.

1. Fortifications. While individual fortresses in the Eastern Roman Empire or the Islamic caliphates could be formidable and impress the Westerners, there was no other region in the World which would rival the Medieval Europe in the overall level of fortification, quality and quantity of the defensive architecture taken together. Individual feudal lords were expected to build castles, had the means to build castles and built them.

2. Individual Armour. From XI century to XV century it makes rapid progress, usually keeping abreast of the other  parts of the world. In 2 half of XIV century the full plate harness is introduced and no other armour in the world matches it until the discovery of Kevlars and similar materials in the XX century. Again, a feature of feudalism allowing an individual soldier the means to spend the equivalent of several dozen villages with villagers on his personal protection,

3. Gunpowder. Invented in China, adopted in the islamic world and the Great Steppe, it found its home in Europe. The progress in firearms in Europe was the fastest in the World. Connected with 1. and 2  - in the land of fortresses, both stationary and ambulatory ones, the ability to harness the chemical energy to defeat them was much appreciated. 

 

Oooo, I think we could be great friends.  I will give you 1 - although there was that Great Wall thingy.  2. Was a matter of choice and there may be thesis there on how mass and armor were interlinked.  3. Is a really good point but I think its operationalization was outside the timeframe of the Middle Ages, in fact it likely was a driver for early Modern European dominance along with maritime power.

[Kraft]

Quote

Western businesses backtrack on their Russia exit plans.

Shortly after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, scores of such groups pledged to scale back their presence in Russia as the west sought to starve the country’s economy and the Kremlin’s war coffers of foreign cash.

Overall, more than 2,100 multinationals have stayed in Russia since 2022, the Kyiv School of Economics has found, compared with about 1,600 international companies that have either quit the market or scaled back operations.

387 exited, 1223 'curtailed', 2173 remain

https://www.ft.com/content/88b047e9-8cad-426a-b649-265ff6582db0

Here is a neat website to check what product is from a company staying, can use barcode:

https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies

Edited May 29 by Kraft

[Carolus]

7 hours ago, holoween said:

To play devils advocate there is at least one good reason to limit the use.

If a failed missile that gets into russian hands could lead to a significant reduction of those missiles by tailoring countermeasures it can make sense to not risk it.

That can happen over occupied territory, though, right?

And what was protested against was specifically sniping Russian aircraft across the national border, not if an Su-35 or Su-24 is downed over Donetzk oblast.

If you want to exclude potential failed missiles being recovered by the Russians, that would limit AD use to not even cover the southern and eastern frontline, since you want to make sure it falls into Ukrainian controlled territory.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Oooo, I think we could be great friends.  I will give you 1 - although there was that Great Wall thingy.  2. Was a matter of choice and there may be thesis there on how mass and armor were interlinked.  3. Is a really good point but I think its operationalization was outside the timeframe of the Middle Ages, in fact it likely was a driver for early Modern European dominance along with maritime power.

It's 8:54 am and I have a lot of meetings today so I'm just going to say you chaps should look up the technology of Chinese earthen fortifications and their advantages in the gunpowder era over vertical stone walls. 

That is all.

Oh and one more thing...the oldest extant firearm is Mongolian. And has a serial number. 

Edited May 29 by billbindc

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, billbindc said:

It's 8:54 am and I have a lot of meetings today so I'm just going to say you chaps should look up the technology of Chinese earthen fortifications and their advantages in the gunpowder era over vertical stone walls. 

That is all.

Oh and one more thing...the oldest extant firearm is Mongolian. And has a serial number. 

There is always one in the crowd.

Two words - "Star Fort"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_fort

It was the armor thing that caught my attention.  Looking at the numbers, military mass at industrial was really invented in Asia. So they may have kept armor simpler for two reasons - mobility and production.  This is really interesting and directly linked back to this war - the nature of military mass. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

It was the armor thing that caught my attention.  Looking at the numbers, military mass at industrial was really invented in Asia. So they may have kept armor simpler for two reasons - mobility and production.  This is really interesting and directly linked back to this war - the nature of military mass. 

It certainly was less of an issue in medieval Europe. A feudal knight buys armour for himself and his sons. There is no question of quality vs quantity and finding the right equilibrium to field the optimal army. He buys the best quality he can afford for himself & family. The only optimalisation is in comfort vs protection vs esthetics.

But I would quibble at "looking at the numbers, military mass at industrial was really invented in Asia." It certainly was there in post-Marian and Imperial Roman Army. Fabricae churning out armour and soldiers learning to wear it under the eyes of campidoctores in military camps all around the Mediterranean - that is the image of mass par excellence. Unless the Asians were there before 1 BC, which I don't know.

[Carolus]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Come talk to me after you have been in a couple wars with weak partners who end up failing in the end after we spend blood and treasure trying to hold them up - then maybe you can call “boomer trantrum.”

Eh, I don't think I follow your positon of shrugging off a very blatant breach of the non-aggression principle and a potential genocide only due to the weight of someone's personal experiences, career or achievements, no matter how impressive and worthy of respect they must be.

It makes me understand why you might feel certain emotions or frustrations, but it doesn't bring me closer to your position.

So I will hold on to my position that good reasons exist to support Ukraine with lots of resources, and that it is possible to be worried that some Western politicians would seek an appeasement solution/ minimum involvement solution even during a NATO art 5 case.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

It certainly was less of an issue in medieval Europe. A feudal knight buys armour for himself and his sons. There is no question of quality vs quantity and finding the right equilibrium to field the optimal army. He buys the best quality he can afford for himself & family. The only optimalisation is in comfort vs protection vs esthetics.

But I would quibble at "looking at the numbers, military mass at industrial was really invented in Asia." It certainly was there in post-Marian and Imperial Roman Army. Fabricae churning out armour and soldiers learning to wear it under the eyes of campidoctores in military camps all around the Mediterranean - that is the image of mass par excellence. Unless the Asians were there before 1 BC, which I don't know.

Largest war in human history (by population of the day).  Saw military mass numbers (even when taken with grains of salt) that dwarf anything Europe does until fall of Constantinople.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fancheng

Interestingly the Chinese did have high quality armor but it was reserved for elite troops:

"Dark armour[edit]

A report in 231 AD mentions the capture of 5,000 suits of "dark armour" (xuan kai or xuan jia 玄鎧/玄甲) and 3,100 crossbows. Dark armour appears in Han texts as well, but only as the attire worn by honor guards at funeral processions. The only known trait about dark armour is that it reflected the sun's rays. This probably means dark armour was made of high quality steel, which was often associated with black ferrous material.^[20]"

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Eh, I don't think I follow your positon of shrugging off a very blatant breach of the non-aggression principle and a potential genocide only due to the weight of someone's personal experiences, career or achievements, no matter how impressive and worthy of respect they must be.

It makes me understand why you might feel certain emotions or frustrations, but it doesn't bring me closer to your position.

So I will hold on to my position that good reasons exist to support Ukraine with lots of resources, and that it is possible to be worried that some Western politicians would seek an appeasement solution/ minimum involvement solution even during a NATO art 5 case.

Unsurprising.  For the record I am a Gen X, caught between two overly entitled and self-righteous generations - one we are putting into homes, the other through university.

We have tolerated breaches of "non-aggression and potential genocide" before (see Rawanda, Yugoslavia, Syria and Sudan), so before one climbs on the soapbox, check your history books. 

You are free to hold onto your position all you like, but do not come in here and "missionary" someone who has been playing these games a lot longer and a lot closer to the heat that you ever will.  I am as free as you are to cast cautious eyes on Ukraine for every reason we did not pull them into NATO before 2022.  On this thread alone I have seen: antisemitism, xenophobic anti-immigration, continual western shaming, possible violations of LOAC, reckless targeting and reports of corruption. 

Ukraine is a nation worth fighting for and supporting, but high minded principles will only carry so far.  Our interest align..to a point. And always keep an eye on partners and never pretend that they are just like us in every way.

[fireship4]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am a Gen X, caught between two overly entitled and self-righteous generations - one we are putting into homes, the other through university.

The youngest Millenials finished their first two years of university about 8 years ago... the oldest, 23 years ago.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

The youngest Millenials finished their first two years of university about 8 years ago... the oldest, 23 years ago.

I so don't care...just get them out of my f#cking basement.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

The youngest Millenials finished their first two years of university about 8 years ago... the oldest, 23 years ago.

Yes, but it is still fun to disparage that generation even as they grow to be more like us wiser people.  They certainly left an indelible impression

Steve

[fireship4]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I so don't care...just get them out of my f#cking basement.

You need it to store your thesis?  Must be roomy.

 

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, but it is still fun to disparage that generation even as they grow to be more like us wiser people.

They are 26-43.  I don't see much wiseness around above or below.

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

You need it to store your thesis?  Must be roomy.

??  Which one?  The first was over 100 pages long before annexes.

I want it put in a wine cellar so that I may drink quality in peace before I fade into the dark.

11 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

They are 26-43.  I don't see much wiseness around above or below.

Come back in a decade or two.  The problem with generations older than us is that they are trying very hard to forget/erase their mistakes. And the one behind us have not made any that they can see yet.  We do not have either luxury.

Edited May 29 by The_Capt

[fireship4]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Which one?

This thread!  I don't know how much can be said about this and that generation, the economics and culture was different, yes; who's had it easier?  Boomers, I've heard.  The cycle of dutiful sons and daughters to angry parents to resentful kids goes on.  The last few haven't had it easy in any case, though that might be a parochial view.  Those moving into the middle class in various countries might be doing alright. 

On a slight tangent, looking at the US age distribution, it's pretty flat compared to the others.