How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

It is forming up, it seems.

 

 

[Huba]

I have a feeling that the upcoming Ramstein meeting will be the most significant one since HIMARS was first announced:

 

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Till the end of the year many Muscovites will probably wear tracksuits and (faked) adidas sport shoes like they did in Chechnya. Some analysts here predicts that it is more probable they will run out of personal stuff much sooner than from AFV's if they indeed will mobilize these 500k. We will see half-military gopniks riding on BMPs like in 90's...

Sadly, much of what Russia is getting is coming through Georgia.  Whatever Russia spent to get the government to do its bidding was a sound investment.

Georgia could shut their border to Russia and suffer the economic consequences *or* it could shut its border and demand concessions for the stolen territories.  Either way, Georgia of all nations should not be doing business as usual with Russia.

Article in NY Times about the trade with Georgia:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/13/world/europe/georgia-russia-cargo-border.html?campaign_id=249&emc=edit_ruwb_20230113&instance_id=82704&nl=russia-ukraine-war-briefing&regi_id=77867169&segment_id=122502&te=1&user_id=06eb42ecc9056dd32ea63af0c30707b6

Steve

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sadly, much of what Russia is getting is coming through Georgia.  Whatever Russia spent to get the government to do its bidding was a sound investment.

Georgia could shut their border to Russia and suffer the economic consequences *or* it could shut its border and demand concessions for the stolen territories.  Either way, Georgia of all nations should not be doing business as usual with Russia.

Article in NY Times about the trade with Georgia:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/13/world/europe/georgia-russia-cargo-border.html?campaign_id=249&emc=edit_ruwb_20230113&instance_id=82704&nl=russia-ukraine-war-briefing&regi_id=77867169&segment_id=122502&te=1&user_id=06eb42ecc9056dd32ea63af0c30707b6

Steve

Yes, despite the fact that Russia invaded the territory of Georgia, shelled its cities and contributed to the separation of part of its lands, in 2008. Today, a pro-Russian government is in power in Georgia. It's just incredible.

But Ukraine supplied them with BUK air defense systems in 2008

[danfrodo]

17 minutes ago, Huba said:

I have a feeling that the upcoming Ramstein meeting will be the most significant one since HIMARS was first announced:

 

My current understanding is that the 10 challengers are a political stunt to say "western MBTs have already been sent to UKR" so other countries have political cover to send MBTs w/o facing accusations of 'escalation'.  Do y'all think that's correct?  If this achieves that goal, I am all for it.  

I'm looking forward to some UKR battalion-sized kampgruppes w leo2s + western AFVS making some real noise later this spring, perhaps late May?

[chuckdyke]

Ukraine needs about 300 MBTs Britain and Poland will deliver 10+20. 300 MBTs means all of the German Bundeswehr Leopard II.Also social media's contribution of calling the Russian army incompetent is not very helpful. Even an incompetent army can win if they have the mostest.

 

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

My current understanding is that the 10 challengers are a political stunt to say "western MBTs have already been sent to UKR" so other countries have political cover to send MBTs w/o facing accusations of 'escalation'.  Do y'all think that's correct?  If this achieves that goal, I am all for it.  

I'm looking forward to some UKR battalion-sized kampgruppes w leo2s + western AFVS making some real noise later this spring, perhaps late May?

AFAIK Ukrainians used to organize their AFVs in battalions 30 vehicle strong, but are now transiting to 44(?) vehicles per battalion. Given that UK plans to leave around 70 Chally2 in reserve after the rest is upgraded, it should be able to just about field and suport one UA battalion if they commit to it. Perhaps also spare enough Warriors and other equipment to form a complete mech brigade. It would be a big effort, but achievable IMO and on the level that is actually required.

[danfrodo]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

AFAIK Ukrainians used to organize their AFVs in battalions 30 vehicle strong, but are now transiting to 44(?) vehicles per battalion. Given that UK plans to leave around 70 Chally2 in reserve after the rest is upgraded, it should be able to just about field and suport one UA battalion if they commit to it. Perhaps also spare enough Warriors and other equipment to form a complete mech brigade. It would be a big effort, but achievable IMO and on the level that is actually required.

Thank Huba.  This gets into the issue of how much logistics tail would occur per battalion and hereby how much benefit from standardizing on fewer western MBTs & AFVs.  So is one battalion worth it? -- I certainly don't know.  But given the ridiculous dancing around on the Leo2s it's hard to say whether these challengers might be all that's available for a while.

[FlemFire]

1 hour ago, womble said:

There have been a number of options discussed on this forum over the last 1900 pages. The last synopsis wasn't very long ago, but I guess it's probably quite a few pages, if you're new

Basically, it boils down to killing enough Russians that the live ones get fed up and go home. Whether that's because the civilian population start to feel the pinch enough to do something about it, or the situation at the front becomes so untenable that the troops mutiny.

So far, UKR has ejected RUS from more than half of the land that was grabbed in the first "surprise attack". NATO-provided munitions seem to have (helped out no end by Russian command incompetence) evened out the artillery battles, and nothing the Russians have tried has worked out as well as they might have hoped (to put it very mildly).

Russia's ability to recover from the disasters and debacles that have befallen its armed forces is significantly constrained, and those constraints are only going to get tighter as sanctions bite. They couldn't have replaced the materiel losses that they've sustained, even if their economy was untouched; it took 40 years to accumulate what's been spaffed into the mud of Ukraine in the last almost-300 days, and all the prewar talk of "unique weapons" has turned out to be Armata-shaped smoke and mirrors. Russia will struggle to give all the next wave of mobiks assault rifles; they can't even give the current wave proper boots.

If what UKR already have from NATO doesn't turn out to be enough, there are further capabilities that  NATO can provide, given time and Will. Longer-ranged precision artillery; heavy armour; SotA airpower. Futher atrocities and intransigence can be met also with stronger sanctions and better enforcement of the existing measures. Russia's allies are deserting her and the messaging from the Kremlin is getting so divorced from reality that it really only has any traction at all with the mind-f***ed Russian populace (out of any demographic that actually matters). Even the pariah states that are helping are doing so only to stick an impudent digit up at "The West". And their capacity to assist is strictly limited.

Or, at least, that's my limited understanding of the major points. I'm sure I've missed several somethings, but hopefully it's not too far from the general thrust of opinion for "ways and means".

 

The body bag method and the "Russia's vast stockpile of weapons vanished overnight" belief?

 

How about this. There's a gift on hand in that we know Russia's objectives. Putin has said for 15+ years he'll take eastern Ukraine if NATO jacks around with Ukraine. Alright. Russia currently occupies east Ukraine and has for 9+ months. He has integrated those territories so we can assume that Russia will defend them as if they are territories of Russia itself. I think it's safe to assume Putin will do this so his own people don't put a bullet in him for starting a pointless war that ended up with nothing gained. Yes? I think these are safe assumptions. We can also assume that the contingencies for defending them could include anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 Russians being deployed there, alongside the activation of the Russian airforce. I would like to know Ukraine's military path to fighting into these territories and liberating them. Please illuminate it for me beyond killing lots of Russians because Putin and his cronies can pull non-Muscovite conscripts into the army pretty much all day long and have shown the willingness to do this before.

 

I think Ukraine needs to basically hold out as long as they can until the West's diplomats do their ****ing job. The war obviously makes for a great morality play, but there are far bigger parts moving around (nevermind the danger of nuclear war). I think Russia needs to quickly be kneecapped economically and politically and THAT is the only way this goes in Ukraine's favor. Some people actually think this has already been done and that's kind of my problem here. People see this war through the West's lens and have forgotten there is an entire rest of the planet to think about. I for one don't see Russia's allies leaving them. Hell, I still see Euros buying Russian goods and resources, which means European dollars fill Russian tanks and make Russian bombs. Not exactly helpful and those are supposed to be Russia's enemies. If you look around the world OPEC isn't playing ball. India isn't playing ball. China isn't playing ball. Iran is certainly more than happy to watch the show and aid in elongating it and OPEC in general is reaping the profits of a globally shifted oil market while they brace for recession. India is gladly buying Russian resources and Indian companies gladly picked up the insurance for Russian tankers. China has zero reason to aid the West and in fact has every incentive to make sure this war gets as wiry and nasty as possible. A lot of this never hits the West's news sources, but China and Russia are very much economically tied. It should concern you when the two most populated countries on the planet are content doing business with a nation you are trying to pigeonhole into isolation. It should concern you that Putin is free to conscript rural nobodies from the east and replace the depressed labor pool with imported Chinese temp workers. It should concern you that within China there is zero anti-Russian talk in their media. Do people here understand that this war is putting the West in a bad light for many regions in the world? What they see are prices skyrocketing and all they think is oh great it's Europe ****ing around again and now it's our problem... again. They don't care about Ukraine at all because it has nothing to do with them. Do you understand what I'm trying to illuminate here? People keep talking battles and tanks, all the while I'm looking at the West firing off all their economic and diplomatic bullets and leaving nothing in the chamber but humiliation or the military option, and the military option ends in incineration. I don't know, so few seem genuinely concerned about where this is going while people post tactical vids of guys getting blown up to Tiktok music.

 

[dan/california]

20 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

The body bag method and the "Russia's vast stockpile of weapons vanished overnight" belief?

 

How about this. There's a gift on hand in that we know Russia's objectives. Putin has said for 15+ years he'll take eastern Ukraine if NATO jacks around with Ukraine. Alright. Russia currently occupies east Ukraine and has for 9+ months. He has integrated those territories so we can assume that Russia will defend them as if they are territories of Russia itself. I think it's safe to assume Putin will do this so his own people don't put a bullet in him for starting a pointless war that ended up with nothing gained. Yes? I think these are safe assumptions. We can also assume that the contingencies for defending them could include anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 Russians being deployed there, alongside the activation of the Russian airforce. I would like to know Ukraine's military path to fighting into these territories and liberating them. Please illuminate it for me beyond killing lots of Russians because Putin and his cronies can pull non-Muscovite conscripts into the army pretty much all day long and have shown the willingness to do this before.

 

I think Ukraine needs to basically hold out as long as they can until the West's diplomats do their ****ing job. The war obviously makes for a great morality play, but there are far bigger parts moving around (nevermind the danger of nuclear war). I think Russia needs to quickly be kneecapped economically and politically and THAT is the only way this goes in Ukraine's favor. Some people actually think this has already been done and that's kind of my problem here. People see this war through the West's lens and have forgotten there is an entire rest of the planet to think about. I for one don't see Russia's allies leaving them. Hell, I still see Euros buying Russian goods and resources, which means European dollars fill Russian tanks and make Russian bombs. Not exactly helpful and those are supposed to be Russia's enemies. If you look around the world OPEC isn't playing ball. India isn't playing ball. China isn't playing ball. Iran is certainly more than happy to watch the show and aid in elongating it and OPEC in general is reaping the profits of a globally shifted oil market while they brace for recession. India is gladly buying Russian resources and Indian companies gladly picked up the insurance for Russian tankers. China has zero reason to aid the West and in fact has every incentive to make sure this war gets as wiry and nasty as possible. A lot of this never hits the West's news sources, but China and Russia are very much economically tied. It should concern you when the two most populated countries on the planet are content doing business with a nation you are trying to pigeonhole into isolation. It should concern you that Putin is free to conscript rural nobodies from the east and replace the depressed labor pool with imported Chinese temp workers. It should concern you that within China there is zero anti-Russian talk in their media. Do people here understand that this war is putting the West in a bad light for many regions in the world? What they see are prices skyrocketing and all they think is oh great it's Europe ****ing around again and now it's our problem... again. They don't care about Ukraine at all because it has nothing to do with them. Do you understand what I'm trying to illuminate here? People keep talking battles and tanks, all the while I'm looking at the West firing off all their economic and diplomatic bullets and leaving nothing in the chamber but humiliation or the military option, and the military option ends in incineration. I don't know, so few seem genuinely concerned about where this is going while people post tactical vids of guys getting blown up to Tiktok music.

 

Russia is averaging FIVE HUNDRED KIA PER DAY. It might take six months, or might take two years but that is NOT sustainable.

[Battlefront.com]

57 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Ukraine needs about 300 MBTs Britain and Poland will deliver 10+20. 300 MBTs means all of the German Bundeswehr Leopard II.Also social media's contribution of calling the Russian army incompetent is not very helpful. Even an incompetent army can win if they have the mostest.

Of the many things we've learned in this war, the West needs to either pull back from reliance on massive, expensive, time consuming vehicles (especially tanks).  Two things that should be done to address this:

1.  refocus future contracts on production speed more than in the past.  We should not be designing anything that will take years to produce a significant quantity.  Modularization, interoperability with other platforms, more efficient production techniques, redundant factories that can be mothballed, etc.

2.  stockpiles need to not only be good enough to replace 100% (minimum) of the fielded force, but also have a large amount on hand as surplus to provide to an ally on short notice.  Having stockpiles that are also used as surplus is a no-no.  That's like saying you have a retirement account that you use occasionally borrow from to go on vacation or buy a car.

If we can figure out a solid UGV strategy, all of these problems would almost automatically be addressed due to their smaller, less expensive nature.  Knock on cost savings for sustainment, transportation, maintenance, training, storage, etc. would ensure a force could be vastly better prepared for a protracted high intensity war AND cost less.

Steve

[FlemFire]

10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Russia is averaging FIVE HUNDRED KIA PER DAY. It might take six months, or might take two years but that is NOT sustainable.

 

For every KIA you can reliably tack on at least an additional 5-6 casualties. Do the math. Six months? Numbers like that that would be unsustainable in a month which is how you should intuitively know they are not correct.

[Huba]

1 hour ago, Khalerick said:

How about this. There's a gift on hand in that we know Russia's objectives. Putin has said for 15+ years he'll take eastern Ukraine if NATO jacks around with Ukraine. Alright. Russia currently occupies east Ukraine and has for 9+ months. He has integrated those territories so we can assume that Russia will defend them as if they are territories of Russia itself. I think it's safe to assume Putin will do this so his own people don't put a bullet in him for starting a pointless war that ended up with nothing gained. Yes? I think these are safe assumptions. We can also assume that the contingencies for defending them could include anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 Russians being deployed there, alongside the activation of the Russian airforce. I would like to know Ukraine's military path to fighting into these territories and liberating them. Please illuminate it for me beyond killing lots of Russians because Putin and his cronies can pull non-Muscovite conscripts into the army pretty much all day long and have shown the willingness to do this before.

Russians were beaten a few times already. This includes a fast pace Izyum-Lyman operation, in which Russian Airforce managed only to sustain heavy casualties without any other impact. And withdrawal from Kherson, which was both annexed and therefore considered "Russian territory", and also abandoned without much discussion when the position proved untenable. In both cases there was no fight to the death without regard to losses. 
Ukrainians proved that they are absolutely capable of beating Russians head on and re-taking their land. In other words, I absolutely disagree with this entire paragraph, and events up to this point support my point of view. The only factor that changed since then was the increased availability of Russian manpower - but Ukrainians have literally 1 million men under arms too, the issue for both side being the speed of training and availability of equipment. Given that Ukraine has the entire freaking NATO behind them, with all it's reserves, crushing technical advantage and industrial might, why would you assume that Russia is at an advantage here?

Edited January 14, 2023 by Huba

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

For every KIA you can reliably tack on at least an additional 5-6 casualties. Do the math. Six months? Numbers like that that would be unsustainable in a month which is how you should intuitively know they are not correct.

No, A your wounded ratio is at least double the real number. Some if that is the lethality of modern weapons, and a lot more of it is the absolute shambles of the Russian militaries casualty evacuation and medical system. And given the inevitability of imperfection on an estimate like this one it is generally correct. That why Putin is about to round up several hundred thousand more mobiks to feed to the grinder. They will die too. The third wave might get a clue, or perhaps they don't, and in two or three years the Chinese take over the Russian far east without firing a shot.

 

[FlemFire]

8 minutes ago, Huba said:

Russians were beaten a few times already. This includes a fast pace Izyum-Lyman operation, in which Russian Airforce managed only to sustain heavy casualties without any other impact. And withdrawal from Kherson, which was both annexed and therefore considered "Russian territory", and also abandoned without much discussion when the position proved untenable. In both cases there was no fight to the death without regard to losses. 
Ukrainians proved that they are absolutely capable of beating Russians head on and re-taking their land. In other words, I absolutely disagree with this entire paragraph, and events up to this point support my point of view. The only factor that changed since then was the increased availability of Russian manpower - but Ukrainians have literally 1 million men under arms too, the issue for both side being the speed of training and availability of equipment. Given that Ukraine has the entire freaking NATO with all it's reserves, crushing technical advantage and industrial might, why do you assume that Russia would have any advantage going forward?

 

 

I'm quite aware Russians abandoned Kherson. As you said, the position became untenable. I don't think you need to be too much of a tactical genius to see the precariousness of holding that position at that time. I'm of the opinion that Russia intended for Kiev's government to collapse when the 40,000 northern Russians carved their way to the capital at the drop of a hat. When Kiev didn't collapse, the invasion faltered. This is, in fact, the usual Russian incompetence in play. I have to imagine the sacked generals sold Putin a pipedream about Kiev's weaknesses being similar to Georgia in '08. That's just my assumption, though. I know some people think this was a "feint" maneuver, but frankly I don't think the Russian generalship is that clever, nor do I think it's plausible after the commander gets demoted afterward. I saw tanks gunning it down roads without recon or infantry cover, getting shot in the rear by RPGs while I sipped tea going, "Seems about right." None of this surprised me in the slightest.

But it's not the first months of the war anymore. Things change. Since then, the Russians have dug in and mobilized hundreds of thousands of more men. This mobilization goes in hand with the already standing army, mind, of which significant amounts of it have not even been sent to Ukraine. If NATO were fighting this war, it wouldn't be much of a problem, but ultimately it falls upon Ukraine's hands. Do you honestly think there is potential for Russia to give up on these territories as they gave up on the northside of the Dnipro? If you do, I can see why you'd be positive. I just don't see it that way at all. Kreminna is a good example of this steadfastness, as is this meatgrinder in and around Bakhut. We also know, as I said, that Putin has a gun to the back of his head on this. Losing Kherson is a little different than trivializing the entire purpose of the war. It's apples and oranges, unfortunately.

 

 

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

No, A your wounded ratio is at least double the real number. Some if that is the lethality of modern weapons, and a lot more of it is the absolute shambles of the Russian militaries casualty evacuation and medical system. And given the inevitability of imperfection on an estimate like this one it is generally correct. That why Putin is about to round up several hundred thousand more mobiks to feed to the grinder. They will die too. The third wave might get a clue, or perhaps they don't, and in two or three years the Chinese take over the Russian far east without firing a shot.

 

 

We don't have any idea of the casualties on either side and presumably will not for years. But I'm impressed by your certainty that Russia is eating something like 15,000 KIA a month, accounting for almost 165,000+ dead already which would constitute virtually the entire starting invasion force. 

[Huba]

18 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

This mobilization goes in hand with the already standing army, mind, of which significant amounts of it have not even been sent to Ukraine.

Before the mobilization they were sending in torpedo operators as infantry. And again, Ukrainians mobilized 800K up to 1M men. The abstract number of bodies is meaningless, it's about training and materiel.

18 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

We also know, as I said, that Putin has a gun to the back of his head on this. Losing Kherson is a little different than trivializing the entire purpose of the war.

This war has no purpose - it is a failed coup attempt that has been in damage control mode for last 10 months. Zelensky has the gun on the back of his head too, as has any leader whose country is fighting a peer-on-peer conflict, that is not an argument. 
We've been through discussing all of that multiple times here, and have come to a consensus more or less. And it was on the money since literally fourth day of the invasion. If you want to challenge it, that's great, but you'd have to make an argument for it, other than just disagreeing
 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Huba

[FlemFire]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

Before the mobilization they were sending in torpedo operators as infantry. And again, Ukrainians mobilized 800K up to 1M men. The abstract number of bodies is meaningless, it's about training and materiel.

This war has no purpose - it is a failed coup attempt that has been in damage control mode for last 10 months. Zelensky has the gun on the back of his head too, as has any leader whose country is fighting a peer-on-peer conflict, that is not an argument. 
 

The abstract # of bodies is not meaningless when we start looking at war exhaustion. As for the war's purpose, it has one. Russia wants those territories. You can go back 15+ years and see Putin saying that. He's been saying it right to the West's face, right at the NATO-Russian councils. Just saying it out loud. Over and over and over again. You tempt Ukraine with NATO, I take those territories. He really could not have been more clear about it.

And I actually disagree that it is an axiom that both sides have guns to their heads. The point of sound diplomacy is to always leave compromise on the table. Again, this is why the West is failing, because they have not done that. I understand the need to defend your sovereign territory. 100% understandable. And it's understandable to make morale a significant cog of your war effort and back that up with tough talk. But you should never take compromise off the table, especially when a situation is unfolding and could go any number of ways. Now, currently, we are in a situation where Zelensky and Putin both have guns to their heads. No doubt about it. Except Russia's ability to escalate, and the lengths at which they could escalate, are so insanely precarious that I'm a little taken aback by everyone just assuming Putin is going to quietly shuffle away to his coffin, or even the assumption that the next guy up would be any better for that matter.

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

We don't have any idea of the casualties on either side and presumably will not for years. But I'm impressed by your certainty that Russia is eating something like 15,000 KIA a month, accounting for almost 165,000+ dead already which would constitute virtually the entire starting invasion force. 

It was lower before Russia started committing Mobiks with three days training, perhaps even a bit lower still at the peak of Russias artillery edge in the late spring and early summer. But yes essentially the entirety of the initial invasion force is dead wounded, or shell shocked into uselessness. Fifty years of accumulated munitions and equipment have just been wasted by sheer incompetence from the very top to the very bottom. Just to continue the theme of Russian incompetence, and extraordinary percentage of whatever was left of that semi professional army has been committed to a grinding attempt at offensive trench warfare around Soledar. They have managed to seize, by the most optimistic estimates two or three kilometers of cratered wasteland. Some of it used to be a town, but you have to look at the photos for a long time to even tell, because there is nothing left. Soledar is of course merely an outer bastion of Bakmuht, and taking Bakmuht at the price Russia is paying in both lives and shells per square meter would probably speed up Ukraine's victory by six months or more. In a few more months, maybe three, maybe six, Ukraines best units are going to be equipped entirely with first line NATO equipment. Since the ever lower quality Russian army is getting it head handed to it now...

[dan/california]

50 minutes ago, Huba said:

This war has no purpose - it is a failed coup attempt that has been in damage control mode for last 10 months.

And a competent autocrat would have taken some fig leaf of a diplomatic victory at about the end of the second week, and bided his time until he had a better idea. Putin is provably NOT competent. Sucks for the peasants, and is going to keep sucking for a couple of generations if he quits tomorrow. If it takes another year for cancer or lead poisoning to kill him it will be THREE generations.

Edited January 14, 2023 by dan/california

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Total number of brigades can give only estimate number of armor by "shtat". But reallity is much worse. For example, less of half of new-formed 6x brigades got status "mechanized" (but only half of this half had tank battlions in own composition) and other were just "infantry" because of lack of armor. Only since December all 6x brigades got status "mechanized" (but I think this is mostly up front). Soviet legacy, actively used since 2014-2016 in endless marches, maneuvers, warfare, especially since 24th Feb will not gain more "health" because of this. As far as in ATO our soldiers had a joke "Our platoon has three BMP - the first can drive only, the second can shoot only, the third exists on the paper only"

Do we have any idea how many AFVs/IFVs/APCs are non-serviceable due to wear out?  I mean the numbers are not adding up here -

So if Oryx’s math is right the UA should have had about 2-3000 AFVs at the beginning of the war.  They have lost about 250 so heading towards 10%.  We know there have been donations and sales, but the total of the effective fleet has not been disclosed.

This graphic says that the UA is trending towards even overall on AFVs, however, this won’t help new units that are going short.  Neither will western equipment in the short term either.  

And we have all sorts of anecdotes from online chatter.  What is the reality?  If the existing UA fleet is failing from wear and tear than we should prioritize parts and maintenance to keep the fleet fighting.  The UA has lost over 500 logistical vehicles, twice the number of AFVs are they a higher priority?  The West can only send so much down a pipe that is also limited, and Ukraine can only absorb so much.

So equipping the rest of those 6 Bdes, do we focus on more Soviet-model equipment?  Logistics and sustainment of the current fleet to keep it on the road?  Or a bunch of western equipment that is going to take months to integrate?  Or do we focus on munitions?

I know the reflex answer is “everything!” But that is not how this works.  I am not saying “the UA is fine, no need to send anything” we know that is simply not true.  My point is that we need to focus on those things the UA needs to win, that it can use and sustain right away. To my eyes AFVs are lower on the list than ranged fires and ammunition. Not everything can be priority #1.  I have no doubt we will work in a western fleet into all this eventually.

[Kraft]

22 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

The point of sound diplomacy is to always leave compromise on the table. 

Diplomacy is for civilised countries following international laws and conventions, not terrorist states. Putin himself has also said that he does not feel obliged to anything discussed with the west and will do what he wants. Thats not someone you have a discussion with.

This "gun" to his head is his own, forged in 20 years of dictatorship and revisionism. Nobody in the west cared about Russia, the cold war was belived to be over. Well, it turns out Putins grande opus is not about improving his country but turning its sons into fertiliser so can look at his imperialist ambitions on a map and go thats mine now!

What do you think will happen if he says, we won! The jewish nazi is no more, lets go home. Do you think the cattle that was actionless while  being herded into the slaughter would rise up? Because he didnt kill every last one Ukrainian? They will care more about having McDonalds return to their ****ty village. He can return to being King of the **** hill.

Who doesnt have an out is Ukraine and its not because the evil west is puppeteering it, its because Russians tend to leave mass graves and unburied bodies litering the streets.

The West has collectively I think 60 times the economic power of Russia, Ukraine will fight to the last and what do the Russians have? Another unwinable Afghanistan at best, one that even by conservative estimates they already trippled in death count. Do you think Russia could ever rule this land? 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Kraft

[danfrodo]

20 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Who doesnt have an out is Ukraine and its not because the evil west is puppeteering it, its because Russians tend to leave mass graves and unburied bodies litering the streets.

This is the money sentence.  UKR is in a fight for survival on its own land.  Putin is in a war or choice.  Putin can just go home and the war is over.  UKR would have to give up much of their home to end the war. 

Just like Germany in WW1 -- the kaiser could simply order everyone to head home.  The French could not do this, the war was in France, in their home.  But the kaiser felt he couldn't afford to lose face so instead chose the continued slaughter of thousands of people, hoping to pull a rabbit out of the hat while his nation was bled white and starved. 

And just like w the kaiser, if Putin would just go home Russia would be stronger going forward.

[FancyCat]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

My point is that we need to focus on those things the UA needs to win, that it can use and sustain right away. To my eyes AFVs are lower on the list than ranged fires and ammunition. Not everything can be priority #1.  I have no doubt we will work in a western fleet into all this eventually.

I'm unsure we can afford to think on short term sustainment only. I think the chances of Russia being knocked out in the short term are dimming, both from a sustainment politically and militarily.

[dan/california]

 

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Do we have any idea how many AFVs/IFVs/APCs are non-serviceable due to wear out?  I mean the numbers are not adding up here -

So if Oryx’s math is right the UA should have had about 2-3000 AFVs at the beginning of the war.  They have lost about 250 so heading towards 10%.  We know there have been donations and sales, but the total of the effective fleet has not been disclosed.

This graphic says that the UA is trending towards even overall on AFVs, however, this won’t help new units that are going short.  Neither will western equipment in the short term either.  

And we have all sorts of anecdotes from online chatter.  What is the reality?  If the existing UA fleet is failing from wear and tear than we should prioritize parts and maintenance to keep the fleet fighting.  The UA has lost over 500 logistical vehicles, twice the number of AFVs are they a higher priority?  The West can only send so much down a pipe that is also limited, and Ukraine can only absorb so much.

So equipping the rest of those 6 Bdes, do we focus on more Soviet-model equipment?  Logistics and sustainment of the current fleet to keep it on the road?  Or a bunch of western equipment that is going to take months to integrate?  Or do we focus on munitions?

I know the reflex answer is “everything!” But that is not how this works.  I am not saying “the UA is fine, no need to send anything” we know that is simply not true.  My point is that we need to focus on those things the UA needs to win, that it can use and sustain right away. To my eyes AFVs are lower on the list than ranged fires and ammunition. Not everything can be priority #1.  I have no doubt we will work in a western fleet into all this eventually.

I was speculating on this a few pages ago, I am guessing a LOT of the captured stuff and not a little of Ukraines pre war stock, are more or less completely worn on out on the same two or three weakest links. I don't know what the weakest links are, but any large fleet of similar vehicles by the same lineage of designers is likely to have one or two. Hopefully the Czechs and the Poles are spooling up to make whatever it is. But if the original part was never made West of the Urals that could be a truly large scale pain. 

Does anybody have a good source of where and by what entity the various flavors of BMP, and BTR and so on were produced? Not just assembly, but the major subsystems. The definition of major here is that it wont move or shoot without it BTW.

An article about Soviet compatible 82mm mortar being produced in Eastern Europe somewhere implies someone is thinking about these things. That doesn't mean the solution is always easy. I am assuming that the production of both Western, and Soviet compatible artillery barrels needs to be increased by a factor of five, or maybe twenty. That is real specialist heavy industry. But the lead time won't get shorter because we futz around for months with the contracts first.

Edited January 14, 2023 by dan/california

[FlemFire]

22 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Diplomacy is for civilised countries following international laws and conventions, not terrorist states. Putin himself has also said that he does not feel obliged to anything discussed with the west and will do what he wants. Thats not someone you have a discussion with.

This "gun" to his head is his own, forged in 20 years of dictatorship and revisionism. Nobody in the west cared about Russia, the cold war was belived to be over. Well, it turns out Putins grande opus is not about improving his country but turning its sons into fertiliser so can look at his imperialist ambitions on a map and go thats mine now!

What do you think will happen if he says, we won! The jewish nazi is no more, lets go home. Do you think the cattle that was actionless while  being herded into the slaughter would rise up? Because he didnt kill every last one Ukrainian? They will care more about having McDonalds return to their ****ty village. He can return to being King of the **** hill.

Who doesnt have an out is Ukraine and its not because the evil west is puppeteering it, its because Russians tend to leave mass graves and unburied bodies litering the streets.

The West has collectively I think 60 times the economic power of Russia, Ukraine will fight to the last and what do the Russians have? Another unwinable Afghanistan at best, one that even by conservative estimates they already trippled in death count. Do you think Russia could ever rule this land? 

 

Let's get a one thing clear about Russia's end here insofar as the West is concerned.

 

It is very much within the West's interests to basically kill as many Russians as physically possible and make the war as costly as possible for two obvious purposes: one is to ensure that Russia doesn't have incentive to do it again, and the other is to show China what's up if it keeps eyeballing Taiwan. Believe it or not, this is actually diplomacy of another kind in action. However, this objective eventually has to meet with reality and that reality is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons (on both sides). At some point you talk. Push comes to shove, I doubt any person in this thread would actually allow their families to be incinerated by nuclear war on account of Ukraine and Russia. That's the West's starting point. Russia's starting point is they want those territories. You meet somewhere in between. Or you take the casino option and roll the dice on continuing the war. That's obviously Ukraine's option. I split those up because if Ukraine dives in the deep end, I don't think the West will follow. If they can get OPEC, India, and China to play ball? Yes. But right now... no.