War in Ukraine

#68,503
#68,503
hog88 said:
Unless Russia implodes and gives up the fight I don't see much changing over the next 12 months.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said I’m watching that more. Russia can’t sustain their current situation and fight the war. And how that manifests on the battlefield when they break we have no idea. Thus no I wouldn’t say that right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel and norrislakevol
#68,504
#68,504
Burhead said:
Click to expand...

some pretty big jumps in that growth. I wonder if something happened to trigger it? we went from 3 over 2% to 11 over 2%. And I know a bunch of them are still scheduled to increase. may get up to 50% at the 2%.

it may just be me, but I am not too worried if Luxemborg, Slovenia, or some other small ones never make it. and I am also fine with Germany remaining a sleeping bear.
 
#68,505
#68,505
MontyPython said:
"Dual purpose" cluster bombs... kills soldiers AND civilians. ;-)
Click to expand...
If you weren't worried about the current shelling of civilian areas by Ukraine, why would you worry about new cluster munitions? its not going to be a strategic bombing situation where they might hit a military camp. They will be aiming at a military camp, and now the "splash" damage will be even bigger. If its a front line situation thats fine, no civilians. If they are shelling a town or city then yeah its an issue, but it would be an issue regardless of some extra ball bearings or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel and AM64
#68,507
#68,507
hog88 said:
I was just asking, haven’t seen it being discussed much here or elsewhere. I figured if it was going well y’all would be here rubbing it in the noses of the doubters.
Click to expand...

I'd bet if anybody had an easy way to clear minefields, the offensive would be a lot more offensive. Apparently even the mine-clearing line charge concept doesn't work as well as advertised for anybody. Doesn't make much sense to go piddling and plodding through minefields while getting smacked with artillery. That's probably the one strategy the Russians have successfully employed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#68,508
#68,508
AM64 said:
I'd bet if anybody had an easy way to clear minefields, the offensive would be a lot more offensive. Apparently even the mine-clearing line charge concept doesn't work as well as advertised for anybody. Doesn't make much sense to go piddling and plodding through minefields while getting smacked with artillery. That's probably the one strategy the Russians have successfully employed.
Click to expand...

I'll give the Ukrainians one thing, they are tops in excuse making. Too muddy, too cold, too many mines... The answer is simple, we just need to send them more money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeBoro and tnmarktx
#68,509
#68,509
LouderVol said:
If you weren't worried about the current shelling of civilian areas by Ukraine, why would you worry about new cluster munitions? its not going to be a strategic bombing situation where they might hit a military camp. They will be aiming at a military camp, and now the "splash" damage will be even bigger. If its a front line situation thats fine, no civilians. If they are shelling a town or city then yeah its an issue, but it would be an issue regardless of some extra ball bearings or whatever.
Click to expand...

I'm good with clusters
Prob should have posted in blue font.
Vacationing in Hawaii so brain in neutral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#68,510
#68,510
hog88 said:
I'll give the Ukrainians one thing, they are tops in excuse making. Too muddy, too cold, too many mines... The answer is simple, we just need to send them more money.
Click to expand...

Actually I haven't heard Ukrainians of anyone else making excuses because of the minefield issue. It's simply when you saw pictures of the wrecked tanks and other vehicles, the problem was obvious. Now Russians might just plow through and use up people and hardware, but reasonable people would pull back and try and figure out a better answer. I'll give the Russians credit; they had the opportunity to plant mines and zero in artillery to make it a killing ground, and it works to stop an enemy without putting a lot of troops in place to support it. A minefield is almost as good as a geographical feature when trying to cross a river or land on a beach to attack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan, NorthDallas40 and Hunerwadel
#68,515
#68,515
LouderVol said:
What would 6* General Hog do to deal with the mud, cold, and mines?
Click to expand...

First of all, I would have been shelling the hell out the Russians planting the minefields. That wasn't done without the Ukrainians knowing about it in real time. Next it's cold for both sides, we fought in the cold during WWII with a hell of a lot worse cold weather capability than the Ukrainians. Extreme cold is actually an advantage for armor since the ground is frozen and it opens more terrain up for maneuver and that's why I scoffed at the idea of a spring offensive. Gee what happens in spring? The ground thaws and it rains creating mud and there is nothing you can really do in mud, it is the equalizer.

The Ukrainians should have mounted a winter offensive, the Russian supply lines would have been much more impacted by winter weather, better maneuverability and you don't give your adversary 7 months to prepare a defense in depth (mine fields). But hey, I'm sure a few more billion dollars will do the trick.
 
#68,516
#68,516
tnmarktx said:
Just to clarify, you’re good with the killing of civilians?
Click to expand...

You think mines don't kill civilians ... or intentionally aimed rockets and artillery at non-military targets? Lots of things kill civilians in wars - the point is intention and conscious neglect. Seems like one important failure in using cluster munitions is where they are targeted; according to this article there are failures in detonation which is pretty much true of all munitions, but some fail because the cluster munitions were used on an inappropriate target. Basically if you want to protect civilians, don't throw a war in the first place.

Issues in particular with the sensitivity and reliability of the fuzes in certain DPICM submunitions, as well as older ICM submunitions, especially when presented with certain environmental factors, are well established.

For example, "improved conventional munitions (lCM) should not be used in thick foliage and water-filled rice paddies," one U.S. Army jungle warfare manual from 1982 specifically notes. "The ICM submunitions may hang up in heavy foliage or fall undetonated to the ground, creating a hazardous area, or they may submerge in water, rendering them ineffective."

The U.S. military insists that newer DPICM types from more recent production lots are significantly more reliable. Certain submunition types were either built with fuzes designed to self-destruct or otherwise render themselves inert after a certain period of time, or were retrofitted with such fuzes. Those safety features have produced mixed results by the U.S. military's own admission.
Click to expand...


What DPICM Cluster Munitions Are And Why Ukraine Wants Them So Bad
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#68,518
#68,518
hog88 said:
First of all, I would have been shelling the hell out the Russians planting the minefields. That wasn't done without the Ukrainians knowing about it in real time. Next it's cold for both sides, we fought in the cold during WWII with a hell of a lot worse cold weather capability than the Ukrainians. Extreme cold is actually an advantage for armor since the ground is frozen and it opens more terrain up for maneuver and that's why I scoffed at the idea of a spring offensive. Gee what happens in spring? The ground thaws and it rains creating mud and there is nothing you can really do in mud, it is the equalizer.

The Ukrainians should have mounted a winter offensive, the Russian supply lines would have been much more impacted by winter weather, better maneuverability and you don't give your adversary 7 months to prepare a defense in depth (mine fields). But hey, I'm sure a few more billion dollars will do the trick.
Click to expand...

That all makes sense. It's not certain that Ukraine had the artillery at the time to shell Russians planting mines, and they certainly didn't have the airpower to do anything about it or maybe not to even detect where mining was happening. The Russians seem to have planted the minefields when the getting was good - the one thing they seem to have done well.

It also makes sense to do an offensive either before or after mud season, but it really looks like Ukraine was planning for the after because they weren't ready for the before. It's possible that Ukraine simply won't be able to mount a real offensive; I guess we'll know the answer to that some day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel, USF grad in TN and NorthDallas40
#68,519
#68,519
hog88 said:
First of all, I would have been shelling the hell out the Russians planting the minefields. That wasn't done without the Ukrainians knowing about it in real time. Next it's cold for both sides, we fought in the cold during WWII with a hell of a lot worse cold weather capability than the Ukrainians. Extreme cold is actually an advantage for armor since the ground is frozen and it opens more terrain up for maneuver and that's why I scoffed at the idea of a spring offensive. Gee what happens in spring? The ground thaws and it rains creating mud and there is nothing you can really do in mud, it is the equalizer.

The Ukrainians should have mounted a winter offensive, the Russian supply lines would have been much more impacted by winter weather, better maneuverability and you don't give your adversary 7 months to prepare a defense in depth (mine fields). But hey, I'm sure a few more billion dollars will do the trick.
Click to expand...
wait, so does winter weather impact maneuverability or not? You say it helps the Ukrainians, who had less armor than the Russians, but it hurts the Russians even though they had more armor, which you said it helped.

Also yes we fought in the winter, and it presented massive difficulties. It was only sustainable when one side had a huge advantage over the other, and it very quickly became a draining factor that helped equalize things earlier. The next time someone effectively attacks into Russia in the winter will be the first time, there is a reason for that. I don't care how good the ground is for armor to move across if the troops are freezing or you can't start you tank due to the cold. And then as you mentioned the logistics become a lot more difficult, but according to you that's only a factor the Russians needed to worry about the Ukrainians apparently have some gay western nazi magic logistical system immune to the cold.

I never heard the season/weather conditions as the reason behind the planning. Everything I read it was about equipment and training with the new western equipment. Probably should have taken longer, considering the results they got with the armored pushes. But I guess you think Ukraine should have taken the Russian approach and sent in poorly armed and trained troops to go spark the offensive in the middle of winter before they got western equipment.

Did Ukraine have the capability to shell the Russians while they were laying mines? Or enough to make a difference? And if they had picked a few places to shell that would tell the Russians where Ukraine wanted to attack, which would present its own problems. Also who says they knew about the mining? It wouldn't be the first time, even on modern battlefields, where intel missed something, or that the correct intel didn't get into the right hands.

I think its fair to say the offensive hasn't been as shiny as people want. Probably a lot bloodier than the Ukrainian's want, and there aren't massive gains for the western media to trot out. However if you go over to the Russian side you aren't seeing the opposite. They aren't pushing stories of grand defensive victories, because there are none. Its small, slow, and bloody combat, and Ukraine continues to push in areas, taking a single village where previously 4 or 5 would have fallen, and not even people following the war have heard of these towns. I have said it from the beginning, this war is WW1, not WW2. Whether its intentional or not, I still think you are seeing the Canadian WW1 strategy of using small gains to gradually shift a very strong defensive line. Not overextending, giving your opponent a chance to retake the lost ground when you wear yourself out. Take small gains, that then allow to exploit other small weaknesses. If you hit a dead end, stop, and try elsewhere. Don't beat yourself over the head, it explains all these probing attacks. Consistent pressure, vs a glorious charge. If its working, which isn't a guarantee, it will take a while for the efforts to really show up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and USF grad in TN
#68,520
#68,520
AM64 said:
That all makes sense. It's not certain that Ukraine had the artillery at the time to shell Russians planting mines, and they certainly didn't have the airpower to do anything about it or maybe not to even detect where mining was happening. The Russians seem to have planted the minefields when the getting was good - the one thing they seem to have done well.

It also makes sense to do an offensive either before or after mud season, but it really looks like Ukraine was planning for the after because they weren't ready for the before. It's possible that Ukraine simply won't be able to mount a real offensive; I guess we'll know the answer to that some day.
Click to expand...
I think playing defense fits into Ukraine’s strength better than going on offense. It usually does for most armies. And without all the tools to mount an effective offensive, IE air support, it’s going to be hard on them to take ground like a competent combined arms force would do
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN and AM64
#68,521
#68,521
LouderVol said:
wait, so does winter weather impact maneuverability or not? You say it helps the Ukrainians, who had less armor than the Russians, but it hurts the Russians even though they had more armor, which you said it helped.

I said it favored the Ukrainians because the winter weather would have had a much bigger impact on the Russian supply lines, not maneuverability.

Also yes we fought in the winter, and it presented massive difficulties. It was only sustainable when one side had a huge advantage over the other, and it very quickly became a draining factor that helped equalize things earlier. The next time someone effectively attacks into Russia in the winter will be the first time, there is a reason for that. I don't care how good the ground is for armor to move across if the troops are freezing or you can't start you tank due to the cold. And then as you mentioned the logistics become a lot more difficult, but according to you that's only a factor the Russians needed to worry about the Ukrainians apparently have some gay western nazi magic logistical system immune to the cold.

You can't invade Russia due to the length of the supply lines it would take to sustain the attacking force. I never said winter weather doesn't affect equipment and personel.

I never heard the season/weather conditions as the reason behind the planning. Everything I read it was about equipment and training with the new western equipment. Probably should have taken longer, considering the results they got with the armored pushes. But I guess you think Ukraine should have taken the Russian approach and sent in poorly armed and trained troops to go spark the offensive in the middle of winter before they got western equipment.

Did Ukraine have the capability to shell the Russians while they were laying mines? Or enough to make a difference? And if they had picked a few places to shell that would tell the Russians where Ukraine wanted to attack, which would present its own problems. Also who says they knew about the mining? It wouldn't be the first time, even on modern battlefields, where intel missed something, or that the correct intel didn't get into the right hands.

Didn't we supply them with a **** ton of HIMRS and other stand off weapons? Aren't we supplying them with drone and satellite intelligence? The Ukrainians could have attacked the Russian mine layers while they were out in the open and prevented them from installing intricate fields.

I think its fair to say the offensive hasn't been as shiny as people want. Probably a lot bloodier than the Ukrainian's want, and there aren't massive gains for the western media to trot out. However if you go over to the Russian side you aren't seeing the opposite. They aren't pushing stories of grand defensive victories, because there are none. Its small, slow, and bloody combat, and Ukraine continues to push in areas, taking a single village where previously 4 or 5 would have fallen, and not even people following the war have heard of these towns. I have said it from the beginning, this war is WW1, not WW2. Whether its intentional or not, I still think you are seeing the Canadian WW1 strategy of using small gains to gradually shift a very strong defensive line. Not overextending, giving your opponent a chance to retake the lost ground when you wear yourself out. Take small gains, that then allow to exploit other small weaknesses. If you hit a dead end, stop, and try elsewhere. Don't beat yourself over the head, it explains all these probing attacks. Consistent pressure, vs a glorious charge. If its working, which isn't a guarantee, it will take a while for the efforts to really show up.
Click to expand...

Excuses is what we are getting for our tax dollars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tnmarktx and OrangeBoro
#68,522
#68,522
NorthDallas40 said:
I think playing defense fits into Ukraine’s strength better than going on offense. It usually does for most armies. And without all the tools to mount an effective offensive, IE air support, it’s going to be hard on them to take ground like a competent combined arms force would do
Click to expand...

Definitely. Although at some point they do have to go on the offensive to regain their lost territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top