User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:02:27 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By planemaker: There's been reports of the rooskies ability to get 100 tanks to the front every month. If they continue to lose 10-30 a day, it won't take long for their armored groups to become "combat ineffective". I don't remember seeing reports of how many artillery pieces they can make/refurb to send to the front but the same logic applies - lose more in a day than you can supply, eventually you run out of days. If those logistics vehicle keep getting schwacked, one has to wonder how they are getting ammo, food, fuel, repair parts, etc. to the front in addition to losing men before they even make it to the front. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By planemaker: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By 3Florks: Holy shit SOLID numbers. I don't care about troop numbers. The loss of equipment is gonna break the Orcs back. It's that simple. You can't lose that many tubes and APC's a day. It's unsustainable.. That's it Yep, and you keep that up, it is going to get pretty difficult to get meat to the front lines without a proper ride. There's been reports of the rooskies ability to get 100 tanks to the front every month. If they continue to lose 10-30 a day, it won't take long for their armored groups to become "combat ineffective". I don't remember seeing reports of how many artillery pieces they can make/refurb to send to the front but the same logic applies - lose more in a day than you can supply, eventually you run out of days. If those logistics vehicle keep getting schwacked, one has to wonder how they are getting ammo, food, fuel, repair parts, etc. to the front in addition to losing men before they even make it to the front. Exactly, it's a cascading series of bad events. There will be more drone videos of Russians drinking muddy water or their own urine because of a lack of supplies at the front. Having an ideal number of refurbished tanks does not mean those tanks can actually make it to the front for battle, nor do we see much in the way of trained units that know how to effectively use those armored vehicles. They routinely retreat at the first Javelin hit, or DPICM impacts currently. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:03:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AlmightyTallest]
[#2]
first photos coming in.
Remember that yesterday some large Russian radar systems were take out in Crimea by drones.
 Another round 5 minutes ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:04:18 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Either that pilot is really bad (maybe just inexperienced on fixed-wings) or the c.g. is too far aft. Way too much PIO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:05:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockNwood: Mr. Nielsen argues that, while Russia is indeed unable to launch a full-scale invasion against NATO countries, it is quite capable of attempting to break the Alliance apart. Russia is interested in establishing a new geopolitical reality in which NATO ceases to exist and Russia can have bilateral relations with each country separately, not through an "umbrella" of an alliance. Russia might start by launching a small "military operation" on just one NATO country - Northern Finland seems a possible location. The scale of the strike should be enough to "trigger" Article 5, but not large enough for a guaranteed full-scale response by the NATO forces. In that case, Russia would watch NATO's response closely. If other NATO countries (and the US, in particular) will decide that it is not necessary to get involved due to the "minor" nature of the incident, that would effectively mean that NATO Alliance is over. And that opens a lot of favorable opportunities for Russia. If, on the other hand, NATO acts clearly and decisively and shows that the Alliance is indeed willing to go to war for a small piece of "insignificant" land, it is probable that Russia will back off. What do you think about this scenario? Source: Anders Puck Nielsen/YouTube 📸: The Guardian Bolded is exactly my concern. The US is trying to find every excuse imaginable not to confront Russia as it attacks various MATO countries and even downplays the importance of Ukraine (except when Repubs give Biden cover to do nothing, then he speaks bravely). Weakness invites aggression. I'm not sure about his choice of target, I think rather the Baltics and trying to expand the borders there to incorporate 'Russian speakers being opprossed.' The concern is that an incursion establishes 'facts on the ground' that can only be changed through combat. Russia has very flexible concepts of 'conflict' and incorporates a spectrum of asymmetric attack avenues. War is only a part of that spectrum and truly is 'politics by other means.' I think that assessment is right. NATO is more vulnerable now than it's ever been. If Russia applies more pressure, the right direction, the right way, maybe they could break it for real. It would be a disaster for free nations of the world. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:05:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AlmightyTallest]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By planemaker: Either that pilot is really bad (maybe just inexperienced on fixed-wings) or the c.g. is too far aft. Way too much PIO. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By planemaker: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Either that pilot is really bad (maybe just inexperienced on fixed-wings) or the c.g. is too far aft. Way too much PIO. lol, I didn't know what to make of that. But when we see these flying in on targets in future videos, we will know where it stemmed from. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:06:29 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153: Maybe soon longer range drones can hurt the production numbers too and burn that candle from both ends Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153: Originally Posted By planemaker: There's been reports of the rooskies ability to get 100 tanks to the front every month. If they continue to lose 10-30 a day, it won't take long for their armored groups to become "combat ineffective". I don't remember seeing reports of how many artillery pieces they can make/refurb to send to the front but the same logic applies - lose more in a day than you can supply, eventually you run out of days. If those logistics vehicle keep getting schwacked, one has to wonder how they are getting ammo, food, fuel, repair parts, etc. to the front in addition to losing men before they even make it to the front. Maybe soon longer range drones can hurt the production numbers too and burn that candle from both ends One wonders if they could hit shell production facilities and put a dent in those. It appears they are focusing their long range attacks on the rooskies ability to export oil and gas. That will hurt them both militarily and economically. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:09:04 AM EDT
[#7]
1. Bradleys eligible for an EDA grant are likely in bad condition. 2. It's way more important for Ukraine to get Greece's inventory of Russian air defense units than 60 Bradleys. So this is still good news on balance for Ukraine. Yes Biden should have given Ukraine hundreds of Bradleys back in 2022 when he had ample opportunity, but let's not get angry about Bradleys that probably aren't even combat ready.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:11:19 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 3Florks: Holy shit SOLID numbers. I don't care about troop numbers. The loss of equipment is gonna break the Orcs back. It's that simple. You can't lose that many tubes and APC's a day. It's unsustainable.. That's it We've been saying that for how many months?  Russia's losses are sustainable. If that changes, it will show in Ukrainian advances on the ground or Lavrov formally requesting negotiations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:16:18 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: lol, I didn't know what to make of that. But when we see these flying in on targets in future videos, we will know where it stemmed from. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By planemaker: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Either that pilot is really bad (maybe just inexperienced on fixed-wings) or the c.g. is too far aft. Way too much PIO. lol, I didn't know what to make of that. But when we see these flying in on targets in future videos, we will know where it stemmed from. I've had vehicles that were neutrally stable to slightly unstable. Maneuverable as all get out but exceptionally difficult to fly manually. One of our test pilots just flat out couldn't. He'd get into a PIO every time and put it in the dirt. I'd fly the same unit just fine (albeit stressful). Another thing that makes FPV multicopter pilots have issues transitioning to fixed-wing units is the lack of ability to pivot on your own axis. Fixed-wings aren't designed to do that, typically. So, a quadrotor FPV pilot goes past something, instead of hitting the rudder to pivot, he has to actually do a coordinated turn of some radius to get back to looking at the target. Between that and the thrust-to-weight being a lot lower, some multirotor pilots don't do well with fixed-wings. (Also, hitting the throttle on a multirotor makes you go up. Hitting the throttle on a fixed-wing makes you crash into what your nose was pointed at much faster. )
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:23:38 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: I agree with your analysis of the Sherman. I was making a point that ANYTHING is better than nothing for Ukraine. And having 3000 hulls rotting in the desert with many hundreds 99% ready to roll but NOT BEING SENT is a fucking insult to Ukraine and a very obvious message to Putin and all other assholes like him..."we are sitting this one out"... Also, with 99% of battlefield threats coming from drones of one type or another, and top armor being VERY vulnerable, a tank seems more like a "truck" to get a big gun and some dismounts to the front instead of walking so one is almost as good as another. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By Capta: HMMVs get used for that because they’re very low silhouette, relatively fast, and maneuverable. Shermans were enormously tall even in WW2. They’re armored about like a Bradley and they weigh what a Bradley does, but they’re about 30% as fast as a Bradley and an RPG-7 will pen them literally anywhere. They have gas engines and ammo stored all over the inside. Getting in a Sherman on the Ukrainian front would be a one-way ticket; I’d sooner ride in an HMMV or M113. Tanks were optimized to resist direct fire from the frontal arc. The advent of cheap and ubiquitous FPVs using cheap RPG-7 warheads means the threat is now outside spec for pretty much every tank ever made. Particularly the old ones. There was some info earlier in the war (no way to tell if it still applies) that Ukrainian T-series tanks were generally more survivable because as a policy they ONLY carried ammo in the carousel and and not carry any reserve ammo around the turret. The Russians, however, to lessen the burden on their logistical system, carried all the ammo they could and so pens much more frequently resulted in KABOOMs. I agree with your analysis of the Sherman. I was making a point that ANYTHING is better than nothing for Ukraine. And having 3000 hulls rotting in the desert with many hundreds 99% ready to roll but NOT BEING SENT is a fucking insult to Ukraine and a very obvious message to Putin and all other assholes like him..."we are sitting this one out"... Also, with 99% of battlefield threats coming from drones of one type or another, and top armor being VERY vulnerable, a tank seems more like a "truck" to get a big gun and some dismounts to the front instead of walking so one is almost as good as another. Meanwhile the West is still scrapping AFVs. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:28:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: first photos coming in. Remember that yesterday some large Russian radar systems were take out in Crimea by drones.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFLe884bUAANWpZ?format=jpg&name=large Another round 5 minutes ago.
prepping for f16s. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:36:15 AM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:38:28 AM EDT
[#13]
    |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:40:59 AM EDT
[#14]
I noticed this Lancet has the target assist feature were it draws green boxes around possible targets.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:43:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By planemaker: Either that pilot is really bad (maybe just inexperienced on fixed-wings) or the c.g. is too far aft. Way too much PIO. Looks like a tiny A10.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:43:31 AM EDT
[#16]
 Full link with alot of detail and images here: https://offbeatresearch.com/2024/01/an-offbeat-research-guide-to-tank-spotting-soviet-origin-tanks/ |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:44:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MFP_4073]
[#17]
the purported change of military leadership at the highest levels in Ukraine is going to be an interesting development
looks like this is happening ----------------------------------------- Zelensky to oust Ukraine’s top general amid tension over new mobilization By Isabelle Khurshudyan and John Hudson Updated January 31, 2024 at 10:25 a.m. EST|Published January 31, 2024 at 5:23 a.m. EST KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told his top commander, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, that he was firing him in a meeting on Monday, according to a senior official familiar with the conversation — a disruptive military shake-up amid Ukraine’s struggles on the battlefield and after months of friction between the president and the popular general. Zaluzhny remains in his post for now, but a formal presidential decree is expected to confirm his ousting nearly two years into Russia’s invasion and as Moscow’s forces appear to be gaining the strategic initiative on some parts of the front. On Monday, Zelensky’s spokesman, Serhiy Nykyforov, denied that Zaluzhny had been fired. “There is no subject of conversation,” Nykyforov told reporters. “There is no order. The president did not dismiss the commander in chief.” Nykyforov on Wednesday did not immediately reply to messages from The Washington Post seeking any updated comment. It is far from clear that any new commander will be able to improve Ukraine’s difficult situation on the battlefield without significantly more forces and weapons — precisely what Zaluzhny has demanded of Zelensky, adding tension to what was already a fraying relationship. Zaluzhny’s popularity — both within the military and among ordinary citizens — makes his removal a political gamble for Zelensky. It also poses strategic risks at a time when Russia has intensified its attacks and Western security assistance for Kyiv has slowed. The general has built strong rapport with his Western counterparts and has often been able to advocate directly for certain materiel and seek counsel on battlefield strategy. It wasunclear whether Zelensky and his team had planned for the dismissal to happen this week before details of Monday’s meeting leaked to some media and channels on the Telegram social media app. But tension between the men had been building for months. Last year’s highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive, using soldiers trained by NATO allies and with Western weapons and equipment, reclaimed little territory, falling far short of expectations. Zaluzhny and his American counterparts disagreed sharply over tactics, and the Ukrainian commander ultimately ignored U.S. advice to concentrate his forces, which he believed could have caused far higher casualties. In their conversation Monday, Zelensky told Zaluzhny that Ukrainians have grown tired of war and that the country’s international backers have also slowed military assistance, so perhaps a new commander would rejuvenate the situation, the person familiar with their conversation said. Two individuals spoke about the meeting on the condition of anonymity to be candid about the highly sensitive situation with unpredictable implications for the war and Ukraine’s security. Senior members of Zaluzhny’s staff are also expected to be removed, one person said. In Monday’s meeting, differences between the two boiled over because of disagreement about how many soldiers Ukraine needs to mobilize this year, according to the two people familiar with the exchange. Zaluzhny proposed mobilizing close to 500,000 troops, a figure Zelensky viewed as impractical given the scarcity of uniforms, guns and training facilities and potential challenges related to recruitment, the people said. Zelensky has also said publicly that Ukraine lacks the funds to pay so many new conscripts. Zaluzhny countered that Ukraine is already short of forces due to mounting casualties and needs to match 400,000 new soldiers that Russia plans to mobilize, one person familiar with the conversation said. Andrii, a deputy battalion commander, denounced Zaluzhny’s expected removal with an epithet. Andrii, like other soldiers, is being identified only by his first name because he was not authorized to speak publicly. Zaluzhny “has sensible thoughts on mobilization,” Andrii said. “People are like, ‘We don’t need mobilization, everything is just fine there,’ but they’re not … here. They don’t know what’s happening here.” It was not immediately clear who will replace the 50-year-old Zaluzhny. One leading candidate is Ukraine’s head of military intelligence, 38-year-old Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, potentially signaling a move toward asymmetric tactics, such as the drone strikes deep into Russian territory that Budanov often has ordered, in a war where the front lines have seen little change in more than a year. But Budanov, with a background in special forces, does not have experience as an army commander. Another option is Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, the 58-year-old commander of Ukraine’s ground forces, who was credited with leading the defense of Kyiv in the first month of the war and then orchestrating a successful counteroffensive in the northeastern Kharkiv region in fall 2022. But among rank-and-file soldiers in the military, Syrsky is especially disliked, considered by many to be a Soviet-style commander who kept forces under fire for too long in the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut when Kyiv should’ve withdrawn. Both Budanov and Syrsky are considered favorites of Zelensky and Andriy Yermak, the chief of the presidential office and Zelensky’s closest adviser. Closer to the front, however, there seems to be little appetite for change. “My personal opinion is you can’t do something like this right now — Zaluzhny is someone 80 percent of the military considers a good authority,” said Oleksandr, a battalion commander currently fighting in eastern Ukraine. “For what is he being removed? It’s not clear. And who will replace him? Syrsky? God, I hope not. No one in the army likes Syrsky,” Oleksandr added. Zaluzhny was offered another post but declined and plans to retire from the military, according to the senior official. Reached by The Post, Zaluzhny declined to comment. For now, he remains in the top job, and the formal order dismissing him could be delayed. Last year, the head of Zelensky’s faction in parliament announced that Oleksii Reznikov, then the defense minister, would be ousted, but Reznikov stayed in the post for months before being removed. “This is a catastrophic step,” Oleksandr said. “When this becomes official, we’re screwed. The morale of both the military and society will go way down.” Friction between Zelensky and Zaluzhny has been brewing for months, and the general has expected he could be dismissed since summer 2022, the person said. Zaluzhny has been Ukraine’s commander in chief since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, and, according to opinion polls, rivals Zelensky in popularity, making him a potential political threat if presidential elections were to take place. Elections are currently barred in Ukraine because of martial law but under normal conditions should have taken place this year. “There’s only one explanation: the Zelensky government is just putting his missteps … on Zaluzhny’s shoulders,” said a soldier currently fighting in the besieged eastern Ukrainian city of Avdiivka. “Zelensky is just very dependent on ratings and he understands completely that Zaluzhny’s rating right now is much higher than his own. And that’s it. I think that politics shouldn’t interfere with the military doing their work.” Though Ukrainian officials privately have hinted at distrust between Zaluzhny and Zelensky over the past year, the discord has spilled into open view in recent months. Last fall Zaluzhny referred to the war as a “stalemate” in an interview with the Economist magazine. Zelensky publicly rebuked those remarks. Another source of tension has been the gap between what Zaluzhny has requested for Ukraine’s military and what Kyiv’s political leaders have been able to draw from allies and partners, a second person familiar with the Monday meeting said. “He says in conversations with the minister of defense: ‘It’s not my job to get this; it’s your job,’” the person said. Proposed aid for Ukraine has stalled in Washington and Brussels because of internal political disputes in the United States and the European Union. House Republicans have blocked a White House request for an additional $60 billion related to the war in Ukraine. New Ukrainian military leadership is unlikely to change that, as the stalled security assistance has been tied to reaching a bipartisan deal for sweeping U.S. border policy changes. “I don’t know who will be next, what kind of decisions were made, but maybe they just want to hear some good news from the head commander, like, ‘Everything is going dandy, it’s cool,’ but that’s not going to happen,” said Andrii, the deputy battalion commander. Until now, Ukraine has enjoyed relative stability in its military ranks compared to its invading enemy. Russian President Vladimir Putin named Gen. Valery Gerasimov to the top job one year ago, dismissing Gen. Sergei Surovikin, who was in the post for just three months. “The Kyiv regime has many problems, and everything has gone wrong there, that’s for sure,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday when asked about Zaluzhny’s possible dismissal. “Obviously, the failed counteroffensive and problems at the front increase the disagreements between members of the Kyiv regime,” Peskov added. Hudson reported from Washington. Anastacia Galouchka and David L. Stern in Kyiv, Serhiy Morgunov in Warsaw and Natalia Abbakumova in Riga, Latvia, contributed to this report. --------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:46:47 AM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:48:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:52:38 AM EDT
[#20]
Russian sources analyzing their vulnerability.
Destroying the ruSSian command posts!!! This table shows the vulnerability of the Command Posts, based on the Russian experience in Ukraine (from the article in the "Military Thought" journal of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation). - The first row is the personnel, equipment and vehicles placed in an open field. - The second row - 50% of personnel is in trenches, 50% is in dugouts and shelters, 30% of the equipment and vehicles in the pit type shelter. - The third row - 100% of personnel is in dugouts and shelters, 100% of the equipment and 75%of the vehicles are in the pit type shelter. - The first three columns are showing the percentage of the losses of the (1) Personnel (2) Vehicles and (3) Equipment. - The last column is "probability of preservation" for the Command Post. P. S. It seems that the Ukrainian HIMARS destroyed them regularly, and this forced them to conduct a whole research on this matter. P. P. S. Whole article in the comments (in russian).  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 11:54:44 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: And sick beats too. One of my faves! Thanks! I just bought the song on iTunes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:05:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Known for its hypersonic drone projects, the 🇨🇭 start-up Destinus has been delivering hundreds of military drones to 🇺🇦 since 2023, in complete secrecy. Mikhail Kokorich, its founder, renounced, who his 🇷🇺 citizenship, will set up the group in 🇨🇵. Like the Roman god Janus, Destinus has two faces. The first, widely publicized, is that of a promising start-up, based in Switzerland, which wants to develop hypersonic drones and planes (speeds greater than Mach 5), both for the cargo and passenger markets. The other face, which Challenges reveals today, had until now remained in the shadows: since last year, Destinus, founded by the entrepreneur of Russian origin and anti-Putin opponent Mikhail Kokorich (who just to renounce his Russian citizenship), is also one of the main European suppliers of military drones to Ukraine. According to our information, Destinus has delivered hundreds of long-range low-cost drones to kyiv since the second quarter of 2023. These propeller devices, called |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:18:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Reloads for the air defense.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:22:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime:
How to poison your own troops in 3 simple steps.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:28:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4xGM300m: https://i.imgur.com/OEwxMT5.jpeg Army’s Cannon, Propellant Updates Reflect Lessons Learned in Ukraine 1/24/2024 By Scott R. Gourley Very interesting article! Thanks for the link, good info! Laser hardened rifling and chrome bores! I wonder if Knights will start offering laser hardened 5.56 ARs?  Looks like 52 caliber barrels will be the new standard for howitzers. Rheinmetal hit it out of the park with all their design choices. The boosted shells will be an awesome capability to double the range but ramjet version has to be very costly. I imagine there won’t be great quantities of those and used very selectively. As a reloader the discussion of propellant types and lack of quantity rings familiar!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:31:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFKSDItXQAApXaU?format=jpg&name=900x900https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFKSDI1XIAAe16h?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFKUx2EW0AAdreU?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFKGZo2XkAALi-h?format=jpg&name=largehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFKGZo0XsAArqrz?format=jpg&name=large Local Governor At night, residents of neighborhoods near Glukhoozerskoye Highway heard a loud bang. An incident occurred at an industrial site in the Nevsky district that required the attention of law enforcement agencies. There were no casualties. There was no significant damage to property. Investigations are currently underway. The city administration works in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. https://t.me/a_beglov/6070 LOL, yeah right Boris, the three largest tanks in the farm were empty! Keep saying that and someone might kind of believe it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:33:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Saltwater-Hillbilly]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: We've been saying that for how many months? Russia's losses are sustainable. If that changes, it will show in Ukrainian advances on the ground or Lavrov formally requesting negotiations. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By 3Florks: Holy shit SOLID numbers. I don't care about troop numbers. The loss of equipment is gonna break the Orcs back. It's that simple. You can't lose that many tubes and APC's a day. It's unsustainable.. That's it We've been saying that for how many months? Russia's losses are sustainable. If that changes, it will show in Ukrainian advances on the ground or Lavrov formally requesting negotiations. Not Necessarily. During WW1, both the Imperial German and Imperial Russian Governments were "all-in", and both pushed the war right up to the point of governmental collapse. The Germans actually prevented Austria-Hungary from negotiating with the Allies in summer of 1917, when it became clear after 1916 that there would be no long-term "winners" and that negotiations were the only way to save whatever was left of the antebellum European social and political order. Similarly, when the Kaydets (Constitutional Democrats) overthrew the Czar in the Russian Empire, their failure to take steps to initiate negotiations to end the war gave the Left-socialist coalition the opening to oppose them, which led to the "October Revolution" in which the Bolshevik faction of the Left-socialists ended up in charge. In Germany, they fought aggressively right up to to the point that the "wheels came off" and they no longer had the means to continue the war and Kaiser Bill abdicated. It was not apparent at the time that either of these governments was on the brink of collapse until it actually happened, as the Russians had conducted some moderately successful offensives in the summer/fall of 1916 and were still achieving battlefield successes in some areas of the Eastern Front through the summer of 1917, while the Germans had launched a major offensive in the West less than 6 months before in spring of 1918 that had nearly broken the French Army. As a matter of fact, the Allies saw Spring/Summer of 1919 as key to eventually defeating the German Army in the west, and the Allied consensus was that the war, at best, would likely continue into at least late 1919 and more likely the summer of 1920. Neither the Germans not the Russians gave up due to frontline losses or defeats, it was because of "whole of government" eclipse, and these can be very hard to predict from the outside, as they tend to happen rapidly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:36:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: Video presentation in English by Prokopenko- Recently, the Azov Brigade delegation took part in the EstMil. tech 2024 military conference in Tallinn. This year's main theme of the conference was "Military Technologies: Challenges for Small States". Estonia, like other countries that share a border with Russia, is well aware of all the threats posed by this border. Therefore, they are extremely interested in studying and learning from the unprecedented experience of the war in Ukraine, including in the context of the use of modern technologies in combat operations. We remember our common history of being under the oppression of Kremlin imperialism and understand the responsibility that lies with us today in defending freedom in the region, so we are ready to share our experience, knowledge and skills with our allies. In memory of the tragedies of the past and for the future of our free nations. Azov officers Arsenii "Process" Fedosiuk and Ilya "Gandalf" Samoilenko made a presentation on "Network-centric warfare" at one of the conference panels moderated by Brigadier General Vahur Karus of the Estonian Army. I had the honor of recording a video address to the conference participants, in which I briefly described how in 2017 a group of Azov officers began implementing the NATO ISTAR system in the unit and emphasized that despite the huge increase in the role of the latest technologies in warfare since 2014, the importance of infantry units on the battlefield remains crucial. Despite all the breakthrough aspects in the use of reconnaissance and strike drones in warfare, it is the trained, disciplined and motivated personnel who remain the main principle and fundamental factor in successful warfare.
Another thing nations of all sizes need to do better is protect against Russian asymmetric attacks and infiltration. They have done these things on several nations already. Learn from it and implement laws and tactics to prevent and counter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:45:35 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:15:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime:
“Don’t use the smoke grasshopper, be the smoke.” My guess is they are trying to make the drone operators laugh so hard they forget about attacking? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:19:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockNwood: Thanks for the link, good info! Laser hardened rifling and chrome bores! I wonder if Knights will start offering laser hardened 5.56 ARs? Looks like 52 caliber barrels will be the new standard for howitzers. Rheinmetal hit it out of the park with all their design choices. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockNwood: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: https://i.imgur.com/OEwxMT5.jpeg Army’s Cannon, Propellant Updates Reflect Lessons Learned in Ukraine 1/24/2024 By Scott R. Gourley Very interesting article! Thanks for the link, good info! Laser hardened rifling and chrome bores! I wonder if Knights will start offering laser hardened 5.56 ARs? Looks like 52 caliber barrels will be the new standard for howitzers. Rheinmetal hit it out of the park with all their design choices. It was one guy who designed the concept of the PzH2000, Frank Abels, there is a long video series about him and the development of the PzH2000 on YT, highly recommended. German language, but English subtitels are available. Start here and watch all the videos if you are interested. The boosted shells will be an awesome capability to double the range but ramjet version has to be very costly. I imagine there won’t be great quantities of those and used very selectively. As a reloader the discussion of propellant types and lack of quantity rings familiar!! Rocket assisted shells were already tested in Ukraine, they hit tanksize targets over a range of more than 70km. BAE built a new shell with 110km range, not ready yet, but the tests were promising. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:21:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: first photos coming in. Remember that yesterday some large Russian radar systems were take out in Crimea by drones.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFLe884bUAANWpZ?format=jpg&name=large Another round 5 minutes ago.
I hope this is indicative that Scholz has transferred Taurus to UK and France so they can send more missiles to Ukraine. Fig leaf pansy ass move but at least it is a move that helps. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:25:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: I'm not sure about his choice of target, I think rather the Baltics and trying to expand the borders there to incorporate 'Russian speakers being opprossed.' The concern is that an incursion establishes 'facts on the ground' that can only be changed through combat. Russia has very flexible concepts of 'conflict' and incorporates a spectrum of asymmetric attack avenues. War is only a part of that spectrum and truly is 'politics by other means.' I think that assessment is right. NATO is more vulnerable now than it's ever been. If Russia applies more pressure, the right direction, the right way, maybe they could break it for real. It would be a disaster for free nations of the world. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By RockNwood: Mr. Nielsen argues that, while Russia is indeed unable to launch a full-scale invasion against NATO countries, it is quite capable of attempting to break the Alliance apart. Russia is interested in establishing a new geopolitical reality in which NATO ceases to exist and Russia can have bilateral relations with each country separately, not through an "umbrella" of an alliance. Russia might start by launching a small "military operation" on just one NATO country - Northern Finland seems a possible location. The scale of the strike should be enough to "trigger" Article 5, but not large enough for a guaranteed full-scale response by the NATO forces. In that case, Russia would watch NATO's response closely. If other NATO countries (and the US, in particular) will decide that it is not necessary to get involved due to the "minor" nature of the incident, that would effectively mean that NATO Alliance is over. And that opens a lot of favorable opportunities for Russia. If, on the other hand, NATO acts clearly and decisively and shows that the Alliance is indeed willing to go to war for a small piece of "insignificant" land, it is probable that Russia will back off. What do you think about this scenario? Source: Anders Puck Nielsen/YouTube 📸: The Guardian Bolded is exactly my concern. The US is trying to find every excuse imaginable not to confront Russia as it attacks various MATO countries and even downplays the importance of Ukraine (except when Repubs give Biden cover to do nothing, then he speaks bravely). Weakness invites aggression. I'm not sure about his choice of target, I think rather the Baltics and trying to expand the borders there to incorporate 'Russian speakers being opprossed.' The concern is that an incursion establishes 'facts on the ground' that can only be changed through combat. Russia has very flexible concepts of 'conflict' and incorporates a spectrum of asymmetric attack avenues. War is only a part of that spectrum and truly is 'politics by other means.' I think that assessment is right. NATO is more vulnerable now than it's ever been. If Russia applies more pressure, the right direction, the right way, maybe they could break it for real. It would be a disaster for free nations of the world. It's what we decide an article 5 entails, like you said..Russia hasany, many ways of attacking a country without bullets and bombs and tanks rolling across the border... "Little green men" in crimea is one example. That was a test run against a NATO territory. And it worked.. he will 100 percent try it again |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:32:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: https://offbeatresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Tanks_OffBeatResearch--scaled.jpg Full link with alot of detail and images here: https://offbeatresearch.com/2024/01/an-offbeat-research-guide-to-tank-spotting-soviet-origin-tanks/ Very cool! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:37:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Some very interesting takes ⬇️ 1) The splinter body was considered the “absolutely perfect” sleeve to be filled with explosives when drone dropping grenades became a thing in 2022 2) The soldier's favourite aspect is that the grenade has a “silent fuse”. This is great for booby traps, but is also an advantage in normal combat. 3) He estimates that a large proportion of the grenades supplied by Germany were delivered to the Territorial Defence Forces. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:40:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 3Florks: Yeah but it's not surrounded by liquid hot magma, and no sharks with frickin Lazer beams Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 3Florks: Originally Posted By Capta: I'm amazed at how much that looks like a Bond Villain lair. Yeah but it's not surrounded by liquid hot magma, and no sharks with frickin Lazer beams |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:41:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AlmightyTallest]
[#37]
15 minutes ago, official Ukrainian air force message.
 3 solid hits.
lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:44:23 PM EDT
[#38]
The Debrief: Black Sea Attack Highlights Ukraine’s Long-Range Strike Capabilities
Steve Trimble January 29, 2024 A fire erupted overnight on Jan. 25 at an oil refinery in Tuapse, a Russian town on the Black Sea’s east coast. Local reports quickly blamed the explosion more than 300 mi. from the front lines on a particular long-range missile launched from Ukraine. As the latest incident in a low-key counter-strike campaign waged from Kyiv, the missile attack on Tuapse highlights Ukraine’s small but growing arsenal of homegrown, long-range strike capabilities. The Russian media blamed the Tuapse fire on a salvo of three UJ-26 Beavers. Three of the large loitering munitions—a class of large uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) also known as one-way attack missiles—attempted to strike the refinery. Local reports claimed air defenses shot down two of the Beavers and hit the third, but pieces from the latter—including, presumably, the warhead—struck the target anyway, igniting the blaze. The story of the development of the UJ-26 is well chronicled by Ukrainian and international media, including a feature story last July in the New York Times. It started in November 2022 with a call by Ukraine’s intelligence agency, the GUR, to Ukrainian blogger Ihor Lachenkov asking him to use his platform to raise money to fund development. To design and build the Beaver, the GUR bypassed the traditional Ukrainian aerospace and defense industry, including the Antonov design bureau. Antonov, a maker of large jet transports, remains active in the UAS market, having formed a partnership in September with France-based Turgis & Gaillard to co-develop the Aarok medium-altitude, armed UAS. But the company has struggled to successfully field similar projects in the past, including the short-lived Horlytsta UAS. Instead, the GUR assigned the project to little-known UkrJet, a Kryvyi Rih-based startup founded in 2018. The small company launched with a relatively primitive product:the UJ-31 Zlyva UAS, which can serve as a short-range loitering munition or release the smaller UJ-32 Lastivka, with a 40-km (24.8 mi.) range. With $500,000 raised by Lachenkov and others, including the Turn Back Alive Foundation, UkrJet launched development early last year of the more advanced UJ-36. The UJ-36 features a unique aerodynamic configuration with canard stabilizers and rear wings attached to a bulbous fuselage able to carry a large internal volume of fuel and a relatively large warhead. Russian media reports identified the Beaver’s payload as the Soviet KZ-6 charge. Its 1.8 kg (4 lb.) of high explosive is designed to penetrate up to 21 cm of armor or 550 cm of reinforced concrete, Russian news agency Lenta reported. By August, the UJ-36 had been linked by Russian media to at least one in a series of Ukrainian drone attacks in the Moscow region. A few months later, the Turn Back Alive foundation released a model revealing for the first time the UJ-26 and its performance, including a range up to 900 km. Ukraine now had a homegrown, unrestricted weapon that could attack targets from Moscow and other aerospace industrial centers, such as Voronezh. The company’s development program has likely continued. A photo in the Russian press of an unexploded drone suggests that UkrJet also has adapted the jet-powered UJ-23 Topaz into a loitering munition. Ukraine’s striking power still pales in comparison to Russia’s repeated, almost nightly barrages of dozens of missiles and loitering munitions of various types. The UJ-36 also lacks the survivability and targeting sophistication of many Russian long-range weapons, with few reports of successful strikes by undamaged Beavers. In this phase of the nearly two-year-old conflict, however, the rise of Ukraine’s homegrown capabilities is important. Ukraine’s defense industry also builds tanks, personnel carriers and 155mm artillery launchers. Kyiv will never match the industrial power and depth of Moscow, but maintaining its defensive posture using Western suppliers alone may not be feasible in the long term. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/debrief-black-sea-attack-highlights-ukraines-long-range-strike |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:46:40 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: 15 minutes ago, official Ukrainian air force message.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFL_s8dWcAAW75t?format=jpg&name=small 3 solid hits.
 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:50:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Not Necessarily. During WW1, both the Imperial German and Imperial Russian Governments were "all-in", and both pushed the war right up to the point of governmental collapse. The Germans actually prevented Austria-Hungary from negotiating with the Allies in summer of 1917, when it became clear after 1916 that there would be no long-term "winners" and that negotiations were the only way to save whatever was left of the antebellum European social and political order. Similarly, when the Kaydets (Constitutional Democrats) overthrew the Czar in the Russian Empire, their failure to take steps to initiate negotiations to end the war gave the Left-socialist coalition the opening to oppose them, which led to the "October Revolution" in which the Bolshevik faction of the Left-socialists ended up in charge. In Germany, they fought aggressively right up to to the point that the "wheels came off" and they no longer had the means to continue the war and Kaiser Bill abdicated. It was not apparent at the time that either of these governments was on the brink of collapse until it actually happened, as the Russians had conducted some moderately successful offensives in the summer/fall of 1916 and were still achieving battlefield successes in some areas of the Eastern Front through the summer of 1917, while the Germans had launched a major offensive in the West less than 6 months before in spring of 1918 that had nearly broken the French Army. As a matter of fact, the Allies saw Spring/Summer of 1919 as key to eventually defeating the German Army in the west, and the Allied consensus was that the war, at best, would likely continue into at least late 1919 and more likely the summer of 1920. Neither the Germans not the Russians gave up due to frontline losses or defeats, it was because of "whole of government" eclipse, and these can be very hard to predict from the outside, as they tend to happen rapidly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By 3Florks: Holy shit SOLID numbers. I don't care about troop numbers. The loss of equipment is gonna break the Orcs back. It's that simple. You can't lose that many tubes and APC's a day. It's unsustainable.. That's it We've been saying that for how many months? Russia's losses are sustainable. If that changes, it will show in Ukrainian advances on the ground or Lavrov formally requesting negotiations. Not Necessarily. During WW1, both the Imperial German and Imperial Russian Governments were "all-in", and both pushed the war right up to the point of governmental collapse. The Germans actually prevented Austria-Hungary from negotiating with the Allies in summer of 1917, when it became clear after 1916 that there would be no long-term "winners" and that negotiations were the only way to save whatever was left of the antebellum European social and political order. Similarly, when the Kaydets (Constitutional Democrats) overthrew the Czar in the Russian Empire, their failure to take steps to initiate negotiations to end the war gave the Left-socialist coalition the opening to oppose them, which led to the "October Revolution" in which the Bolshevik faction of the Left-socialists ended up in charge. In Germany, they fought aggressively right up to to the point that the "wheels came off" and they no longer had the means to continue the war and Kaiser Bill abdicated. It was not apparent at the time that either of these governments was on the brink of collapse until it actually happened, as the Russians had conducted some moderately successful offensives in the summer/fall of 1916 and were still achieving battlefield successes in some areas of the Eastern Front through the summer of 1917, while the Germans had launched a major offensive in the West less than 6 months before in spring of 1918 that had nearly broken the French Army. As a matter of fact, the Allies saw Spring/Summer of 1919 as key to eventually defeating the German Army in the west, and the Allied consensus was that the war, at best, would likely continue into at least late 1919 and more likely the summer of 1920. Neither the Germans not the Russians gave up due to frontline losses or defeats, it was because of "whole of government" eclipse, and these can be very hard to predict from the outside, as they tend to happen rapidly. The bottom line is that the losses are 100% sustainable and combat operations will continue - until the point that they are not, which will be mostly unexpected. Until there is tangible evidence that the losses have become unsustainable through highly visible battlefield results or major new political/diplomatic changes, things continue as they are. Putin is counting on western aid ending before Russian industrial output and combat capability are exhausted. It's been the Russian path to victory for over 18 months now. I suspect that the Kremlin commitment to victory is such that they will fully exhaust their capability to the point of collapse, if Ukraine is able to sustain itself. Recent signs are all pointing in Russia's favor: small tactical successes in the battlefield, and severe upheavals in Ukraine's leadership (Zaluzhny). Putin will continue the fight until either Ukraine or Russia collapses. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:51:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4xGM300m: It was one guy who designed the concept of the PzH2000, Frank Abels, there is a long video series about him and the development of the PzH2000 on YT, highly recommended. German language, but English subtitels are available. Start here and watch all the videos if you are interested. Rocket assisted shells were already tested in Ukraine, they hit tanksize targets over a range of more than 70km. BAE built a new shell with 110km range, not ready yet, but the tests were promising. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4xGM300m: Originally Posted By RockNwood: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: https://i.imgur.com/OEwxMT5.jpeg Army’s Cannon, Propellant Updates Reflect Lessons Learned in Ukraine 1/24/2024 By Scott R. Gourley Very interesting article! Thanks for the link, good info! Laser hardened rifling and chrome bores! I wonder if Knights will start offering laser hardened 5.56 ARs? Looks like 52 caliber barrels will be the new standard for howitzers. Rheinmetal hit it out of the park with all their design choices. It was one guy who designed the concept of the PzH2000, Frank Abels, there is a long video series about him and the development of the PzH2000 on YT, highly recommended. German language, but English subtitels are available. Start here and watch all the videos if you are interested. The boosted shells will be an awesome capability to double the range but ramjet version has to be very costly. I imagine there won’t be great quantities of those and used very selectively. As a reloader the discussion of propellant types and lack of quantity rings familiar!! Rocket assisted shells were already tested in Ukraine, they hit tanksize targets over a range of more than 70km. BAE built a new shell with 110km range, not ready yet, but the tests were promising. Wow! That is mind boggling range for artillery. I hope we see more and more of that in Ukraine. Long range and GPS guidance and sounds like even target recognition? Drones, artillery, missiles capabilities seem to overlap and blur. Oh yeah and boosted glide bombs! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:56:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Non official non government donations to Ukraine in the last few weeks, I focused on the drones.
Full list:
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:05:14 PM EDT
[#43]
https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2024/01/marine-corps-field-squad-level-loitering-munitions-2027/393776/ Some Marine Corps squads will get loitering munitions as soon as fiscal year 2027, and the race is already on to figure out how to operate them in congested airspace, two program managers said Tuesday. The Corps first identified the need for an infantry-controlled loitering munition in 2020, shortly after Azerbaijan used multiple types of one-way attack drones to devastate Armenian forces. Since then, the Marines have stood up several loitering munitions programs, including one called the Organic Precision Fire program that will provide squad and platoon-sized units with loitering munitions. That program is split into two elements: Organic Precision Fire—Infantry and Organic Precision Fire—Mounted, for use on vehicles. The Marine Corps is “going pretty aggressively into identifying a lightweight solution for squads,” said Travis Bowden, capabilities integration officer for Organic Precision Fires. Marines in the field will get the weapon “sometime in [fiscal year] 2027, Bowden said, though the timeline also depends on how well potential suppliers perform. Use of drones in Ukraine has validated many of the Marine Corps’ assumptions about how to use loitering munitions, Bowden said. Still, he cautioned that the Marines’ global, expeditionary nature means it has different priorities than Ukrainian drone-bombing units with short logistics chains. For one, fuzes, lithium batteries, and other elements of a loitering munition will have to be stored safely on ships and planes traveling anywhere in the world. The variation in climate from the sweltering Pacific to the freezing Arctic could also affect the munitions’ battery life, he said. Changing weather could also affect accuracy, Bowden said. And the jury is still out on whether the service will choose a sophisticated, expensive weapon or a simpler, cheaper model, Bowden said. “That's why the lessons from Ukraine and other places are giving us some starting points to kind of validate what we're thinking,” he said. Regardless, given the limitations of weather, electronic warfare, and logistics, Bodwen said he does not foresee loitering munitions “darkening the sky.” Command and control systems will also need to improve for the Marine Corps to use the weapons, he said, including better intelligence collection for identifying targets and greater communications between units to coordinate strikes. Targeting, communications, and weapons will need to “progress together and mature together in order to realize that full targeting process that we're trying to get to the lowest level,” of command, he said. The Marines’ fielding of another drone, the resupply TRV-150C model, is already providing lessons in drone deployment, said Master Sgt. Christopher Genualdi, capabilities integration officer for aerial delivery and autonomous distribution systems. The Marine Corps announced the initial fielding of six of the large drones in November of last year. The drones are designed to drop-off payloads to Marines deployed in areas where an enemy’s defenses prevent aerial resupply. The drones can fly a payload of 150 pounds about nine miles. The drones are so easy to fly that they are piloted by members of Marine logistics units, rather than dedicated drone pilots, Genualdi said. However, as troops learn to use the system, they’ve discovered that there’s no easy way to keep drones out of the way of other U.S. aircraft and airborne munitions. Units can manually deconflict airspace by verbally informing other units, including Marine aviators, of the drones presence, Genualdi said. Failing that, though, the Marine Corps systems do not easily allow for tracking of both unmanned and manned planes at the same time. “I have a guy who works in the Direct Air Support Center, deconflicting in the airspace,” he said, “but our systems don't necessarily talk to his.” Genualdi said the issue isn’t insolvable, pointing to successes in the commercial sector for tracking airborne vehicles. “I'm able to go online right now and kind of see every single civilian aircraft,” he said. The Marine Corps is also working through who is supposed to fix the drones when they break. The current repair program consists of contracted repair, in which drones are sent back to dedicated repair centers. In the field, though, Marines may need to learn how to make simple repairs, like swapping out motors. For example, troops qualified at micro-soldering might step into repair drones, Genualdi said. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:05:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Saltwater-Hillbilly]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: The bottom line is that the losses are 100% sustainable and combat operations will continue - until the point that they are not, which will be mostly unexpected. Until there is tangible evidence that the losses have become unsustainable through highly visible battlefield results or major new political/diplomatic changes, things continue as they are. Putin is counting on western aid ending before Russian industrial output and combat capability are exhausted. It's been the Russian path to victory for over 18 months now. I suspect that the Kremlin commitment to victory is such that they will fully exhaust their capability to the point of collapse, if Ukraine is able to sustain itself. Recent signs are all pointing in Russia's favor: small tactical successes in the battlefield, and severe upheavals in Ukraine's leadership (Zaluzhny). Putin will continue the fight until either Ukraine or Russia collapses. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By 3Florks: Holy shit SOLID numbers. I don't care about troop numbers. The loss of equipment is gonna break the Orcs back. It's that simple. You can't lose that many tubes and APC's a day. It's unsustainable.. That's it We've been saying that for how many months? Russia's losses are sustainable. If that changes, it will show in Ukrainian advances on the ground or Lavrov formally requesting negotiations. Not Necessarily. During WW1, both the Imperial German and Imperial Russian Governments were "all-in", and both pushed the war right up to the point of governmental collapse. The Germans actually prevented Austria-Hungary from negotiating with the Allies in summer of 1917, when it became clear after 1916 that there would be no long-term "winners" and that negotiations were the only way to save whatever was left of the antebellum European social and political order. Similarly, when the Kaydets (Constitutional Democrats) overthrew the Czar in the Russian Empire, their failure to take steps to initiate negotiations to end the war gave the Left-socialist coalition the opening to oppose them, which led to the "October Revolution" in which the Bolshevik faction of the Left-socialists ended up in charge. In Germany, they fought aggressively right up to to the point that the "wheels came off" and they no longer had the means to continue the war and Kaiser Bill abdicated. It was not apparent at the time that either of these governments was on the brink of collapse until it actually happened, as the Russians had conducted some moderately successful offensives in the summer/fall of 1916 and were still achieving battlefield successes in some areas of the Eastern Front through the summer of 1917, while the Germans had launched a major offensive in the West less than 6 months before in spring of 1918 that had nearly broken the French Army. As a matter of fact, the Allies saw Spring/Summer of 1919 as key to eventually defeating the German Army in the west, and the Allied consensus was that the war, at best, would likely continue into at least late 1919 and more likely the summer of 1920. Neither the Germans not the Russians gave up due to frontline losses or defeats, it was because of "whole of government" eclipse, and these can be very hard to predict from the outside, as they tend to happen rapidly. The bottom line is that the losses are 100% sustainable and combat operations will continue - until the point that they are not, which will be mostly unexpected. Until there is tangible evidence that the losses have become unsustainable through highly visible battlefield results or major new political/diplomatic changes, things continue as they are. Putin is counting on western aid ending before Russian industrial output and combat capability are exhausted. It's been the Russian path to victory for over 18 months now. I suspect that the Kremlin commitment to victory is such that they will fully exhaust their capability to the point of collapse, if Ukraine is able to sustain itself. Recent signs are all pointing in Russia's favor: small tactical successes in the battlefield, and severe upheavals in Ukraine's leadership (Zaluzhny). Putin will continue the fight until either Ukraine or Russia collapses. Concur. My point is that Both the Russians and the Germans war efforts collapsed well before they had expended all of their theoretical military warfighting capability, and from the outside looking in, it is tricky to try to determine a national culmination by merely looking at combat force generation capability. Authoritarian governments are also really bad at knowing when to call it quits and will often go till something breaks not related directly to the frontline issues, usually when some factors not seen as major have combined to create unrecoverable strategic issues. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:15:18 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:20:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Related by pants pissing policy, aka ESCALATION 😱😱😱 NO WAY!
US allies take note. Not even in our own defense will we strike at the source. We will never strike or allow our weapons to strike Russia, Iran, or China. If they attack you we will give you a partial umbrella (at best) to from which to watch your country pulverized piece by piece. If we are attacked we will shoot down most of the missiles but not the launchers or command posts. The military technical term for this policy is rudderless, cowardly insanity. Plan accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:21:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockNwood: Wow! That is mind boggling range for artillery. I hope we see more and more of that in Ukraine. Long range and GPS guidance and sounds like even target recognition? Drones, artillery, missiles capabilities seem to overlap and blur. Oh yeah and boosted glide bombs!  Failed To Load Title PzH 2000 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:23:30 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2024/01/marine-corps-field-squad-level-loitering-munitions-2027/393776/ Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2024/01/marine-corps-field-squad-level-loitering-munitions-2027/393776/ Some Marine Corps squads will get loitering munitions as soon as fiscal year 2027, and the race is already on to figure out how to operate them in congested airspace, two program managers said Tuesday. The Corps first identified the need for an infantry-controlled loitering munition in 2020, shortly after Azerbaijan used multiple types of one-way attack drones to devastate Armenian forces. Since then, the Marines have stood up several loitering munitions programs, including one called the Organic Precision Fire program that will provide squad and platoon-sized units with loitering munitions. That program is split into two elements: Organic Precision Fire—Infantry and Organic Precision Fire—Mounted, for use on vehicles. The Marine Corps is “going pretty aggressively into identifying a lightweight solution for squads,” said Travis Bowden, capabilities integration officer for Organic Precision Fires. Marines in the field will get the weapon “sometime in [fiscal year] 2027, Bowden said, though the timeline also depends on how well potential suppliers perform. Use of drones in Ukraine has validated many of the Marine Corps’ assumptions about how to use loitering munitions, Bowden said. Still, he cautioned that the Marines’ global, expeditionary nature means it has different priorities than Ukrainian drone-bombing units with short logistics chains. For one, fuzes, lithium batteries, and other elements of a loitering munition will have to be stored safely on ships and planes traveling anywhere in the world. The variation in climate from the sweltering Pacific to the freezing Arctic could also affect the munitions’ battery life, he said. Changing weather could also affect accuracy, Bowden said. And the jury is still out on whether the service will choose a sophisticated, expensive weapon or a simpler, cheaper model, Bowden said. “That's why the lessons from Ukraine and other places are giving us some starting points to kind of validate what we're thinking,” he said. Regardless, given the limitations of weather, electronic warfare, and logistics, Bodwen said he does not foresee loitering munitions “darkening the sky.” Command and control systems will also need to improve for the Marine Corps to use the weapons, he said, including better intelligence collection for identifying targets and greater communications between units to coordinate strikes. Targeting, communications, and weapons will need to “progress together and mature together in order to realize that full targeting process that we're trying to get to the lowest level,” of command, he said. The Marines’ fielding of another drone, the resupply TRV-150C model, is already providing lessons in drone deployment, said Master Sgt. Christopher Genualdi, capabilities integration officer for aerial delivery and autonomous distribution systems. The Marine Corps announced the initial fielding of six of the large drones in November of last year. The drones are designed to drop-off payloads to Marines deployed in areas where an enemy’s defenses prevent aerial resupply. The drones can fly a payload of 150 pounds about nine miles. The drones are so easy to fly that they are piloted by members of Marine logistics units, rather than dedicated drone pilots, Genualdi said. However, as troops learn to use the system, they’ve discovered that there’s no easy way to keep drones out of the way of other U.S. aircraft and airborne munitions. Units can manually deconflict airspace by verbally informing other units, including Marine aviators, of the drones presence, Genualdi said. Failing that, though, the Marine Corps systems do not easily allow for tracking of both unmanned and manned planes at the same time. “I have a guy who works in the Direct Air Support Center, deconflicting in the airspace,” he said, “but our systems don't necessarily talk to his.” Genualdi said the issue isn’t insolvable, pointing to successes in the commercial sector for tracking airborne vehicles. “I'm able to go online right now and kind of see every single civilian aircraft,” he said. The Marine Corps is also working through who is supposed to fix the drones when they break. The current repair program consists of contracted repair, in which drones are sent back to dedicated repair centers. In the field, though, Marines may need to learn how to make simple repairs, like swapping out motors. For example, troops qualified at micro-soldering might step into repair drones, Genualdi said. Great to see the Marines are doing intelligent and in depth analysis of the war in Ukraine to guide their own weapons and tactics. “Congested airspace”. I love America! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:26:17 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Concur. My point is that Both the Russians and the Germans war efforts collapsed well before they had expended all of their theoretical military warfighting capability, and from the outside looking in, it is tricky to try to determine a national culmination by merely looking at combat force generation capability. Authoritarian governments are also really bad at knowing when to call it quits and will often go till something breaks not related directly to the frontline issues, usually when some factors not seen as major have combined to create unrecoverable strategic issues. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By 3Florks: Holy shit SOLID numbers. I don't care about troop numbers. The loss of equipment is gonna break the Orcs back. It's that simple. You can't lose that many tubes and APC's a day. It's unsustainable.. That's it We've been saying that for how many months? Russia's losses are sustainable. If that changes, it will show in Ukrainian advances on the ground or Lavrov formally requesting negotiations. Not Necessarily. During WW1, both the Imperial German and Imperial Russian Governments were "all-in", and both pushed the war right up to the point of governmental collapse. The Germans actually prevented Austria-Hungary from negotiating with the Allies in summer of 1917, when it became clear after 1916 that there would be no long-term "winners" and that negotiations were the only way to save whatever was left of the antebellum European social and political order. Similarly, when the Kaydets (Constitutional Democrats) overthrew the Czar in the Russian Empire, their failure to take steps to initiate negotiations to end the war gave the Left-socialist coalition the opening to oppose them, which led to the "October Revolution" in which the Bolshevik faction of the Left-socialists ended up in charge. In Germany, they fought aggressively right up to to the point that the "wheels came off" and they no longer had the means to continue the war and Kaiser Bill abdicated. It was not apparent at the time that either of these governments was on the brink of collapse until it actually happened, as the Russians had conducted some moderately successful offensives in the summer/fall of 1916 and were still achieving battlefield successes in some areas of the Eastern Front through the summer of 1917, while the Germans had launched a major offensive in the West less than 6 months before in spring of 1918 that had nearly broken the French Army. As a matter of fact, the Allies saw Spring/Summer of 1919 as key to eventually defeating the German Army in the west, and the Allied consensus was that the war, at best, would likely continue into at least late 1919 and more likely the summer of 1920. Neither the Germans not the Russians gave up due to frontline losses or defeats, it was because of "whole of government" eclipse, and these can be very hard to predict from the outside, as they tend to happen rapidly. The bottom line is that the losses are 100% sustainable and combat operations will continue - until the point that they are not, which will be mostly unexpected. Until there is tangible evidence that the losses have become unsustainable through highly visible battlefield results or major new political/diplomatic changes, things continue as they are. Putin is counting on western aid ending before Russian industrial output and combat capability are exhausted. It's been the Russian path to victory for over 18 months now. I suspect that the Kremlin commitment to victory is such that they will fully exhaust their capability to the point of collapse, if Ukraine is able to sustain itself. Recent signs are all pointing in Russia's favor: small tactical successes in the battlefield, and severe upheavals in Ukraine's leadership (Zaluzhny). Putin will continue the fight until either Ukraine or Russia collapses. Concur. My point is that Both the Russians and the Germans war efforts collapsed well before they had expended all of their theoretical military warfighting capability, and from the outside looking in, it is tricky to try to determine a national culmination by merely looking at combat force generation capability. Authoritarian governments are also really bad at knowing when to call it quits and will often go till something breaks not related directly to the frontline issues, usually when some factors not seen as major have combined to create unrecoverable strategic issues. You guys bring up some terrific info and analysis in your discussion. This is incredibly important to exam and understand what to look for in the future. Much gratitude for both your thoughtful contributions! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:27:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: 15 minutes ago, official Ukrainian air force message.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFL_s8dWcAAW75t?format=jpg&name=small 3 solid hits.
lol.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFMEaSlXoAAJErC?format=jpg&name=small Ha, they tried to hipfire a SAM at the missile at the last second! |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
