[BigEasyCard]

Anyone other than me find "Naval Infantry" a contradiction in terms...?

A year ago, a theory was advanced that Russia needed to invade Ukraine to restore water flow in the North Crimean Canal. Since the invasion, Russia has reopened the canal.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1506742739161198592[/tweet]

Perhaps Naval Infantry is similar to our Marines?

Slava Ukrayiny!
слава україні[size=1]слава україні[/size]

[BigEasyCard]

Anyone other than me find "Naval Infantry" a contradiction in terms...?

A year ago, a theory was advanced that Russia needed to invade Ukraine to restore water flow in the North Crimean Canal. Since the invasion, Russia has reopened the canal.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1506742739161198592[/tweet]

Perhaps Naval Infantry is similar to our Marines?

Slava Ukrayiny!
слава україні[size=1]слава україні[/size]

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/grayconnolly/status/1507079919796625408?s=21[/tweet]

You could envision the Russians occupying all of the Donbas, capturing Mariupol and thus the entire Azov sea coast to link up the Donbas to the Crimea, and calling it a day.  Or perhaps marching all the way to Odessa and leaving Ukraine land-locked.

Under those circumstances, Ukraine will continue to be a nation-state, and thus survived, but would have given up substantial amounts of territory.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/grayconnolly/status/1507079919796625408?s=21[/tweet]

You could envision the Russians occupying all of the Donbas, capturing Mariupol and thus the entire Azov sea coast to link up the Donbas to the Crimea, and calling it a day.  Or perhaps marching all the way to Odessa and leaving Ukraine land-locked.

Under those circumstances, Ukraine will continue to be a nation-state, and thus survived, but would have given up substantial amounts of territory.

BC

[Goose]

You could envision the Russians occupying all of the Donbas, capturing Mariupol and thus the entire Azov sea coast to link up the Donbas to the Crimea, and calling it a day.  Or perhaps marching all the way to Odessa and leaving Ukraine land-locked.


Under those circumstances, Ukraine will continue to be a nation-state, and thus survived, but would have given up substantial amounts of territory.



BC

I think Ukraine could possibly accept the Azov sea coast being lost. They wouldn't like that, but Russia controls the access already at the Kerch peninsula. I think the Ukraine will keep fighting as long as they are able to do so at all, regardless of cost, in order to keep Odessa. Relying on Romania as a corridor for exports is not really viable. Ukraine is poor, Romania is arguably poorer. There is at present not much infrastructure to export grain that way. No money to build it. On top of that, Ukraine would be at such a strategic disadvantage Russia could gobble them up later whenever they felt like it. Enclosed on three sides from which they can be attacked is just not viable. The previous situation before the war was bad enough.

[Goose]

You could envision the Russians occupying all of the Donbas, capturing Mariupol and thus the entire Azov sea coast to link up the Donbas to the Crimea, and calling it a day.  Or perhaps marching all the way to Odessa and leaving Ukraine land-locked.


Under those circumstances, Ukraine will continue to be a nation-state, and thus survived, but would have given up substantial amounts of territory.



BC

I think Ukraine could possibly accept the Azov sea coast being lost. They wouldn't like that, but Russia controls the access already at the Kerch peninsula. I think the Ukraine will keep fighting as long as they are able to do so at all, regardless of cost, in order to keep Odessa. Relying on Romania as a corridor for exports is not really viable. Ukraine is poor, Romania is arguably poorer. There is at present not much infrastructure to export grain that way. No money to build it. On top of that, Ukraine would be at such a strategic disadvantage Russia could gobble them up later whenever they felt like it. Enclosed on three sides from which they can be attacked is just not viable. The previous situation before the war was bad enough.

[fullmetal]

I believe the Donbas region still has economically viable coal deposits, and there are somewhat new natural gas finds in the Sea of Azov.  Russia will prize Crimea above Donbas because of Sevastopol, historical home port of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.  I find that water-centric analysis interesting too.  At this point, I don't know if Ukraine is willing to make any concessions.  They may have the momentum.

Yes, I did assume Naval Infantry to be similar to the Marines, but I think the US Marine Corps has developed a very sharp focus over the last few decades to the point where they've divested themselves of their armored units -- specifically, they no longer operate tanks in order to be lighter and more expeditionary, so to speak.  Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems the Corps' move away from tanks has been prescient.  Anti-tank weapons are quite effective.

Anyway, Russian Naval Infantry might be similar to the US Marines in appearance, but I have no reason to assume they're even near the same well-defined scope/function or effectiveness.  If Russia is running low on Army infantry and looking to backstop with Naval infantry (square peg, round hole?)...well...it's about the same reason why they're sending in conscripts from their border regions and about to spin up a new draft.  They're desperate.

[fullmetal]

I believe the Donbas region still has economically viable coal deposits, and there are somewhat new natural gas finds in the Sea of Azov.  Russia will prize Crimea above Donbas because of Sevastopol, historical home port of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.  I find that water-centric analysis interesting too.  At this point, I don't know if Ukraine is willing to make any concessions.  They may have the momentum.

Yes, I did assume Naval Infantry to be similar to the Marines, but I think the US Marine Corps has developed a very sharp focus over the last few decades to the point where they've divested themselves of their armored units -- specifically, they no longer operate tanks in order to be lighter and more expeditionary, so to speak.  Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems the Corps' move away from tanks has been prescient.  Anti-tank weapons are quite effective.

Anyway, Russian Naval Infantry might be similar to the US Marines in appearance, but I have no reason to assume they're even near the same well-defined scope/function or effectiveness.  If Russia is running low on Army infantry and looking to backstop with Naval infantry (square peg, round hole?)...well...it's about the same reason why they're sending in conscripts from their border regions and about to spin up a new draft.  They're desperate.

[Goose]

Yes, I did assume Naval Infantry to be similar to the Marines, but I think the US Marine Corps has developed a very sharp focus over the last few decades to the point where they've divested themselves of their armored units -- specifically, they no longer operate tanks in order to be lighter and more expeditionary, so to speak.  Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems the Corps' move away from tanks has been prescient.  Anti-tank weapons are quite effective.


Anyway, Russian Naval Infantry might be similar to the US Marines in appearance, but I have no reason to assume they're even near the same well-defined scope/function or effectiveness.  If Russia is running low on Army infantry and looking to backstop with Naval infantry (square peg, round hole?)...well...it's about the same reason why they're sending in conscripts from their border regions and about to spin up a new draft.  They're desperate.

Russian Naval Infantry is generally considered an "elite" formation. If things aren't going well due to lack of aggression, they are the ones to call. However, with their high aggression can come high casualties. They are heavier than USA light infantry but not as heavy as a Russian Motor Rifle formation (mechanized infantry). They are, by Russian standards, very good troops.
The US Marines most certainly did NOT divest themselves of armor over the last few decades, in fact quite the exact opposite. From 1991 until about 2020 they became much heavier in terms of armor. This was in response to the reduction in the size of of the US Army. The US had inadequate troop strength to fight on land against our opponents. The Marines were used as a "second Army", not an amphibious force. They fought in the Second Gulf War and Afghanistan as a land force in exactly the way the Army did.
Since 2021 the Marines have been restructuring themselves to fight as an amphibious force in the Pacific against China. Tanks are not part of that scenario.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/militar...invention/
It is far from unanimous in the Corps itself that this is a good idea. It is being pushed at least partially by budget. We don't really know if the NCA intends and fully understands they cannot call on the Marines to fight as they have for the last 25 or so years. If they do issue such a task, it will be very, very ugly.

[Goose]

Yes, I did assume Naval Infantry to be similar to the Marines, but I think the US Marine Corps has developed a very sharp focus over the last few decades to the point where they've divested themselves of their armored units -- specifically, they no longer operate tanks in order to be lighter and more expeditionary, so to speak.  Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems the Corps' move away from tanks has been prescient.  Anti-tank weapons are quite effective.


Anyway, Russian Naval Infantry might be similar to the US Marines in appearance, but I have no reason to assume they're even near the same well-defined scope/function or effectiveness.  If Russia is running low on Army infantry and looking to backstop with Naval infantry (square peg, round hole?)...well...it's about the same reason why they're sending in conscripts from their border regions and about to spin up a new draft.  They're desperate.

Russian Naval Infantry is generally considered an "elite" formation. If things aren't going well due to lack of aggression, they are the ones to call. However, with their high aggression can come high casualties. They are heavier than USA light infantry but not as heavy as a Russian Motor Rifle formation (mechanized infantry). They are, by Russian standards, very good troops.
The US Marines most certainly did NOT divest themselves of armor over the last few decades, in fact quite the exact opposite. From 1991 until about 2020 they became much heavier in terms of armor. This was in response to the reduction in the size of of the US Army. The US had inadequate troop strength to fight on land against our opponents. The Marines were used as a "second Army", not an amphibious force. They fought in the Second Gulf War and Afghanistan as a land force in exactly the way the Army did.
Since 2021 the Marines have been restructuring themselves to fight as an amphibious force in the Pacific against China. Tanks are not part of that scenario.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/militar...invention/
It is far from unanimous in the Corps itself that this is a good idea. It is being pushed at least partially by budget. We don't really know if the NCA intends and fully understands they cannot call on the Marines to fight as they have for the last 25 or so years. If they do issue such a task, it will be very, very ugly.

[dabigv13]

Ukraine struck a Russian ship today with a short range ballistic missile. Nuts that they still have that capability a month into this. 

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1506953417935179793?s=20&t=VExanFUZ05WWgIOqHWct4g[/tweet]

Russian casualties are likely approaching 20% of initial forces, and everywhere but the south, Ukraine is counter-attacking and siezing territory back. Zelensky won't and can't sign any peace treaty that cedes land. Formalizing Russian Crimea, Donbas, and some agreement to stay out NATO is probably all Zelensky could agree to. But this will still likely go on for a while.

[dabigv13]

Ukraine struck a Russian ship today with a short range ballistic missile. Nuts that they still have that capability a month into this. 

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1506953417935179793?s=20&t=VExanFUZ05WWgIOqHWct4g[/tweet]

Russian casualties are likely approaching 20% of initial forces, and everywhere but the south, Ukraine is counter-attacking and siezing territory back. Zelensky won't and can't sign any peace treaty that cedes land. Formalizing Russian Crimea, Donbas, and some agreement to stay out NATO is probably all Zelensky could agree to. But this will still likely go on for a while.

[Goose]

Ukraine struck a Russian ship today with a short range ballistic missile. Nuts that they still have that capability a month into this. 


Russian casualties are likely approaching 20% of initial forces, and everywhere but the south, Ukraine is counter-attacking and siezing territory back. Zelensky won't and can't sign any peace treaty that cedes land. Formalizing Russian Crimea, Donbas, and some agreement to stay out NATO is probably all Zelensky could agree to. But this will still likely go on for a while.

Ukraine isn't actually saying how they sank the ship. The short range ballistic missiles they have are not real accurate, so actually hitting a ship with them would be pretty much luck. However they did it, it was absolutely great. It might make it much harder to supply the Southern front if Ukraine can effectively hold ports at risk. Supposedly the US and NATO are actually trying to get some anti-ship cruse missiles for Ukraine.

I agree that the concessions you list are basically all that Ukraine is willing to agree to, and that reluctantly (obviously). It is so much like the status quo ante that I find it hard to believe Russia will accept that solution. If they do accept that solution, I don't see Putin surviving it very long. Russia will have lost many troops for essentially nothing. Slathering lipstick on the pig doesn't change that.

[Goose]

Ukraine struck a Russian ship today with a short range ballistic missile. Nuts that they still have that capability a month into this. 


Russian casualties are likely approaching 20% of initial forces, and everywhere but the south, Ukraine is counter-attacking and siezing territory back. Zelensky won't and can't sign any peace treaty that cedes land. Formalizing Russian Crimea, Donbas, and some agreement to stay out NATO is probably all Zelensky could agree to. But this will still likely go on for a while.

Ukraine isn't actually saying how they sank the ship. The short range ballistic missiles they have are not real accurate, so actually hitting a ship with them would be pretty much luck. However they did it, it was absolutely great. It might make it much harder to supply the Southern front if Ukraine can effectively hold ports at risk. Supposedly the US and NATO are actually trying to get some anti-ship cruse missiles for Ukraine.

I agree that the concessions you list are basically all that Ukraine is willing to agree to, and that reluctantly (obviously). It is so much like the status quo ante that I find it hard to believe Russia will accept that solution. If they do accept that solution, I don't see Putin surviving it very long. Russia will have lost many troops for essentially nothing. Slathering lipstick on the pig doesn't change that.

[dabigv13]

I saw a lot of Tochka-U attribution online but it is true that the Ukrainian MOD hasn't made a specific claim about how the ship was struck so lots of possibilities. More on that-

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44...-port-city


[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1507359193497546767?s=20&t=bLhsK5nSfZluyg2Fq58dSQ[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1507374658877857805?s=20&t=bLhsK5nSfZluyg2Fq58dSQ[/tweet]

Russia basically admitting they can't accomplish their initial war aims, so now they are focused on Donbas exclusively. I imagine a lot of the Russian advances will melt away unless they are continuously resupplied with men and arms, and seems clear Russia can't do that across their entire operational front in Ukraine.

[dabigv13]

I saw a lot of Tochka-U attribution online but it is true that the Ukrainian MOD hasn't made a specific claim about how the ship was struck so lots of possibilities. More on that-

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44...-port-city


[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1507359193497546767?s=20&t=bLhsK5nSfZluyg2Fq58dSQ[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1507374658877857805?s=20&t=bLhsK5nSfZluyg2Fq58dSQ[/tweet]

Russia basically admitting they can't accomplish their initial war aims, so now they are focused on Donbas exclusively. I imagine a lot of the Russian advances will melt away unless they are continuously resupplied with men and arms, and seems clear Russia can't do that across their entire operational front in Ukraine.

[Phogge]

Love the Rusky troops style.

Much better than tossing a frag grenade into an officer's tent. What you have left is a runover commander being what we used to call a "sailbird" on a highway.

[Phogge]

Love the Rusky troops style.

Much better than tossing a frag grenade into an officer's tent. What you have left is a runover commander being what we used to call a "sailbird" on a highway.

[Goose]

Love the Rusky troops style.

Much better than tossing a frag grenade into an officer's tent. What you have left is a runover commander being what we used to call a "sailbird" on a highway.

It was an accident comrade. We hit an unknown object on the road and we backed over it trying to determine what it was. It unfortunately was Colonel Medvechek.

[Goose]

Love the Rusky troops style.

Much better than tossing a frag grenade into an officer's tent. What you have left is a runover commander being what we used to call a "sailbird" on a highway.

It was an accident comrade. We hit an unknown object on the road and we backed over it trying to determine what it was. It unfortunately was Colonel Medvechek.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1507378525061496832?s=20&t=w9cBN_UMIyu6ZkD7QIUnrg[/tweet]

Here is video of that dude being evacuated from a couple days ago. Interesting and notable that he's being medically evacuated by Chechen irregular forces under command of their warlord Kadyrov, and not regular Russian troops. Also does not appear to be getting very high quality medical care. Wonder if the Russian medics said nah, he didn't trust the Russian medics, or there weren't Russian medics. All plausible.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1507378525061496832?s=20&t=w9cBN_UMIyu6ZkD7QIUnrg[/tweet]

Here is video of that dude being evacuated from a couple days ago. Interesting and notable that he's being medically evacuated by Chechen irregular forces under command of their warlord Kadyrov, and not regular Russian troops. Also does not appear to be getting very high quality medical care. Wonder if the Russian medics said nah, he didn't trust the Russian medics, or there weren't Russian medics. All plausible.

[Goose]

I saw a lot of Tochka-U attribution online but it is true that the Ukrainian MOD hasn't made a specific claim about how the ship was struck so lots of possibilities.

There has indeed been lots of Tochka-U attribution on the internet. I would assume that if this missile was used it would have been detected by US surveillance, although maybe not and maybe not public if so. The CEP of the latest C version of the SS-21 is supposed to be 75 meters. Still not probable you could hit a ship reliably with one shot. However, the ship was docked next to an oil storage tank. It is possible the missile was fired at the ship, hit the oil tank, and the fire spread to the ship. For sure the oil tank did burn, whatever the cause. The ship exhibited multiple secondary explosions in the internet video which is consistent with a fire spreading to onboard ammunition/combat vehicles.
It is also possible a team sneaked to within 2km of the ship and hit either the oil tank or some crate of munitions with a Javelin. Quite possible nobody would notice such a launch, especially if it was from inside a building. Lots of courage and a bit of luck starting a real big fire.

Russia basically admitting they can't accomplish their initial war aims, so now they are focused on Donbas exclusively. I imagine a lot of the Russian advances will melt away unless they are continuously resupplied with men and arms, and seems clear Russia can't do that across their entire operational front in Ukraine.

Could be. It could also be intentional deception used to explain a necessary pause to regroup and resupply, which all the "experts" say the Russians probably need to do right now. It also could be a trial balloon to see how the Russian people respond. It could also be an attempt to cause the Ukrainians to shift forces from the area around the capital towards Donbas, which may be what the Russians want them to do. It is IMHO much too soon to accept the "reduced war aims" narrative. We have to see what plays out.

[Goose]

I saw a lot of Tochka-U attribution online but it is true that the Ukrainian MOD hasn't made a specific claim about how the ship was struck so lots of possibilities.

There has indeed been lots of Tochka-U attribution on the internet. I would assume that if this missile was used it would have been detected by US surveillance, although maybe not and maybe not public if so. The CEP of the latest C version of the SS-21 is supposed to be 75 meters. Still not probable you could hit a ship reliably with one shot. However, the ship was docked next to an oil storage tank. It is possible the missile was fired at the ship, hit the oil tank, and the fire spread to the ship. For sure the oil tank did burn, whatever the cause. The ship exhibited multiple secondary explosions in the internet video which is consistent with a fire spreading to onboard ammunition/combat vehicles.
It is also possible a team sneaked to within 2km of the ship and hit either the oil tank or some crate of munitions with a Javelin. Quite possible nobody would notice such a launch, especially if it was from inside a building. Lots of courage and a bit of luck starting a real big fire.

Russia basically admitting they can't accomplish their initial war aims, so now they are focused on Donbas exclusively. I imagine a lot of the Russian advances will melt away unless they are continuously resupplied with men and arms, and seems clear Russia can't do that across their entire operational front in Ukraine.

Could be. It could also be intentional deception used to explain a necessary pause to regroup and resupply, which all the "experts" say the Russians probably need to do right now. It also could be a trial balloon to see how the Russian people respond. It could also be an attempt to cause the Ukrainians to shift forces from the area around the capital towards Donbas, which may be what the Russians want them to do. It is IMHO much too soon to accept the "reduced war aims" narrative. We have to see what plays out.

[BostonCard]

Thinking that the Russian medics might play fast and loose with aseptic technique (whether carelessly or deliberately). We did all we could but the commander became septic and died.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thinking that the Russian medics might play fast and loose with aseptic technique (whether carelessly or deliberately). We did all we could but the commander became septic and died.

BC

[fullmetal]

The US Marines most certainly did NOT divest themselves of armor over the last few decades, in fact quite the exact opposite. From 1991 until about 2020 they became much heavier in terms of armor. This was in response to the reduction in the size of of the US Army. The US had inadequate troop strength to fight on land against our opponents. The Marines were used as a "second Army", not an amphibious force. They fought in the Second Gulf War and Afghanistan as a land force in exactly the way the Army did.
Since 2021 the Marines have been restructuring themselves to fight as an amphibious force in the Pacific against China. Tanks are not part of that scenario.

Oof, I definitely meant years, not decades.  Anyway, the success of Ukrainian anti-tank weapons is indirect validation of the value of tanks in modern combat.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/yo...its-armor/

[fullmetal]

The US Marines most certainly did NOT divest themselves of armor over the last few decades, in fact quite the exact opposite. From 1991 until about 2020 they became much heavier in terms of armor. This was in response to the reduction in the size of of the US Army. The US had inadequate troop strength to fight on land against our opponents. The Marines were used as a "second Army", not an amphibious force. They fought in the Second Gulf War and Afghanistan as a land force in exactly the way the Army did.
Since 2021 the Marines have been restructuring themselves to fight as an amphibious force in the Pacific against China. Tanks are not part of that scenario.

Oof, I definitely meant years, not decades.  Anyway, the success of Ukrainian anti-tank weapons is indirect validation of the value of tanks in modern combat.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/yo...its-armor/

[Goose]

Anyway, the success of Ukrainian anti-tank weapons is indirect validation of the value of tanks in modern combat.

Well, perhaps, but probably not IMHO. I think the main threat to armor in modern war is aircraft and helicopters. The success the Ukrainians have had with their anti-tank missiles is mostly due to bad Russian tactics. Going back to the Yom Kippur War the Sagger (AT-3) wreaked havoc on the Israeli armor. The reason there too was horribly bad tactics. Armor cannot fight without accompanying infantry to locate and designate threats. The armor can then neutralize the threat before entering it's envelope. OK, sometimes the infantry has to go at their opposite numbers, but in general the armor can provide support that makes it a one-sided fight (unless both sides have comparable armor). The Israelis had got Victory Disease and believed they could go at top speed with their tanks right through the Egyptian infantry, leaving their infantry behind to "mop up". Bad plan. Fix that and everything changed.

Don't read too much in to what is going on in Ukraine. Russia hasn't exactly set the standard for combined arms operation in this war.

[Goose]

Anyway, the success of Ukrainian anti-tank weapons is indirect validation of the value of tanks in modern combat.

Well, perhaps, but probably not IMHO. I think the main threat to armor in modern war is aircraft and helicopters. The success the Ukrainians have had with their anti-tank missiles is mostly due to bad Russian tactics. Going back to the Yom Kippur War the Sagger (AT-3) wreaked havoc on the Israeli armor. The reason there too was horribly bad tactics. Armor cannot fight without accompanying infantry to locate and designate threats. The armor can then neutralize the threat before entering it's envelope. OK, sometimes the infantry has to go at their opposite numbers, but in general the armor can provide support that makes it a one-sided fight (unless both sides have comparable armor). The Israelis had got Victory Disease and believed they could go at top speed with their tanks right through the Egyptian infantry, leaving their infantry behind to "mop up". Bad plan. Fix that and everything changed.

Don't read too much in to what is going on in Ukraine. Russia hasn't exactly set the standard for combined arms operation in this war.

[BostonCard]

I mean, Armenian armor got decimated by Azerbaijani Turkish-made drones.

There’s a whole Ukrainian song for “Bayraktar”.

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean, Armenian armor got decimated by Azerbaijani Turkish-made drones.

There’s a whole Ukrainian song for “Bayraktar”.

BC

[Goose]

I mean, Armenian armor got decimated by Azerbaijani Turkish-made drones.

There’s a whole Ukrainian song for “Bayraktar”.

BC

The threat to armor from the air is very significant. The US has known for a long while that the only practical way to fight a "modern" war is under an Aluminum Overcast. If you have that, the other side is in trouble. If you don't, you could be.

[Goose]

I mean, Armenian armor got decimated by Azerbaijani Turkish-made drones.

There’s a whole Ukrainian song for “Bayraktar”.

BC

The threat to armor from the air is very significant. The US has known for a long while that the only practical way to fight a "modern" war is under an Aluminum Overcast. If you have that, the other side is in trouble. If you don't, you could be.

[BostonCard]

Russian general Yakov Rezantsev killed in Ukraine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538

I think there is a relevant queen song here.

BC

[BostonCard]

Russian general Yakov Rezantsev killed in Ukraine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538

I think there is a relevant queen song here.

BC

[ca245]

Russian general Yakov Rezantsev killed in Ukraine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538

I think there is a relevant queen song here.

BC

The BBC article says Rezantsev was a "Lieutenant General" and the highest ranking officer killed to date. The article then lists several "Major Generals" who have also been killed. Does it mean that, when it comes to generals, "Lieutenant" is a higher rank than "Major", at least in the Russian army?

[ca245]

Russian general Yakov Rezantsev killed in Ukraine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538

I think there is a relevant queen song here.

BC

The BBC article says Rezantsev was a "Lieutenant General" and the highest ranking officer killed to date. The article then lists several "Major Generals" who have also been killed. Does it mean that, when it comes to generals, "Lieutenant" is a higher rank than "Major", at least in the Russian army?

[DC 86]

Russian general Yakov Rezantsev killed in Ukraine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538

I think there is a relevant queen song here.

BC

The BBC article says Rezantsev was a "Lieutenant General" and the highest ranking officer killed to date. The article then lists several "Major Generals" who have also been killed. Does it mean that, when it comes to generals, "Lieutenant" is a higher rank than "Major", at least in the Russian army?

Well, Lieutenant General is higher than Major General in the U.S. Army.

[DC 86]

Russian general Yakov Rezantsev killed in Ukraine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538

I think there is a relevant queen song here.

BC

The BBC article says Rezantsev was a "Lieutenant General" and the highest ranking officer killed to date. The article then lists several "Major Generals" who have also been killed. Does it mean that, when it comes to generals, "Lieutenant" is a higher rank than "Major", at least in the Russian army?

Well, Lieutenant General is higher than Major General in the U.S. Army.