[Goose]

Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics.  Great thread about logistics:

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1544...1FAt6m4n-g

BC

True, but if one is to talk logistics, they need to get the numbers right. This tweet does that in some areas but not others. The main problem is that he is using artillery ranges assuming the artillery is sitting right on the forward edge of the line of contact. If they do that, they won't last long, so they don't do that. The self-propelled units can dash forward, fire, then move. However, they aren't going to get so far forward that they are in range of direct fire (like tanks). If that happened, somebody messed up badly. This range error affects his logic, because it doesn't push the Russian dumps so far back they are beyond his notional truck range. For some reason he also ignored the M777 and Paladins, which fire exactly the same shells with the same accuracy. The reason that matters is that the number of self-propelled systems available in Ukraine that he does cite make their total effect relatively small. Not zero, but relatively small. When the rest of the Polish order arrives that will be much less so and will more than double (triple?) the available self-propelled tubes. However, they had over a hundred tubes including the M777, and that didn't do the trick. Lots of reasons for that, including the large area to be covered, but slightly inadequate range is also a big factor. The Russians can do the math and know how far back they have to put their dumps.

The HIMARS also isn't going to deploy all the way to the front lines, but there he has some "extra" range to play with. The HIMARS can indeed force the Russians to move their depots back away from their troops to the point logistics becomes very difficult. That is why Ukraine needed them months ago. The problem right now is that Ukraine has four of them, soon to become eight. With these small numbers, the Russians can indeed play "Russian Roulette" with their depots. They lose a few, but not so many they can't tolerate it. Different story if Ukraine had 50-100 HIMARS or equivalent.

If the Ukraine had HIMARS that was equipped with ATACMS they could fire on Russian logistics/ammunition rail trains while they were in transit. Kill it when it is maximally concentrated. IMHO it is crazy that we will give them systems that go 80 km but not ones that go 300 km. They can hit Russian territory just fine with either. We trust they won't do it with the short range ones but fear they will do it with the long range ones?

[Goose]

Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics.  Great thread about logistics:

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1544...1FAt6m4n-g

BC

True, but if one is to talk logistics, they need to get the numbers right. This tweet does that in some areas but not others. The main problem is that he is using artillery ranges assuming the artillery is sitting right on the forward edge of the line of contact. If they do that, they won't last long, so they don't do that. The self-propelled units can dash forward, fire, then move. However, they aren't going to get so far forward that they are in range of direct fire (like tanks). If that happened, somebody messed up badly. This range error affects his logic, because it doesn't push the Russian dumps so far back they are beyond his notional truck range. For some reason he also ignored the M777 and Paladins, which fire exactly the same shells with the same accuracy. The reason that matters is that the number of self-propelled systems available in Ukraine that he does cite make their total effect relatively small. Not zero, but relatively small. When the rest of the Polish order arrives that will be much less so and will more than double (triple?) the available self-propelled tubes. However, they had over a hundred tubes including the M777, and that didn't do the trick. Lots of reasons for that, including the large area to be covered, but slightly inadequate range is also a big factor. The Russians can do the math and know how far back they have to put their dumps.

The HIMARS also isn't going to deploy all the way to the front lines, but there he has some "extra" range to play with. The HIMARS can indeed force the Russians to move their depots back away from their troops to the point logistics becomes very difficult. That is why Ukraine needed them months ago. The problem right now is that Ukraine has four of them, soon to become eight. With these small numbers, the Russians can indeed play "Russian Roulette" with their depots. They lose a few, but not so many they can't tolerate it. Different story if Ukraine had 50-100 HIMARS or equivalent.

If the Ukraine had HIMARS that was equipped with ATACMS they could fire on Russian logistics/ammunition rail trains while they were in transit. Kill it when it is maximally concentrated. IMHO it is crazy that we will give them systems that go 80 km but not ones that go 300 km. They can hit Russian territory just fine with either. We trust they won't do it with the short range ones but fear they will do it with the long range ones?