[Goose]

We learned what happens when you don't have proper winter gear for your troops in 1950 in Korea.  The Russians know, if anyone knows, the importance of making sure you troops have proper winter gear and the equipment has the proper lubricants etc.  But I suppose that doesn't preclude them from ignoring those lessons.

If we learned it in 1950 in Korea, then we ignored the lessons from the winter of 1944/45 in the Battle of the Bulge at Bastogne.  17,000 Americans from the First, Third and Seventh armies were hospitalized from the cold.

Battle of the Bulge - Wikipedia

It isn't just lack of cold weather gear, although that can be an issue. Infantry fighting in bitter cold is going to get frostbite and hypothermia if they can't be withdrawn and warmed up periodically. In the middle of a battle like the Bulge you can't do that. Many US troops were cut off from any shelter and had to spend days in the cold without fires. No matter what gear you have, guys are going to get sick and lose combat effectiveness. Also, at that point the US did not have a program to train troops in cold weather warfare. Even today, if you aren't a Marine or part of 10th Mountain you probably haven't done the training.

The US Army in WW II did have enough cold weather gear. They were aware of the need. What they didn't have was adequate transport to meet the needs of the troops already in Europe and those newly arriving. Warm coats and long johns took second fiddle to bullets and gas. It was also intended that the cold weather gear would be distributed to the troops when they were rotated out of the line or not yet in the line. Lots of troops never got rotated and some that did never received the gear. It is also true that a lot of the cold weather gear wasn't very "user friendly". It wasn't waterproof and when it got snow on it and the snow melted you had a cold wet coat. Many troops also claimed they couldn't fire their weapons wearing the gloves issued because the fingers were too big.

---

GK3, Yeah the Oryx list has been pretty incredible to follow.  As far as the captured number goes, some pieces of equipment can be used faster than others.  A lot of items were captured in the recent Kharkiv offensive (Izium) but I'm guessing it takes weeks if not months to get all of those operable for Ukraine, with some that may never be repairable. Overall, Russia has been by far the biggest military supplier to Ukraine, as their soldiers have a tendency to abandon everything when things go wrong.  We also saw lots of evidence that Ukraine captured tons of Soviet/Russian artillery ammo, which I think they were running low on.  Assuming it's usable, I'd imagine it will be used more on the Kharkiv/Luhansk front, to avoid transporting it necessarily, but maybe that means reserves they have elsewhere can be used in Kherson, Goose would have more insight than I do.

Unfortunately I have no real "data". I know that one issue will be that the captured ammo, even if "known good", will have to be inventoried and added to the supply system. Otherwise, the units that need it won't know it exists. It is undoubtedly spread out in places Ukraine doesn't want it to be, so it will have to be transported to supply points. The logistics and "paperwork" (even though it is computerized) will be substantial. Just counting it all will take time, and I would imagine it has to be guarded.

I would imagine that Ukraine would carefully evaluate each cache of ammunition by testing it. The last thing you want is to give a unit thousands of rounds of bad 152 mm shells that fall short and kill your own troops. Its going to take some time.

---

Thank you for the reference.  The numbers are astounding.  From the numbers captured it would seem that the Ukrainians now have more tanks than when they started without getting any from elsewhere.

Perhaps, though we can't know how many Ukraine captured and could actually use. Fortunately, Ukraine also got quite a few tanks from the ex-Warsaw Pact NATO nations.

 It also makes you wonder how many more the Russians have to give up?  I know they are reputed to have never scrapped any weapon no matter how old, but there has to be a finite limit somewhere.

Yes, but we are nowhere near that limit yet. The problem for Russia now is that they have the tanks, and to some degree they have the troops, but they are spread out throughout Russia defending the country. Which ones do you move, and how many can you afford to move?

[Goose]

We learned what happens when you don't have proper winter gear for your troops in 1950 in Korea.  The Russians know, if anyone knows, the importance of making sure you troops have proper winter gear and the equipment has the proper lubricants etc.  But I suppose that doesn't preclude them from ignoring those lessons.

If we learned it in 1950 in Korea, then we ignored the lessons from the winter of 1944/45 in the Battle of the Bulge at Bastogne.  17,000 Americans from the First, Third and Seventh armies were hospitalized from the cold.

Battle of the Bulge - Wikipedia

It isn't just lack of cold weather gear, although that can be an issue. Infantry fighting in bitter cold is going to get frostbite and hypothermia if they can't be withdrawn and warmed up periodically. In the middle of a battle like the Bulge you can't do that. Many US troops were cut off from any shelter and had to spend days in the cold without fires. No matter what gear you have, guys are going to get sick and lose combat effectiveness. Also, at that point the US did not have a program to train troops in cold weather warfare. Even today, if you aren't a Marine or part of 10th Mountain you probably haven't done the training.

The US Army in WW II did have enough cold weather gear. They were aware of the need. What they didn't have was adequate transport to meet the needs of the troops already in Europe and those newly arriving. Warm coats and long johns took second fiddle to bullets and gas. It was also intended that the cold weather gear would be distributed to the troops when they were rotated out of the line or not yet in the line. Lots of troops never got rotated and some that did never received the gear. It is also true that a lot of the cold weather gear wasn't very "user friendly". It wasn't waterproof and when it got snow on it and the snow melted you had a cold wet coat. Many troops also claimed they couldn't fire their weapons wearing the gloves issued because the fingers were too big.

---

GK3, Yeah the Oryx list has been pretty incredible to follow.  As far as the captured number goes, some pieces of equipment can be used faster than others.  A lot of items were captured in the recent Kharkiv offensive (Izium) but I'm guessing it takes weeks if not months to get all of those operable for Ukraine, with some that may never be repairable. Overall, Russia has been by far the biggest military supplier to Ukraine, as their soldiers have a tendency to abandon everything when things go wrong.  We also saw lots of evidence that Ukraine captured tons of Soviet/Russian artillery ammo, which I think they were running low on.  Assuming it's usable, I'd imagine it will be used more on the Kharkiv/Luhansk front, to avoid transporting it necessarily, but maybe that means reserves they have elsewhere can be used in Kherson, Goose would have more insight than I do.

Unfortunately I have no real "data". I know that one issue will be that the captured ammo, even if "known good", will have to be inventoried and added to the supply system. Otherwise, the units that need it won't know it exists. It is undoubtedly spread out in places Ukraine doesn't want it to be, so it will have to be transported to supply points. The logistics and "paperwork" (even though it is computerized) will be substantial. Just counting it all will take time, and I would imagine it has to be guarded.

I would imagine that Ukraine would carefully evaluate each cache of ammunition by testing it. The last thing you want is to give a unit thousands of rounds of bad 152 mm shells that fall short and kill your own troops. Its going to take some time.

---

Thank you for the reference.  The numbers are astounding.  From the numbers captured it would seem that the Ukrainians now have more tanks than when they started without getting any from elsewhere.

Perhaps, though we can't know how many Ukraine captured and could actually use. Fortunately, Ukraine also got quite a few tanks from the ex-Warsaw Pact NATO nations.

 It also makes you wonder how many more the Russians have to give up?  I know they are reputed to have never scrapped any weapon no matter how old, but there has to be a finite limit somewhere.

Yes, but we are nowhere near that limit yet. The problem for Russia now is that they have the tanks, and to some degree they have the troops, but they are spread out throughout Russia defending the country. Which ones do you move, and how many can you afford to move?