[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-com...52123.html

There has been significant criticism of the NATO supplied training for Ukrainian soldiers. Much of that criticism is justified. IMO the most important factor is this:

NATO forces also train Ukrainian soldiers to overwhelm their enemies with the type of firepower that it does not possess.

Since the end of WW I, the US has always traded firepower for lives. We deliver overwhelming suppressive fire to allow our troops to advance without  crippling casualties. Ukraine doesn't have that firepower and simply can't do that. As the article points out, NATO hasn't fought a war against a near-peer adversary since WW II.  We haven't fought a war where we didn't have air supremacy essentially ever. Even in WW I, by the time we got to France the German side was at a critical disadvantage in the air. The war in Ukraine just isn't "our type of war".

In addition, it must be said that the duration and repetition of the training provided to the Ukrainians is by NATO standards seriously inadequate. We don't send troops into battle with 30 days training. We also don't field battalions composed entirely of troops with such minimal training. Ukraine, by necessity, does this. It isn't "apples and apples". That said, the current training efforts do need a serious "lessons learned" upgrade and more Ukrainian trainers who have experience "in country". Hard to do in the middle of a war, but it is needed IMO.

It is always hard in the middle of a war. It was certainly hard during the latter period of the Vietnam War when the 90 day wonders were delivered to theater mostly  unready for what they got.  It became the luck of draw. When the demands of the war exceed the ability to provide properly trained replacements you get what you get and hope.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-com...52123.html

There has been significant criticism of the NATO supplied training for Ukrainian soldiers. Much of that criticism is justified. IMO the most important factor is this:

NATO forces also train Ukrainian soldiers to overwhelm their enemies with the type of firepower that it does not possess.

Since the end of WW I, the US has always traded firepower for lives. We deliver overwhelming suppressive fire to allow our troops to advance without  crippling casualties. Ukraine doesn't have that firepower and simply can't do that. As the article points out, NATO hasn't fought a war against a near-peer adversary since WW II.  We haven't fought a war where we didn't have air supremacy essentially ever. Even in WW I, by the time we got to France the German side was at a critical disadvantage in the air. The war in Ukraine just isn't "our type of war".

In addition, it must be said that the duration and repetition of the training provided to the Ukrainians is by NATO standards seriously inadequate. We don't send troops into battle with 30 days training. We also don't field battalions composed entirely of troops with such minimal training. Ukraine, by necessity, does this. It isn't "apples and apples". That said, the current training efforts do need a serious "lessons learned" upgrade and more Ukrainian trainers who have experience "in country". Hard to do in the middle of a war, but it is needed IMO.

Goose, I generally agree with all you say, but to say that we have always traded fire power for lives is true in the sense of intent, but actually in Vietnam it failed miserably under Westmoreland. There we could provide all kinds of fire power, but were still asked to take senseless objectives under heavy fire and then simply leave after finally taking the objective. I think we may have gotten a little better at that kind of operation after  9/11.  I have always regarded President Johnsons unwillingness to finally pull the plug on Westmoreland as one of the worst decisions he ever made. General Abrams should have taken command in Vietnam a year earlier than he did.
The Ukraine situation requires a whole different "think" on the issue.  They don't have the time to fully train people, they don't have our ability to provide overwhelming fire support and air cover. So if they want to keep their people alive they have to approach things differently. It seems to me that their success with Drone Warfare is a fall out from their inability to fight what we would call a conventional war. They seem very good at it, and quick to seize new opportunities. They are obviously still taking casualties, but they are inflicting significant loses on the Russians at long range, which hopefully pay dividends down the road.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-com...52123.html

There has been significant criticism of the NATO supplied training for Ukrainian soldiers. Much of that criticism is justified. IMO the most important factor is this:

NATO forces also train Ukrainian soldiers to overwhelm their enemies with the type of firepower that it does not possess.

Since the end of WW I, the US has always traded firepower for lives. We deliver overwhelming suppressive fire to allow our troops to advance without  crippling casualties. Ukraine doesn't have that firepower and simply can't do that. As the article points out, NATO hasn't fought a war against a near-peer adversary since WW II.  We haven't fought a war where we didn't have air supremacy essentially ever. Even in WW I, by the time we got to France the German side was at a critical disadvantage in the air. The war in Ukraine just isn't "our type of war".

In addition, it must be said that the duration and repetition of the training provided to the Ukrainians is by NATO standards seriously inadequate. We don't send troops into battle with 30 days training. We also don't field battalions composed entirely of troops with such minimal training. Ukraine, by necessity, does this. It isn't "apples and apples". That said, the current training efforts do need a serious "lessons learned" upgrade and more Ukrainian trainers who have experience "in country". Hard to do in the middle of a war, but it is needed IMO.

It is always hard in the middle of a war. It was certainly hard during the latter period of the Vietnam War when the 90 day wonders were delivered to theater mostly  unready for what they got.  It became the luck of draw. When the demands of the war exceed the ability to provide properly trained replacements you get what you get and hope.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-com...52123.html

There has been significant criticism of the NATO supplied training for Ukrainian soldiers. Much of that criticism is justified. IMO the most important factor is this:

NATO forces also train Ukrainian soldiers to overwhelm their enemies with the type of firepower that it does not possess.

Since the end of WW I, the US has always traded firepower for lives. We deliver overwhelming suppressive fire to allow our troops to advance without  crippling casualties. Ukraine doesn't have that firepower and simply can't do that. As the article points out, NATO hasn't fought a war against a near-peer adversary since WW II.  We haven't fought a war where we didn't have air supremacy essentially ever. Even in WW I, by the time we got to France the German side was at a critical disadvantage in the air. The war in Ukraine just isn't "our type of war".

In addition, it must be said that the duration and repetition of the training provided to the Ukrainians is by NATO standards seriously inadequate. We don't send troops into battle with 30 days training. We also don't field battalions composed entirely of troops with such minimal training. Ukraine, by necessity, does this. It isn't "apples and apples". That said, the current training efforts do need a serious "lessons learned" upgrade and more Ukrainian trainers who have experience "in country". Hard to do in the middle of a war, but it is needed IMO.

Goose, I generally agree with all you say, but to say that we have always traded fire power for lives is true in the sense of intent, but actually in Vietnam it failed miserably under Westmoreland. There we could provide all kinds of fire power, but were still asked to take senseless objectives under heavy fire and then simply leave after finally taking the objective. I think we may have gotten a little better at that kind of operation after  9/11.  I have always regarded President Johnsons unwillingness to finally pull the plug on Westmoreland as one of the worst decisions he ever made. General Abrams should have taken command in Vietnam a year earlier than he did.
The Ukraine situation requires a whole different "think" on the issue.  They don't have the time to fully train people, they don't have our ability to provide overwhelming fire support and air cover. So if they want to keep their people alive they have to approach things differently. It seems to me that their success with Drone Warfare is a fall out from their inability to fight what we would call a conventional war. They seem very good at it, and quick to seize new opportunities. They are obviously still taking casualties, but they are inflicting significant loses on the Russians at long range, which hopefully pay dividends down the road.