[bl82]

Focusing on the big howitzers from the US and others being provided to Ukraine, how long before this equipment begins to make a significant impact on the battlefield? Will they help a little or be decisive?

[bl82]

Focusing on the big howitzers from the US and others being provided to Ukraine, how long before this equipment begins to make a significant impact on the battlefield? Will they help a little or be decisive?

[dabigv13]

Ukrainians are being trained in 2 week accelerated courses on using the NATO artillery (normally 6 weeks for training), in shifts as they can't pull all their artillery guys from the frontlines obviously. Those trained people are supposed to go on and train others in Ukraine. We have seen Australian armored vehicles being used a couple weeks after they were announced, so I imagine that time frame may be similar for the artillery.

My wild guess is probably first usages in a few weeks. Probably a couple months before they are widely and effectively used.

......


Russia is using dolphins (stolen from Ukraine in 2014) in Sevastopol, likely to protect against enemy divers from infiltrating and blowing up their docked fleet.

https://news.usni.org/2022/04/27/trained...hotos-show

[dabigv13]

Ukrainians are being trained in 2 week accelerated courses on using the NATO artillery (normally 6 weeks for training), in shifts as they can't pull all their artillery guys from the frontlines obviously. Those trained people are supposed to go on and train others in Ukraine. We have seen Australian armored vehicles being used a couple weeks after they were announced, so I imagine that time frame may be similar for the artillery.

My wild guess is probably first usages in a few weeks. Probably a couple months before they are widely and effectively used.

......


Russia is using dolphins (stolen from Ukraine in 2014) in Sevastopol, likely to protect against enemy divers from infiltrating and blowing up their docked fleet.

https://news.usni.org/2022/04/27/trained...hotos-show

[Goose]

Focusing on the big howitzers from the US and others being provided to Ukraine, how long before this equipment begins to make a significant impact on the battlefield?  Will they help a little or be decisive?

Obviously no way to be certain, but Russia has at least 1k weapons directly comparable  to the ones the US sent. They are not all in Ukraine, but it is probable Russia has several times the number of howitzers the US just sent to Ukraine. Russia is using these guns to shell Ukrainian troops and infrastructure (like cities).

The Ukrainians should use their howitzers in a counter-battery role wherever possible. Shelling the Russian troops would pit them in the same game as the Russians, who have more weapons. Counter-battery requires fewer tubes. Unfortunately, it usually requires better crews and leaders than just banging away at cities does. You have to get your target coordinates, translate them to firing parameters, get the guns set up, shoot several rounds quick before your enemy moves. Then, you must move. At least, that is what should happen. Russia has probably got in the habit of not moving after firing because they don't fear counter-battery. Towed howitzers take minutes to limber up to move and require significant manual setup for each distinct fire mission.  New crews can be slow at this and also make mistakes. The "modern" 155 mm self-propelled howitzers have this all computerized. They can stop, fire, and move on very quickly. Both sides in this battle will be using a significant number of towed weapons and older self-propelled weapons, so who knows what will actually happen.

These new weapons can be very useful if they can wreck significant numbers of Russian guns/gunners without getting destroyed themselves. At the very least, making the Russians move periodically will cut down their firing rate, increase the opportunity for errors, and require better logistics (more POL, food, ammunition and spare parts to different places that can change at a moments notice). Of course, Ukraine will have these issues too. So decisive? IMHO, No. But it will give the Ukraine the ability to neutralize/degrade Russian artillery, which is a big deal.

How long before Ukraine can/will use this capability, I have no idea. I do not think it will be real soon unfortunately. Creating an effective artillery battery takes quite a bit of training. Even a maximally compressed course takes a couple of weeks. Then you have to get the entire unit together and practice. The more of this you can do, the better. Under the circumstances, it probably won't be much. That isn't good. If I were a Ukrainian I wouldn't be calling in any fire missions danger close until I knew they could do it. You also don't want to lose a large fraction of your new artillery to accidents or counter-battery (because they are slow).

[Goose]

Focusing on the big howitzers from the US and others being provided to Ukraine, how long before this equipment begins to make a significant impact on the battlefield?  Will they help a little or be decisive?

Obviously no way to be certain, but Russia has at least 1k weapons directly comparable  to the ones the US sent. They are not all in Ukraine, but it is probable Russia has several times the number of howitzers the US just sent to Ukraine. Russia is using these guns to shell Ukrainian troops and infrastructure (like cities).

The Ukrainians should use their howitzers in a counter-battery role wherever possible. Shelling the Russian troops would pit them in the same game as the Russians, who have more weapons. Counter-battery requires fewer tubes. Unfortunately, it usually requires better crews and leaders than just banging away at cities does. You have to get your target coordinates, translate them to firing parameters, get the guns set up, shoot several rounds quick before your enemy moves. Then, you must move. At least, that is what should happen. Russia has probably got in the habit of not moving after firing because they don't fear counter-battery. Towed howitzers take minutes to limber up to move and require significant manual setup for each distinct fire mission.  New crews can be slow at this and also make mistakes. The "modern" 155 mm self-propelled howitzers have this all computerized. They can stop, fire, and move on very quickly. Both sides in this battle will be using a significant number of towed weapons and older self-propelled weapons, so who knows what will actually happen.

These new weapons can be very useful if they can wreck significant numbers of Russian guns/gunners without getting destroyed themselves. At the very least, making the Russians move periodically will cut down their firing rate, increase the opportunity for errors, and require better logistics (more POL, food, ammunition and spare parts to different places that can change at a moments notice). Of course, Ukraine will have these issues too. So decisive? IMHO, No. But it will give the Ukraine the ability to neutralize/degrade Russian artillery, which is a big deal.

How long before Ukraine can/will use this capability, I have no idea. I do not think it will be real soon unfortunately. Creating an effective artillery battery takes quite a bit of training. Even a maximally compressed course takes a couple of weeks. Then you have to get the entire unit together and practice. The more of this you can do, the better. Under the circumstances, it probably won't be much. That isn't good. If I were a Ukrainian I wouldn't be calling in any fire missions danger close until I knew they could do it. You also don't want to lose a large fraction of your new artillery to accidents or counter-battery (because they are slow).

[BostonCard]

One thing I saw, but lost the link, is that for all the talk about how devastating the Bayraktar drones were, it turns out they were more useful for locating enemy vehicles and calling in coordinates for them to be hit with artillery. That may be a bit harder in the East where Russia’s anti-aircraft assets are much stronger, but the Ukrainians have been very resourceful about using consumer drones for military purposes.

BC

[BostonCard]

One thing I saw, but lost the link, is that for all the talk about how devastating the Bayraktar drones were, it turns out they were more useful for locating enemy vehicles and calling in coordinates for them to be hit with artillery. That may be a bit harder in the East where Russia’s anti-aircraft assets are much stronger, but the Ukrainians have been very resourceful about using consumer drones for military purposes.

BC

[Goose]

One thing I saw, but lost the link, is that for all the talk about how devastating the Bayraktar drones were, it turns out they were more useful for locating enemy vehicles and calling in coordinates for them to be hit with artillery.


BC

The weapons load of these drones is 150kg, or about the weight of 3 155 mm shells. Using them to locate targets makes much more sense than dropping a few bombs (unless it is an exceptionally high value target that can be destroyed that way). Locating Russian artillery formations, either moving or emplaced so they can be destroyed by artillery fire is indeed much more valuable.

The original purpose of drones was reconnaissance and that is really what they are best at doing. Armed drones for "general purpose" warfare aren't actually with us yet. The US has a bunch of reconnaissance drones that can also carry weapons, but that isn't what they were built to do. One way "drones" (cruise missiles) are another story.

[Goose]

One thing I saw, but lost the link, is that for all the talk about how devastating the Bayraktar drones were, it turns out they were more useful for locating enemy vehicles and calling in coordinates for them to be hit with artillery.


BC

The weapons load of these drones is 150kg, or about the weight of 3 155 mm shells. Using them to locate targets makes much more sense than dropping a few bombs (unless it is an exceptionally high value target that can be destroyed that way). Locating Russian artillery formations, either moving or emplaced so they can be destroyed by artillery fire is indeed much more valuable.

The original purpose of drones was reconnaissance and that is really what they are best at doing. Armed drones for "general purpose" warfare aren't actually with us yet. The US has a bunch of reconnaissance drones that can also carry weapons, but that isn't what they were built to do. One way "drones" (cruise missiles) are another story.

[BostonCard]

Good Economist article on the state of the Russian army.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/how-d...o/21808989

Lots of good stuff in there.

In part, Russia’s woes are down to Ukraine’s heroic resistance, buoyed by a torrent of Western weaponry and intelligence. “But just as much credit for the shattering of Russian illusions lies in a phenomenon long known to military sociologists,” writes Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University, “that armies, by and large, reflect the qualities of the societies from which they emerge.” Russia’s state, says Mr Cohen, “rests on corruption, lies, lawlessness, and coercion”. Each one has been laid bare by Russia’s army in this war.

Not a pretty picture of the Russian army.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good Economist article on the state of the Russian army.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/how-d...o/21808989

Lots of good stuff in there.

In part, Russia’s woes are down to Ukraine’s heroic resistance, buoyed by a torrent of Western weaponry and intelligence. “But just as much credit for the shattering of Russian illusions lies in a phenomenon long known to military sociologists,” writes Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University, “that armies, by and large, reflect the qualities of the societies from which they emerge.” Russia’s state, says Mr Cohen, “rests on corruption, lies, lawlessness, and coercion”. Each one has been laid bare by Russia’s army in this war.

Not a pretty picture of the Russian army.

BC

[Mudhead]

Focusing on the big howitzers from the US and others being provided to Ukraine, how long before this equipment begins to make a significant impact on the battlefield?  Will they help a little or be decisive?

I have read that the 155 mm howitzers the Ukrainians are getting have a range of about 20 miles while the Russian pieces have a roughly 40 mile range.  I know zip, nada about artillery but if that is true, it’s hard to see the howitzers having a large impact.  

I hope we (US or NATO ) are supplying longer range pieces to the Ukrainians.

I also,hope someone knowledgeable will correct or confirm my understanding of the range of the Artillary pieces.

Thanks

[Mudhead]

Focusing on the big howitzers from the US and others being provided to Ukraine, how long before this equipment begins to make a significant impact on the battlefield?  Will they help a little or be decisive?

I have read that the 155 mm howitzers the Ukrainians are getting have a range of about 20 miles while the Russian pieces have a roughly 40 mile range.  I know zip, nada about artillery but if that is true, it’s hard to see the howitzers having a large impact.  

I hope we (US or NATO ) are supplying longer range pieces to the Ukrainians.

I also,hope someone knowledgeable will correct or confirm my understanding of the range of the Artillary pieces.

Thanks

[TrumpCard]

Those same qualities reflect not just the military’s performance on the battlefield, but also, frighteningly, the military’s treatment of extremely large numbers of civilians. We have been hearing estimates of casualties in the news, but the numbers probably don’t count any of the *million* people deported to G-d knows where:

https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndepende...m3_pYqAAAA

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...iY7pYqAAAA

[TrumpCard]

Those same qualities reflect not just the military’s performance on the battlefield, but also, frighteningly, the military’s treatment of extremely large numbers of civilians. We have been hearing estimates of casualties in the news, but the numbers probably don’t count any of the *million* people deported to G-d knows where:

https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndepende...m3_pYqAAAA

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...iY7pYqAAAA

[Phogge]

OMG turncoat dolphins. Can the Ukrainians steal some sables for suicide bombing?

[Phogge]

OMG turncoat dolphins. Can the Ukrainians steal some sables for suicide bombing?

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/...wsrc%5Etfw

It appears that the Russians hit the bridge hard enough that it is closed. Some sites (based in Russia it would seem) are saying it was "destroyed". From the U-Tube video it looks like it was damaged significantly but is repairable. Getting the railway back running with speed but not weight restrictions looks feasible IMHO. No weight restrictions is a big deal. Of course, when you are at war things are both easier and harder. The MOW folks will not bitch about working overtime but many of them may have picked up guns and gone to fight. This kind of attack by Russia is long overdue. Very concerning when they succeed, but so far the successes are few. Let's hope it stays that way.

Russia appears to be hell-bent to start a war in Moldova. At first glance, the 1800 Russians in Transdniestria are in a horrible position. They are trapped between Ukraine and Moldova with no obvious supply route back to Russia. There just aren't enough of them to invade anybody else really, and just holding on in Transdniestria without outside help looks very iffy to me. Before the war, they could be supplied by air, but right now flying over Ukraine isn't a good idea. As a distraction to Ukraine and a way to tie down forces, it may kind of make sense, but I wouldn't want to be one of those 1800.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/...wsrc%5Etfw

It appears that the Russians hit the bridge hard enough that it is closed. Some sites (based in Russia it would seem) are saying it was "destroyed". From the U-Tube video it looks like it was damaged significantly but is repairable. Getting the railway back running with speed but not weight restrictions looks feasible IMHO. No weight restrictions is a big deal. Of course, when you are at war things are both easier and harder. The MOW folks will not bitch about working overtime but many of them may have picked up guns and gone to fight. This kind of attack by Russia is long overdue. Very concerning when they succeed, but so far the successes are few. Let's hope it stays that way.

Russia appears to be hell-bent to start a war in Moldova. At first glance, the 1800 Russians in Transdniestria are in a horrible position. They are trapped between Ukraine and Moldova with no obvious supply route back to Russia. There just aren't enough of them to invade anybody else really, and just holding on in Transdniestria without outside help looks very iffy to me. Before the war, they could be supplied by air, but right now flying over Ukraine isn't a good idea. As a distraction to Ukraine and a way to tie down forces, it may kind of make sense, but I wouldn't want to be one of those 1800.

[Mick]

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/...wsrc%5Etfw

It appears that the Russians hit the bridge hard enough that it is closed. Some sites (based in Russia it would seem) are saying it was "destroyed". From the U-Tube video it looks like it was damaged significantly but is repairable. Getting the railway back running with speed but not weight restrictions looks feasible IMHO. No weight restrictions is a big deal. Of course, when you are at war things are both easier and harder. The MOW folks will not bitch about working overtime but many of them may have picked up guns and gone to fight. This kind of attack by Russia is long overdue. Very concerning when they succeed, but so far the successes are few. Let's hope it stays that way.

Russia appears to be hell-bent to start a war in Moldova. At first glance, the 1800 Russians in Transdniestria are in a horrible position. They are trapped between Ukraine and Moldova with no obvious supply route back to Russia. There just aren't enough of them to invade anybody else really, and just holding on in Transdniestria without outside help looks very iffy to me. Before the war, they could be supplied by air, but right now flying over Ukraine isn't a good idea. As a distraction to Ukraine and a way to tie down forces, it may kind of make sense, but I wouldn't want to be one of those 1800.

I don't think those 1,800 troops are all Russians per se.  I think all but a tiny fraction are ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria but who were granted Russian passports.  Ukraine has refused transport of Russian soldiers since 2015.  The Transnistrian army is 4,500 to 7,500 troops. Moldova itself only has 6,000 troops.  Russia provides free natural gas to Transnistria and supplements the pensions of older folks.  Transnistrians are largely Russian speakers.  Russia's annexation of Crimea transformed the Moldovan orientation from Russia to Western Europe and Moldova signed a free trade agreement with the EU in 2014 (though they don't have NATO plans).  As a result of the Crimean annexation, the contraband routes through Transnistria came to a halt (it was had been used to smuggle for nearly three decades).  70%+ of Transnistrian exports go to Western Europe.

Two days ago, Russia said they wanted to avoid war with Moldova. Therefore, war with Moldova is imminent.

[Mick]

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/...wsrc%5Etfw

It appears that the Russians hit the bridge hard enough that it is closed. Some sites (based in Russia it would seem) are saying it was "destroyed". From the U-Tube video it looks like it was damaged significantly but is repairable. Getting the railway back running with speed but not weight restrictions looks feasible IMHO. No weight restrictions is a big deal. Of course, when you are at war things are both easier and harder. The MOW folks will not bitch about working overtime but many of them may have picked up guns and gone to fight. This kind of attack by Russia is long overdue. Very concerning when they succeed, but so far the successes are few. Let's hope it stays that way.

Russia appears to be hell-bent to start a war in Moldova. At first glance, the 1800 Russians in Transdniestria are in a horrible position. They are trapped between Ukraine and Moldova with no obvious supply route back to Russia. There just aren't enough of them to invade anybody else really, and just holding on in Transdniestria without outside help looks very iffy to me. Before the war, they could be supplied by air, but right now flying over Ukraine isn't a good idea. As a distraction to Ukraine and a way to tie down forces, it may kind of make sense, but I wouldn't want to be one of those 1800.

I don't think those 1,800 troops are all Russians per se.  I think all but a tiny fraction are ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria but who were granted Russian passports.  Ukraine has refused transport of Russian soldiers since 2015.  The Transnistrian army is 4,500 to 7,500 troops. Moldova itself only has 6,000 troops.  Russia provides free natural gas to Transnistria and supplements the pensions of older folks.  Transnistrians are largely Russian speakers.  Russia's annexation of Crimea transformed the Moldovan orientation from Russia to Western Europe and Moldova signed a free trade agreement with the EU in 2014 (though they don't have NATO plans).  As a result of the Crimean annexation, the contraband routes through Transnistria came to a halt (it was had been used to smuggle for nearly three decades).  70%+ of Transnistrian exports go to Western Europe.

Two days ago, Russia said they wanted to avoid war with Moldova. Therefore, war with Moldova is imminent.

[Goose]

I don't think those 1,800 troops are all Russians per se.  I think all but a tiny fraction are ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria but who were granted Russian passports.  Ukraine has refused transport of Russian soldiers since 2015.  The Transnistrian army is 4,500 to 7,500 troops. Moldova itself only has 6,000 troops.  Russia provides free natural gas to Transnistria and supplements the pensions of older folks.  Transnistrians are largely Russian speakers.  Russia's annexation of Crimea transformed the Moldovan orientation from Russia to Western Europe and Moldova signed a free trade agreement with the EU in 2014 (though they don't have NATO plans).  As a result of the Crimean annexation, the contraband routes through Transnistria came to a halt (it was had been used to smuggle for nearly three decades).  70%+ of Transnistrian exports go to Western Europe.

https://theconversation.com/4-things-to-...oon-182030 confirms your analysis that the 1800 aren't actually part of the "regular" Russian military. Moldova doesn't have the wherewithal to fight even Transnistria, but Ukraine certainly does. Obviously Ukraine doesn't want to do so, but I am pretty sure they would make short work of what is there.

Two days ago, Russia said they wanted to avoid war with Moldova.  Therefore, war with Moldova is imminent.

Sadly, you are probably correct. Russia originally planned a rush to Odesa supported from the Black Sea in so far as possible. When that didn't work, they needed a "Plan B". This is probably it. One real danger here is that somehow Romania (NATO) becomes embroiled in defending Moldova. If Transnistria attacks Moldova but not Ukraine, does Ukraine intervene? If not, does Romania? Russia taking over all of Moldova isn't really acceptable to either Ukraine or Romania. Ukraine is fighting for it's life already, so expanding the war isn't ideal but may be necessary. Obviously if Ukraine is attacked, they will respond, but if they are not???

Moldova is almost entirely landlocked, with a small access to the Black Sea courtesy of Ukraine. Even if the "Russians" already in Transnistria took over Moldova, they are surrounded by Ukraine and NATO. Hard to imagine that could last long. In theory, Russia could conduct an amphibious landing WEST of Odesa to open an over-the-beach supply route into Moldova. That plan would provide a reason to blow up Ukrainian supply routes to the west, which otherwise wouldn't be as important. Thus the attack on the rail bridge. Moskva was operating about 20 miles off the coast south of that area when it was struck by Ukraine. It does make one wonder.

[Goose]

I don't think those 1,800 troops are all Russians per se.  I think all but a tiny fraction are ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria but who were granted Russian passports.  Ukraine has refused transport of Russian soldiers since 2015.  The Transnistrian army is 4,500 to 7,500 troops. Moldova itself only has 6,000 troops.  Russia provides free natural gas to Transnistria and supplements the pensions of older folks.  Transnistrians are largely Russian speakers.  Russia's annexation of Crimea transformed the Moldovan orientation from Russia to Western Europe and Moldova signed a free trade agreement with the EU in 2014 (though they don't have NATO plans).  As a result of the Crimean annexation, the contraband routes through Transnistria came to a halt (it was had been used to smuggle for nearly three decades).  70%+ of Transnistrian exports go to Western Europe.

https://theconversation.com/4-things-to-...oon-182030 confirms your analysis that the 1800 aren't actually part of the "regular" Russian military. Moldova doesn't have the wherewithal to fight even Transnistria, but Ukraine certainly does. Obviously Ukraine doesn't want to do so, but I am pretty sure they would make short work of what is there.

Two days ago, Russia said they wanted to avoid war with Moldova.  Therefore, war with Moldova is imminent.

Sadly, you are probably correct. Russia originally planned a rush to Odesa supported from the Black Sea in so far as possible. When that didn't work, they needed a "Plan B". This is probably it. One real danger here is that somehow Romania (NATO) becomes embroiled in defending Moldova. If Transnistria attacks Moldova but not Ukraine, does Ukraine intervene? If not, does Romania? Russia taking over all of Moldova isn't really acceptable to either Ukraine or Romania. Ukraine is fighting for it's life already, so expanding the war isn't ideal but may be necessary. Obviously if Ukraine is attacked, they will respond, but if they are not???

Moldova is almost entirely landlocked, with a small access to the Black Sea courtesy of Ukraine. Even if the "Russians" already in Transnistria took over Moldova, they are surrounded by Ukraine and NATO. Hard to imagine that could last long. In theory, Russia could conduct an amphibious landing WEST of Odesa to open an over-the-beach supply route into Moldova. That plan would provide a reason to blow up Ukrainian supply routes to the west, which otherwise wouldn't be as important. Thus the attack on the rail bridge. Moskva was operating about 20 miles off the coast south of that area when it was struck by Ukraine. It does make one wonder.

[TrumpCard]

I don’t know whether this source is reliable, but it suggests that US intel agrees with your speculation that Russia might try to invade Transnistria or Moldova through Ukrainian territory west of Odessa:

https://mobile.twitter.com/visegrad24/st...8112090112

[TrumpCard]

I don’t know whether this source is reliable, but it suggests that US intel agrees with your speculation that Russia might try to invade Transnistria or Moldova through Ukrainian territory west of Odessa:

https://mobile.twitter.com/visegrad24/st...8112090112

[dabigv13]

Focusing on the big howitzers from the US and others being provided to Ukraine, how long before this equipment begins to make a significant impact on the battlefield?  Will they help a little or be decisive?

I have read that the 155 mm howitzers the Ukrainians are getting have a range of about 20 miles while the Russian pieces have a roughly 40 mile range.  I know zip, nada about artillery but if that is true, it’s hard to see the howitzers having a large impact.  

I hope we (US or NATO ) are supplying longer range pieces to the Ukrainians.

I also,hope someone knowledgeable will correct or confirm my understanding of the range of the Artillary pieces.

Thanks

The most common Russian artillery in 152mm such as the Msta have similar range to the 155mm pieces being sent over, around 20miles. Rocket propelled rounds could go up to 40miles but I don't think are too commonly used. Both Ukraine and Russia also have MLRS rocket systems that have maximum range above 20 miles though probably not very effective at maximum ranges.

Ukraine has been pretty successful with their artillery thus far against troops and tanks per open source videos though I don't know how often or effectively they're are using them in counterbattery fire. The donated artillery pieces and radars can only help.

[dabigv13]

Focusing on the big howitzers from the US and others being provided to Ukraine, how long before this equipment begins to make a significant impact on the battlefield?  Will they help a little or be decisive?

I have read that the 155 mm howitzers the Ukrainians are getting have a range of about 20 miles while the Russian pieces have a roughly 40 mile range.  I know zip, nada about artillery but if that is true, it’s hard to see the howitzers having a large impact.  

I hope we (US or NATO ) are supplying longer range pieces to the Ukrainians.

I also,hope someone knowledgeable will correct or confirm my understanding of the range of the Artillary pieces.

Thanks

The most common Russian artillery in 152mm such as the Msta have similar range to the 155mm pieces being sent over, around 20miles. Rocket propelled rounds could go up to 40miles but I don't think are too commonly used. Both Ukraine and Russia also have MLRS rocket systems that have maximum range above 20 miles though probably not very effective at maximum ranges.

Ukraine has been pretty successful with their artillery thus far against troops and tanks per open source videos though I don't know how often or effectively they're are using them in counterbattery fire. The donated artillery pieces and radars can only help.

[Goose]

I don’t know whether this source is reliable, but it suggests that US intel agrees with your speculation that Russia might try to invade Transnistria or Moldova through Ukrainian territory west of Odessa:

https://mobile.twitter.com/visegrad24/st...8112090112

There is apparently some reason to believe the US troop movement was a previously scheduled activity. Since Moldova is not a NATO nation, they would have to ask for "help" much as Ukraine did. I have no idea how it would play out. Romania and Moldova have close cultural ties. I think the US would still try to stay out of a Moldova/Transnistria conflict in terms of troops on the ground, but it may be politically difficult/impossible for Romania to do so. It also could be that Russia has no intention of widening the war but wants to force us to prepare as if they will. Still, better to prepare and not need it than visa-versa.

The arguments against an amphibious assault west of Odesa are many. For one thing, it will bring Russian ships repeatedly into Ukraine's missile engagement zone. It also exposes them to air attack without Moskva to protect them or vector Russian interceptors (who would be a long way from home) to do so. The Russian frigates do have anti-air capability, but it is far from robust. Further, they don't have lots of frigates and if they lose one they are then on the far end of a very long unprotected supply line. Building up a big enough force in Moldova to threaten Ukraine under those circumstances would be hard.

If the US were trying to do such a thing, I would be worried but figure it could be done. The key is to establish an airhead in Moldova to protect the landing. The order would be the Transnistria troops seize and appropriate airport (with a fuel supply). Russian aircraft would then fly there. They have to do that by overflying Ukraine or by staying south in the Black Sea and then turning right. The latter is a long flight for gas guzzler Russian airplanes. Possible but risky. Presumably Ukraine will attempt to stop such an event. Then, you have to fly weapons into the airhead. Even riskier.
Without an airhead, I don't think they can protect the landing. Only problem would be if Ukraine has nothing left of their Air Force to attack the landing force with. The good news is the counter-air would be practically nil. Better odds than in the Donbas.

[Goose]

I don’t know whether this source is reliable, but it suggests that US intel agrees with your speculation that Russia might try to invade Transnistria or Moldova through Ukrainian territory west of Odessa:

https://mobile.twitter.com/visegrad24/st...8112090112

There is apparently some reason to believe the US troop movement was a previously scheduled activity. Since Moldova is not a NATO nation, they would have to ask for "help" much as Ukraine did. I have no idea how it would play out. Romania and Moldova have close cultural ties. I think the US would still try to stay out of a Moldova/Transnistria conflict in terms of troops on the ground, but it may be politically difficult/impossible for Romania to do so. It also could be that Russia has no intention of widening the war but wants to force us to prepare as if they will. Still, better to prepare and not need it than visa-versa.

The arguments against an amphibious assault west of Odesa are many. For one thing, it will bring Russian ships repeatedly into Ukraine's missile engagement zone. It also exposes them to air attack without Moskva to protect them or vector Russian interceptors (who would be a long way from home) to do so. The Russian frigates do have anti-air capability, but it is far from robust. Further, they don't have lots of frigates and if they lose one they are then on the far end of a very long unprotected supply line. Building up a big enough force in Moldova to threaten Ukraine under those circumstances would be hard.

If the US were trying to do such a thing, I would be worried but figure it could be done. The key is to establish an airhead in Moldova to protect the landing. The order would be the Transnistria troops seize and appropriate airport (with a fuel supply). Russian aircraft would then fly there. They have to do that by overflying Ukraine or by staying south in the Black Sea and then turning right. The latter is a long flight for gas guzzler Russian airplanes. Possible but risky. Presumably Ukraine will attempt to stop such an event. Then, you have to fly weapons into the airhead. Even riskier.
Without an airhead, I don't think they can protect the landing. Only problem would be if Ukraine has nothing left of their Air Force to attack the landing force with. The good news is the counter-air would be practically nil. Better odds than in the Donbas.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kremlintrolls/status/1519725876925157376?s=21&t=jlas3IIyWFIBtdwdOOic0Q[/tweet]

Good, but to call it a game changer is likely an exaggeration.

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/1519723393842663424?s=21&t=jlas3IIyWFIBtdwdOOic0Q[/tweet]

Maybe it really is?

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kremlintrolls/status/1519725876925157376?s=21&t=jlas3IIyWFIBtdwdOOic0Q[/tweet]

Good, but to call it a game changer is likely an exaggeration.

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/trenttelenko/status/1519723393842663424?s=21&t=jlas3IIyWFIBtdwdOOic0Q[/tweet]

Maybe it really is?

BC

[M T]

BC, if you read the responses, it seems there is significant doubt by responders that these M270 have been supplied, and there is no official confirmation.

However, this site (I know nothing about this site -- it may be Russian) seems to say they are there (with purported video), and in one of their other postings, says that a US official (named) spoke of them to reporters. I don't find that in US news anywhere. The quote allegedly was "Now Ukraine has other needs. Ukraine needs long-range weapons, for example, howitzers. Ukraine needs more anti-tank weapons and transport, for example, armored vehicles, and now we are providing it. We already supply MLRS systems. " That doesn't specifically say the M270, and he could have been talking about the fact that we supply them to other countries, so supplying them to the Ukraine would not be impossible.

Here's an article describing the M270.

A key item for Russia will be the range of the rockets/missiles deployed. The aria-pro.net site described ranges up to 500 km, which I didn't see in the other couple of articles I looked at.

[M T]

BC, if you read the responses, it seems there is significant doubt by responders that these M270 have been supplied, and there is no official confirmation.

However, this site (I know nothing about this site -- it may be Russian) seems to say they are there (with purported video), and in one of their other postings, says that a US official (named) spoke of them to reporters. I don't find that in US news anywhere. The quote allegedly was "Now Ukraine has other needs. Ukraine needs long-range weapons, for example, howitzers. Ukraine needs more anti-tank weapons and transport, for example, armored vehicles, and now we are providing it. We already supply MLRS systems. " That doesn't specifically say the M270, and he could have been talking about the fact that we supply them to other countries, so supplying them to the Ukraine would not be impossible.

Here's an article describing the M270.

A key item for Russia will be the range of the rockets/missiles deployed. The aria-pro.net site described ranges up to 500 km, which I didn't see in the other couple of articles I looked at.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1519992989057261568?s=20&t=TbsEvxcmUSVahNa-vq6H-w[/tweet]

200 tanks. Russia cutting off the gas doesn't seem to have shaken their resolve.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1519992989057261568?s=20&t=TbsEvxcmUSVahNa-vq6H-w[/tweet]

200 tanks. Russia cutting off the gas doesn't seem to have shaken their resolve.

[Hurlburt88]

THought this interview might interest some readers here.   Of course this gentleman also predicted there was no way Putin invades about 2 days before the invasion--figured price was too high for Putin's calculus.  

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/george-f...be94f95b1a

[Hurlburt88]

THought this interview might interest some readers here.   Of course this gentleman also predicted there was no way Putin invades about 2 days before the invasion--figured price was too high for Putin's calculus.  

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/george-f...be94f95b1a

[BostonCard]

Thanks MT. It does have the ring of misinformation, though it was retweeted by an account I trust (who might have fallen for the misinfo).  The only thing I found on it was this:

https://en.lb.ua/news/2022/04/29/13944_a...ed_on.html

No idea how reliable the news source is.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks MT. It does have the ring of misinformation, though it was retweeted by an account I trust (who might have fallen for the misinfo).  The only thing I found on it was this:

https://en.lb.ua/news/2022/04/29/13944_a...ed_on.html

No idea how reliable the news source is.

BC