[Goose]

IMHO the following article summarizes the military situation in Ukraine today.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/life-ukrainia...40264.html

It explains the current situation, but it also gives lots of hope for the future. The Ukrainian troops discuss the problems the open terrain in the Donbas is creating for them. They also discuss their current artillery disadvantages. The arrival of the M777s from the US will certainly help this situation. It isn't yet "the answer", but in a few weeks/months it may be. The question is are 90 tubes enough?

The weakness of the Russian's "reconnaissance to contact" advances in Ukraine is largely due to the Ukrainian infantry not being engaged by Russian infantry and driven off/fully engaged before they can use their anti-armor missiles. The BTG organization has been criticized because it does not provide enough organic infantry support even when the infantry is enthusiastic in their support. With reluctant warriors it has got to be even worse. Bad move by the Russians to destroy their Cold War structures for a "new model" that apparently has major problems.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/...my-btg.htm
From the link:
"American military experts on Russia at the Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO), Fort Leavenworth, KS, believed that BTGs were an intermediate construct, temporarily employed to push modernization into Russia’s current force, and that at the end of the modernization program, the Russian Army will return to a divisional structure with fully manned, equipped and deployable brigades – especially if faced with a peer competitor such as the United States. There are, however, several reasons to predict that the return to a divisional structure could be several years away. In the meantime, the BTG may remain Russia’s deployable organization of choice."

Ukraine is becoming/is a "peer competitor" very rapidly.

[Goose]

IMHO the following article summarizes the military situation in Ukraine today.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/life-ukrainia...40264.html

It explains the current situation, but it also gives lots of hope for the future. The Ukrainian troops discuss the problems the open terrain in the Donbas is creating for them. They also discuss their current artillery disadvantages. The arrival of the M777s from the US will certainly help this situation. It isn't yet "the answer", but in a few weeks/months it may be. The question is are 90 tubes enough?

The weakness of the Russian's "reconnaissance to contact" advances in Ukraine is largely due to the Ukrainian infantry not being engaged by Russian infantry and driven off/fully engaged before they can use their anti-armor missiles. The BTG organization has been criticized because it does not provide enough organic infantry support even when the infantry is enthusiastic in their support. With reluctant warriors it has got to be even worse. Bad move by the Russians to destroy their Cold War structures for a "new model" that apparently has major problems.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/...my-btg.htm
From the link:
"American military experts on Russia at the Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO), Fort Leavenworth, KS, believed that BTGs were an intermediate construct, temporarily employed to push modernization into Russia’s current force, and that at the end of the modernization program, the Russian Army will return to a divisional structure with fully manned, equipped and deployable brigades – especially if faced with a peer competitor such as the United States. There are, however, several reasons to predict that the return to a divisional structure could be several years away. In the meantime, the BTG may remain Russia’s deployable organization of choice."

Ukraine is becoming/is a "peer competitor" very rapidly.

[GK3]

IMHO the following article summarizes the military situation in Ukraine today.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/life-ukrainia...40264.html

It explains the current situation, but it also gives lots of hope for the future. The Ukrainian troops discuss the problems the open terrain in the Donbas is creating for them. They also discuss their current artillery disadvantages. The arrival of the M777s from the US will certainly help this situation. It isn't yet "the answer", but in a few weeks/months it may be. The question is are 90 tubes enough?

The weakness of the Russian's "reconnaissance to contact" advances in Ukraine is largely due to the Ukrainian infantry not being engaged by Russian infantry and driven off/fully engaged before they can use their anti-armor missiles. The BTG organization has been criticized because it does not provide enough organic infantry support even when the infantry is enthusiastic in their support. With reluctant warriors it has got to be even worse. Bad move by the Russians to destroy their Cold War structures for a "new model" that apparently has major problems.

From what I have read the CEP of the finned, gps guided M 777 rounds is only 4 meters.  If they have the ammo, they can shoot and scoot far more easily than in past conflicts.  Also the Russians are reputed to have carried over design flaws from their T72 tanks to the latest models.  In the T72 the tank had 3 crew, and the gunner, loader and all the ammo was stored in the turret.  A penetration through the top of the tank usually led to ignition of the ammo supply and blowing the turret far into the sky.  Current pictures seem to support the flaw continues.
I remain surprised that the Russian forces don't have enough air power to supress the Ukrainian artillery.  
The Ukrainian forces seem to have a substantial lead in leadership and morale.  Two wonderful attributes to have on your side in a close contest.
My experience dates back to the second half of the 1960's in Vietnam. Times and equipment have sure changed, but the importance of leadership and morale has not.

[GK3]

IMHO the following article summarizes the military situation in Ukraine today.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/life-ukrainia...40264.html

It explains the current situation, but it also gives lots of hope for the future. The Ukrainian troops discuss the problems the open terrain in the Donbas is creating for them. They also discuss their current artillery disadvantages. The arrival of the M777s from the US will certainly help this situation. It isn't yet "the answer", but in a few weeks/months it may be. The question is are 90 tubes enough?

The weakness of the Russian's "reconnaissance to contact" advances in Ukraine is largely due to the Ukrainian infantry not being engaged by Russian infantry and driven off/fully engaged before they can use their anti-armor missiles. The BTG organization has been criticized because it does not provide enough organic infantry support even when the infantry is enthusiastic in their support. With reluctant warriors it has got to be even worse. Bad move by the Russians to destroy their Cold War structures for a "new model" that apparently has major problems.

From what I have read the CEP of the finned, gps guided M 777 rounds is only 4 meters.  If they have the ammo, they can shoot and scoot far more easily than in past conflicts.  Also the Russians are reputed to have carried over design flaws from their T72 tanks to the latest models.  In the T72 the tank had 3 crew, and the gunner, loader and all the ammo was stored in the turret.  A penetration through the top of the tank usually led to ignition of the ammo supply and blowing the turret far into the sky.  Current pictures seem to support the flaw continues.
I remain surprised that the Russian forces don't have enough air power to supress the Ukrainian artillery.  
The Ukrainian forces seem to have a substantial lead in leadership and morale.  Two wonderful attributes to have on your side in a close contest.
My experience dates back to the second half of the 1960's in Vietnam. Times and equipment have sure changed, but the importance of leadership and morale has not.

[BostonCard]

A lot of the equipment has not changed. I posted above about how Ukrainians are using a 1920 vintage machine gun.

BC

[BostonCard]

A lot of the equipment has not changed. I posted above about how Ukrainians are using a 1920 vintage machine gun.

BC

[Goose]

From what I have read the CEP of the finned, gps guided M 777 rounds is only 4 meters.  If they have the ammo, the can shoot and scoot far more easily than in past conflicts.

True, although right now both sides appear not to be "scooting" much. That may change when Ukraine can hit their opposite numbers.

Also the Russians are reputed to have carried over design flaws from their T72 tanks to the latest models.  In the T72 the tank had 3 crew, and the gunner, loader and all the ammo was stored in the turret.  A penetration through the top of the tank usually led to ignition of the ammo supply and blowing the turret far into the sky.  Current pictures seem to support the flaw continues.

It does. The T-90s are a bit better because they don't carry all their ammunition in the turret. The tradeoff is that you have to exit the tank to transfer that ammo into the turret when it is needed. Still, half your ammo load blowing up in the turret is enough.

I remain surprised that the Russian forces don't have enough air power to surpres the Ukrainian artillery.

So are a lot of other people. I have theorized the zoomies are smarter than the rest of the forces and are sitting this one out to a large extent. Lots of things on a Soviet era jet can "break". Can be hard to fix too. The number of stinger missiles and similar low altitude weapons has made flying under 10k feet or so very hazardous. Lack of guided munitions makes dropping from higher up inaccurate. Still, bombing trench lines miles from friendlies should be possible. Doesn't seem to be happening.

The Ukrainian forces seem to have a substantial lead in leadership and morale.  Two wonderful attributes to have on your side in a close contest.
My experience dates back to the second half of the 1960's in Vietnam. Times and equipment have sure changed, but the importance of leadership and morale has not.

Amen.

[Goose]

From what I have read the CEP of the finned, gps guided M 777 rounds is only 4 meters.  If they have the ammo, the can shoot and scoot far more easily than in past conflicts.

True, although right now both sides appear not to be "scooting" much. That may change when Ukraine can hit their opposite numbers.

Also the Russians are reputed to have carried over design flaws from their T72 tanks to the latest models.  In the T72 the tank had 3 crew, and the gunner, loader and all the ammo was stored in the turret.  A penetration through the top of the tank usually led to ignition of the ammo supply and blowing the turret far into the sky.  Current pictures seem to support the flaw continues.

It does. The T-90s are a bit better because they don't carry all their ammunition in the turret. The tradeoff is that you have to exit the tank to transfer that ammo into the turret when it is needed. Still, half your ammo load blowing up in the turret is enough.

I remain surprised that the Russian forces don't have enough air power to surpres the Ukrainian artillery.

So are a lot of other people. I have theorized the zoomies are smarter than the rest of the forces and are sitting this one out to a large extent. Lots of things on a Soviet era jet can "break". Can be hard to fix too. The number of stinger missiles and similar low altitude weapons has made flying under 10k feet or so very hazardous. Lack of guided munitions makes dropping from higher up inaccurate. Still, bombing trench lines miles from friendlies should be possible. Doesn't seem to be happening.

The Ukrainian forces seem to have a substantial lead in leadership and morale.  Two wonderful attributes to have on your side in a close contest.
My experience dates back to the second half of the 1960's in Vietnam. Times and equipment have sure changed, but the importance of leadership and morale has not.

Amen.

[thatboy]

listening to this right now.   A few days old, but some of you may be interested

https://www.hoover.org/research/ukraine-...nd-winning

Thanks. This was very good. I still think the best video to come out of the Hoover Institute on this topic was something to which I linked several weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/ylaC0MUleZs

This thread got locked temporarily right after I posted, so not sure if anyone watched this. But it is great background info / interview by one of the world's leading scholars on Russia.

[thatboy]

listening to this right now.   A few days old, but some of you may be interested

https://www.hoover.org/research/ukraine-...nd-winning

Thanks. This was very good. I still think the best video to come out of the Hoover Institute on this topic was something to which I linked several weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/ylaC0MUleZs

This thread got locked temporarily right after I posted, so not sure if anyone watched this. But it is great background info / interview by one of the world's leading scholars on Russia.

[dabigv13]

In the T72 the tank had 3 crew, and the gunner, loader and all the ammo was stored in the turret.  A penetration through the top of the tank usually led to ignition of the ammo supply and blowing the turret far into the sky.  Current pictures seem to support the flaw continues.

Here's a fun video of a T72 popping it's top, captured by Chinese journalists in separatist territory Russia has occupied since 2014. So Ukraine is active in the Russian rear, sending T72 turrets up to heaven.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/iAmTheWarax/status/1524368097041428480?s=20&t=L6RQ1RnHM9Zfn34OGWPoeA[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

In the T72 the tank had 3 crew, and the gunner, loader and all the ammo was stored in the turret.  A penetration through the top of the tank usually led to ignition of the ammo supply and blowing the turret far into the sky.  Current pictures seem to support the flaw continues.

Here's a fun video of a T72 popping it's top, captured by Chinese journalists in separatist territory Russia has occupied since 2014. So Ukraine is active in the Russian rear, sending T72 turrets up to heaven.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/iAmTheWarax/status/1524368097041428480?s=20&t=L6RQ1RnHM9Zfn34OGWPoeA[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

This is a deep dive into the deficiencies in the Russian Air Force. I’ve heard some critiques of the article, but I think it is directionally correct.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ne/629803/

I heard a Ukrainian pilot interviewed, and he basically said that the Russian pilots are flying scared, and that the minute there is any sort of engagement, they fly back to safe territory. Hard to do effective sorties that way.

BC

[BostonCard]

This is a deep dive into the deficiencies in the Russian Air Force. I’ve heard some critiques of the article, but I think it is directionally correct.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ne/629803/

I heard a Ukrainian pilot interviewed, and he basically said that the Russian pilots are flying scared, and that the minute there is any sort of engagement, they fly back to safe territory. Hard to do effective sorties that way.

BC

[Goose]

This is a deep dive into the deficiencies in the Russian Air Force. I’ve heard some critiques of the article, but I think it is directionally correct.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ne/629803/

I heard a Ukrainian pilot interviewed, and he basically said that the Russian pilots are flying scared, and that the minute there is any sort of engagement, they fly back to safe territory. Hard to do effective sorties that way.

BC

The Russian pilots are doing the minimum and are coming home alive. Smarter than the average bear. The Ukrainian pilot is probably exactly correct. Given the disparity of numbers, Russia could exchange jets at a 1:1 or maybe even a 1:2 ratio until there were no more Ukrainian jets. The Russian pilots understandably don't care for that tactical approach.

The Atlantic article does have some problems IMHO. As it does point out, Russia has always emphasized tac air. Given that, why is their tac air effort so ineffective? My answer is that Russia has no SEAD/DEAD plan, their pilots know this, and aren't suicidal. In Syria, they didn't need one. In Ukraine, they do.

[Goose]

This is a deep dive into the deficiencies in the Russian Air Force. I’ve heard some critiques of the article, but I think it is directionally correct.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ne/629803/

I heard a Ukrainian pilot interviewed, and he basically said that the Russian pilots are flying scared, and that the minute there is any sort of engagement, they fly back to safe territory. Hard to do effective sorties that way.

BC

The Russian pilots are doing the minimum and are coming home alive. Smarter than the average bear. The Ukrainian pilot is probably exactly correct. Given the disparity of numbers, Russia could exchange jets at a 1:1 or maybe even a 1:2 ratio until there were no more Ukrainian jets. The Russian pilots understandably don't care for that tactical approach.

The Atlantic article does have some problems IMHO. As it does point out, Russia has always emphasized tac air. Given that, why is their tac air effort so ineffective? My answer is that Russia has no SEAD/DEAD plan, their pilots know this, and aren't suicidal. In Syria, they didn't need one. In Ukraine, they do.

[BostonCard]

Goose, those article agrees about your SEAD/DEAD assessment and frames it as a learning episode for the West.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/pu...er-ukraine

BC

[BostonCard]

Goose, those article agrees about your SEAD/DEAD assessment and frames it as a learning episode for the West.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/pu...er-ukraine

BC

[TrumpCard]

Apparently the Baltics already have been working on shoring up the Suwalki Corridor:
https://lithuaniatribune.com/lithuanian-...hreat/amp/

This fencing obviously isn’t sufficient to stop a determined invader, but it’s a first step. And Finland may need to expand its efforts. I wouldn’t call any of this an existential threat to Russia, but it can’t be fun to have a bunch of neighbors do this.

I also wonder whether Ukraine might do this to Russia in Transnistria. Europe should consider whether it makes sense to make Russian exclaves untenable experiments.

[TrumpCard]

Apparently the Baltics already have been working on shoring up the Suwalki Corridor:
https://lithuaniatribune.com/lithuanian-...hreat/amp/

This fencing obviously isn’t sufficient to stop a determined invader, but it’s a first step. And Finland may need to expand its efforts. I wouldn’t call any of this an existential threat to Russia, but it can’t be fun to have a bunch of neighbors do this.

I also wonder whether Ukraine might do this to Russia in Transnistria. Europe should consider whether it makes sense to make Russian exclaves untenable experiments.

[Goose]

Apparently the Baltics already have been working on shoring up the Suwalki Corridor:
https://lithuaniatribune.com/lithuanian-...hreat/amp/

This fencing obviously isn’t sufficient to stop a determined invader, but it’s a first step. And Finland may need to expand its efforts. I wouldn’t call any of this an existential threat to Russia, but it can’t be fun to have a bunch of neighbors do this.

I also wonder whether Ukraine might do this to Russia in Transnistria. Europe should consider whether it makes sense to make Russian exclaves untenable experiments.

Metaphorically speaking, they already have done so.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/05/tra...-tiraspol/

Strangely enough, Transnistria now trades with the EU more than it does with Russia. Lots of strange things happen in this part of the world it seems.

[Goose]

Apparently the Baltics already have been working on shoring up the Suwalki Corridor:
https://lithuaniatribune.com/lithuanian-...hreat/amp/

This fencing obviously isn’t sufficient to stop a determined invader, but it’s a first step. And Finland may need to expand its efforts. I wouldn’t call any of this an existential threat to Russia, but it can’t be fun to have a bunch of neighbors do this.

I also wonder whether Ukraine might do this to Russia in Transnistria. Europe should consider whether it makes sense to make Russian exclaves untenable experiments.

Metaphorically speaking, they already have done so.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/05/tra...-tiraspol/

Strangely enough, Transnistria now trades with the EU more than it does with Russia. Lots of strange things happen in this part of the world it seems.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1525086292106690560?s=20&t=oHmiSfFSPl0atLP10WR9SQ[/tweet]

Could be horse trading from Erdogan, who has played footsie with Putin before, though did close the straits to Russian warships and is selling Ukraine Bayraktars, even after start of hostilities. 

More here from Bloomberg-

Erdogan cited concerns over the presence of “terrorists” in both countries. Turkey wants Sweden and Finland to take a clear stance against supporters of separatist Kurdish militants fighting for autonomy in Turkey’s southeast, a senior Turkish official said. Ankara will hold negotiations over their membership in the alliance, he added.

Any enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization requires unanimous approval of the alliance’s members. Turkey’s been a NATO member since 1952.

Could be messy. If Turkey gets their pound of flesh, I imagine Orban will be wanting something as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...dogan-says

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1525086292106690560?s=20&t=oHmiSfFSPl0atLP10WR9SQ[/tweet]

Could be horse trading from Erdogan, who has played footsie with Putin before, though did close the straits to Russian warships and is selling Ukraine Bayraktars, even after start of hostilities. 

More here from Bloomberg-

Erdogan cited concerns over the presence of “terrorists” in both countries. Turkey wants Sweden and Finland to take a clear stance against supporters of separatist Kurdish militants fighting for autonomy in Turkey’s southeast, a senior Turkish official said. Ankara will hold negotiations over their membership in the alliance, he added.

Any enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization requires unanimous approval of the alliance’s members. Turkey’s been a NATO member since 1952.

Could be messy. If Turkey gets their pound of flesh, I imagine Orban will be wanting something as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...dogan-says

[BostonCard]

Lithuania will build a wall and get Russia to pay for it?

BC

[BostonCard]

Lithuania will build a wall and get Russia to pay for it?

BC

[dabigv13]

Not following you there BC? Maybe I'm just sleep deprived from waking up early every day to watch what newest humiliations have befallen the Russian military.

Here's a Russian SA-8 SAM that is having a bad day, or perhaps from the Russian POV targeting a Ukrainian nazi squirrel.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1524995731668578309?s=20&t=CVyT9IDn1P_BpVmKIcf7pw[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Not following you there BC? Maybe I'm just sleep deprived from waking up early every day to watch what newest humiliations have befallen the Russian military.

Here's a Russian SA-8 SAM that is having a bad day, or perhaps from the Russian POV targeting a Ukrainian nazi squirrel.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1524995731668578309?s=20&t=CVyT9IDn1P_BpVmKIcf7pw[/tweet]

[BigJohn043]

My view is that Russian advances in the past ~45 days in the Dombas have been pretty limited.

They attacked both west and south from Izyum.  No idea why they attacked west.  The southern attack was meant to cut off and isolate the whole UA position in the Donbass.  Both attacks got around 30-40km and have stalled.  Without a major infusion of forces this RA attack has stalled.

The Russians have also attacked West in the Northern Donbass.  These attacks have also gained about 30-40km.  The problem is that all of the ground taken has been east of the Donets river.  No real ground has been taken West of the river.  It is a pretty logical defensive point that runs through the Donbas all of the way to Severodonetsk.  It doesn't take a military genius to figure out that this is the line the UA is planning to defend and have defended quite well in the eastern part of the Donbass.  

Until the Russians cross the Donets or really resume the attack south from Izyum this is all just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

OTOH, the UA has gained similar territory to the RA around Kharkiv.  They have also taken 30-40km of ground and have now reached the Donets from the west.  It looks like a matter of time until they push the RA across the border in this sector.  My guess is they they drive south to expel the RA from Izyum and drive all of the their forces east of the Donets.  And we should note that the UA is doing this with a pretty small force.

My view is that this battlefield is still pretty fluid.  The RA is not grinding down the UA.  They are taking in places and losing in places.  The UA is likely getting stronger as conscripts get experience and western aid is flowing in.  The RA is likely getting weaker as they struggle to replace lost men and equipment.

My view is that the UA is winning FWIW.

[BigJohn043]

My view is that Russian advances in the past ~45 days in the Dombas have been pretty limited.

They attacked both west and south from Izyum.  No idea why they attacked west.  The southern attack was meant to cut off and isolate the whole UA position in the Donbass.  Both attacks got around 30-40km and have stalled.  Without a major infusion of forces this RA attack has stalled.

The Russians have also attacked West in the Northern Donbass.  These attacks have also gained about 30-40km.  The problem is that all of the ground taken has been east of the Donets river.  No real ground has been taken West of the river.  It is a pretty logical defensive point that runs through the Donbas all of the way to Severodonetsk.  It doesn't take a military genius to figure out that this is the line the UA is planning to defend and have defended quite well in the eastern part of the Donbass.  

Until the Russians cross the Donets or really resume the attack south from Izyum this is all just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

OTOH, the UA has gained similar territory to the RA around Kharkiv.  They have also taken 30-40km of ground and have now reached the Donets from the west.  It looks like a matter of time until they push the RA across the border in this sector.  My guess is they they drive south to expel the RA from Izyum and drive all of the their forces east of the Donets.  And we should note that the UA is doing this with a pretty small force.

My view is that this battlefield is still pretty fluid.  The RA is not grinding down the UA.  They are taking in places and losing in places.  The UA is likely getting stronger as conscripts get experience and western aid is flowing in.  The RA is likely getting weaker as they struggle to replace lost men and equipment.

My view is that the UA is winning FWIW.

[Hurlburt88]

new podcast that some of you may find interesting
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/george-f...be94f95b1a

I am also surprised that the ruble has significantly strengthened. Any of you economists understanding the drivers? Maybe payment in rubles for oil and gas?

[Hurlburt88]

new podcast that some of you may find interesting
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/george-f...be94f95b1a

I am also surprised that the ruble has significantly strengthened. Any of you economists understanding the drivers? Maybe payment in rubles for oil and gas?

[TrumpCard]

The reference to Lithuania’s wall is from the article I posted relating to the Suwalki Corridor. They built a fence, but there was a tongue in cheek statement referring to Trump’s promise to build a wall. I would not be surprised to see the Baltics upgrade that fence. Ukraine has other problems on its hands right now, but I would not be surprised to see some further action on the Transnistrian border when the current conflict cools down. Russian exclaves should hemmed in as much as possible.

[TrumpCard]

The reference to Lithuania’s wall is from the article I posted relating to the Suwalki Corridor. They built a fence, but there was a tongue in cheek statement referring to Trump’s promise to build a wall. I would not be surprised to see the Baltics upgrade that fence. Ukraine has other problems on its hands right now, but I would not be surprised to see some further action on the Transnistrian border when the current conflict cools down. Russian exclaves should hemmed in as much as possible.

[GK3]

A lot of the equipment has not changed. I posted above about how Ukrainians are using a 1920 vintage machine gun.

BC

True, but the Javelin and one shot cheap drone weapons are brobdingnagian improvement over 1960 weapons, to say nothing of the M 777.  The Ukrainian army may consist predominately of so-called leg infantry but thanks to NATO Countries they are gaining an increasingly more powerful supporting cast.  I have wondered how the A 10 C would survive in this environment.  I don't think a 1000 cheap drones will cost you what an A 10 costs.

---

My view is that Russian advances in the past ~45 days in the Dombas have been pretty limited.

They attacked both west and south from Izyum.  No idea why they attacked west.  The southern attack was meant to cut off and isolate the whole UA position in the Donbass.  Both attacks got around 30-40km and have stalled.  Without a major infusion of forces this RA attack has stalled.

The Russians have also attacked West in the Northern Donbass.  These attacks have also gained about 30-40km.  The problem is that all of the ground taken has been east of the Donets river.  No real ground has been taken West of the river.  It is a pretty logical defensive point that runs through the Donbas all of the way to Severodonetsk.  It doesn't take a military genius to figure out that this is the line the UA is planning to defend and have defended quite well in the eastern part of the Donbass.  

Lack of replacement chips and circuits is also hurting the RA.  I read that they are taking chips out of refrigerators and washing machines to keep gear running.  If they get to the point that can't remain modern equipment they will find themselves between a rock and hard place.

Until the Russians cross the Donets or really resume the attack south from Izyum this is all just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

OTOH, the UA has gained similar territory to the RA around Kharkiv.  They have also taken 30-40km of ground and have now reached the Donets from the west.  It looks like a matter of time until they push the RA across the border in this sector.  My guess is they they drive south to expel the RA from Izyum and drive all of the their forces east of the Donets.  And we should note that the UA is doing this with a pretty small force.

My view is that this battlefield is still pretty fluid.  The RA is not grinding down the UA.  They are taking in places and losing in places.  The UA is likely getting stronger as conscripts get experience and western aid is flowing in.  The RA is likely getting weaker as they struggle to replace lost men and equipment.

My view is that the UA is winning FWIW.

---

This is a deep dive into the deficiencies in the Russian Air Force. I’ve heard some critiques of the article, but I think it is directionally correct.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ne/629803/

I heard a Ukrainian pilot interviewed, and he basically said that the Russian pilots are flying scared, and that the minute there is any sort of engagement, they fly back to safe territory. Hard to do effective sorties that way.

BC

The Russian pilots are doing the minimum and are coming home alive. Smarter than the average bear. The Ukrainian pilot is probably exactly correct. Given the disparity of numbers, Russia could exchange jets at a 1:1 or maybe even a 1:2 ratio until there were no more Ukrainian jets. The Russian pilots understandably don't care for that tactical approach.

The Atlantic article does have some problems IMHO. As it does point out, Russia has always emphasized tac air. Given that, why is their tac air effort so ineffective? My answer is that Russia has no SEAD/DEAD plan, their pilots know this, and aren't suicidal. In Syria, they didn't need one. In Ukraine, they do.

Here is a theoretical discussion of SEAD/DEAD tactics versus current RA gear including the S400
I have no idea how realistic the assumption are, but they seem to make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGwU9HKH_Eo

[GK3]

A lot of the equipment has not changed. I posted above about how Ukrainians are using a 1920 vintage machine gun.

BC

True, but the Javelin and one shot cheap drone weapons are brobdingnagian improvement over 1960 weapons, to say nothing of the M 777.  The Ukrainian army may consist predominately of so-called leg infantry but thanks to NATO Countries they are gaining an increasingly more powerful supporting cast.  I have wondered how the A 10 C would survive in this environment.  I don't think a 1000 cheap drones will cost you what an A 10 costs.

---

My view is that Russian advances in the past ~45 days in the Dombas have been pretty limited.

They attacked both west and south from Izyum.  No idea why they attacked west.  The southern attack was meant to cut off and isolate the whole UA position in the Donbass.  Both attacks got around 30-40km and have stalled.  Without a major infusion of forces this RA attack has stalled.

The Russians have also attacked West in the Northern Donbass.  These attacks have also gained about 30-40km.  The problem is that all of the ground taken has been east of the Donets river.  No real ground has been taken West of the river.  It is a pretty logical defensive point that runs through the Donbas all of the way to Severodonetsk.  It doesn't take a military genius to figure out that this is the line the UA is planning to defend and have defended quite well in the eastern part of the Donbass.  

Lack of replacement chips and circuits is also hurting the RA.  I read that they are taking chips out of refrigerators and washing machines to keep gear running.  If they get to the point that can't remain modern equipment they will find themselves between a rock and hard place.

Until the Russians cross the Donets or really resume the attack south from Izyum this is all just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

OTOH, the UA has gained similar territory to the RA around Kharkiv.  They have also taken 30-40km of ground and have now reached the Donets from the west.  It looks like a matter of time until they push the RA across the border in this sector.  My guess is they they drive south to expel the RA from Izyum and drive all of the their forces east of the Donets.  And we should note that the UA is doing this with a pretty small force.

My view is that this battlefield is still pretty fluid.  The RA is not grinding down the UA.  They are taking in places and losing in places.  The UA is likely getting stronger as conscripts get experience and western aid is flowing in.  The RA is likely getting weaker as they struggle to replace lost men and equipment.

My view is that the UA is winning FWIW.

---

This is a deep dive into the deficiencies in the Russian Air Force. I’ve heard some critiques of the article, but I think it is directionally correct.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ne/629803/

I heard a Ukrainian pilot interviewed, and he basically said that the Russian pilots are flying scared, and that the minute there is any sort of engagement, they fly back to safe territory. Hard to do effective sorties that way.

BC

The Russian pilots are doing the minimum and are coming home alive. Smarter than the average bear. The Ukrainian pilot is probably exactly correct. Given the disparity of numbers, Russia could exchange jets at a 1:1 or maybe even a 1:2 ratio until there were no more Ukrainian jets. The Russian pilots understandably don't care for that tactical approach.

The Atlantic article does have some problems IMHO. As it does point out, Russia has always emphasized tac air. Given that, why is their tac air effort so ineffective? My answer is that Russia has no SEAD/DEAD plan, their pilots know this, and aren't suicidal. In Syria, they didn't need one. In Ukraine, they do.

Here is a theoretical discussion of SEAD/DEAD tactics versus current RA gear including the S400
I have no idea how realistic the assumption are, but they seem to make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGwU9HKH_Eo

[cardcrimson]

Lithuania will build a wall and get Russia to pay for it?

BC

Et tu, Brute?

[cardcrimson]

Lithuania will build a wall and get Russia to pay for it?

BC

Et tu, Brute?

[Goose]

True, but the Javelin and one shot cheap drone weapons are of immense proportions improvement over 1960 weapons, to say nothing of the M 777.  The Ukrainian army may consist predominately of so-called leg infantry but thanks to NATO Countries they are gaining an increasingly more powerful supporting cast.  I have wondered how the A 10 C would survive in this environment.

It wouldn't, just like SU-25s don't. There are too many low altitude (MANPADS, SA-15, also "older" SA-8s) threats under 20k feet and also too many long-range high altitude threats (S-300, for Russia S-400) systems. A-10s did very well in Iraq when they stayed above (about) 20k feet and fired Mavericks onto tanks because the US DEAD had eliminated the (relatively few) high altitude threats. When they went lower lots of them got hit. Most of them made it back to base, but the airplanes were OOC for a while. Having two engines on opposite sides of the airplane helped a lot. The Iraqis didn't have nearly as many MANPADS as the Russians have, and they also didn't have as much low level air defense in general.

[Goose]

True, but the Javelin and one shot cheap drone weapons are of immense proportions improvement over 1960 weapons, to say nothing of the M 777.  The Ukrainian army may consist predominately of so-called leg infantry but thanks to NATO Countries they are gaining an increasingly more powerful supporting cast.  I have wondered how the A 10 C would survive in this environment.

It wouldn't, just like SU-25s don't. There are too many low altitude (MANPADS, SA-15, also "older" SA-8s) threats under 20k feet and also too many long-range high altitude threats (S-300, for Russia S-400) systems. A-10s did very well in Iraq when they stayed above (about) 20k feet and fired Mavericks onto tanks because the US DEAD had eliminated the (relatively few) high altitude threats. When they went lower lots of them got hit. Most of them made it back to base, but the airplanes were OOC for a while. Having two engines on opposite sides of the airplane helped a lot. The Iraqis didn't have nearly as many MANPADS as the Russians have, and they also didn't have as much low level air defense in general.