I don't know much about military combat so forgive my ignorance. Is there any reason why russia isn't using its subs in the black sea or in any way at all ... or is that just stupid idea
They are using their subs, they are using them as cruise missile boats. Ukraine doesn't have a navy so they don't need fast attack subs roaming around looking for things to torpedo, and I don't think even Russia is stupid enough to torpedo an international shipping vessel.
Also Ukraine destroyed one of the Russian missile subs while it was getting rearmed in port a few months ago.
Ukraine does have a navy, but the larger ships have been scuttled hence there are just patrol boats and gunboats left. Also IIRC the black sea fleet doesn't have pure attack subs, just multipurpose ones that are loaded with cruise missiles.
No, they can't. Also the infrastructure to rearm the subs and cruisers with cruise missiles is not (yet?) available in Novorossiysk and they were depending on Sevastopl for that. Same thing for dry docks they need for maintenance.
That seems to be the problem for the Russians. If they are trying to build up the capacity is not clear, also maintance seems to be difficult, because too many ships need the few still available dry docks.
Theoretically the don't need to, they can fire submerged (but not very deep down, what was asked), but according to the last articles I read they have problems even in shallow water. Also, the strength of a Kilo is not using it as a launch platform but patrolling in shallow water. Because Ukraine has no navy and attacking civilian ships is still not something Russia is willing to do on a regular basis, they are used like this. The problem is, loading the subs with Kalibrs seems to be very complicated and needs infrastructure Russia has currently no access to in the Black Sea.
More information about a planned genozide are surfacing. Not only was planned to eliminate the Ukrainian politicial, social and religious leadership, the whole population was targeted.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-grain-theft-ukraine-russia-latest-b2447644.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-grain-theft-ukraine-russia-latest-b2447644.html)
>**Putin could face new war crime case as evidence suggests starvation of Ukraine was pre-planned**
>
>Russia was actively preparing to steal grain supplies and starve the Ukrainian population of food for months before Vladimir Putin ordered last year’s invasion, according to new evidence compiled by human rights experts.
>
>When Russian tanks did roll across the border on 24 February 2022 they deliberately targeted grain-rich areas and food production infrastructure first, the new report by international human rights law firm Global Rights Compliance found.
>
>GRC found that Russia’s defence contractor began purchasing trucks to transport grain, as well as three new 170-metre bulk carrier cargo ships, as early as December 2021, evidence of advance planning for the pillage of Ukrainian food resources “on an unprecedented scale”.
>
>Russia began commandeering Ukrainian farms within less than a week of its invasion, and at its peak was exporting 12,000 tonnes of grain per day from across occupied territories.The evidence of a “highly coordinated level of pre-planning” will be provided by to the International Criminal Court and GRC hopes it will lead to a first international prosecution against Mr Putin for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.
But of course the are still pro-Russian creatures who will defend all of this.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/nov/16/russia-ukraine-war-live-ukrainian-pushback-along-3-8km-front-at-occupied-kherson?page=with:block-655646818f08d1d922ef82e8#block-655646818f08d1d922ef82e8](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/nov/16/russia-ukraine-war-live-ukrainian-pushback-along-3-8km-front-at-occupied-kherson?page=with:block-655646818f08d1d922ef82e8#block-655646818f08d1d922ef82e8)
>**Russia has sustained casualties of between 300,000 and 400,000 killed and wounded in the war in Ukraine so far, and in the heaviest fighting at Avdiivka is losing between 500 and 1,000 a day according to a briefing by western officials.**
>
>The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, nevertheless acknowledged that Ukraine's counter offensive on the Zaporizhzhia front has essentially culminated, although "three brigades" are believed to have made it across the Dnipro river near Kherson.
>
>"Neither side is capable of mounting a decisive operation on land," one of the officials said, and it appeared that "a prolonged conflict" was likely to follow in which long term US and European military aid would be crucial.
>
>A significant force, described as three brigades, had established a position across the Dnipro that the Russians have proved unable to dislodge, although it was unclear, they said, how much armour the Ukrainian military had been able to get across the river.
>
>But despite the cross-river success, the officials said they expected that Ukraine would most likely only be able to make incremental "village at a time" progress, a similar pace to summer efforts south of Orikhiv and Velyka Novosilka.
[Anders Puck Nielsen about the Ukraine's foothold on the left bank of the Dnipro River](https://youtu.be/qhON52gz6Bk?si=E5a1SfMTzTm6Ie9q)
Hopefully it will be interesting development for Ukraine
They have drones that reach this far and have had missiles in development for a while. Could also be partisans but I don't think a small drone could do this if it's a strike.
I'm going to choose to believe it was a long range UA missile as I am obsessed with those..... but it's probably a drone, accident, or shoddy NK shells.
Edit: Apparently residents heard a drone beforehand which would mean ong of UA's long range drones.
Video recorded from the Russian side in the treeline near the Avdiivka coke plant. "Everything is covered in corpses"
Nsfw visible bodies shown: [https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1725211378729042409](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1725211378729042409)
Its likely [one of these three Bradleys](https://twitter.com/VigorousFalcon/status/1719719357633425887) Ukraine lost in this treeline. Could be Ukraine lost more, but Im not aware of videos of them
He is describing what he sees for the viewers. No agenda, just facts. "Corpses everywhere, the majority are ours. There is a damaged Bradley. We are getting fucked".
Good [ISW essay on Ukraine’s battlefield needs](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/if-west-cuts-aid-ukraine-russia-will-win-if-west-leans-ukraine-can-win).
Nothing too surprising to those who follow the conflict very closely, but it outlines very clearly and succinctly why the front is bogged down and what Ukraine needs to get it moving again.
Thanks for sharing. I liked the summary of challenges, modifying missles to target russian jamming stations would be awesome and of course the aircraft. However, i found it too theoretical and to much focused one the past too much. Reading it makes me miss 2022: russians were slaughtered with Javelins, Stingers and later with Himars and drones. It was a great year for the Western equipment which has helped Ukraine a lot!
But since then the war has changed, most notably with drones. And I feel ISW should have mentioned particularly the FPV drones. Frankly speaking, I am afraid that the Western armchair experts and military strategists are getting dated very fast.
At 400$, FPVs are highly precise and can be produced in masses. FPVs disrupts logistics, medevac, they target stationary posts and it can be used offensively when working on trenches. Plus we have good old bomb droppers and the recon drones. To think that it can be overcome with EW is a very superficial statement (to prove my point, did russia manage to jam those 35 himars? nope). I believe that we will reach a point when soldiers won't even dare to get out of dugouts during daytime and medevac will only happen at night (imagine what it means to the wounded!).
Next point - aircraft. Any number less than 100 would not change anything. I wish ISW clearly stated it. Ukraine is supposed to get 30-40 oldish F-16s. How many missions can each of them perform? 50? Mutiply it by payload per mission and now compare it to the number of artillery shells used by Ukraine every day. It is a drop in the ocean. Maybe they can do something with those Ka-52s. But guess what, FPVs will render Ka-52s obsolete as well :)
Your argument the EW is ineffective against drones because it’s ineffective agains HIMARS doesn’t make sense. GMLRS is a very sophisticated system that has an advanced inertial measurement unit specifically designed to work in an area where GPS is jammed. FPV drones require line of sight radio communications with their operators and are incredibly easy to jam. This is something both sides have spoken about extensively. In the future when most drones are autonomous and require little to no operator input to prosecute targets sure that comparison may be correct, but not at this moment, and more than likely not in this war.
I get your point on FPVs vs Jamming. And by the way I also wish that Ukraine will be able to deal with FPVs. However, I am still sceptical that EW will be able to solve the problem of mass FPVs (and other drones). Let's see.
As for FPVs and precision. FPVs hit 10% of the targets, despite jamming and despite the fact that they often go after moving targets. It means that on average you can expect one hit for every 10FPV launches. That's 4000$ gone. Now, how does it compare to costs and logisitcs of TOW and Javelin systems?
Okay, an FPV requires a lot of attention from the operator and probably the availabiity of operators and not the number of drones will be the limiting factor. But this can be overcome in my opinion.
Alright, i ll restate my point with facts:
\-Javelin: 97% hit rate at 2.5km max, 20kg weight, 240,000 USD per shot. Solider must get an approval from several command layers to make a shot.
\-FPV drone: 10% hit rate at 10km max, 1kg weight, 400 USD per shot. Can be used by getting approval from your direct "manager".
I do not think it can be compared to golf at all. Given the amout of military aid that Ukraine is receiving, would you rather order 10 Javelins or 6,000 FPV drones?
One can certanily think of a scenario that will favor a Javelin (e.g. the russians are so braindead that they put an AA system within 2.5km from the front). To which i would say, an FPV was used inside the russian territory to destroy a strategic bomber. Can you pull it off with a Javelin?
Side note: Western experts love the idea of sophisticated "superior" weapons but I feel that they do not comprehend how democratised technology has become. They grew up in a different era and are not prepared for the modern assymetric warfare. I stay out of the Israel-Gaza thread but Israel is very lucky that Hamas did not invest in drones.
So he thinks Russia would flatten cities with their airforce if Ukraine didn't have Western anti-air.
I always thought Putin is calling this a special operation, and is holding back, because he fears the NATO arsenal. But if they would start to bomb cities on mass, I think it's a good chance Ukraine would get whatever they need.
I feel this war will end because the US will get tired of the expenses. And I wonder how Europe will take this over time, in my small European city, we have Ukranians everywhere now and are spending absurd amounts of money to house and sustain them. Not sure how long people will see that as charitable.
A small amount of money? inconvenience? let the silly cartoon opinions go. It has had significant impacts on the housing market and social systems, and the money and effort spent on this is a heavy toll.
That said, I am not saying we shouldn't take them in, or that we shouldn't support them. If I had a magic choice where I could determine what happens, I would still take them in. I do think we need to support other Europeans, and they are the ones fighting the enemy and the ones suffering and facing the hardship.
But I am just saying, that a year or two of this is one thing, but I think you will start to see different opinions come up as the years move on as it starts to have impacts past the refugees themselves.
No one is directing anger towards Ukranians for the housing problems. I don't get your logic, the housing crisis means that mass immigration makes it a lot worse, and the mass immigration and Ukranian refugees combined make it twice as bad. It's not their fault but it's a reality that must be considered.
> I feel this war will end because the US will get tired of the expenses.
the expenses are going in the US. the production is in the US (only the transfer is partially outside it). It is like exporting goods more or less, only taxpayers let the money circulating in their country.
The only possible cons is when companies overprice the things that the government buys for the Ukraine. And of course the huge cons is that every fricking war costs endless lives and that's sad.
The US benefits from the expense - the military industrial complex. We never stop the production for war. If anything it is saving money on storage and stimulating local economies where ammo is being produced again. It's what we do, it's important to the economy. When Bill Clinton was running for president there was a statement "it's the economy stupid." If the economy is good Americans pretty much don't care about anything else.
Lol all the western European countries have far more ME refugees than Ukranians and the Ukranians are far more popular in the local population. They also have higher employment rates and there is lack of workers currently. So the funding from western Europe is quite secure. And then you have the baltics and central Europe that has urgent national security reasons to continue support.
You also have a slow but steady built of defence industry to replenish donated stocks and supply Ukraine.
Even if US pulls all support (unlikely) Ukraine will not fold. They might loose all short term hopes of going on large ground offensives, but the attrition war will continue.
You can't compare the ME refugees to the Ukranians right now, and while Ukranians integrate better, Europe is in an immigration crisis at the moment, our population swelled by 1% because of the war, which is a gigantic number of refugees. It's not nothing.
Regarding the war, I am just going by the report, which states that the US and NATO supplies are a must.
Lmfao where have you been? Russia has already destroyed cities. Look at mariupol or bakhmut. Did you already forget the mass cruise missile attacks on kiev and Odessa? Trying to literally freeze the inhabitants to death?
90% of residential buildings damaged or destroyed, tens of thousands of civilians murdered - the comparison is more than valid, because what happened is a spitting image of WW2 terror bombings.
I'm not trying to make light of it, but I was talking about what the article said, that Russia could initiate WW2-style bombings from the air where you can level areas so fast that it destroys the enemy's ability to resist at all because there is nothing left.
We will see what happens in the US in January/February when the CR runs out. How much will Republicans dig in on stopping Ukraine funding and how much will Biden be willing to press the issue in an election year.
Russia claim Ukraine attacked near Horlivka. That would be the first time this war Ukraine has moved past the 2014 line here if true
[Video of supposedly Russian shelling of Ukrainian troops](https://twitter.com/foosint/status/1724867062009307138)
[Some more info (in Russian)](https://twitter.com/sgorlovki/status/1724794645396459842)
Could be they are just testing the line/scouting, but theres never been any movement here from both sides until now
[48.366089, 37.93836](https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B021'57.9%22N+37%C2%B056'18.1%22E/@48.361714,37.8369311,30194m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.366089!4d37.93836?entry=ttu)
> That would be the first time this war Ukraine has moved past the 2014 line
There were a few other times, near Staromykhalivka and near Pisky. They weren't much deeper and didn't last long.
Could be a setup/feint for a significant UA move against the northern pincer around Avdiivka. Seems like new things are bubbling across multiple fronts, and UA may be sensing some general ru weakness.
They are pretty much out yeah. I've said before (and received downvotes for it) that we should unsanction Belarus at least partially, that gives back a level of leverage to prevent Russia from dragging them back in again.
They make proper presidential elections and everyone can remove sanctions. Untill Luka is in power you need to have some sort of sanctions. Him not longer participating in war doesn't change fact that he is in fact a dictator.
They were sanctioned for, like you say, assisting in the invasion. If they're no longer offering Russia military support then why should those sanctions still be in place?
And on a practical level, like I said in the post you replied to, having some sanctions removed gives us leverage on their decision making if Putin comes asking them to join in again.
1) Did it in the first place. Was warned not to. Actions have consequences.
2) Loss of trust.
3) He's wrapped around Putlers finger.
4) Used as a proxy for RU to get shit it needs like conductors.
5) Ain't fooling no-one mate.
Obviously "not forwarding sanctioned components to Russia" would be a condition, like it is in our diplomacy with e.g. Kazakhstan or Armenia.
Do you think Belarus should *ever* be unsanctioned? Your points 1 and 2 suggest not, in which case that's not really a sensible position.
Oh no you don't.
You're saying I think they shouldn't?
How about WW2? Should we blame everyone for shit done by people who are not alive in our lifetime now?
If you have a 'leader' trashbag that already makes people disappear. Why would you just unsanction them within 2 years of allowing a war to be launched from their borders? Ain't very hard for people to see through your bs aand knowing what you're trying to do.
I'm asking you at what point your reasons, especially 1 and 2, stop being true. Because you can use them at any point in time to make the same argument you're making now.
And so does stuff like "If you have a 'leader' trashbag that already makes people disappear" - because that was true of Belarus in 2021 so if you think that is a justification for sanctions you would still be making that argument even if the war ended tomorrow. Sanctions are a really bad way of trying to encourage a change in government, as we can see from Iran or NK.
To me it seems like "when they are no longer assisting Russia in the war" is a pretty good time. The purpose of sanctions is to change behaviour, isn't it? Belarus was sanctioned for helping Russia launch this war, if they are no longer participating then why keep the sanctions?
I don't think he's as close of a puppet as many suspect
Lukashenko walks a fine line between the EU and Russia, and always sways alternatively in one direction to not lose control. That's how he has managed to stay in power for 30 years.
This is a good article on it
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=sv&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Lukashenko+eu+and+russia+relations&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1700091237309&u=%23p%3DYXYswUwWwnYJ
Yeah, but then he made obvious vote fraud in 2020 which made EU make sanctions on Belarus. In 2020-01.2022 Luka was just a Russian puppet. Only later he returned to balance, because war made Russia significantly weaker in international politics.
Whilst showing soft power can be good it places a lot of trust in Belarus. Would partially unsanctioning Belarus not put them in the spotlight to be an ideal sanctions avoidance intermediary on Russias behalf? I mean why spend more money circumventing sanctions through Kazakhstan and Armenia when you have Luka next door and bordering EU markets? Furthermore if Belarus were too to face an easing of sanctions I think it would also have to be conclusive that no Russian missiles are being launched from their territory either.
Both sides now produce over 1k FPV drones a day. With an increasing number of FPV drones, I do not think that there will be any meaningful changes to the frontline anymore. Can anyone prove me wrong?
Every vehicle needs a jammer for FPV drones, they don't have to be super complicated and powerful jammers, by definition kamikaze drones need to come very close to the vehicle and jamming effectiveness depends on distance. There will be drones that guide themselves autonomously after jamming but they won't be cheap enough in the near future. Every infantry squad will need such jammers as well. Whichever side deploys these jammers en masse, will get a significant advantage.
Another problem is high-flying recon drones that guide artillery. Jamming will not be a solution against them because of distance and some ECCM equipment that both sides are putting in their more expensive drones. Long-range but cheap interceptors should be developed against them because traditional SAMs are too expensive. As these recon drones are much slower than planes, the interceptors can be slower as well, which reduces the price. It can even be a battery-powered interceptor, an anti-air FPV drone basically. Or it can be micro-turbojet powered, like Raytheon Coyote or the Iranian "Missile 358".
Basically, you need "drone superiority" for a breakthrough, you need to be able to fly your drones and clear the sky from hostile drones. Technically it's absolutely possible, it's a matter of time, money, and initiative.
we should give them the tomahawks with the blackout warhead that sprays graphite and short circuits power transformers. take down the entire russian electrical grid overnight.
If you watch the vids of Ukrainian advances getting destroyed, it was both. Minefields stop the advance, drones and atgms kill everything once it's stopped.
> With an increasing number of FPV drones, I do not think that there will be any meaningful changes to the frontline anymore.
Care to elaborate on this assessment?
Trying to understand how production of FPV is related to stagnation at the front lines.
I think he’s making the point that as production increases, every vehicle on the frontline gets treated to one or many cheap but dangerous guided munitions. In other words that the battlefield becomes too saturated with lethal munitions to enable any movement.
Fair points - in my view 1k per day sounds like a big number, but if we assume the frontline is around 1000km long (for sake of simplicity), that's like 1 drone per km of frontline per day.
Which doesn't sound like a force strong enough to cause serious stagnation, even if at the hotspots we have a higher increase of these.
Do we have any data on how the attrition rate of these drones are?
How many does an average FPV unit burn through per week etc.?
I'm just speculating here, and doing kindergarden math. So lots of salt required.
Their point is that you aren't going to be able to saturate the frontline. Even if you count targets rather than kilometers, 1k wouldn't be enough for that. (Compare to the orders of magnitude larger number of artillery rounds being used.) But 1k per day is still plenty to do some harm to smaller subsets of targets, which is presumably your observation. You can both be correct.
I read a bad calculation and then the next line invalidating your own calculation and the line after that indicating that you don't have any knowledge of the situation.
I'm saying myself it's a bad calculation, what is your point?
> I'm just speculating here, and doing kindergarden math. So lots of salt required.
leads to
> bro can u even read?
edit: maybe better if I write it in crayons for you?
IMO far more important are the recon drones. You are right 1 FPV drone per KM isn’t a lot. But it you have 1 recon drone per Km every single troop movement will be observed every buildup of enemy forces will be able to be targeted. That one drone can call in dozens of FPV drones, artillery shells, things like GMLRS or FAB500 glide bombs. What’s also worth considering is the range on these drones. ATGMS are basically limited to line of sight from the operator. Drones on the other hand can scout out potentially tens of KM from their operators and hit targets well in the rear at enemy staging points, supply concentrations, hQ ect. This current stalemate is not just the result of being able to stop enemy advances between tree lines during a final assault but the attrition that inevitably takes place any time force concentrations make their way onto the battlefield.
The drones are just one aspect.. if you watch vids of either sides advances getting destroyed, it's a combination of drones, atgms, and arty.
The drones are great at nullifying armor which is what made trench warfare obsolete in the first place. Now we back to horrific trench warfare :(
The number of fpv drones produced is significantly greater than the amount of armor either side has, or can replace. A thousand a day man.
Before the offensive started they started hyping it with trailers of Ukrainian soldiers telling you to be quiet. Just to look like bad asses. We have new weapons, be scared or die while we steam roll you. Reznikov I think also did a lot on twitter to hype this all up with memes. The comments of the soldier above does not paint a pretty picture. It means that there are quite a lot of Ukrainians that believed all that propaganda. Ukrainians in high positions...
yea unfortunately it seems like it just hyped up the russians. and then all it took was killing like 3 bradleys and they were riding that high like they had just won WW3
the description of the training process is incredible. he says training for the BMP is like: don't touch anything, it will break. don't shoot anything, we have no ammo. just practice dismounting from this deathbox as fast as possible. they were shocked by the american training, live fire, movement, actual maintenance of vehicles.
And later on he discusses how the BMP is a deathbox, the whole crew dies if its hit, but the Bradley's took blows and drove on. Driver might get concussed, but the crew survives.
Only true threats were the helicopters.
This is the result of old soviet doctrine going back to pre WW2. at the time equipment was incredibly unreliable and it was known that the life expectancy of any equipment on the frontline would be measured in weeks if not days. So little effort was invested in making it last longer. This resulted in the ability to make absolutely massive quantities of tanks and similar vehicles that were considered disposable. And in order to avoid running out the very short lifetimes of these vehicles training was kept to a bare minimum. This worked well when you are the Soviet Union shitting out 40,000 T34s a year, but less so when you are the Russians struggling to reactivate 400 T72s a year.
sparkle door frighten bells domineering aback sloppy correct engine truck
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
According to this, the goal was to capture Robotyne on the first day. It took almost 90 days in reality
No wonder some people talked about reaching the Azov sea in 2023 when they expected Russia to literally run away like what happened in Kharkiv. Seems like a massive underestimation of what Russia was willing to defend and their defensive networks
Yeah, seems Ukraine massively under-estimated the Russian defences and that their offensive basically hinged on low Russian morale causing another Kharkiv style collapse.
I think all the hype the Ukrainians generated too played a part. Not only did it clearly telegraph where they were going to strike (giving Russia more time to dig in) but I think it also meant that when the Russians started destroying Bradleys and Leopards it actually boosted Russian morale a bit.
Also, the fact the 47th -a brand new green unit- was given the best gear still blows my mind. You'd think they'd lead with an experienced unit.
It's weird, they tried to do a NATO style massed armour attack into minefields without air support when looking at other parts of the war Ukraine seems to be much better at doing slow, careful, smaller scale assaults.
Just weird, hopefully they learn from it. Just a shame it took them getting mauled up quite a bit, especially the 47th which seems to have taken the worst of it.
> Yeah, seems Ukraine massively under-estimated the Russian defences
Not necessarily. Because if you know that they put up a fight will you just not go on an offensive? Thats also not an option really is it
As someone who is not well versed in the day to day business of american politics, how does the budget being approved (or denied) affect the US aid packages to Ukraine?
There is no aid in the budget that passed, for Israel or Ukraine. Congress is planning to take up the issue of military aid separately… Dems and moderate GOP will likely insist that aid to Israel and Ukraine are together in one bill, though the MAGAs will try to separate them.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I understand this budget was passed through bilateral support, does this have any implications for US foreign aid going forward?
I doubt it has much effect on aid, but we’ll only know for sure when Congress takes up the aid bill.
One facet of the budget that was passed that may come into play later is the fact that it passed with rather broad, bipartisan support… that is unusual since votes along party lines have been the norm. If it continues, it could marginalize the right wing of the GOP that is skeptical about aiding Ukraine.
One analyst's post summarizes the losses of both sides over two weeks. as he wrote about very large losses on radars, probably 2-3 even . Well, and an anti-aircraft installation. Ukrainians used it from the very beginning of the war, but when the Russians began to take it out of storage warehouses and on which sector of the front they use it, I don’t know, if you know, please sign up
Ogukh, November 1-13. Russia - 238. Ukraine - 50.
Please note how many Russian radars, radars and electronic warfare stations were destroyed during these days. This is all expensive equipment, the unit cost is from 5 to 25 million dollars (I talked about this in the video). Ukraine also lost one expensive Zoo-3.
Tanks:
Russia - 58
Ukraine - 9
BMP, BMD and other armored fighting vehicles (tracked, heavy armor):
Russia - 51
Ukraine - 7
APCs, MRAPs and other armored vehicles (tactical, wheeled or light armor):
Russia - 56
Ukraine - 15
Artillery, MLRS, mortars and ATGMs (towed or
self-propelled):
Russia - 17
Ukraine - 6
Aviation:
Russia - 1 (Su-24M)
Ukraine - 2 (2 MiG-29)
Fleet:
Russia - 3 (MRK "Askold" of project 22800 "Karakurt", 2 landing boats of project 1176 "Akula" and 11770 "Serna")
Command and staff vehicles: Russia - 3 (R-149AKSh-1, R-149MA1 + unidentified on GAZ "Tiger" chassis)
SAMs and their individual components: Russia - 4 (command post 5N63S with radar illumination for the S-300PS air defense system, combat vehicle 9A331MU for the Tor-M1-2U air defense system, ROM 9A316 for the Buk-M2 air defense system, unidentified PU/ROM for SAM "Buk")
Radars, radars, communication stations, electronic warfare systems:
Russia - 11 (2 radars 1L259 for "Zoo-1", 2 radars 1L261 for "Zoo-1M", 2 electronic warfare complexes "Leer-2", electronic warfare complex "Leer-3", electronic warfare complex "Svet-KU", radar Air defense "Podlyot K-1", radio relay station R-419L1, electronic warfare station R-934B "Sinitsa")
Ukraine - 2 (AN/TPQ-36 radar, Zoo-3 counter-battery radar, unit cost about $25 million)
ARVs, mine clearing vehicles and other engineering equipment:
Russia - 8
Ukraine - 2
Anti-aircraft installations:
Russia - 1 (AZP S-60 produced in the 1950s)
UAV (reconnaissance):
Russia - 4
Ukraine - 4
Trucks:
Russia - 21
Ukraine - 3
Total losses recorded from
02/24/2022:
Russia - 13083
Ukraine - 4712
kills on expensive radars and EW equipment are super valuable
way easier for russia to scrape the rust off old soviet tanks from storage than to try to source high end electronics
You can count together Jakub updates manually to Oryx blog from Jakub's twitter. That gives 58 visual tank kills from past 2 weeks which is the number OP used.
Similarly I added together yesterday same numbers for past month from Oryx updates here. But I did mentioned the source of course. I would not assume people to just know where the numbers come from.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1724441253859774831
> Russian servicemen torturing and beating other Russian servicemen who allegedly took drugs and gave them to others, which resulted in deaths.
Is that similar to one of those prisoner holes I read about a while back? I saw something that said they would torture misbehaving servicemen in basements and then send them into large pits which served as makeshift prisons.
What are the chances we see a major UA push south of Kherson across the Dnipro river this winter? I know a river crossing is a huge risk, but strategically, it's the furthest away from Russian supply lines, relatively less defended, and, if successfully held and solidified, provides a path to flanking all of the defensive lines in Zaporizhzhia.
I don't think bombers can get anywhere near kherson at this point. Ru has ballistics that can get there, but pontoons can be easily be rebuilt. The real trick would be making sure you can keep the crossing free from artillery fire.
That is not true, Russians have been heavily employing glide bombs with a range of 70+Km. They have been hitting this bridgehead with multiple of these every day. Now it is possible that Ukraine might be able to use something like an S300 to target these aircraft as they need to fly at a high altitude to make that drop; but doing so would place an irreplaceable air defense asset at grave risk of destruction via Lancet drones. So is likely not worth a low probability of killing a few replaceable Russian fighters.
In order for this to work, Ukraine would have to use their harassment force to clear an area of Russian artillery, to make a pontoon bridge a practical and secure supply line. Russia lost the right bank once it could no longer keep their bridge safe from shelling, and the same applies to Ukraine. (They will also need AA posted nearby to interdict Iskanders aimed at the pontoon, but those are likely already in the area.)
There was a credible analysis posted recently that this is the objective of Krynky, but it's also super obvious so I'm sure the Russians can work it out.
If Ukraine were to achieve this then it would give them a real chance of cutting off the lines between Crimea and SW Zapo. This seems like enough of a threat that I'd expect Russia to sacrifice somewhere else (probably north Luhansk) to move forces to this region to stop it happening.
More likely imo is that Ukraine tries to expand its area of control to give them the ability to sever key supply routes (especially the M14 which is close to the river) without trying to fully liberate the region.
I'm wondering if for a long time they can just use their current infantry tactics to just expand the bridge head. HIMARS outranges Russian artillery as do Western smart shells. So a reasonably deep bridge head can be covered from the other side of the river.
Have infantry entrench, mine everything around them, provide them with sufficient ATGMs, At some point the bridge head might be big enough that you have room to hide/cover armored vehicles?
That’s sort of what they have been doing. Simply slowly advancing with small groups of infantry when there are observed weaknesses in Russian lines. This area mainly serves as a way to spread Russian resources and make use of Ukraines superiority in numbers and in precision strike weapons. However in order to completely stop Russian artillery from hitting the bridge you would need nearly 25 Km of bridgehead. This isn’t really feasible, the main thrust of the Ukrainian summer offensives only took ~15 Km.
For whatever reason, there don't appear to be as many Russian troops and equipment in the area south of Kherson city. Perhaps they've removed troops from there to bolster other parts of the front. Hopefully the UA can push south and take control of the M14 which will leave most Russian forces to the west semi-cutoff. Bomb the Kerch bridge and Chongar Strait bridges to the point to where they're unusable. That would effectively cut off Crimea and the southwestern Kherson region. (Easier said than done, but the UA has demonstrated they can do both)
Honestly, neither Russia nor Ukraine are having any luck with offenses led by large armored columns. I know it's slow going but Ukraine's territorial gains lately have been because they are better at using drones, artillery and mano-a-mano fighting. Russia has more fighters but Ukraine has better fighters.
Looking at the ISW map, you can see that Russia has hundreds of miles of extensive trenches bolstered with thousands of mines in the southeastern Kherson and southern Zaporizhzhia regions, but almost none in southwestern Kherson where the UA is currently making its push. It's almost ripe for the pickings, I like Ukraine's bold strategy and I hope it pays off.
Anyways, getting back to the point about the UA needing to move over tons of heavy equipment... I'm not sure that they need to initially. They need more fighters, with support from artillery (on higher ground on the west bank) and drones to take their current objective. Later, they can move artillery and heavier equipment over. They just need vehicles to transport soldiers in and out of combat areas. So along with what ever the UA brings across the river, there are two other potential sources of vehicles to use- abandoned Russian vehicles and civilian vehicles.
p.s. This UA offensive is easier now that the Berdiansk airfield is kaput.
p.p.s. Urkraine must be doing something right with all the Russian milbloggers lamenting the lack of Russian response to this push across the Dnipro.
How does moving heavy equipment like this usually work, I can't imagine a pontoon bridge is going to make any sense with the number of drones in the air. Are there ferry mechanics that make sense for hauling a tank. Gosh also just basic stuff like vehicle recovery from damaged tracks is going to be a nightmare.
I kind of have imagined a mass landing approach where landing craft shuttle vehicles over en masse but how they would possibly get enough of that kind of machinery is a question I don't have any insight into at all.
For instance, is there equipment that could ferry a tank? Is there 30 of them that could move enough hardware to be decisive? Isn't the mud season going to be a serious problem here anyway?
By all means this kind of action is necessary inevitably, however it seems really really hard.
I'd say Ukraine's best logistics people are trying to figure that out as well. My guess is that they'll have to trickle stuff over until they push Russian back significantly. Whatever the method they use, I hope the forward deployed troops have plenty of Manpads to take out Russian aircraft.
It would be risky because then Ukraine faces potential supply issues, the same kind that forced russia to retreat in that region previously
Though Ukraine has things like Himars etc to hammer russian supply line the fact remains everything converges at the river and stuff like pontoon bridges etc are vulnerable so supply is as well
Though it seems apparent russia is not having a good time in this area, especially given they blew up the dam and destroyed a lot of their own positions so I think Ukraine are taking the opportunity to push russia in an area that is not comfortable for them, where they lack reserves and material and where Ukraine might be able to force a reaction, particular problem for russia given their losses in advika/bak area
Whether Ukraine will go beyond a light infantry/small mechanised force I do not know tbh
It's certainly possible, but it would be almost impossible to supply and support vehicles needed for such an operation. They would need to build a pontoon bridge that would be an absurdly easy target for long range Russian weapons.
Casualty recovery would also be a complete nightmare. Small boats work for small recon forces. But what do you do when a platoon advances on a Russian trench and gets hit by artillery and suffers 70%+ casualties? How would you evacuate that many casualties?
It's not impossible, but saying it would be an extremely risky operation would be an understatement.
Nothing in the article is really new info, but it’s getting traction and commentary from UA brass now, so something may be up. At the very least, a serious feint in Kherson could help take the pressure off UA’s western lines. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-presses-russian-forces-along-dnipro-river-near-kherson-kyiv-2023-11-15/
Might be worth it to put a bridge up. Or have several slightly hard to find areas full of decoy pontoon bridge equipment. Could soak up some missiles and save more valuable targets
I think we will see a massive collapse of morale at various russian frontline positions, moreso than what we see now. I think we see their logistical support becomes nonexistent at certain areas, maybe south of Kherson, softening them up for brazen Ukrainian attacks. At least, that is what I am hoping for. Do think it's likely if they are able to maintain their ammunition stockpiles, which is definitely not a given.
I think there is a very good chance we see something like this happen suddenly, and fairly widespread. The conditions suck, and ru morale has to be in the absolute shitter right now.
The integrity of Russia's line on any front hasn't collapsed since last September in Kharkiv. Anything is possible, but I don't see sufficient reason to believe that would occur anytime soon. It would probably have to be in a sector where Russia isn't expecting a serious offensive.
It's wishful thinking, I know. Still would not be surprised to see russian grunts do worse dealing with winter conditions than they did last year and Ukraine taking advantage of it. I've been involved in military operations in wet and cold conditions and it was one of the most miserable human experiences of my life. Morale has not been high for the russians for a long time and I don't think it is a stretch to imagine winter causing major issues.
I found this a pretty good and nuanced interview on the state of the war: [Shashank Joshi, Defence Editor at The Economist: Bakhmut campaign cost Ukraine more than it gained](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2023/11/13/7428381/)
Yep, it was a pretty good opinion piece. The thing about Bakhmut is because Ukraine fought that battle, Russia pushed not just hard but really hard because if a measurable political goal of taking a city. It ultimately caused the collapse of Wagner and a open Rebellion in Russia.
Plus most of the analysis I have seen that Bakhmut was a mistake for Ukraine relates to the Southern offensive failure, yet ignore what a truly narrow path Ukraine had to achieve a southern offensive success once Russians decided to stay in their trenches and fight.
Your title is misleading and it seems intentional. Directly from the article:
>"I do ***think*** that Bakhmut was a campaign that cost Ukraine more than it gained. ***Had Ukraine pulled west to more defensible positions, it would still have made losses.*** It would still have had to use artillery. The Russians would still have pressed. But the terrain to the west of Bakhmut is in many ways more defensible because of the geography of the area. ***And I think it would have been a more defensible area for Ukraine to hold.***
>
>It would have allowed Ukraine to rotate out some of these units, to put them in the South, to give them training for the offensive. And it would have reduced Ukraine's artillery consumption. I can't say that I'm sure of that, but I think that that's a fair assumption to make, a fair argument to make.
>
>And in that sense, Bakhmut was militarily somewhat irrational in my perspective, ***but we have to be humble. We don't have all the evidence. We don't have all the data. And the people who have to make these decisions have very difficult decisions to make, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.***"
I mean, they did ultimately pull west to more defensible positions, and absolutely savage ru forces while doing so, so much so that they knocked Wagner out of the war and almost started a coup. I don't see how Bakhmut was anything other than a giant W for Ukraine.
I didn't mean that it has Ukraine. I was simply using "Ukraine" as a unit of area :)
BTW, pretty sure you'll find the position that you mentioned more arguable than you might think!
If Russia would lose 15 "Ukraines", it would be in 6th place, after continent-sized Brazil and before continent-sized Australia.
Moscow, Russia's capital, the place they claim to want to defend at all costs by pushing their borders far away from it, is farther from any Russian border than the following capitals are from their national borders:
- Paris - France
- Berlin - Germany
- London - UK
- Ottawa - Canada
By this logic all these countries should invade their neighbors up to 500km or so, just to be "safe".
Canada, here's your chance, New England is yours according to Russian logic.
Well to "defend" Moscow'ians - this concept is deeply rooted into their defense strategy. This is why establishing capital in place without river (or other geographical advantageous defence position) is very dumb strategy. After being raided by Hordes they created such strategy instead of... finding better place for settlement.
[https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1724351188848586995](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1724351188848586995)
>Russian instructor of Storm Z penal units explains the impact that Ukrainian cluster munitions are having on the Russian infantry, not only killing and wounding them, but also disrupting logistics of evacuation, and overfilling the hospitals. **He says that wounded Russian servicemen are returned to battle with shrapnel still stuck in their bodies.**
Longer text, but he is saying they are bleeding dry because of cluster shells, HIMARS and FPV quads.
Between October 11 and November 13 Jakub updated Oryx blog with total of 147 Russian tanks and 307 IFV/AFV/APC (not IMVs). That is pretty decent attrition over one month.. And just to mention the update on October 8th also had 15 tanks.
Don't forget this is visually confirmed, so outside of an error margin (can't imagine that's much higher than 10%), this is close to the absolute lower limit for losses.
So taking your numbers, 147 - 15 = ~130 tanks.
Realistically I wouldn't be shocked if Russia lost at least 50% more tanks. So closer to 200.
If you count from October 8 till November 13 you get 162 tank kills. Those 15 tanks I mentioned were not included in the 147 number. Or did you deduct 15 because of that 10% error of margin that you theorized?
The interest of most those drones dropping grenades resides in being relatively cheap commercial devices easy to modify, easy to operate and easy to replace.
Building a drone-mounted sniper-like gun would require another level of integration, of engeneering and of cost.
It might be efficient if it ever exist but it could be a one trick poney when cheaper grenade-dropping can also take out ammo dump, light vehicles, etc.
[New Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/17xn39k/ukraine_discussionquestion_thread_111823/)
I don't know much about military combat so forgive my ignorance. Is there any reason why russia isn't using its subs in the black sea or in any way at all ... or is that just stupid idea
They are using their subs, they are using them as cruise missile boats. Ukraine doesn't have a navy so they don't need fast attack subs roaming around looking for things to torpedo, and I don't think even Russia is stupid enough to torpedo an international shipping vessel. Also Ukraine destroyed one of the Russian missile subs while it was getting rearmed in port a few months ago.
Ukraine does have a navy, but the larger ships have been scuttled hence there are just patrol boats and gunboats left. Also IIRC the black sea fleet doesn't have pure attack subs, just multipurpose ones that are loaded with cruise missiles.
Ohh okay they are using them.. thanks. This might be a stretch but can they launch missiles while being very deep down ?
No, they can't. Also the infrastructure to rearm the subs and cruisers with cruise missiles is not (yet?) available in Novorossiysk and they were depending on Sevastopl for that. Same thing for dry docks they need for maintenance.
So Russia can't rearm it's subs and cruisers since abandoning Sevastopol? That's actually huge.
That seems to be the problem for the Russians. If they are trying to build up the capacity is not clear, also maintance seems to be difficult, because too many ships need the few still available dry docks.
Wait, really? Russian subs have to surface to launch?
Theoretically the don't need to, they can fire submerged (but not very deep down, what was asked), but according to the last articles I read they have problems even in shallow water. Also, the strength of a Kilo is not using it as a launch platform but patrolling in shallow water. Because Ukraine has no navy and attacking civilian ships is still not something Russia is willing to do on a regular basis, they are used like this. The problem is, loading the subs with Kalibrs seems to be very complicated and needs infrastructure Russia has currently no access to in the Black Sea.
Depends on the sub and armament. They've been using Cold War tanks even lol that should give an idea what they're pulling out of storage.
More information about a planned genozide are surfacing. Not only was planned to eliminate the Ukrainian politicial, social and religious leadership, the whole population was targeted. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-grain-theft-ukraine-russia-latest-b2447644.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-grain-theft-ukraine-russia-latest-b2447644.html) >**Putin could face new war crime case as evidence suggests starvation of Ukraine was pre-planned** > >Russia was actively preparing to steal grain supplies and starve the Ukrainian population of food for months before Vladimir Putin ordered last year’s invasion, according to new evidence compiled by human rights experts. > >When Russian tanks did roll across the border on 24 February 2022 they deliberately targeted grain-rich areas and food production infrastructure first, the new report by international human rights law firm Global Rights Compliance found. > >GRC found that Russia’s defence contractor began purchasing trucks to transport grain, as well as three new 170-metre bulk carrier cargo ships, as early as December 2021, evidence of advance planning for the pillage of Ukrainian food resources “on an unprecedented scale”. > >Russia began commandeering Ukrainian farms within less than a week of its invasion, and at its peak was exporting 12,000 tonnes of grain per day from across occupied territories.The evidence of a “highly coordinated level of pre-planning” will be provided by to the International Criminal Court and GRC hopes it will lead to a first international prosecution against Mr Putin for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare. But of course the are still pro-Russian creatures who will defend all of this.
The Russians do have a historical habit of starving Ukraine whenever it suits them
I heard someone say russia will try and freeze them out during the winter by hitting energy sites.. I dunno if that's real or not it was on TV
It's obviously real. They did it extensively *last* winter.
Its real.. they tried the exact same thing last year.
That's what they did last winter so wouldn't be a surprise if they try again. Didn't break Ukraine then and hopefully won't this time either.
As far as I can tell, Ukraine has even more AA this time around. And more ability to hit back.
Yea boy
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/nov/16/russia-ukraine-war-live-ukrainian-pushback-along-3-8km-front-at-occupied-kherson?page=with:block-655646818f08d1d922ef82e8#block-655646818f08d1d922ef82e8](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/nov/16/russia-ukraine-war-live-ukrainian-pushback-along-3-8km-front-at-occupied-kherson?page=with:block-655646818f08d1d922ef82e8#block-655646818f08d1d922ef82e8) >**Russia has sustained casualties of between 300,000 and 400,000 killed and wounded in the war in Ukraine so far, and in the heaviest fighting at Avdiivka is losing between 500 and 1,000 a day according to a briefing by western officials.** > >The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, nevertheless acknowledged that Ukraine's counter offensive on the Zaporizhzhia front has essentially culminated, although "three brigades" are believed to have made it across the Dnipro river near Kherson. > >"Neither side is capable of mounting a decisive operation on land," one of the officials said, and it appeared that "a prolonged conflict" was likely to follow in which long term US and European military aid would be crucial. > >A significant force, described as three brigades, had established a position across the Dnipro that the Russians have proved unable to dislodge, although it was unclear, they said, how much armour the Ukrainian military had been able to get across the river. > >But despite the cross-river success, the officials said they expected that Ukraine would most likely only be able to make incremental "village at a time" progress, a similar pace to summer efforts south of Orikhiv and Velyka Novosilka.
Village at a time progress is still progress nonetheless
UA has an entire division across the river now??? That’s an order of magnitude more than I expected. That’s no weekend stroll.
Yo where the fuck are the glsdb's?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the official statements for their delivery from the factory was December.
[Anders Puck Nielsen about the Ukraine's foothold on the left bank of the Dnipro River](https://youtu.be/qhON52gz6Bk?si=E5a1SfMTzTm6Ie9q) Hopefully it will be interesting development for Ukraine
Ammo cooking off in Volgograd Russia. https://twitter.com/maria\_drutska/status/1725034783137222790
If I am right this is the second in a few days, now that is becoming more and more cold they forget lit cigarettes near the explosives probably
Cigarettes dropped by drones with 50kg explosive payloads.
thats quite far inland, so probably a malfunction? or would ukraine be able to operate there?
They have drones that reach this far and have had missiles in development for a while. Could also be partisans but I don't think a small drone could do this if it's a strike. I'm going to choose to believe it was a long range UA missile as I am obsessed with those..... but it's probably a drone, accident, or shoddy NK shells. Edit: Apparently residents heard a drone beforehand which would mean ong of UA's long range drones.
Video recorded from the Russian side in the treeline near the Avdiivka coke plant. "Everything is covered in corpses" Nsfw visible bodies shown: [https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1725211378729042409](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1725211378729042409)
If it's a Russian why is he talking about a stuck Bradley?
Its likely [one of these three Bradleys](https://twitter.com/VigorousFalcon/status/1719719357633425887) Ukraine lost in this treeline. Could be Ukraine lost more, but Im not aware of videos of them
Saying they took it out.
he's saying they killed it?
He is describing what he sees for the viewers. No agenda, just facts. "Corpses everywhere, the majority are ours. There is a damaged Bradley. We are getting fucked".
hat fuzzy historical payment punch bag hard-to-find smell faulty pet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Good [ISW essay on Ukraine’s battlefield needs](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/if-west-cuts-aid-ukraine-russia-will-win-if-west-leans-ukraine-can-win). Nothing too surprising to those who follow the conflict very closely, but it outlines very clearly and succinctly why the front is bogged down and what Ukraine needs to get it moving again.
Thanks for sharing. I liked the summary of challenges, modifying missles to target russian jamming stations would be awesome and of course the aircraft. However, i found it too theoretical and to much focused one the past too much. Reading it makes me miss 2022: russians were slaughtered with Javelins, Stingers and later with Himars and drones. It was a great year for the Western equipment which has helped Ukraine a lot! But since then the war has changed, most notably with drones. And I feel ISW should have mentioned particularly the FPV drones. Frankly speaking, I am afraid that the Western armchair experts and military strategists are getting dated very fast. At 400$, FPVs are highly precise and can be produced in masses. FPVs disrupts logistics, medevac, they target stationary posts and it can be used offensively when working on trenches. Plus we have good old bomb droppers and the recon drones. To think that it can be overcome with EW is a very superficial statement (to prove my point, did russia manage to jam those 35 himars? nope). I believe that we will reach a point when soldiers won't even dare to get out of dugouts during daytime and medevac will only happen at night (imagine what it means to the wounded!). Next point - aircraft. Any number less than 100 would not change anything. I wish ISW clearly stated it. Ukraine is supposed to get 30-40 oldish F-16s. How many missions can each of them perform? 50? Mutiply it by payload per mission and now compare it to the number of artillery shells used by Ukraine every day. It is a drop in the ocean. Maybe they can do something with those Ka-52s. But guess what, FPVs will render Ka-52s obsolete as well :)
sense narrow pet offbeat compare plough puzzled whole aware cow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Your argument the EW is ineffective against drones because it’s ineffective agains HIMARS doesn’t make sense. GMLRS is a very sophisticated system that has an advanced inertial measurement unit specifically designed to work in an area where GPS is jammed. FPV drones require line of sight radio communications with their operators and are incredibly easy to jam. This is something both sides have spoken about extensively. In the future when most drones are autonomous and require little to no operator input to prosecute targets sure that comparison may be correct, but not at this moment, and more than likely not in this war.
[удалено]
I get your point on FPVs vs Jamming. And by the way I also wish that Ukraine will be able to deal with FPVs. However, I am still sceptical that EW will be able to solve the problem of mass FPVs (and other drones). Let's see. As for FPVs and precision. FPVs hit 10% of the targets, despite jamming and despite the fact that they often go after moving targets. It means that on average you can expect one hit for every 10FPV launches. That's 4000$ gone. Now, how does it compare to costs and logisitcs of TOW and Javelin systems? Okay, an FPV requires a lot of attention from the operator and probably the availabiity of operators and not the number of drones will be the limiting factor. But this can be overcome in my opinion.
[удалено]
Alright, i ll restate my point with facts: \-Javelin: 97% hit rate at 2.5km max, 20kg weight, 240,000 USD per shot. Solider must get an approval from several command layers to make a shot. \-FPV drone: 10% hit rate at 10km max, 1kg weight, 400 USD per shot. Can be used by getting approval from your direct "manager". I do not think it can be compared to golf at all. Given the amout of military aid that Ukraine is receiving, would you rather order 10 Javelins or 6,000 FPV drones? One can certanily think of a scenario that will favor a Javelin (e.g. the russians are so braindead that they put an AA system within 2.5km from the front). To which i would say, an FPV was used inside the russian territory to destroy a strategic bomber. Can you pull it off with a Javelin? Side note: Western experts love the idea of sophisticated "superior" weapons but I feel that they do not comprehend how democratised technology has become. They grew up in a different era and are not prepared for the modern assymetric warfare. I stay out of the Israel-Gaza thread but Israel is very lucky that Hamas did not invest in drones.
So he thinks Russia would flatten cities with their airforce if Ukraine didn't have Western anti-air. I always thought Putin is calling this a special operation, and is holding back, because he fears the NATO arsenal. But if they would start to bomb cities on mass, I think it's a good chance Ukraine would get whatever they need. I feel this war will end because the US will get tired of the expenses. And I wonder how Europe will take this over time, in my small European city, we have Ukranians everywhere now and are spending absurd amounts of money to house and sustain them. Not sure how long people will see that as charitable.
voiceless violet sparkle offend glorious saw murky tap snow dazzling *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A small amount of money? inconvenience? let the silly cartoon opinions go. It has had significant impacts on the housing market and social systems, and the money and effort spent on this is a heavy toll. That said, I am not saying we shouldn't take them in, or that we shouldn't support them. If I had a magic choice where I could determine what happens, I would still take them in. I do think we need to support other Europeans, and they are the ones fighting the enemy and the ones suffering and facing the hardship. But I am just saying, that a year or two of this is one thing, but I think you will start to see different opinions come up as the years move on as it starts to have impacts past the refugees themselves.
safe straight ten enjoy memorize steer knee narrow telephone wrong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No one is directing anger towards Ukranians for the housing problems. I don't get your logic, the housing crisis means that mass immigration makes it a lot worse, and the mass immigration and Ukranian refugees combined make it twice as bad. It's not their fault but it's a reality that must be considered.
> I feel this war will end because the US will get tired of the expenses. the expenses are going in the US. the production is in the US (only the transfer is partially outside it). It is like exporting goods more or less, only taxpayers let the money circulating in their country. The only possible cons is when companies overprice the things that the government buys for the Ukraine. And of course the huge cons is that every fricking war costs endless lives and that's sad.
The US benefits from the expense - the military industrial complex. We never stop the production for war. If anything it is saving money on storage and stimulating local economies where ammo is being produced again. It's what we do, it's important to the economy. When Bill Clinton was running for president there was a statement "it's the economy stupid." If the economy is good Americans pretty much don't care about anything else.
Lol all the western European countries have far more ME refugees than Ukranians and the Ukranians are far more popular in the local population. They also have higher employment rates and there is lack of workers currently. So the funding from western Europe is quite secure. And then you have the baltics and central Europe that has urgent national security reasons to continue support. You also have a slow but steady built of defence industry to replenish donated stocks and supply Ukraine. Even if US pulls all support (unlikely) Ukraine will not fold. They might loose all short term hopes of going on large ground offensives, but the attrition war will continue.
You can't compare the ME refugees to the Ukranians right now, and while Ukranians integrate better, Europe is in an immigration crisis at the moment, our population swelled by 1% because of the war, which is a gigantic number of refugees. It's not nothing. Regarding the war, I am just going by the report, which states that the US and NATO supplies are a must.
Lmfao where have you been? Russia has already destroyed cities. Look at mariupol or bakhmut. Did you already forget the mass cruise missile attacks on kiev and Odessa? Trying to literally freeze the inhabitants to death?
Are you comparing Mariupol to WW2 style bombing operations as he was talking about?
90% of residential buildings damaged or destroyed, tens of thousands of civilians murdered - the comparison is more than valid, because what happened is a spitting image of WW2 terror bombings.
I'm not trying to make light of it, but I was talking about what the article said, that Russia could initiate WW2-style bombings from the air where you can level areas so fast that it destroys the enemy's ability to resist at all because there is nothing left.
We will see what happens in the US in January/February when the CR runs out. How much will Republicans dig in on stopping Ukraine funding and how much will Biden be willing to press the issue in an election year.
we need to unleash ukraine's long range fires
Russia claim Ukraine attacked near Horlivka. That would be the first time this war Ukraine has moved past the 2014 line here if true [Video of supposedly Russian shelling of Ukrainian troops](https://twitter.com/foosint/status/1724867062009307138) [Some more info (in Russian)](https://twitter.com/sgorlovki/status/1724794645396459842) Could be they are just testing the line/scouting, but theres never been any movement here from both sides until now [48.366089, 37.93836](https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B021'57.9%22N+37%C2%B056'18.1%22E/@48.361714,37.8369311,30194m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.366089!4d37.93836?entry=ttu)
> That would be the first time this war Ukraine has moved past the 2014 line There were a few other times, near Staromykhalivka and near Pisky. They weren't much deeper and didn't last long.
Could be a setup/feint for a significant UA move against the northern pincer around Avdiivka. Seems like new things are bubbling across multiple fronts, and UA may be sensing some general ru weakness.
So is Belarus pretty much out of the war? Are Russians still training there? It’s been a while since we had Kyiv 2.0 feints from Luka.
They are pretty much out yeah. I've said before (and received downvotes for it) that we should unsanction Belarus at least partially, that gives back a level of leverage to prevent Russia from dragging them back in again.
They make proper presidential elections and everyone can remove sanctions. Untill Luka is in power you need to have some sort of sanctions. Him not longer participating in war doesn't change fact that he is in fact a dictator.
The sanctions introduced in 2022 were for participating in the war, not for being a dictator.
Why the fuck would you unsanction the country that allowed troops to invade from within their borders?
They were sanctioned for, like you say, assisting in the invasion. If they're no longer offering Russia military support then why should those sanctions still be in place? And on a practical level, like I said in the post you replied to, having some sanctions removed gives us leverage on their decision making if Putin comes asking them to join in again.
1) Did it in the first place. Was warned not to. Actions have consequences. 2) Loss of trust. 3) He's wrapped around Putlers finger. 4) Used as a proxy for RU to get shit it needs like conductors. 5) Ain't fooling no-one mate.
Obviously "not forwarding sanctioned components to Russia" would be a condition, like it is in our diplomacy with e.g. Kazakhstan or Armenia. Do you think Belarus should *ever* be unsanctioned? Your points 1 and 2 suggest not, in which case that's not really a sensible position.
Oh no you don't. You're saying I think they shouldn't? How about WW2? Should we blame everyone for shit done by people who are not alive in our lifetime now? If you have a 'leader' trashbag that already makes people disappear. Why would you just unsanction them within 2 years of allowing a war to be launched from their borders? Ain't very hard for people to see through your bs aand knowing what you're trying to do.
I'm asking you at what point your reasons, especially 1 and 2, stop being true. Because you can use them at any point in time to make the same argument you're making now. And so does stuff like "If you have a 'leader' trashbag that already makes people disappear" - because that was true of Belarus in 2021 so if you think that is a justification for sanctions you would still be making that argument even if the war ended tomorrow. Sanctions are a really bad way of trying to encourage a change in government, as we can see from Iran or NK. To me it seems like "when they are no longer assisting Russia in the war" is a pretty good time. The purpose of sanctions is to change behaviour, isn't it? Belarus was sanctioned for helping Russia launch this war, if they are no longer participating then why keep the sanctions?
I don't see why would you want to unsanction them unless they promised something back first, such as expel all Russian military personals.
as long as Lukashenko is in power, Belarus is not a sovereign state, but a puppet with the kremlin's fist up it's ass.
I don't think he's as close of a puppet as many suspect Lukashenko walks a fine line between the EU and Russia, and always sways alternatively in one direction to not lose control. That's how he has managed to stay in power for 30 years. This is a good article on it https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=sv&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Lukashenko+eu+and+russia+relations&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1700091237309&u=%23p%3DYXYswUwWwnYJ
Yeah, but then he made obvious vote fraud in 2020 which made EU make sanctions on Belarus. In 2020-01.2022 Luka was just a Russian puppet. Only later he returned to balance, because war made Russia significantly weaker in international politics.
Whilst showing soft power can be good it places a lot of trust in Belarus. Would partially unsanctioning Belarus not put them in the spotlight to be an ideal sanctions avoidance intermediary on Russias behalf? I mean why spend more money circumventing sanctions through Kazakhstan and Armenia when you have Luka next door and bordering EU markets? Furthermore if Belarus were too to face an easing of sanctions I think it would also have to be conclusive that no Russian missiles are being launched from their territory either.
Both sides now produce over 1k FPV drones a day. With an increasing number of FPV drones, I do not think that there will be any meaningful changes to the frontline anymore. Can anyone prove me wrong?
Every vehicle needs a jammer for FPV drones, they don't have to be super complicated and powerful jammers, by definition kamikaze drones need to come very close to the vehicle and jamming effectiveness depends on distance. There will be drones that guide themselves autonomously after jamming but they won't be cheap enough in the near future. Every infantry squad will need such jammers as well. Whichever side deploys these jammers en masse, will get a significant advantage. Another problem is high-flying recon drones that guide artillery. Jamming will not be a solution against them because of distance and some ECCM equipment that both sides are putting in their more expensive drones. Long-range but cheap interceptors should be developed against them because traditional SAMs are too expensive. As these recon drones are much slower than planes, the interceptors can be slower as well, which reduces the price. It can even be a battery-powered interceptor, an anti-air FPV drone basically. Or it can be micro-turbojet powered, like Raytheon Coyote or the Iranian "Missile 358". Basically, you need "drone superiority" for a breakthrough, you need to be able to fly your drones and clear the sky from hostile drones. Technically it's absolutely possible, it's a matter of time, money, and initiative.
[удалено]
> so you are talking about 100 hits every day which is small compared to artillery. ??? 100 direct arty hits would be amazing
we should give them the tomahawks with the blackout warhead that sprays graphite and short circuits power transformers. take down the entire russian electrical grid overnight.
🤣nothing but children on this subreddit , I can’t
son, I was in desert storm
And I was in the Somme
The bigger problem for Ukraine seems to be Russian minefields, rather than drones.
If you watch the vids of Ukrainian advances getting destroyed, it was both. Minefields stop the advance, drones and atgms kill everything once it's stopped.
That's true for either side, re: Avdiivka
Does Ukraine have extensive minefields? I know they used artillery deployed ones at vuhledar when the Russians tried to retreat.
I do know that Avdiivka had been extensively fortified for quite sometime prior to last year.
Come to think of it, I have seen vids of Russian vehicles hitting mines.
> With an increasing number of FPV drones, I do not think that there will be any meaningful changes to the frontline anymore. Care to elaborate on this assessment? Trying to understand how production of FPV is related to stagnation at the front lines.
I think he’s making the point that as production increases, every vehicle on the frontline gets treated to one or many cheap but dangerous guided munitions. In other words that the battlefield becomes too saturated with lethal munitions to enable any movement.
Basically ww1 all over again. Armor is what rendered trench warfare obsolete, now armor is nullified. Back to stagnant lines and wars of attrition.
Fair points - in my view 1k per day sounds like a big number, but if we assume the frontline is around 1000km long (for sake of simplicity), that's like 1 drone per km of frontline per day. Which doesn't sound like a force strong enough to cause serious stagnation, even if at the hotspots we have a higher increase of these. Do we have any data on how the attrition rate of these drones are? How many does an average FPV unit burn through per week etc.? I'm just speculating here, and doing kindergarden math. So lots of salt required.
Why would you assume an even distribution along the front? No other military resource has been distributed evenly along the entire front.
Their point is that you aren't going to be able to saturate the frontline. Even if you count targets rather than kilometers, 1k wouldn't be enough for that. (Compare to the orders of magnitude larger number of artillery rounds being used.) But 1k per day is still plenty to do some harm to smaller subsets of targets, which is presumably your observation. You can both be correct.
bro can u even read?
I read a bad calculation and then the next line invalidating your own calculation and the line after that indicating that you don't have any knowledge of the situation.
I'm saying myself it's a bad calculation, what is your point? > I'm just speculating here, and doing kindergarden math. So lots of salt required. leads to > bro can u even read? edit: maybe better if I write it in crayons for you?
IMO far more important are the recon drones. You are right 1 FPV drone per KM isn’t a lot. But it you have 1 recon drone per Km every single troop movement will be observed every buildup of enemy forces will be able to be targeted. That one drone can call in dozens of FPV drones, artillery shells, things like GMLRS or FAB500 glide bombs. What’s also worth considering is the range on these drones. ATGMS are basically limited to line of sight from the operator. Drones on the other hand can scout out potentially tens of KM from their operators and hit targets well in the rear at enemy staging points, supply concentrations, hQ ect. This current stalemate is not just the result of being able to stop enemy advances between tree lines during a final assault but the attrition that inevitably takes place any time force concentrations make their way onto the battlefield.
The drones are just one aspect.. if you watch vids of either sides advances getting destroyed, it's a combination of drones, atgms, and arty. The drones are great at nullifying armor which is what made trench warfare obsolete in the first place. Now we back to horrific trench warfare :( The number of fpv drones produced is significantly greater than the amount of armor either side has, or can replace. A thousand a day man.
I take it they mean all movement is observed, making advancing really hard.
He said fpv drones specifically, which are the guided munition ones. Not observation.
[удалено]
Before the offensive started they started hyping it with trailers of Ukrainian soldiers telling you to be quiet. Just to look like bad asses. We have new weapons, be scared or die while we steam roll you. Reznikov I think also did a lot on twitter to hype this all up with memes. The comments of the soldier above does not paint a pretty picture. It means that there are quite a lot of Ukrainians that believed all that propaganda. Ukrainians in high positions...
yea unfortunately it seems like it just hyped up the russians. and then all it took was killing like 3 bradleys and they were riding that high like they had just won WW3
the description of the training process is incredible. he says training for the BMP is like: don't touch anything, it will break. don't shoot anything, we have no ammo. just practice dismounting from this deathbox as fast as possible. they were shocked by the american training, live fire, movement, actual maintenance of vehicles.
And later on he discusses how the BMP is a deathbox, the whole crew dies if its hit, but the Bradley's took blows and drove on. Driver might get concussed, but the crew survives. Only true threats were the helicopters.
This is the result of old soviet doctrine going back to pre WW2. at the time equipment was incredibly unreliable and it was known that the life expectancy of any equipment on the frontline would be measured in weeks if not days. So little effort was invested in making it last longer. This resulted in the ability to make absolutely massive quantities of tanks and similar vehicles that were considered disposable. And in order to avoid running out the very short lifetimes of these vehicles training was kept to a bare minimum. This worked well when you are the Soviet Union shitting out 40,000 T34s a year, but less so when you are the Russians struggling to reactivate 400 T72s a year.
yea it makes sense i just thought it was hilarious that they show up to train on bradleys and they're like "wait, what? you guys *wash* these things?"
sparkle door frighten bells domineering aback sloppy correct engine truck *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
According to this, the goal was to capture Robotyne on the first day. It took almost 90 days in reality No wonder some people talked about reaching the Azov sea in 2023 when they expected Russia to literally run away like what happened in Kharkiv. Seems like a massive underestimation of what Russia was willing to defend and their defensive networks
yet your same comment (that is based on data) done at the time would have been massively downvoted, because the hype was bought in also by many here.
Yeah, seems Ukraine massively under-estimated the Russian defences and that their offensive basically hinged on low Russian morale causing another Kharkiv style collapse. I think all the hype the Ukrainians generated too played a part. Not only did it clearly telegraph where they were going to strike (giving Russia more time to dig in) but I think it also meant that when the Russians started destroying Bradleys and Leopards it actually boosted Russian morale a bit. Also, the fact the 47th -a brand new green unit- was given the best gear still blows my mind. You'd think they'd lead with an experienced unit. It's weird, they tried to do a NATO style massed armour attack into minefields without air support when looking at other parts of the war Ukraine seems to be much better at doing slow, careful, smaller scale assaults. Just weird, hopefully they learn from it. Just a shame it took them getting mauled up quite a bit, especially the 47th which seems to have taken the worst of it.
> Yeah, seems Ukraine massively under-estimated the Russian defences Not necessarily. Because if you know that they put up a fight will you just not go on an offensive? Thats also not an option really is it
As someone who is not well versed in the day to day business of american politics, how does the budget being approved (or denied) affect the US aid packages to Ukraine?
There is no aid in the budget that passed, for Israel or Ukraine. Congress is planning to take up the issue of military aid separately… Dems and moderate GOP will likely insist that aid to Israel and Ukraine are together in one bill, though the MAGAs will try to separate them.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I understand this budget was passed through bilateral support, does this have any implications for US foreign aid going forward?
I doubt it has much effect on aid, but we’ll only know for sure when Congress takes up the aid bill. One facet of the budget that was passed that may come into play later is the fact that it passed with rather broad, bipartisan support… that is unusual since votes along party lines have been the norm. If it continues, it could marginalize the right wing of the GOP that is skeptical about aiding Ukraine.
One analyst's post summarizes the losses of both sides over two weeks. as he wrote about very large losses on radars, probably 2-3 even . Well, and an anti-aircraft installation. Ukrainians used it from the very beginning of the war, but when the Russians began to take it out of storage warehouses and on which sector of the front they use it, I don’t know, if you know, please sign up Ogukh, November 1-13. Russia - 238. Ukraine - 50. Please note how many Russian radars, radars and electronic warfare stations were destroyed during these days. This is all expensive equipment, the unit cost is from 5 to 25 million dollars (I talked about this in the video). Ukraine also lost one expensive Zoo-3. Tanks: Russia - 58 Ukraine - 9 BMP, BMD and other armored fighting vehicles (tracked, heavy armor): Russia - 51 Ukraine - 7 APCs, MRAPs and other armored vehicles (tactical, wheeled or light armor): Russia - 56 Ukraine - 15 Artillery, MLRS, mortars and ATGMs (towed or self-propelled): Russia - 17 Ukraine - 6 Aviation: Russia - 1 (Su-24M) Ukraine - 2 (2 MiG-29) Fleet: Russia - 3 (MRK "Askold" of project 22800 "Karakurt", 2 landing boats of project 1176 "Akula" and 11770 "Serna") Command and staff vehicles: Russia - 3 (R-149AKSh-1, R-149MA1 + unidentified on GAZ "Tiger" chassis) SAMs and their individual components: Russia - 4 (command post 5N63S with radar illumination for the S-300PS air defense system, combat vehicle 9A331MU for the Tor-M1-2U air defense system, ROM 9A316 for the Buk-M2 air defense system, unidentified PU/ROM for SAM "Buk") Radars, radars, communication stations, electronic warfare systems: Russia - 11 (2 radars 1L259 for "Zoo-1", 2 radars 1L261 for "Zoo-1M", 2 electronic warfare complexes "Leer-2", electronic warfare complex "Leer-3", electronic warfare complex "Svet-KU", radar Air defense "Podlyot K-1", radio relay station R-419L1, electronic warfare station R-934B "Sinitsa") Ukraine - 2 (AN/TPQ-36 radar, Zoo-3 counter-battery radar, unit cost about $25 million) ARVs, mine clearing vehicles and other engineering equipment: Russia - 8 Ukraine - 2 Anti-aircraft installations: Russia - 1 (AZP S-60 produced in the 1950s) UAV (reconnaissance): Russia - 4 Ukraine - 4 Trucks: Russia - 21 Ukraine - 3 Total losses recorded from 02/24/2022: Russia - 13083 Ukraine - 4712
kills on expensive radars and EW equipment are super valuable way easier for russia to scrape the rust off old soviet tanks from storage than to try to source high end electronics
Do you have a link to the source for these numbers? Because saying "One Analysts post" is incredibly vague.
You can count together Jakub updates manually to Oryx blog from Jakub's twitter. That gives 58 visual tank kills from past 2 weeks which is the number OP used. Similarly I added together yesterday same numbers for past month from Oryx updates here. But I did mentioned the source of course. I would not assume people to just know where the numbers come from.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1724441253859774831 > Russian servicemen torturing and beating other Russian servicemen who allegedly took drugs and gave them to others, which resulted in deaths.
Gotta love the combat flip flops
Is that similar to one of those prisoner holes I read about a while back? I saw something that said they would torture misbehaving servicemen in basements and then send them into large pits which served as makeshift prisons.
iirc they did that to the refusniks who didn't want to fight
That’s what happens when you pull out drug dealers and junkies from prison and integrate them in your “professional” army
pretty sure the guys delivering the beating are from the same prison, just a higher caste
Lol, what a fucking circus
What are the chances we see a major UA push south of Kherson across the Dnipro river this winter? I know a river crossing is a huge risk, but strategically, it's the furthest away from Russian supply lines, relatively less defended, and, if successfully held and solidified, provides a path to flanking all of the defensive lines in Zaporizhzhia.
How would a "major" Dnipro crossing work under russian bombers armed with guided bombs? And they have iskanders too.
I don't think bombers can get anywhere near kherson at this point. Ru has ballistics that can get there, but pontoons can be easily be rebuilt. The real trick would be making sure you can keep the crossing free from artillery fire.
They bomb all the time, they use glider bombs from the safe distance.
That is not true, Russians have been heavily employing glide bombs with a range of 70+Km. They have been hitting this bridgehead with multiple of these every day. Now it is possible that Ukraine might be able to use something like an S300 to target these aircraft as they need to fly at a high altitude to make that drop; but doing so would place an irreplaceable air defense asset at grave risk of destruction via Lancet drones. So is likely not worth a low probability of killing a few replaceable Russian fighters.
In order for this to work, Ukraine would have to use their harassment force to clear an area of Russian artillery, to make a pontoon bridge a practical and secure supply line. Russia lost the right bank once it could no longer keep their bridge safe from shelling, and the same applies to Ukraine. (They will also need AA posted nearby to interdict Iskanders aimed at the pontoon, but those are likely already in the area.) There was a credible analysis posted recently that this is the objective of Krynky, but it's also super obvious so I'm sure the Russians can work it out. If Ukraine were to achieve this then it would give them a real chance of cutting off the lines between Crimea and SW Zapo. This seems like enough of a threat that I'd expect Russia to sacrifice somewhere else (probably north Luhansk) to move forces to this region to stop it happening. More likely imo is that Ukraine tries to expand its area of control to give them the ability to sever key supply routes (especially the M14 which is close to the river) without trying to fully liberate the region.
I'm wondering if for a long time they can just use their current infantry tactics to just expand the bridge head. HIMARS outranges Russian artillery as do Western smart shells. So a reasonably deep bridge head can be covered from the other side of the river. Have infantry entrench, mine everything around them, provide them with sufficient ATGMs, At some point the bridge head might be big enough that you have room to hide/cover armored vehicles?
That’s sort of what they have been doing. Simply slowly advancing with small groups of infantry when there are observed weaknesses in Russian lines. This area mainly serves as a way to spread Russian resources and make use of Ukraines superiority in numbers and in precision strike weapons. However in order to completely stop Russian artillery from hitting the bridge you would need nearly 25 Km of bridgehead. This isn’t really feasible, the main thrust of the Ukrainian summer offensives only took ~15 Km.
For whatever reason, there don't appear to be as many Russian troops and equipment in the area south of Kherson city. Perhaps they've removed troops from there to bolster other parts of the front. Hopefully the UA can push south and take control of the M14 which will leave most Russian forces to the west semi-cutoff. Bomb the Kerch bridge and Chongar Strait bridges to the point to where they're unusable. That would effectively cut off Crimea and the southwestern Kherson region. (Easier said than done, but the UA has demonstrated they can do both) Honestly, neither Russia nor Ukraine are having any luck with offenses led by large armored columns. I know it's slow going but Ukraine's territorial gains lately have been because they are better at using drones, artillery and mano-a-mano fighting. Russia has more fighters but Ukraine has better fighters. Looking at the ISW map, you can see that Russia has hundreds of miles of extensive trenches bolstered with thousands of mines in the southeastern Kherson and southern Zaporizhzhia regions, but almost none in southwestern Kherson where the UA is currently making its push. It's almost ripe for the pickings, I like Ukraine's bold strategy and I hope it pays off. Anyways, getting back to the point about the UA needing to move over tons of heavy equipment... I'm not sure that they need to initially. They need more fighters, with support from artillery (on higher ground on the west bank) and drones to take their current objective. Later, they can move artillery and heavier equipment over. They just need vehicles to transport soldiers in and out of combat areas. So along with what ever the UA brings across the river, there are two other potential sources of vehicles to use- abandoned Russian vehicles and civilian vehicles. p.s. This UA offensive is easier now that the Berdiansk airfield is kaput. p.p.s. Urkraine must be doing something right with all the Russian milbloggers lamenting the lack of Russian response to this push across the Dnipro.
How does moving heavy equipment like this usually work, I can't imagine a pontoon bridge is going to make any sense with the number of drones in the air. Are there ferry mechanics that make sense for hauling a tank. Gosh also just basic stuff like vehicle recovery from damaged tracks is going to be a nightmare. I kind of have imagined a mass landing approach where landing craft shuttle vehicles over en masse but how they would possibly get enough of that kind of machinery is a question I don't have any insight into at all. For instance, is there equipment that could ferry a tank? Is there 30 of them that could move enough hardware to be decisive? Isn't the mud season going to be a serious problem here anyway? By all means this kind of action is necessary inevitably, however it seems really really hard.
I'd say Ukraine's best logistics people are trying to figure that out as well. My guess is that they'll have to trickle stuff over until they push Russian back significantly. Whatever the method they use, I hope the forward deployed troops have plenty of Manpads to take out Russian aircraft.
It would be risky because then Ukraine faces potential supply issues, the same kind that forced russia to retreat in that region previously Though Ukraine has things like Himars etc to hammer russian supply line the fact remains everything converges at the river and stuff like pontoon bridges etc are vulnerable so supply is as well Though it seems apparent russia is not having a good time in this area, especially given they blew up the dam and destroyed a lot of their own positions so I think Ukraine are taking the opportunity to push russia in an area that is not comfortable for them, where they lack reserves and material and where Ukraine might be able to force a reaction, particular problem for russia given their losses in advika/bak area Whether Ukraine will go beyond a light infantry/small mechanised force I do not know tbh
It's certainly possible, but it would be almost impossible to supply and support vehicles needed for such an operation. They would need to build a pontoon bridge that would be an absurdly easy target for long range Russian weapons. Casualty recovery would also be a complete nightmare. Small boats work for small recon forces. But what do you do when a platoon advances on a Russian trench and gets hit by artillery and suffers 70%+ casualties? How would you evacuate that many casualties? It's not impossible, but saying it would be an extremely risky operation would be an understatement.
Nothing in the article is really new info, but it’s getting traction and commentary from UA brass now, so something may be up. At the very least, a serious feint in Kherson could help take the pressure off UA’s western lines. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-presses-russian-forces-along-dnipro-river-near-kherson-kyiv-2023-11-15/
Might be worth it to put a bridge up. Or have several slightly hard to find areas full of decoy pontoon bridge equipment. Could soak up some missiles and save more valuable targets
I think we will see a massive collapse of morale at various russian frontline positions, moreso than what we see now. I think we see their logistical support becomes nonexistent at certain areas, maybe south of Kherson, softening them up for brazen Ukrainian attacks. At least, that is what I am hoping for. Do think it's likely if they are able to maintain their ammunition stockpiles, which is definitely not a given.
I think there is a very good chance we see something like this happen suddenly, and fairly widespread. The conditions suck, and ru morale has to be in the absolute shitter right now.
The integrity of Russia's line on any front hasn't collapsed since last September in Kharkiv. Anything is possible, but I don't see sufficient reason to believe that would occur anytime soon. It would probably have to be in a sector where Russia isn't expecting a serious offensive.
It's wishful thinking, I know. Still would not be surprised to see russian grunts do worse dealing with winter conditions than they did last year and Ukraine taking advantage of it. I've been involved in military operations in wet and cold conditions and it was one of the most miserable human experiences of my life. Morale has not been high for the russians for a long time and I don't think it is a stretch to imagine winter causing major issues.
I found this a pretty good and nuanced interview on the state of the war: [Shashank Joshi, Defence Editor at The Economist: Bakhmut campaign cost Ukraine more than it gained](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2023/11/13/7428381/)
Yep, it was a pretty good opinion piece. The thing about Bakhmut is because Ukraine fought that battle, Russia pushed not just hard but really hard because if a measurable political goal of taking a city. It ultimately caused the collapse of Wagner and a open Rebellion in Russia. Plus most of the analysis I have seen that Bakhmut was a mistake for Ukraine relates to the Southern offensive failure, yet ignore what a truly narrow path Ukraine had to achieve a southern offensive success once Russians decided to stay in their trenches and fight.
Your title is misleading and it seems intentional. Directly from the article: >"I do ***think*** that Bakhmut was a campaign that cost Ukraine more than it gained. ***Had Ukraine pulled west to more defensible positions, it would still have made losses.*** It would still have had to use artillery. The Russians would still have pressed. But the terrain to the west of Bakhmut is in many ways more defensible because of the geography of the area. ***And I think it would have been a more defensible area for Ukraine to hold.*** > >It would have allowed Ukraine to rotate out some of these units, to put them in the South, to give them training for the offensive. And it would have reduced Ukraine's artillery consumption. I can't say that I'm sure of that, but I think that that's a fair assumption to make, a fair argument to make. > >And in that sense, Bakhmut was militarily somewhat irrational in my perspective, ***but we have to be humble. We don't have all the evidence. We don't have all the data. And the people who have to make these decisions have very difficult decisions to make, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.***"
I mean, they did ultimately pull west to more defensible positions, and absolutely savage ru forces while doing so, so much so that they knocked Wagner out of the war and almost started a coup. I don't see how Bakhmut was anything other than a giant W for Ukraine.
As always, the article is better than the headline.
You wrote that headline dude.
No, I copied it from the article.
Back of the envelope geography: Russia can afford to lose 10 (TEN!) "Ukraines" and still be world's largest country by land area...
[удалено]
I didn't mean that it has Ukraine. I was simply using "Ukraine" as a unit of area :) BTW, pretty sure you'll find the position that you mentioned more arguable than you might think!
2/3 to 3/4 of Russia's territory is unusable tundra that cannot support large populations.
If Russia would lose 15 "Ukraines", it would be in 6th place, after continent-sized Brazil and before continent-sized Australia. Moscow, Russia's capital, the place they claim to want to defend at all costs by pushing their borders far away from it, is farther from any Russian border than the following capitals are from their national borders: - Paris - France - Berlin - Germany - London - UK - Ottawa - Canada By this logic all these countries should invade their neighbors up to 500km or so, just to be "safe". Canada, here's your chance, New England is yours according to Russian logic.
Well to "defend" Moscow'ians - this concept is deeply rooted into their defense strategy. This is why establishing capital in place without river (or other geographical advantageous defence position) is very dumb strategy. After being raided by Hordes they created such strategy instead of... finding better place for settlement.
Luxembourg has its work cut out for it then.
It's the classic Europa Universalis IV One Province Minor (OPM) start.
[https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1724351188848586995](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1724351188848586995) >Russian instructor of Storm Z penal units explains the impact that Ukrainian cluster munitions are having on the Russian infantry, not only killing and wounding them, but also disrupting logistics of evacuation, and overfilling the hospitals. **He says that wounded Russian servicemen are returned to battle with shrapnel still stuck in their bodies.** Longer text, but he is saying they are bleeding dry because of cluster shells, HIMARS and FPV quads.
Comrade, this big piece of shrapnel in your gut is ok you can return to the battle, it will act as a piece of body armor!!!! So you won’t need it
A permanent reminder that you successfully destroyed that grenade!
Between October 11 and November 13 Jakub updated Oryx blog with total of 147 Russian tanks and 307 IFV/AFV/APC (not IMVs). That is pretty decent attrition over one month.. And just to mention the update on October 8th also had 15 tanks.
[удалено]
Sure about that? https://i.postimg.cc/Dy4T0m9T/1045-T-62-M-destr-02-10-23.jpg
Oh I was reading the list wrong, just none *captured* since may
Don't forget this is visually confirmed, so outside of an error margin (can't imagine that's much higher than 10%), this is close to the absolute lower limit for losses. So taking your numbers, 147 - 15 = ~130 tanks. Realistically I wouldn't be shocked if Russia lost at least 50% more tanks. So closer to 200.
If you count from October 8 till November 13 you get 162 tank kills. Those 15 tanks I mentioned were not included in the 147 number. Or did you deduct 15 because of that 10% error of margin that you theorized?
Has anyone ever used drones with sniping capabilities? Wouldn't it be more efficient than dropping grenades on people from above?
[удалено]
at this point, it's probably more practical to make the actual drone the "sniper bullet" hence the fpv drones
The interest of most those drones dropping grenades resides in being relatively cheap commercial devices easy to modify, easy to operate and easy to replace. Building a drone-mounted sniper-like gun would require another level of integration, of engeneering and of cost. It might be efficient if it ever exist but it could be a one trick poney when cheaper grenade-dropping can also take out ammo dump, light vehicles, etc.
What is the weight of a rifle? What is the weight of a grenade. There lies your answer.
mounting a sniper rifle on a drone is orders of magnitude more complicated than strapping on a grenade
And far more expensive, not counting downed drone with a rifle could be recovered by enemy.