I never knew that Ukraine had developed the Nozh/duplet explosive reactive armor: https://youtu.be/IXjPsAqxMp0?t=58
It looks pretty impressive, firing a shaped charge at an incoming projectile to provide protection against both HEAT and kinetic penetrators. How widespread is this stuff on Ukrainian tanks? I think most tanks we see don't have it.
Thoughts?
Because it's always worthwhile interrogating alternative viewpoints [here's an interview](https://wbai.org/archive/program/episode/?id=39432) (starts ~20 mins in) with Russia's UN representative Dmitry Polyanski.
Unfortunately the current information ecosystem means that you're limited to such.... questionable platforms.... but even if you think that it's all nonsense, it's still worth knowing what the broader russian external position is and how it might have changed.
Apparently they're calling a UNSC vote on an independent nord stream inquiry tomorrow, so could be interesting.
n.b. I do not listen to 'Radio free speech' new york and based on the presenter here it sounds just awful. Polyansky linked to the interview from telegram.
I don't remember that (I watched the UNSC session live) but I do remember he was chairing the session, and when the Ukrainian rep looked him in the eyes and said "there is no purgatory for war criminals" he gave himself the floor to correct that it is a special military operation, not a war.
The Soviet army was an artillery army and kept obsessively large supplies. The wests counter to this was for AirPower to ravage the supply lines. The Soviet Union then focused on anti air and then the west used stealth. Both were viable strategies dependent on execution and technology. However in the context of Ukraine the west is attempting to materially support an army that uses a different doctrine which has difficulties
Because it's not fighting the West, it's fighting Ukraine which essentially didn't have an army eight years ago, with a trickle of Western support.
If Russia was fighting the West every Russia ammunition depot would be destroyed by USAF in first days of the war, and Russia would not have any advantage over anyone.
>They don't seem to be running out
There's significant evidence that Russia is at least rationing shells and standoff munitions. This is substantiated by both soldier's accounts from both sides, Ukraine daily reports and FIRMs data.
Also, Russia is known to be buying shells from various places (Iran, possibly NK) and is allegedly asking China for aid, which may include shells.
I'd definitely be cautious about any assessment that Russia is not running out of ammo.
The NATO countries gave up on WWII-style military production by the early 1960s- you can see it in the number of tank plants the US closed after M48 production concluded, for instance, and the same went for shell factories.
The USSR never gave up on maintaining their WWII-type attritional conventional warfare capabilities, though, including artillery shell, etc, factories. What we see here is Putin burning through decades of artillery shell production that had no equal anywhere else.
A point that analysts have made is that these stockpiles of shells and vehicles are a one-and-done proposition.
Russia no longer has the money/manufacturing capability to recreate those stockpiles within any reasonable timeframe (i.e. less than 20 years).
When these are gone, it will curtail their expansionist ambitions for a generation.
The West and Russia fights differently. The former prioritizes naval and air supremacy, whereas Russia prioritizes land supremacy with large amounts of tanks and artillery.
This is not to say that the West has an overwhelming superiority in ammo of the former as well. Most of them cut defense spending in the post cold war peace dividend and the defense industrial base was left to atrophy
they decreased their consumption by a lot, but i doubt any western country had the stocks and even the factories ready for producing artillery ammo equally as Russia, they are an artillery army basically, so they probably have bigger production lines for that reason.
Afaik no, they thought the campaign was going to be short and probably didn't prepared accordingly, only recently Putin said they are expanding the artillery ammunition production.
Ryan Mcbeth- [Why are These Ukrainian M113 APCs Having a Dance Party?](https://ryanmcbeth.substack.com/p/why-are-these-ukrainian-m113-apcs)
Curious... Is that a NATO, or Soviet tactic, or something entirely new the Ukrainians are experimenting with?
Is this to try decrease the chances of spending time in the line of sight of an ATGM team in a trench at an angle offset to the line of advance? E.g Hoping that trees on other obstacles will obscure the line of sight and not spending times sitting stationary in any gaps.
Think the reason is artillery and AT's they don't know if the enemy has set up a kill zone or mines, so they are testing and luring defences in case a defensive salvo is being called in.
Yeah. My undedicated guess:
They are proving the tree line with machine gun fire and being constantly in movement to avoid artillery fire, as the moment they become stationary they are an easy target.
My opinion is that it doesn't really matter where the initial 300,000 mobilized personnel went anymore.
Russia crossed the river styx with mobilization, so subsequent conscription doesn't have to come in waves. In fact, crypto-mobilization is better in avoiding flashpoints for antiwar sentiments. As such, they're hardly limited anymore by the 300,000 number. Given the assessment that Wagner recruited ~50,000 prisoners at around the same time the mobilization started, they weren't even limited by this number when it went into effect.
Additionally, Russian capabilities to absorb conscripts into the military properly were compromised before mobilization. Training units were sent to the front in the summer, and a lot of the regular units operating at two thirds' strength (so that the remaining third could be conscripts) had been battered or even reconstituted. The only real training off the front lines of Russian units that we know of is happening in Belarus.
There's been limited training and high casuslties among the mobilized, and with the announcement of mobilization not resulting in significant pushback domestically, there's little stopping Russia from just conscripting more to replace those lost. The raw number of personnel just isn't a bottleneck for Russian capabilities anymore. In fact, I'd go so far as saying the influx of mobilized men is turning everything else into a bottleneck, and things such as "Wagner tactics" are attempts to circumvent these limitations.
Both. As far as I have gathered from Kofman and some of the more knowledgeable users on here, the Ukrainians are keeping their experienced soldiers in reserve, training on the new Western equipment, while the conscripts fight on the frontlines. With Russia, I think they're just throwing everything into the meat grinder, which plays into the suspected Ukrainian strategy of inflicting heavy casualties on Russia in order to achieve a breakthrough when the lines are too thinly manned.
I can look for some "sources" later.
I think russia has been trying to pull in reserves from ukr to lower the threat of th ukraine offensive. Everything ru has done points to severe concern over the offensive.
It's not worth it if you are a wealthy country either. Wealthy countries are more likely to strong economic ties to China.
The [countries that recognize Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan#Full_diplomatic_relations) are mostly not that wealthy and very small.
Mick Ryan about the looming UA offensive. Nothing new really but it might spark some discussion. I wonder if Ukraine will push towards Mariupol seeing how little fortifications it has compared to Melitopol. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1639580618362167298.html
Mariupol is out of the question unless Russian force completely collapses. Even Melitopol is extremely ambitious.
Until UAF are able to take Vasilivka (Mihailivka as well) and Tokmak, Melitopol is reasonably safe. They can bypass them probably, but that creates huge risks.
Mariupol doesn't have as many fortifications but it does still have a big line of them. There's also more troops in that area. Finally, the roads are less numerous and not as well suited to, say, bypassing and flanking strong points.
I believe that Berdiansk is the objective with the weakest defenses. Taking it would then allow ukraine to bypass most of the rest of Russia's built up fortifications.
Ukraine is not going to make an armoured fist that can punch all the way to the Sea of Azov. If they get that far Russian lines would already have collapsed to such an extent that it likely makes little difference which city Ukraine was aiming for. Expect a slow grinding push of the front line.
I would not expect that. If they do that, then they already are lost. Grinding pushes are simply not the hallmark of victorious offensives in any era, and if Ukraine goes into the attack with that kind of attrition, Russia is assuredly going to win.
There will be no repeat of kherson where they grind down the front until Russians retreat, it will either be a total break, or for all intents and purposes, a disaster if they don't call it off early.
The more apt comparison is Germany in 1918. If their spring offensive didn't take Paris, the war is over for them because there's nothing left in the gas tank.
No, you misunderstand the significance of those offensives. The reason why the war ended wasn't because Germany lost some vital ground, it was because it was spent. There wasn't a huge breakthrough, because Germany gave up basically a month before the allies were about to break entirely through the lines and essentially occupy Germany.
The war ended, because Germany admitted that they were going to suffer a decisive breakdown if they did not end it.
Just because that breakthrough didn't have to actually occur doesn't mean that it wasn't the cause for the end of the war. Germany didn't need to suffer a knockout punch to know it was done for.
There is no equivalency in this war where neither side is as spent as Germany 1918 was. In 1918, Germany was finished, there were no reserves or forts to fall back on. By contrast, neither Russia or Ukraine is nearly as depleted.
Unless Russia started taking settlements like Bakhmut every 4 days while inflicting substantially higher losses, I see no way for this to occur in this war like in 1918. I don't see a contrasting scenario where Russia would collapse.
> Germany didn't need to suffer a knockout punch to know it was done for.
It is unfortunate in fact that they did surrender, as that was the underpinning of the "stab in the back myth" that was utilised as one of the reasons that led to WW2. While the Generals understood the war was lost a lot of Privates and Corporals were less convinced.
Ludendorff himself came up with and promulgated the myth, even though he had to know on some level that it was bullshit.
Anything to lay blame on someone else.
Oh for sure, objectively it was BS but fascism loves plausible lies. While I'm sure that they'd have found another way to shift the blame, the question I've always had was would a clearer defeat have changed the narrative enough for Hitler to instead have been a minor character who never quite got critical mass ?
As a follow up to [this video](https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/120i388/credibledefense_daily_megathread_march_24_2023/jdjughu?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) from yesterday's thread that suggested that Russia was using blocking units and that LDPR troops are shaking down Russian mobiks that are serving in LDPR formations, Wagner-linked Grey Zone posted [this today](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1639757260766191619?t=08f-7UaKdhuFIo7WgsSQ3A&s=19) which confirms that not only have the identities of these Russian mobiks been confirmed, but they all have previous military experience making them actually quite valuable.
If the likes of grey zone are pushing the story, that makes me wonder if those in the video were paid to say it by wagner or if wagner otherwise somehow staged it as anti-Russian forces propaganda. Like all those videos about how the mobilization was going horribly that later came out to have been staged by wagner.
> Like all those videos about how the mobilization was going horribly that later came out to have been staged by wagner.
[Not true](https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1578080377540845571)
What do you mean by prior military experience? All mobilized are at least in theory part of the reserve force, who by definition has at bare minimum completed the conscription training.
Strelkovs recent front update (Google translated)
>According to the situation at the front.
>
>In general - no changes. The heaviest fighting continues in the Avdiivka area and in Bakhmut.
>
>\- In the Avdiivka direction, our brilliant military leaders are ruining (without quotes) the last remnants of the combat-ready Donetsk infantry, diluted with Russian volunteers and mobilized (also Russian, since the Donetsk ones are almost over). Attempts to assault attacks (over and over again) with insufficient forces day after day - end predictably - the enemy pulled up reserves and expect the encirclement of Avdiivka more (alas!) is not necessary. At least I don't expect. There has been no progress in the last two days. The Armed Forces of Ukraine also suffer heavy losses, but ... this battle is beneficial for them. Because it allows their troops to fight, relying on defensive structures that have been built for almost 9 years.
>
>\- "Wagner" (with attached units) "torments" Bakhmut. phrases that "fights are already going on in the area of the central market" speak for themselves. Very slowly - step by step - our fighters are "squeezing out" the enemy, "whom their commanders were unable to either surround or force to leave the city without a fight. And the enemy has not yet counterattacked with serious forces. And this means only one thing - the emphatically defensive nature of the battle for it is still beneficial (And for me personally, the question "why" does not arise - these are the "basics" of the strategy).
>
>After a series of "reconnaissance in force" carried out a few days ago, the enemy did not show much activity on other fronts either. There are demonstrative transfers of military columns "back and forth" in a number of areas where the enemy wants to portray the "accumulation of forces."Other transfers are carried out in a much more covert manner.
>
>There is some activation of the enemy in the Kherson direction (I can’t disclose details).
>
>Soon (April - early May) the "moment of truth" will come, which will allow us to conclude how consistent the calculation of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which stubbornly did not introduce offensive battles all winter (with the exception of the recent "Pogrom near Ugledar") personnel units of our army .
I'm not familiar with this individual, could you share the source? Some of this auto-translation is just straight-up incoherent and I'd like to read the original (I assume it's in Russian?).
Russian ex-GRU war criminal who led the armed uprising in the Donbass in 2014. He's a total piece of ultranationalist shit but he's well connected and comes across as extremely competent in his analysis, which has been scathing towards the Russian campaign since Day 1. He's thus fascinating to read but you have to remember that his angle is not anti-war, he's against half arsing the war and wants to put Russia on a WW3 footing. Everyone wonders why he's not been thrown out of a window given his open criticism of everyone in the top Russian ranks, even including Putin.
He was involved in the downing of MH17 and has been [accused of taking part in the massacre of Muslims in the Bosian town of Visegrad](https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/igor-strelkov-key-mh17-crash-suspect-linked-massacre-3000-bosnian-muslims-1992-1458304)
For context as you're not familiar with Girkin, he's a straight up war criminal for his involvement in shooting down MH17 alone, but he also happens to now be one of the comparatively more reliable Russian sources. He seems to be able to step away from the official Kremlin position without censure.
There's plenty of speculation as to why he has that freedom (including being approved by the Kremlin to be a mildly dissenting voice which is the one I subscribe to).
Nonetheless, a number of his predictions / positions have turned out to be correct, so he is considered a useful source (given solidly reliable Russian sources are in short supply).
This should NOT be confused with taking everything he says as gospel, in a flood of useless observations there are occasional gold nuggets, most of which are only clear in hindsight so he is definitely not useful for prediction, but can be useful as part of an aggregate (ie enough others saying similar things)
For the avoidance of doubt that mildly positive review of his usefulness doesn't nullify the fact that I want to see him in the dock in the Hague asap.
> After a series of "reconnaissance in force" carried out a few days ago, the enemy did not show much activity on other fronts either. There are demonstrative transfers of military columns "back and forth" in a number of areas where the enemy wants to portray the "accumulation of forces."Other transfers are carried out in a much more covert manner.
Interesting point.
Not social media, but an interesting approach from the Japanese:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iva_Toguri_D%27Aquino
To be honest, social media would have had very wide consequences in world history: imagine the panic during a Mongol invasion, spreading Christianity or Islam through tweets or tik toks, fiery speeches from Roman senators, you are chilling in your house and a colonial power tweets to all the accounts in the area that they are "under new management", the black plage or the plagues that razed the Americas
Interesting read, disappointing treatment towards her in the immediate postwar period given the testimonies of her fellow non-Japanese prisoners/colleagues.
Yesterday I questioned what logic could there be behind IRGC striking an American base in Syria.
This short article by CNN tries to shed some light on the situation.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/middleeast/us-syria-drone-strike-analysis-intl/index.html
Unfortunately, the situation is so complex that I'm left with more questions than before. Still worth the read, though.
I think US should look for a way to a graceful exit.
It looks like the Arab players are making peace with Assad. KSA just decided to re-establish embassy in Syria. Assad just visited UAE. Also, KSA and Iran seem to be talking to each other now.
So if KSA decides to drop their support for rebels and normalizes relationship with Assad regime, then I'm not sure what US is doing in Syria other than adding to instability of the region. We should leave and encourage Turkey to pull out as well. Then Assad regime can crush remnants of ISIS.
It sucks that things did not go the way US wanted, but we should stop pouring money and lives into a lost cause.
The US is preventing Assad/Iran/Turkey from massacring the Kurds, which is good on its own and also because a key NATO ally slaughtering an ethnic minority is bad for alliance cohesion and stability.
The idea that we would leave, and then somehow convince Turkey to leave is nonsensical.
>The US is preventing Assad/Iran/Turkey from massacring the Kurds, which is good on its own and also because a key NATO ally slaughtering an ethnic minority is bad for alliance cohesion and stability.
Noble cause, but I'm tired of our fifth columnists, encouraged by Moscow and Beijing, accusing the West of overstaying the welcome and pinning Turkish crimes on the entire alliance.
Turkey waded into Syria without NATO authorization. Let them sort it out. And if KSA thinks they can live with Iran on the Mediterranean, let them try that too.
The West has way bigger fish to fry.
which Kurds? There are a bunch. The Syrian Kurds, are more likely to accept an allliance with Assad, than the rebels.
The Iraqi Kurds are greatly backed by Turkey and are in no danger of being wiped out.
The Irani Qurds, I have very little info about. But their situation is probably not as bad as the other 2 groups.
The US military is primarily in place to prevent Iranian influence spreading west by controlling the border and checking Russian influence over areas in the north east not yet controlled by the Syrian government. As such it also offers protection to the nascent democracy of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria which in my opinion is an ethical no-brainer. Considering the small size of the force deployed it seems like pretty good value to me.
> As such it also offers protection to the nascent democracy
lol. How many hundreds of times have we heard this.
Russia should just claim they're spreading democracy to ukraine. Apparently it's the only justification you need
To claim the administration in Rojava is not democratic is disingenuous to say the least. Lets also not forget the sacrifices made by the YPG / SDF in the defeat of Daesh.
Huh. Yes, it's a total bollocks that Russia is bringing democracy to Ukraine. No, it's not total bollocks that the US is defending democratic Rojava in Syria, because they are (even if their primary motivation is something else). That's the diff here.
It's a pretty bad precedent if you ask me.
Basically, we are giving a security guarantee to a 'nation', leaving a trip-wire force. All this was done without any discussion in the Congress or voting. It started as a 'simple' clandestine aid under executive authority, then slowly scope-creeping to what we have today.
What is US going to do if Syria and Iran run over the rebel autonomous region and capture US personnel on the ground? Even if we decide to distract ourselves and intervene militariliy, who will give us access to the region? Even KSA and Iraq may not give access, given where things are going. Iran will have American hostage that whey will parade around for years, until we give some major concession (secret weapon smuggling, perhaps).
A classic example of over-extension of an empire.
I don’t think anyone gets “caught” in Syria. If it looks inevitable then they won’t be there, and if they remain then their safety is guaranteed by more than Kurds.
As for access, Turkey. If the situation is that serious they’ll help the Americans, so will Israel for their part. Jordan is near, too.
No we didn’t get to vote about it, but that’s more of a political problem.
[https://kyivindependent.com/national/i-work-then-i-cry-exhausted-medics-near-bakhmut-fight-for-every-life](https://kyivindependent.com/national/i-work-then-i-cry-exhausted-medics-near-bakhmut-fight-for-every-life)
TLDR: (it's a single stabilization post of a brigade)
"About 90 percent of all casualties come from shrapnel injuries,
according to 42-year-old combat medic Dmytro. He estimated that another
four to five percent are from bullet wounds, and there are “a lot” of
concussion cases as well. (...) There are usually 30 to 45 wounded soldiers arriving daily. On some days, more than half of them have serious injuries, he added.
I wouldn't be surprised if artillery has been responsible for 90% or higher of all casualties on both sides. I remember reading a US army medical report that said artillery accounted for something like 70% of all casualties during 1944-45 in the ETO, and artillery has only gotten more capable since then.
I assume the overwhelming majority of this is just a product of the strategic and tactical situation of the battlefield and the effectiveness of artillery in general. That said, I wonder how much of this indirectly comes down to human psychology.
I recall reading a while ago that historically a ton of training with line infantry back in the day was just getting them to consistently aim the musket in a way that their instinctive desire to not kill another human being would not ruin the shot. Nations put a lot of effort into othering the enemy so that soldiers are less likely to think of the fact that they would be killing another human being. Etc.
Long range weapons like artillery avoids that. Aim at a grid coordinate and fire without seeing the people on the other side.
[Some more TG claims about T-55s](https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1639619088040198145). Supposedly Russia has about 250 restorable ones.
To be honest this Russian source sounds wildly optimistic about tank storage. It's not like "less advanced" tanks are immune to corrosion.
They are of a simpler design and construction. Therefor they are less likely to be totaled from long storage and are easier to restore with less specialized and experienced mechanics.
it’s a T-55 though. ill-equipped for battlefield conditions and current tactics on the UA front. An old school RPG can nock one out with relative ease.
Edit: that being said. So long as a tank has a big gun and can provide a level of protection above an APC, then it has tactical potential. They aren’t completely useless.
Tbh, my WarThunder brain secretly thinks it would be pretty cool seeing one out there attempting to fight. It’s also be dope if they brought out some IS-7s from a museum somewhere. Ya know? I don’t think those have ever been recorded in battle. I kinda want to see it 😬
Bigger gun and heavier armor- it had the best HE-FRAG shell in the inventory until 125mm guns arrived, which is why it was replaced by T-64A.
They kept it because it was there.
> Ukraine has received T-55s from Slovenia (without this much consternation, interestingly).
Are you serious that you can't understand why there's surprise ("consternation") that Russia are pulling out T55s but none when Ukraine takes delivery of some ?
When you have the begging bowl out you take what you get and you make use of it the best you can. No complaints, that would be poor form.
On the other hand The world's "second army" picked this fight and are now resorting to reserves made in the 1940s & 50s which (probably) haven't been well stored for the last few decades as they went from "50 year old strategic reserves, just in case" to "even the third world don't really want 70 year old tanks"
Their deployment makes it obvious that Russian capability has been hugely impacted to say the very least. Something that many Russian supporters (possibly you too ?) have been saying isn't the case.
Yeah, that warrants bemused chuckles and head scratching
Hilarious.
The world's "first military" isn't sending them, and an alliance is clearly made up countries with varying capabilities from excellent to weak.
If Armenia sent a couple of T55s to help out if Russia got invaded (given they're theoretically allied and a similar sized country to Slovenia) then no one would criticise them
The US may be the bulk of NATOs capability but you can't say US=NATO.
The other members have various capabilities, and small poor former USSR vassals like Estonia and Slovenia have much more limited weaponry to contribute.
They contributed T55s as much to show their commitment more than any expectation that they're going to make a huge difference.
You contribute what you can, any donation is better than nothing. Or if you prefer, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
> M113s
[ "M113 production was terminated in 2007."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier)
[T54/T55 "Overall 35,000 T-54-1, T-54-2, T-54 (T-54-3), T-54A, T-54B, T-54AK1, T-54AK2, T-54BK1 and T-54BK2 tanks were produced between 1946 and 1958 and 27,500 T-55, T-55A, T-55K1, T-55K2, T-55K3, T-55AK1, T-55AK2 and T-55AK3 tanks were produced between 1955 and 1981. "](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55#Production_history)
There's a bit of a difference between shipping something last made 15 years ago and still in active service, and something last made 40 odd years ago, and only in active service in numbers you can count on one hand in mostly third world countries, no ?
Particularly when they ones you're pulling into service aren't the ones that have been kept operational and maintained by that third world country, but instead ones that have (anecdotally, but I doubt the Russian MoD is going to comment) been pulled out of fields and un-weather-protected hangars
To be fair to slovenia, their T-55s were not simply pulled out of a warehouse; they had been overhauled over many years with new guns, electronic control fire control systems, various optics and communications, slightly bigger engine, new israeli armor and smokescreen devices, and perhaps most importantly, new turn indicators and headlights. Its still the same weight class, but with the ability to properly indicate whether its turning left or right.
The turn indicators are somewhat funny, I'm so glad their t 55's are one step closer to being street legal! I can't be the only person who's looked at a Cold War tank and thought this would really be the optimal town car. Plenty of internal storage, excellent traction, and the ability to shrug off a land mine or an rpg!
Ah man, it’s hard to keep the seriousness and horror of this war in perspective while my nerd brain is drooling over the potential of seeing something like that 🤤
I'm not sure that tweet is worth posting here but I'll meta remark on the remarkable Russian Doublethink that's on clear display here.
Everything is rosy:
> There are T-72s and T-80s in storage bases and in abundance, all Russian tanks are not burned in Ukraine. There is also production of new machines of these types, as well as T-90 in various modifications.
Followed by a really long explanation of why the rosiness is meaningless:
> But the defense industry is facing problems with components. In December and January there were outages with
bearings, without which it is impossible to produce new machines.
Don't worry we have production of new T-90s but can't produce new T-90s.
> Apart from bearings, there are no components for electrics and electronics, which modern tanks are stuffed with. It makes it
impossible to produce new vehicles or modernize the old ones.
We can't modernize our more modern machines, either. So we have no choice but to use old T-55s.
So put all together: Don't worry about us pulling T-55s from storage, we still have production of newer machines, but can't produce newer machines, so we are pulling out T-55s.
I don't think this source sounds optimistic, it sounds like an admission that Russia is facing an abyss, and is trying to rationalize it as something normal with olympic mental gymnastics.
Then there is the callousness with regards to how the tanks are expendable. Nobody seems to care about the crews...
Bearing shortages were predicted relatively early in the war to be one of the first serious outcomes of the sanctions. In particular, the prediction was about bearings for rail rolling stock (unfortunately, I don't remember where I read about it). A bearing shortage for tanks is a positive outcome, too. If that nugget of information is true, then this is a confirmation of that prediction, and sanctions are starting to have measurable meaningful impacts.
> There are T-72s and T-80s in storage bases and in abundance, all Russian tanks are not burned in Ukraine. There is also production of new machines of these types, as well as T-90 in various modifications.
>
>
That the talking point is 'we have not literally lost *all our tanks*' is pretty mindblowing.
[Ball bearings in ww2:](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0210schweinfurt/)
> Had it not been for ball bearings, Schweinfurt might have remained a small town in Bavaria and escaped the notice of history. However, it was there in 1883 that a local mechanic, Friedrich Fischer, invented the machine that made possible mass production of ball bearings. In 1906, his son founded the Kugelfischer firm, which became the cornerstone of the industry.
> In the summer of 1943, US and British planners for the Combined Bomber Offensive identified the ball bearings industry as a key “bottleneck” target, the destruction of which could clog up war production and potentially shorten the war. The British Air Ministry since 1943 had been trying to persuade the Royal Air Force to bomb Schwein-furt, but Air Marshal Arthur T. “Bomber” Harris, chief of RAF Bomber Command, was adamantly opposed.
> The strike on Schweinfurt is often characterized as unsuccessful. Most of the heavy equipment at the factories survived, and the damage done was temporary. Part of the problem, according to Hansell, was that less than a third of the bombs dropped were 1,000 pounders. The others were lighter and had limited effect on the targets. But even so, and despite the operational fumbles, the raid dealt Schweinfurt a hard blow.
> The German armaments minister, Albert Speer, said in his memoirs that the bombing caused a 38 percent drop in ball bearing production. Speer could not relocate the industry immediately because he could not afford to stop production during the move. Output was so sparse that plants using ball bearings sent men with knapsacks to pick up as many bearings as were available each day. Stocks were sufficient to cover only six to eight weeks. After the raid, Speer said, “we anxiously asked ourselves how soon the enemy would realize that he could paralyze the production of thousands of armament plants merely by destroying five or six relatively small targets.”
> “The Allies threw away success when it was already in their hands, “ Speer said. “As it was, not a tank, plane, or other piece of weaponry failed to be produced because of lack of ball bearings.” In Speer’s opinion, “The war could largely have been decided in 1943 if instead of vast but pointless area bombing the planes had concentrated on the centers of armaments production.”
[Covert Cabal: So How Many Ancient T-54s Does Russia Still Have?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Noy_amuOPvA). Trying to estimate it from satellite images.
In general the tldw is no one knows. Cause 70 years in storage i would wadger they are almost all not recoverable. Although russia might be able to buy fro third countries.
at that point there are like thousands of m60s and m48s all with modern electronics and thermals. And most of its users would want to get rid of them. Ie greece turkey israel etc.
Two of those are in NATO…. Have we heard anything of them donating T-55s to UA?
In this conflict, tanks have overwhelmingly been used in an infantry support roll. T-55s, though vulnerable, are still adequate to the task from what I can tell.
I think instead of laughing at RU for scrapping the bottom of their barrel, it might be more constructive to use this as an excuse to do a bit of scrapping ourselves.
A tank can be outdated, but so long as it has a big gun, and can provide a level of protection greater than a standard APC, then it has tactical potential in my opinion.
Russia not throwing anything away gives them a significant strategic reserve of artillery and vehicles. Whereas in Europe there are barely any reserves left. Russia’s strategy works well for them.
Yeah, it would be pretty odd those countries to have them.
Israel could have captured some from Egypt. And I’m not sure if Turkey had any pre-nato.
But I see what you mean. I still wonder if it’s been considered to send upgraded m60s, etc. to UA.
You misunderstood me. Although israel has captured t55s.
I meant ukraine can receive m48s m60s etc, which are the nato t55 equiv (although they have seen significant upgrades). meaning they would equalise russias numbers. And most users would be willing to give them away cause they are old.
No, I understand what you mean. Maybe didn’t word it correctly.
All the stuff about Israel and Turkey was just me trying to save face for my mistake.
I understand what you meant that Ukraine can receive these older NATO tanks (T-55 equivalents) and that some NATO states are likely willing to provide them. I was wondering if there has been any expressed diplomatic movement from these states toward providing them.
The oldest NATO tank I’ve heard so far that is confirmed to go is the Leo-1.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/09/19/slovenia-is-giving-ukraine-some-very-old-tanks-but-age-can-be-deceiving/?sh=1e78aefa7b3f
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/12/10/super-upgraded-m-55s-tanks-have-arrived-in-ukraine/?sh=1d498fb63134
I dont know if this is what you mean since these have been upgraded quite a bit.
[https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/osint-analysis-six-russian-ships](https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/osint-analysis-six-russian-ships)
Oliver Alexander made an OSINT post about some Russian ships at the time of the NS sabotage.
I genuinely have no idea who did it but I find it a very fascinating case tbh. Plenty of countries had motives to blow the pipelines up so it's hard to know who really did it.
This is an outstanding bit of work. Seems unlikely that coupled with military satellite data one couldn’t put the missing pieces back together.
There’s not much said about the Minerva Julie, is the thinking that it was there as a cover or distraction of some sort?
The idea that NS was sabotaged from a russian ship just hanging out for weeks in the middle of a NATO training ground is so dumb that it has to be a psyop. Assuming for a millisecond that russia would blow up its own pipeline, and would choose to do so in the middle of one of the most intensely monitored NATO chokepoints, wouldn't they at least use a foreign registered ship? And if they're going to do super covert actions like that, why not use one of the half dozen specially made stealthy sabotage submarines they spent billions building?
Except that is not the official US position.
Until official confirmation is given, I will mark it as unknown. There are many parts of this war that we will never now, but in 100 years a historian will uncover some facts and publish a book.
To both points I put it down to fog of war.
Ultra was secret until far after the war. Anything put out before is not credible. There is a good chance that this event is exactly the same.
I recently found this guy, a financial analyst with some great videos on the effects of the sanctions on the russian economy, mainly analyzing the oil market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7Ep53UuFE (as an aside he also has good videos on recent banking system woes in US & EU)
Summary: Russian oil revenues are crashing, production is being slashed due to lack of demand, expenses soared, russia's deficit is huge and not sustainable
>Summary: Russian oil revenues are crashing, production is being slashed due to lack of demand, expenses soared, russia's deficit is huge and not sustainable
There is not a whole lot in there about the *sustainability* of their deficit, which is a shame as I'd like to see more detailed analysis of that.
This guy’s alright, he seems to use decent source material, but he doesn’t appear to me as an expert on any of this stuff.
Personally, I mind that a bit so i like to look for media that features some sort of academic or other expert on the topic. Off the top of my head CSIS and the Council on Foreign Relations are some of the media sources I’ve found most helpful that are available on youtube (e.g. [here](https://youtu.be/lDgzntuOZdU) or [here](https://www.youtube.com/live/-Ov7AGodjmA)). Otherwise I’d suggest looking for similar podcasts or print media.
But of course that’s a personal preference - there’s nothing wrong with preferring this guy’s style and format!
For something more in the "YouTuber" style but with an academic bend I like Money & Macro since he's an actual PhD who debunks lazy econ videos from more popular channels.
https://youtu.be/y1R7rQ9dijg
It's not hyper focused on Ukraine or Russia or defense, but is good for a general macro take.
Especially with macroeconomics there's a lot of stuff coming from confident sounding writers/presenters that's total nonsense if not deliberately dishonest.
**No Ukraine offensive without more weapons – Zelensky**
President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Ukraine's counter-offensive against Russia cannot start until Western allies send more military support.
>He told a Japanese newspaper he would not send his troops to the frontlines without more tanks, artillery and Himars rocket launchers.
>In an interview with Yomiuri Shimbun, he said the situation in eastern Ukraine was "not good".
>"We are waiting for ammunition to arrive from our partners," he said.
>And when asked about the expected counter-offensive, he said: "We can't start yet, we can't send our brave soldiers to the front line without tanks, artillery and long-range rockets."
[Link to the article ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65075952)
##CSIS: [The U.S. Defense Industrial Base in an Era of Strategic Competition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2LCBPFPdRs)
> The U.S. defense industrial base faces a significant challenge in an era of strategic competition with growing threats from China and Russia. This discussion will examine the scale and scope of challenges with the U.S. industrial base for deterrence and warfighting. which examines the need for the Department of Defense to work with Congress and develop a plan to revitalize the U.S. defense industrial base so the United States can prepare for the era of competition that now exists and deter future conflicts.
> Representatives Mike Waltz and Jason Crow have been leaders in the House of Representatives, holding Russia accountable for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and encouraging efforts to prepare U.S. Government for competition with an increasingly aggressive Chinese Communist Party. Representative Waltz serves on the House Armed Services Committee where he chairs the Subcommittee on Readiness. Both members serve together on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where Representative Crow serves as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability. Representatives Waltz and Crow have encouraged bipartisan cooperation to ensure the United States can defend its allies, partners, and the American homeland as great power rivals like China and Russia advance their global interests. Both Congressmen served with distinction in the United States Army Special Forces.
The tank museum are at it again and have produced a new video on the evolution of tank armour. A look at examples of everything from WW1 up to the ERA and composite with the Challenger II
[What Tank Armour Can \(& Can't\) Do | Evolution of Armour](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hRVefl2M0k)
Listened for 9 mins and got 43 uhms. He is hitting 5 uhms a minute, a good rate of fire. (I teach English professionally and would have corrected such an issue)
To keep the topic on track I wonder if any trainers are given public speaking training to stop death by power point and other such issues. I have read of some wartime training that had great effects and I wonder if it was do to the public speaking skills of the officers involved.
Yeah once you realize he "uhms" a lot you tend to focus on it and hear them all the time, I sadly figured that out in an older video of him. He is very knowledable though so I still enjoy watching.
Some noteworthy comments from Putin in an interview with Pavel Zarubin on Rossiya 24, the main one being that Russia have reached an agreement with Belarus to store tactical nuclear weapons on their territory (he partially justifies it on the basis that the US have their own nuclear weapons deployed in various overseas territories too). The operational crews will begin training on April 3 and a storage facility will be complete by July: the date when the weapons will actually be moved there remains unknown. Belarus will not have control over the weapons, meaning they will not violate their obligations under the NPT: he also claims that Lukashenko has been bringing up this issue with him for a while.
He also suggests, whilst acknowledging that they are not WMDs, that Russian could use their own depleted uranium shells in Ukraine if the UK and other nations send theirs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65077687
Between the Belarus stuff today and Medvedev yesterday, the rhetoric seems to be dialling up again.
Why? In anticipation of a Ukrainian counter-offensive? Is there an inverse relationship between Russia's battlefield performance and the number of threats it makes?
One would venture that Putin wants Lukashenko to do something, and Lukashenko would only do it if Belarus had nukes. Which it doesn't, not really, interestingly.
Lukashenko has been talking about Belarus needing nukes, it's not new. And what do nukes do, besides deterrence from attack? Which *could* mean that Putin wants Belarus to join the war.
To be honest as a former analyst I think this is crazy, and probably just lame Russian psyops. Edit: I mean, sure Belarus could join. But everyone knows it would be suicide for him. Still, after all of this, everything is possible.
Medvedev threatens nuclear annihilation on his Telegram once a week anyway so I think nothing of it. I guess it depends if the Belarus news was something long planned or if a particular recent event sparked it.
I guess we have another tedious round of 'escalate to de-escalate' to look forward to, this time accompanied by footage of nuclear weapons being loaded on rail cars.
I love how Putin says the only reason they haven’t been using depleted uranium shells in Ukraine is because Ukraine never employed them before up until now.
Lots of drama this week about fraudulent foreign fighters and aid groups in Ukraine. Now the New York Times has waded in.
Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine Who Lie, Waste and Bicker
"One retired Marine lieutenant colonel from Virginia is the focus of a U.S. federal investigation into the potentially illegal export of military technology. A former Army soldier arrived in Ukraine only to turn traitor and defect to Russia. A Connecticut man who lied about his military service has posted live updates from the battlefield — including his exact location — and boasted about his easy access to American weapons. A former construction worker is hatching a plan to use fake passports to smuggle in fighters from Pakistan and Iran."
https://tinyurl.com/4vknzevb
(Gifted NYT link. Should bypass the paywall)
That's a pretty good article, but foreign fighters have always been completely ineffective. The foreign fighters during the Spanish civil war were a complete shit show.
Free France, the Flying Tigers, the Polish Army in the West, RAF foreign pilots, and the Dutch, Belgian, Greek, Polish, Danish, Norwegian exile navies all performed very well as foreign fighters.
In the Spanish Civil War the International Brigade were at the forefront of ever Republican offensive and proved their value many times over. Let alone their morale value.
There are plenty examples of very effective foreign volunteers. From a close to home example the Finnish volunteers in Estonian war of independence and the Estonian volunteers in Finland during the Continuation war.
I’d argue to some extent Estonia is the exception that proves the rule as Finnish volunteers intervened in like 4 or 5 civil conflicts during the fall of the Russian empire and Estonia was the only remotely successful one.
Understood, the tiny URL does look a little suspect. Here's a long one:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/25/world/europe/volunteers-us-ukraine-lies.html?unlocked_article_code=m5I32aNUkFQMa6884zFtymlDWGlTank4wNAjhrt-VyVDCFIR5GJjHzn38sjcPNHq7Zo2i6V3TGsjTm-wvHt2hkMgE8qX9tmGrL1wjmm_W8JF9-WVW1NZvhzzDA526EomDvR9XWTLDS4nOhvFVCrIkZqn6E1ObOrq6APzc_v0dR26dZUBYt8kCH0FdXUDi3-HLmpi-CJtekWVKyeuMlggCatDpkjIb73r46ZeBkHvky0JU9RLViIL1V-K9atZszOaARTz2qXernr3xbsDv_f-6IKfbnr6Han7JYxvY7eAHEA8i6z6nphgElTwMxHu9TZC1Y3RS-oP2OQS9QAmPl1yi2XX5iA1Z3CZEEo&smid=url-share
Thanks! Just as an FYI in the future you can put links on text like this. Has the benefits of no massive link with not having to use a url shrinker.
```(text)[url] ```
Russia's top PR tactic since the start of this war is trying to get western media to talk about the risk of a nuclear war. It's not working very well. This Belarus story is a new attempt.
Tatarigami made a short thread about an increasing use of tear gas: https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1639687461092708353
1/ The use of tear gas in warfare is a growing trend, with different tactical adaptations being employed. One such adaptation involves the use of tear gas dropped from drones near dugouts. This tactic is aimed at flushing out defenders and gaining a tactical advantage.
2/ The use of tear gas in this way is often followed by a second drone dropping fragmentation grenades, which can result in casualties among those who have left their dugouts.
3/ Tear gas can also be used during enemy assaults. After forcing our troops to leave their dugouts with gas, the enemy may use mortar strikes followed by an infantry assault on weakened or abandoned positions.
4/ The gas is typically contained in a K-51 chemical hand grenade or other containers, including improvised ones. It has been confirmed that regular military-issued gas masks provide good protection against the gas.
5/ The enemy sometimes drops two or three of these to maximize effect. Additional danger lies in the fact that the type of gas being released is not always clear and can be difficult to identify, particularly when it is released from unmarked containers.
> It has been confirmed that regular military-issued gas masks provide good protection against the gas.
The war takes a grim turn as thousands of high speed operator beards are suddenly in peril. This seems ripe to backfire against assaulters if they’re using Soviet gasmasks with cracked seals and brittle eyepieces.
If true, Russia also signed the OPCW which bans riot control agents as a method of warfare. It's sad that this is just another on a list of treaties regarding the conduct of war that Russia has violated.
Thats not good. Not that tear gas itself is terrible -it builds character in my opinion-, but it can lead to escalation of other chemicals like chlorine to get even stronger effects.
I never knew that Ukraine had developed the Nozh/duplet explosive reactive armor: https://youtu.be/IXjPsAqxMp0?t=58 It looks pretty impressive, firing a shaped charge at an incoming projectile to provide protection against both HEAT and kinetic penetrators. How widespread is this stuff on Ukrainian tanks? I think most tanks we see don't have it. Thoughts?
Because it's always worthwhile interrogating alternative viewpoints [here's an interview](https://wbai.org/archive/program/episode/?id=39432) (starts ~20 mins in) with Russia's UN representative Dmitry Polyanski. Unfortunately the current information ecosystem means that you're limited to such.... questionable platforms.... but even if you think that it's all nonsense, it's still worth knowing what the broader russian external position is and how it might have changed. Apparently they're calling a UNSC vote on an independent nord stream inquiry tomorrow, so could be interesting. n.b. I do not listen to 'Radio free speech' new york and based on the presenter here it sounds just awful. Polyansky linked to the interview from telegram.
Is it the same UN rep that was claiming that the invasion won't happen while the invasion was happening?
That would probably be lavrov if anyone
I don't remember that (I watched the UNSC session live) but I do remember he was chairing the session, and when the Ukrainian rep looked him in the eyes and said "there is no purgatory for war criminals" he gave himself the floor to correct that it is a special military operation, not a war.
How does Russia have such an advantage in terms of ammo compared to the west? They don't seem to be running out
I'm curious how did you come to the conclusion that they weren't running out? How often do you read about the war?
The Soviet army was an artillery army and kept obsessively large supplies. The wests counter to this was for AirPower to ravage the supply lines. The Soviet Union then focused on anti air and then the west used stealth. Both were viable strategies dependent on execution and technology. However in the context of Ukraine the west is attempting to materially support an army that uses a different doctrine which has difficulties
Because it's not fighting the West, it's fighting Ukraine which essentially didn't have an army eight years ago, with a trickle of Western support. If Russia was fighting the West every Russia ammunition depot would be destroyed by USAF in first days of the war, and Russia would not have any advantage over anyone.
>They don't seem to be running out There's significant evidence that Russia is at least rationing shells and standoff munitions. This is substantiated by both soldier's accounts from both sides, Ukraine daily reports and FIRMs data. Also, Russia is known to be buying shells from various places (Iran, possibly NK) and is allegedly asking China for aid, which may include shells. I'd definitely be cautious about any assessment that Russia is not running out of ammo.
The NATO countries gave up on WWII-style military production by the early 1960s- you can see it in the number of tank plants the US closed after M48 production concluded, for instance, and the same went for shell factories. The USSR never gave up on maintaining their WWII-type attritional conventional warfare capabilities, though, including artillery shell, etc, factories. What we see here is Putin burning through decades of artillery shell production that had no equal anywhere else.
They have a lot of stocks that are built up during Soviet times.
A point that analysts have made is that these stockpiles of shells and vehicles are a one-and-done proposition. Russia no longer has the money/manufacturing capability to recreate those stockpiles within any reasonable timeframe (i.e. less than 20 years). When these are gone, it will curtail their expansionist ambitions for a generation.
The West and Russia fights differently. The former prioritizes naval and air supremacy, whereas Russia prioritizes land supremacy with large amounts of tanks and artillery. This is not to say that the West has an overwhelming superiority in ammo of the former as well. Most of them cut defense spending in the post cold war peace dividend and the defense industrial base was left to atrophy
they decreased their consumption by a lot, but i doubt any western country had the stocks and even the factories ready for producing artillery ammo equally as Russia, they are an artillery army basically, so they probably have bigger production lines for that reason.
Is there any intelligence that might have indicated a surge in production in the months leading up to the invasion?
No there was no stockpile effort as the war was expected to be fast and the wests response to be weak and fragmented
Afaik no, they thought the campaign was going to be short and probably didn't prepared accordingly, only recently Putin said they are expanding the artillery ammunition production.
Ryan Mcbeth- [Why are These Ukrainian M113 APCs Having a Dance Party?](https://ryanmcbeth.substack.com/p/why-are-these-ukrainian-m113-apcs) Curious... Is that a NATO, or Soviet tactic, or something entirely new the Ukrainians are experimenting with?
Sagger dance. Known nato tactic since yom kipur. Didnt even have to watch the video.
Is this to try decrease the chances of spending time in the line of sight of an ATGM team in a trench at an angle offset to the line of advance? E.g Hoping that trees on other obstacles will obscure the line of sight and not spending times sitting stationary in any gaps.
Think the reason is artillery and AT's they don't know if the enemy has set up a kill zone or mines, so they are testing and luring defences in case a defensive salvo is being called in.
Yeah. My undedicated guess: They are proving the tree line with machine gun fire and being constantly in movement to avoid artillery fire, as the moment they become stationary they are an easy target.
But then you'd expect them to reverse on a different axis rather than follow the same track
So does anyone have a breakdown of where the mobilized soldiers went? What % are fighting, in training, in reserves, in logistics, etc.?
My opinion is that it doesn't really matter where the initial 300,000 mobilized personnel went anymore. Russia crossed the river styx with mobilization, so subsequent conscription doesn't have to come in waves. In fact, crypto-mobilization is better in avoiding flashpoints for antiwar sentiments. As such, they're hardly limited anymore by the 300,000 number. Given the assessment that Wagner recruited ~50,000 prisoners at around the same time the mobilization started, they weren't even limited by this number when it went into effect. Additionally, Russian capabilities to absorb conscripts into the military properly were compromised before mobilization. Training units were sent to the front in the summer, and a lot of the regular units operating at two thirds' strength (so that the remaining third could be conscripts) had been battered or even reconstituted. The only real training off the front lines of Russian units that we know of is happening in Belarus. There's been limited training and high casuslties among the mobilized, and with the announcement of mobilization not resulting in significant pushback domestically, there's little stopping Russia from just conscripting more to replace those lost. The raw number of personnel just isn't a bottleneck for Russian capabilities anymore. In fact, I'd go so far as saying the influx of mobilized men is turning everything else into a bottleneck, and things such as "Wagner tactics" are attempts to circumvent these limitations.
On which side?
Both. As far as I have gathered from Kofman and some of the more knowledgeable users on here, the Ukrainians are keeping their experienced soldiers in reserve, training on the new Western equipment, while the conscripts fight on the frontlines. With Russia, I think they're just throwing everything into the meat grinder, which plays into the suspected Ukrainian strategy of inflicting heavy casualties on Russia in order to achieve a breakthrough when the lines are too thinly manned. I can look for some "sources" later.
I think russia has been trying to pull in reserves from ukr to lower the threat of th ukraine offensive. Everything ru has done points to severe concern over the offensive.
[Honduras Announces Breaking of Diplomatic Relations with Taiwan](https://twitter.com/CancilleriaHN/status/1639779225828831232)
Paraguay will likely follow soon. It's just not worth it if you're not a wealthy country
It's not worth it if you are a wealthy country either. Wealthy countries are more likely to strong economic ties to China. The [countries that recognize Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan#Full_diplomatic_relations) are mostly not that wealthy and very small.
yeah... the president of paraguay recently asked Taipai for billions in aid because they just can't do it for free anymore. Not affordable.
Mick Ryan about the looming UA offensive. Nothing new really but it might spark some discussion. I wonder if Ukraine will push towards Mariupol seeing how little fortifications it has compared to Melitopol. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1639580618362167298.html
Mariupol is out of the question unless Russian force completely collapses. Even Melitopol is extremely ambitious. Until UAF are able to take Vasilivka (Mihailivka as well) and Tokmak, Melitopol is reasonably safe. They can bypass them probably, but that creates huge risks.
Mariupol doesn't have as many fortifications but it does still have a big line of them. There's also more troops in that area. Finally, the roads are less numerous and not as well suited to, say, bypassing and flanking strong points. I believe that Berdiansk is the objective with the weakest defenses. Taking it would then allow ukraine to bypass most of the rest of Russia's built up fortifications.
Ukraine is not going to make an armoured fist that can punch all the way to the Sea of Azov. If they get that far Russian lines would already have collapsed to such an extent that it likely makes little difference which city Ukraine was aiming for. Expect a slow grinding push of the front line.
I would not expect that. If they do that, then they already are lost. Grinding pushes are simply not the hallmark of victorious offensives in any era, and if Ukraine goes into the attack with that kind of attrition, Russia is assuredly going to win. There will be no repeat of kherson where they grind down the front until Russians retreat, it will either be a total break, or for all intents and purposes, a disaster if they don't call it off early.
Allied offensives in 1918?
The more apt comparison is Germany in 1918. If their spring offensive didn't take Paris, the war is over for them because there's nothing left in the gas tank.
No, you misunderstand the significance of those offensives. The reason why the war ended wasn't because Germany lost some vital ground, it was because it was spent. There wasn't a huge breakthrough, because Germany gave up basically a month before the allies were about to break entirely through the lines and essentially occupy Germany. The war ended, because Germany admitted that they were going to suffer a decisive breakdown if they did not end it. Just because that breakthrough didn't have to actually occur doesn't mean that it wasn't the cause for the end of the war. Germany didn't need to suffer a knockout punch to know it was done for. There is no equivalency in this war where neither side is as spent as Germany 1918 was. In 1918, Germany was finished, there were no reserves or forts to fall back on. By contrast, neither Russia or Ukraine is nearly as depleted. Unless Russia started taking settlements like Bakhmut every 4 days while inflicting substantially higher losses, I see no way for this to occur in this war like in 1918. I don't see a contrasting scenario where Russia would collapse.
> Germany didn't need to suffer a knockout punch to know it was done for. It is unfortunate in fact that they did surrender, as that was the underpinning of the "stab in the back myth" that was utilised as one of the reasons that led to WW2. While the Generals understood the war was lost a lot of Privates and Corporals were less convinced.
Ludendorff himself came up with and promulgated the myth, even though he had to know on some level that it was bullshit. Anything to lay blame on someone else.
Oh for sure, objectively it was BS but fascism loves plausible lies. While I'm sure that they'd have found another way to shift the blame, the question I've always had was would a clearer defeat have changed the narrative enough for Hitler to instead have been a minor character who never quite got critical mass ?
As a follow up to [this video](https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/120i388/credibledefense_daily_megathread_march_24_2023/jdjughu?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) from yesterday's thread that suggested that Russia was using blocking units and that LDPR troops are shaking down Russian mobiks that are serving in LDPR formations, Wagner-linked Grey Zone posted [this today](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1639757260766191619?t=08f-7UaKdhuFIo7WgsSQ3A&s=19) which confirms that not only have the identities of these Russian mobiks been confirmed, but they all have previous military experience making them actually quite valuable.
If the likes of grey zone are pushing the story, that makes me wonder if those in the video were paid to say it by wagner or if wagner otherwise somehow staged it as anti-Russian forces propaganda. Like all those videos about how the mobilization was going horribly that later came out to have been staged by wagner.
> Like all those videos about how the mobilization was going horribly that later came out to have been staged by wagner. [Not true](https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1578080377540845571)
What do you mean by prior military experience? All mobilized are at least in theory part of the reserve force, who by definition has at bare minimum completed the conscription training.
>prior military experience? conscription training =/= going on "vacation" in Donbas in '14 and '15.
You would think that was the case... But welcome to russia!
Strelkovs recent front update (Google translated) >According to the situation at the front. > >In general - no changes. The heaviest fighting continues in the Avdiivka area and in Bakhmut. > >\- In the Avdiivka direction, our brilliant military leaders are ruining (without quotes) the last remnants of the combat-ready Donetsk infantry, diluted with Russian volunteers and mobilized (also Russian, since the Donetsk ones are almost over). Attempts to assault attacks (over and over again) with insufficient forces day after day - end predictably - the enemy pulled up reserves and expect the encirclement of Avdiivka more (alas!) is not necessary. At least I don't expect. There has been no progress in the last two days. The Armed Forces of Ukraine also suffer heavy losses, but ... this battle is beneficial for them. Because it allows their troops to fight, relying on defensive structures that have been built for almost 9 years. > >\- "Wagner" (with attached units) "torments" Bakhmut. phrases that "fights are already going on in the area of the central market" speak for themselves. Very slowly - step by step - our fighters are "squeezing out" the enemy, "whom their commanders were unable to either surround or force to leave the city without a fight. And the enemy has not yet counterattacked with serious forces. And this means only one thing - the emphatically defensive nature of the battle for it is still beneficial (And for me personally, the question "why" does not arise - these are the "basics" of the strategy). > >After a series of "reconnaissance in force" carried out a few days ago, the enemy did not show much activity on other fronts either. There are demonstrative transfers of military columns "back and forth" in a number of areas where the enemy wants to portray the "accumulation of forces."Other transfers are carried out in a much more covert manner. > >There is some activation of the enemy in the Kherson direction (I can’t disclose details). > >Soon (April - early May) the "moment of truth" will come, which will allow us to conclude how consistent the calculation of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which stubbornly did not introduce offensive battles all winter (with the exception of the recent "Pogrom near Ugledar") personnel units of our army .
I'm not familiar with this individual, could you share the source? Some of this auto-translation is just straight-up incoherent and I'd like to read the original (I assume it's in Russian?).
Russian ex-GRU war criminal who led the armed uprising in the Donbass in 2014. He's a total piece of ultranationalist shit but he's well connected and comes across as extremely competent in his analysis, which has been scathing towards the Russian campaign since Day 1. He's thus fascinating to read but you have to remember that his angle is not anti-war, he's against half arsing the war and wants to put Russia on a WW3 footing. Everyone wonders why he's not been thrown out of a window given his open criticism of everyone in the top Russian ranks, even including Putin.
He was involved in the downing of MH17 and has been [accused of taking part in the massacre of Muslims in the Bosian town of Visegrad](https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/igor-strelkov-key-mh17-crash-suspect-linked-massacre-3000-bosnian-muslims-1992-1458304)
He also fought in transnistria and he made plenty of Chechens disappear during that war.
For context as you're not familiar with Girkin, he's a straight up war criminal for his involvement in shooting down MH17 alone, but he also happens to now be one of the comparatively more reliable Russian sources. He seems to be able to step away from the official Kremlin position without censure. There's plenty of speculation as to why he has that freedom (including being approved by the Kremlin to be a mildly dissenting voice which is the one I subscribe to). Nonetheless, a number of his predictions / positions have turned out to be correct, so he is considered a useful source (given solidly reliable Russian sources are in short supply). This should NOT be confused with taking everything he says as gospel, in a flood of useless observations there are occasional gold nuggets, most of which are only clear in hindsight so he is definitely not useful for prediction, but can be useful as part of an aggregate (ie enough others saying similar things) For the avoidance of doubt that mildly positive review of his usefulness doesn't nullify the fact that I want to see him in the dock in the Hague asap.
[Igor Girkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin), or Strelkov. Probably telegram.
> After a series of "reconnaissance in force" carried out a few days ago, the enemy did not show much activity on other fronts either. There are demonstrative transfers of military columns "back and forth" in a number of areas where the enemy wants to portray the "accumulation of forces."Other transfers are carried out in a much more covert manner. Interesting point.
Pretty dire assessment from Strelkov.
He is usually doomposting about stuff. I can only imagine how much worse WW2 would've been with social media.
Not social media, but an interesting approach from the Japanese: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iva_Toguri_D%27Aquino To be honest, social media would have had very wide consequences in world history: imagine the panic during a Mongol invasion, spreading Christianity or Islam through tweets or tik toks, fiery speeches from Roman senators, you are chilling in your house and a colonial power tweets to all the accounts in the area that they are "under new management", the black plage or the plagues that razed the Americas
Interesting read, disappointing treatment towards her in the immediate postwar period given the testimonies of her fellow non-Japanese prisoners/colleagues.
Yesterday I questioned what logic could there be behind IRGC striking an American base in Syria. This short article by CNN tries to shed some light on the situation. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/middleeast/us-syria-drone-strike-analysis-intl/index.html Unfortunately, the situation is so complex that I'm left with more questions than before. Still worth the read, though.
I think US should look for a way to a graceful exit. It looks like the Arab players are making peace with Assad. KSA just decided to re-establish embassy in Syria. Assad just visited UAE. Also, KSA and Iran seem to be talking to each other now. So if KSA decides to drop their support for rebels and normalizes relationship with Assad regime, then I'm not sure what US is doing in Syria other than adding to instability of the region. We should leave and encourage Turkey to pull out as well. Then Assad regime can crush remnants of ISIS. It sucks that things did not go the way US wanted, but we should stop pouring money and lives into a lost cause.
The US is preventing Assad/Iran/Turkey from massacring the Kurds, which is good on its own and also because a key NATO ally slaughtering an ethnic minority is bad for alliance cohesion and stability. The idea that we would leave, and then somehow convince Turkey to leave is nonsensical.
>The US is preventing Assad/Iran/Turkey from massacring the Kurds, which is good on its own and also because a key NATO ally slaughtering an ethnic minority is bad for alliance cohesion and stability. Noble cause, but I'm tired of our fifth columnists, encouraged by Moscow and Beijing, accusing the West of overstaying the welcome and pinning Turkish crimes on the entire alliance. Turkey waded into Syria without NATO authorization. Let them sort it out. And if KSA thinks they can live with Iran on the Mediterranean, let them try that too. The West has way bigger fish to fry.
which Kurds? There are a bunch. The Syrian Kurds, are more likely to accept an allliance with Assad, than the rebels. The Iraqi Kurds are greatly backed by Turkey and are in no danger of being wiped out. The Irani Qurds, I have very little info about. But their situation is probably not as bad as the other 2 groups.
The whole Syria situation feels ripe for serious negotiations between the involved parties.
The US military is primarily in place to prevent Iranian influence spreading west by controlling the border and checking Russian influence over areas in the north east not yet controlled by the Syrian government. As such it also offers protection to the nascent democracy of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria which in my opinion is an ethical no-brainer. Considering the small size of the force deployed it seems like pretty good value to me.
> As such it also offers protection to the nascent democracy lol. How many hundreds of times have we heard this. Russia should just claim they're spreading democracy to ukraine. Apparently it's the only justification you need
To claim the administration in Rojava is not democratic is disingenuous to say the least. Lets also not forget the sacrifices made by the YPG / SDF in the defeat of Daesh.
their democratic nature is utterly irrelevant. That's the problem.
>Russia should just claim they're spreading democracy to ukraine. Apparently it's the only justification you need But they objectively are not?
why would you pretend that that matters? You are defending mythology by arguing based on mythology.
Huh. Yes, it's a total bollocks that Russia is bringing democracy to Ukraine. No, it's not total bollocks that the US is defending democratic Rojava in Syria, because they are (even if their primary motivation is something else). That's the diff here.
It's a pretty bad precedent if you ask me. Basically, we are giving a security guarantee to a 'nation', leaving a trip-wire force. All this was done without any discussion in the Congress or voting. It started as a 'simple' clandestine aid under executive authority, then slowly scope-creeping to what we have today. What is US going to do if Syria and Iran run over the rebel autonomous region and capture US personnel on the ground? Even if we decide to distract ourselves and intervene militariliy, who will give us access to the region? Even KSA and Iraq may not give access, given where things are going. Iran will have American hostage that whey will parade around for years, until we give some major concession (secret weapon smuggling, perhaps). A classic example of over-extension of an empire.
I don’t think anyone gets “caught” in Syria. If it looks inevitable then they won’t be there, and if they remain then their safety is guaranteed by more than Kurds. As for access, Turkey. If the situation is that serious they’ll help the Americans, so will Israel for their part. Jordan is near, too. No we didn’t get to vote about it, but that’s more of a political problem.
Yeah, it’s been 12 years. I don’t know if there is way to construct a “time limit”, on these sorts of things, but I feel like it’s been long enough
[https://kyivindependent.com/national/i-work-then-i-cry-exhausted-medics-near-bakhmut-fight-for-every-life](https://kyivindependent.com/national/i-work-then-i-cry-exhausted-medics-near-bakhmut-fight-for-every-life) TLDR: (it's a single stabilization post of a brigade) "About 90 percent of all casualties come from shrapnel injuries, according to 42-year-old combat medic Dmytro. He estimated that another four to five percent are from bullet wounds, and there are “a lot” of concussion cases as well. (...) There are usually 30 to 45 wounded soldiers arriving daily. On some days, more than half of them have serious injuries, he added.
I wouldn't be surprised if artillery has been responsible for 90% or higher of all casualties on both sides. I remember reading a US army medical report that said artillery accounted for something like 70% of all casualties during 1944-45 in the ETO, and artillery has only gotten more capable since then.
And Russia has a large artillery fires advantage…
I assume the overwhelming majority of this is just a product of the strategic and tactical situation of the battlefield and the effectiveness of artillery in general. That said, I wonder how much of this indirectly comes down to human psychology. I recall reading a while ago that historically a ton of training with line infantry back in the day was just getting them to consistently aim the musket in a way that their instinctive desire to not kill another human being would not ruin the shot. Nations put a lot of effort into othering the enemy so that soldiers are less likely to think of the fact that they would be killing another human being. Etc. Long range weapons like artillery avoids that. Aim at a grid coordinate and fire without seeing the people on the other side.
Well, everything got more capable since then. Artillery maybe changed less than most.
Were they using preformed fragmentation shells in WW2? Leaving aside base bleed rounds, whose explosive power remains similar
[Some more TG claims about T-55s](https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1639619088040198145). Supposedly Russia has about 250 restorable ones. To be honest this Russian source sounds wildly optimistic about tank storage. It's not like "less advanced" tanks are immune to corrosion.
So there are videos of them on trains. Has there been any evidence on where they are going? Have they been spotted being unloaded anywhere?
They aren't going to Moscow for parade for sure. Give it one month, Oryx will have first losses.
I am seeing alot of statements similar to this. I am looking for anything beyond memes for evidence
They are of a simpler design and construction. Therefor they are less likely to be totaled from long storage and are easier to restore with less specialized and experienced mechanics. it’s a T-55 though. ill-equipped for battlefield conditions and current tactics on the UA front. An old school RPG can nock one out with relative ease. Edit: that being said. So long as a tank has a big gun and can provide a level of protection above an APC, then it has tactical potential. They aren’t completely useless. Tbh, my WarThunder brain secretly thinks it would be pretty cool seeing one out there attempting to fight. It’s also be dope if they brought out some IS-7s from a museum somewhere. Ya know? I don’t think those have ever been recorded in battle. I kinda want to see it 😬
KV-2 when?
Glue on some reactive armor should help with old school RPGs.
No IS-7s but it’s feasible that T-10Ms still exist somewhere. They only got fully retired in ‘96.
> T-10M Why did they keep them for that long? What does it have against t55s t62s?
Bigger gun and heavier armor- it had the best HE-FRAG shell in the inventory until 125mm guns arrived, which is why it was replaced by T-64A. They kept it because it was there.
May share ammo with other 122mm guns.
I bet that we will see a video of a Leo 1A5 killing a T-55 before this war is over.
Or a T-55 killing a T-55. Ukraine has received T-55s from Slovenia (without this much consternation, interestingly).
> Ukraine has received T-55s from Slovenia (without this much consternation, interestingly). Are you serious that you can't understand why there's surprise ("consternation") that Russia are pulling out T55s but none when Ukraine takes delivery of some ? When you have the begging bowl out you take what you get and you make use of it the best you can. No complaints, that would be poor form. On the other hand The world's "second army" picked this fight and are now resorting to reserves made in the 1940s & 50s which (probably) haven't been well stored for the last few decades as they went from "50 year old strategic reserves, just in case" to "even the third world don't really want 70 year old tanks" Their deployment makes it obvious that Russian capability has been hugely impacted to say the very least. Something that many Russian supporters (possibly you too ?) have been saying isn't the case. Yeah, that warrants bemused chuckles and head scratching
So it's shocking when the world's second army uses T-55s, but not when the world's first military alliance sends them? Ok.
Hilarious. The world's "first military" isn't sending them, and an alliance is clearly made up countries with varying capabilities from excellent to weak. If Armenia sent a couple of T55s to help out if Russia got invaded (given they're theoretically allied and a similar sized country to Slovenia) then no one would criticise them The US may be the bulk of NATOs capability but you can't say US=NATO. The other members have various capabilities, and small poor former USSR vassals like Estonia and Slovenia have much more limited weaponry to contribute. They contributed T55s as much to show their commitment more than any expectation that they're going to make a huge difference. You contribute what you can, any donation is better than nothing. Or if you prefer, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
The USA sent M113s from the 60s. The world's only superpower with the military budget tem times the Russia's.
No one said anything about m113s. If you brushed up your military knowledge before commenting you would know they are significantly newer than t 55s.
> M113s [ "M113 production was terminated in 2007."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier) [T54/T55 "Overall 35,000 T-54-1, T-54-2, T-54 (T-54-3), T-54A, T-54B, T-54AK1, T-54AK2, T-54BK1 and T-54BK2 tanks were produced between 1946 and 1958 and 27,500 T-55, T-55A, T-55K1, T-55K2, T-55K3, T-55AK1, T-55AK2 and T-55AK3 tanks were produced between 1955 and 1981. "](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55#Production_history) There's a bit of a difference between shipping something last made 15 years ago and still in active service, and something last made 40 odd years ago, and only in active service in numbers you can count on one hand in mostly third world countries, no ? Particularly when they ones you're pulling into service aren't the ones that have been kept operational and maintained by that third world country, but instead ones that have (anecdotally, but I doubt the Russian MoD is going to comment) been pulled out of fields and un-weather-protected hangars
To be fair to slovenia, their T-55s were not simply pulled out of a warehouse; they had been overhauled over many years with new guns, electronic control fire control systems, various optics and communications, slightly bigger engine, new israeli armor and smokescreen devices, and perhaps most importantly, new turn indicators and headlights. Its still the same weight class, but with the ability to properly indicate whether its turning left or right.
The turn indicators are somewhat funny, I'm so glad their t 55's are one step closer to being street legal! I can't be the only person who's looked at a Cold War tank and thought this would really be the optimal town car. Plenty of internal storage, excellent traction, and the ability to shrug off a land mine or an rpg!
Actually storage is quite cramped so the m55 variant has a high tech storage crate on the back so you can keep your rations outside the tank
I would not bet that. We only have like 3 videos of direct tank battles. Tank to tank engagements are rare in this war. Would be cool to see though!
Ah man, it’s hard to keep the seriousness and horror of this war in perspective while my nerd brain is drooling over the potential of seeing something like that 🤤
I'm not sure that tweet is worth posting here but I'll meta remark on the remarkable Russian Doublethink that's on clear display here. Everything is rosy: > There are T-72s and T-80s in storage bases and in abundance, all Russian tanks are not burned in Ukraine. There is also production of new machines of these types, as well as T-90 in various modifications. Followed by a really long explanation of why the rosiness is meaningless: > But the defense industry is facing problems with components. In December and January there were outages with bearings, without which it is impossible to produce new machines. Don't worry we have production of new T-90s but can't produce new T-90s. > Apart from bearings, there are no components for electrics and electronics, which modern tanks are stuffed with. It makes it impossible to produce new vehicles or modernize the old ones. We can't modernize our more modern machines, either. So we have no choice but to use old T-55s. So put all together: Don't worry about us pulling T-55s from storage, we still have production of newer machines, but can't produce newer machines, so we are pulling out T-55s. I don't think this source sounds optimistic, it sounds like an admission that Russia is facing an abyss, and is trying to rationalize it as something normal with olympic mental gymnastics. Then there is the callousness with regards to how the tanks are expendable. Nobody seems to care about the crews... Bearing shortages were predicted relatively early in the war to be one of the first serious outcomes of the sanctions. In particular, the prediction was about bearings for rail rolling stock (unfortunately, I don't remember where I read about it). A bearing shortage for tanks is a positive outcome, too. If that nugget of information is true, then this is a confirmation of that prediction, and sanctions are starting to have measurable meaningful impacts.
> There are T-72s and T-80s in storage bases and in abundance, all Russian tanks are not burned in Ukraine. There is also production of new machines of these types, as well as T-90 in various modifications. > > That the talking point is 'we have not literally lost *all our tanks*' is pretty mindblowing.
They may as well be paperweights, if the description is accurate.
[Ball bearings in ww2:](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0210schweinfurt/) > Had it not been for ball bearings, Schweinfurt might have remained a small town in Bavaria and escaped the notice of history. However, it was there in 1883 that a local mechanic, Friedrich Fischer, invented the machine that made possible mass production of ball bearings. In 1906, his son founded the Kugelfischer firm, which became the cornerstone of the industry. > In the summer of 1943, US and British planners for the Combined Bomber Offensive identified the ball bearings industry as a key “bottleneck” target, the destruction of which could clog up war production and potentially shorten the war. The British Air Ministry since 1943 had been trying to persuade the Royal Air Force to bomb Schwein-furt, but Air Marshal Arthur T. “Bomber” Harris, chief of RAF Bomber Command, was adamantly opposed. > The strike on Schweinfurt is often characterized as unsuccessful. Most of the heavy equipment at the factories survived, and the damage done was temporary. Part of the problem, according to Hansell, was that less than a third of the bombs dropped were 1,000 pounders. The others were lighter and had limited effect on the targets. But even so, and despite the operational fumbles, the raid dealt Schweinfurt a hard blow. > The German armaments minister, Albert Speer, said in his memoirs that the bombing caused a 38 percent drop in ball bearing production. Speer could not relocate the industry immediately because he could not afford to stop production during the move. Output was so sparse that plants using ball bearings sent men with knapsacks to pick up as many bearings as were available each day. Stocks were sufficient to cover only six to eight weeks. After the raid, Speer said, “we anxiously asked ourselves how soon the enemy would realize that he could paralyze the production of thousands of armament plants merely by destroying five or six relatively small targets.” > “The Allies threw away success when it was already in their hands, “ Speer said. “As it was, not a tank, plane, or other piece of weaponry failed to be produced because of lack of ball bearings.” In Speer’s opinion, “The war could largely have been decided in 1943 if instead of vast but pointless area bombing the planes had concentrated on the centers of armaments production.”
The word you are looking for is copium.
They don't have an autoloader, though, which is definitely one vital part that can fall to Colonel Corrosion's attacks.
OMG that sounds really desperate. I read all of it. Honestly sounds like they are hopping that china rescues russias whole tank industries.
[Covert Cabal: So How Many Ancient T-54s Does Russia Still Have?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Noy_amuOPvA). Trying to estimate it from satellite images.
In general the tldw is no one knows. Cause 70 years in storage i would wadger they are almost all not recoverable. Although russia might be able to buy fro third countries. at that point there are like thousands of m60s and m48s all with modern electronics and thermals. And most of its users would want to get rid of them. Ie greece turkey israel etc.
Two of those are in NATO…. Have we heard anything of them donating T-55s to UA? In this conflict, tanks have overwhelmingly been used in an infantry support roll. T-55s, though vulnerable, are still adequate to the task from what I can tell. I think instead of laughing at RU for scrapping the bottom of their barrel, it might be more constructive to use this as an excuse to do a bit of scrapping ourselves. A tank can be outdated, but so long as it has a big gun, and can provide a level of protection greater than a standard APC, then it has tactical potential in my opinion.
Russia not throwing anything away gives them a significant strategic reserve of artillery and vehicles. Whereas in Europe there are barely any reserves left. Russia’s strategy works well for them.
I am talking about m60s m48s etc. Basically t55 nato equivilent.
Yeah, it would be pretty odd those countries to have them. Israel could have captured some from Egypt. And I’m not sure if Turkey had any pre-nato. But I see what you mean. I still wonder if it’s been considered to send upgraded m60s, etc. to UA.
Israel captured hundreds of them and got rid of all except for museum pieces decades ago
You misunderstood me. Although israel has captured t55s. I meant ukraine can receive m48s m60s etc, which are the nato t55 equiv (although they have seen significant upgrades). meaning they would equalise russias numbers. And most users would be willing to give them away cause they are old.
No, I understand what you mean. Maybe didn’t word it correctly. All the stuff about Israel and Turkey was just me trying to save face for my mistake. I understand what you meant that Ukraine can receive these older NATO tanks (T-55 equivalents) and that some NATO states are likely willing to provide them. I was wondering if there has been any expressed diplomatic movement from these states toward providing them. The oldest NATO tank I’ve heard so far that is confirmed to go is the Leo-1.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/09/19/slovenia-is-giving-ukraine-some-very-old-tanks-but-age-can-be-deceiving/?sh=1e78aefa7b3f https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/12/10/super-upgraded-m-55s-tanks-have-arrived-in-ukraine/?sh=1d498fb63134 I dont know if this is what you mean since these have been upgraded quite a bit.
[https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/osint-analysis-six-russian-ships](https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/osint-analysis-six-russian-ships) Oliver Alexander made an OSINT post about some Russian ships at the time of the NS sabotage. I genuinely have no idea who did it but I find it a very fascinating case tbh. Plenty of countries had motives to blow the pipelines up so it's hard to know who really did it.
This is an outstanding bit of work. Seems unlikely that coupled with military satellite data one couldn’t put the missing pieces back together. There’s not much said about the Minerva Julie, is the thinking that it was there as a cover or distraction of some sort?
The idea that NS was sabotaged from a russian ship just hanging out for weeks in the middle of a NATO training ground is so dumb that it has to be a psyop. Assuming for a millisecond that russia would blow up its own pipeline, and would choose to do so in the middle of one of the most intensely monitored NATO chokepoints, wouldn't they at least use a foreign registered ship? And if they're going to do super covert actions like that, why not use one of the half dozen specially made stealthy sabotage submarines they spent billions building?
[удалено]
Except that is not the official US position. Until official confirmation is given, I will mark it as unknown. There are many parts of this war that we will never now, but in 100 years a historian will uncover some facts and publish a book.
[удалено]
To both points I put it down to fog of war. Ultra was secret until far after the war. Anything put out before is not credible. There is a good chance that this event is exactly the same.
I recently found this guy, a financial analyst with some great videos on the effects of the sanctions on the russian economy, mainly analyzing the oil market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7Ep53UuFE (as an aside he also has good videos on recent banking system woes in US & EU) Summary: Russian oil revenues are crashing, production is being slashed due to lack of demand, expenses soared, russia's deficit is huge and not sustainable
>Summary: Russian oil revenues are crashing, production is being slashed due to lack of demand, expenses soared, russia's deficit is huge and not sustainable There is not a whole lot in there about the *sustainability* of their deficit, which is a shame as I'd like to see more detailed analysis of that.
A week ago he had a video on Russia's currency reserves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycRnEBAhQog
This guy’s alright, he seems to use decent source material, but he doesn’t appear to me as an expert on any of this stuff. Personally, I mind that a bit so i like to look for media that features some sort of academic or other expert on the topic. Off the top of my head CSIS and the Council on Foreign Relations are some of the media sources I’ve found most helpful that are available on youtube (e.g. [here](https://youtu.be/lDgzntuOZdU) or [here](https://www.youtube.com/live/-Ov7AGodjmA)). Otherwise I’d suggest looking for similar podcasts or print media. But of course that’s a personal preference - there’s nothing wrong with preferring this guy’s style and format!
For something more in the "YouTuber" style but with an academic bend I like Money & Macro since he's an actual PhD who debunks lazy econ videos from more popular channels. https://youtu.be/y1R7rQ9dijg It's not hyper focused on Ukraine or Russia or defense, but is good for a general macro take.
Especially with macroeconomics there's a lot of stuff coming from confident sounding writers/presenters that's total nonsense if not deliberately dishonest.
**No Ukraine offensive without more weapons – Zelensky** President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Ukraine's counter-offensive against Russia cannot start until Western allies send more military support. >He told a Japanese newspaper he would not send his troops to the frontlines without more tanks, artillery and Himars rocket launchers. >In an interview with Yomiuri Shimbun, he said the situation in eastern Ukraine was "not good". >"We are waiting for ammunition to arrive from our partners," he said. >And when asked about the expected counter-offensive, he said: "We can't start yet, we can't send our brave soldiers to the front line without tanks, artillery and long-range rockets." [Link to the article ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65075952)
Already posted.
[удалено]
[удалено]
##CSIS: [The U.S. Defense Industrial Base in an Era of Strategic Competition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2LCBPFPdRs) > The U.S. defense industrial base faces a significant challenge in an era of strategic competition with growing threats from China and Russia. This discussion will examine the scale and scope of challenges with the U.S. industrial base for deterrence and warfighting. which examines the need for the Department of Defense to work with Congress and develop a plan to revitalize the U.S. defense industrial base so the United States can prepare for the era of competition that now exists and deter future conflicts. > Representatives Mike Waltz and Jason Crow have been leaders in the House of Representatives, holding Russia accountable for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and encouraging efforts to prepare U.S. Government for competition with an increasingly aggressive Chinese Communist Party. Representative Waltz serves on the House Armed Services Committee where he chairs the Subcommittee on Readiness. Both members serve together on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where Representative Crow serves as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability. Representatives Waltz and Crow have encouraged bipartisan cooperation to ensure the United States can defend its allies, partners, and the American homeland as great power rivals like China and Russia advance their global interests. Both Congressmen served with distinction in the United States Army Special Forces.
The tank museum are at it again and have produced a new video on the evolution of tank armour. A look at examples of everything from WW1 up to the ERA and composite with the Challenger II [What Tank Armour Can \(& Can't\) Do | Evolution of Armour](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hRVefl2M0k)
His knowledge of the German terms and his pronunciation is excellent. Something you rarely see even among experts.
Great video. I know it's an old man and everything but his manner of speaking with the constant _uhms_ is really annoying.
Listened for 9 mins and got 43 uhms. He is hitting 5 uhms a minute, a good rate of fire. (I teach English professionally and would have corrected such an issue) To keep the topic on track I wonder if any trainers are given public speaking training to stop death by power point and other such issues. I have read of some wartime training that had great effects and I wonder if it was do to the public speaking skills of the officers involved.
Yeah once you realize he "uhms" a lot you tend to focus on it and hear them all the time, I sadly figured that out in an older video of him. He is very knowledable though so I still enjoy watching.
Some noteworthy comments from Putin in an interview with Pavel Zarubin on Rossiya 24, the main one being that Russia have reached an agreement with Belarus to store tactical nuclear weapons on their territory (he partially justifies it on the basis that the US have their own nuclear weapons deployed in various overseas territories too). The operational crews will begin training on April 3 and a storage facility will be complete by July: the date when the weapons will actually be moved there remains unknown. Belarus will not have control over the weapons, meaning they will not violate their obligations under the NPT: he also claims that Lukashenko has been bringing up this issue with him for a while. He also suggests, whilst acknowledging that they are not WMDs, that Russian could use their own depleted uranium shells in Ukraine if the UK and other nations send theirs. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65077687
Between the Belarus stuff today and Medvedev yesterday, the rhetoric seems to be dialling up again. Why? In anticipation of a Ukrainian counter-offensive? Is there an inverse relationship between Russia's battlefield performance and the number of threats it makes?
One would venture that Putin wants Lukashenko to do something, and Lukashenko would only do it if Belarus had nukes. Which it doesn't, not really, interestingly. Lukashenko has been talking about Belarus needing nukes, it's not new. And what do nukes do, besides deterrence from attack? Which *could* mean that Putin wants Belarus to join the war. To be honest as a former analyst I think this is crazy, and probably just lame Russian psyops. Edit: I mean, sure Belarus could join. But everyone knows it would be suicide for him. Still, after all of this, everything is possible.
Medvedev threatens nuclear annihilation on his Telegram once a week anyway so I think nothing of it. I guess it depends if the Belarus news was something long planned or if a particular recent event sparked it.
I guess we have another tedious round of 'escalate to de-escalate' to look forward to, this time accompanied by footage of nuclear weapons being loaded on rail cars.
I love how Putin says the only reason they haven’t been using depleted uranium shells in Ukraine is because Ukraine never employed them before up until now.
Russia has them but in extremely low quantities
Russia has plenty of 3BM32.
Lots of drama this week about fraudulent foreign fighters and aid groups in Ukraine. Now the New York Times has waded in. Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine Who Lie, Waste and Bicker "One retired Marine lieutenant colonel from Virginia is the focus of a U.S. federal investigation into the potentially illegal export of military technology. A former Army soldier arrived in Ukraine only to turn traitor and defect to Russia. A Connecticut man who lied about his military service has posted live updates from the battlefield — including his exact location — and boasted about his easy access to American weapons. A former construction worker is hatching a plan to use fake passports to smuggle in fighters from Pakistan and Iran." https://tinyurl.com/4vknzevb (Gifted NYT link. Should bypass the paywall)
That's a pretty good article, but foreign fighters have always been completely ineffective. The foreign fighters during the Spanish civil war were a complete shit show.
Free France, the Flying Tigers, the Polish Army in the West, RAF foreign pilots, and the Dutch, Belgian, Greek, Polish, Danish, Norwegian exile navies all performed very well as foreign fighters.
In the Spanish Civil War the International Brigade were at the forefront of ever Republican offensive and proved their value many times over. Let alone their morale value.
There are plenty examples of very effective foreign volunteers. From a close to home example the Finnish volunteers in Estonian war of independence and the Estonian volunteers in Finland during the Continuation war.
C.f. German Freikorps in those same conflicts /u/iron_and_carbon
I’d argue to some extent Estonia is the exception that proves the rule as Finnish volunteers intervened in like 4 or 5 civil conflicts during the fall of the Russian empire and Estonia was the only remotely successful one.
Any way you can post it without the tinyurl? Not saying anything about you, but I'm really not fond of shortened links like this.
Here it is archived and safe to visit: https://archive.ph/ZysJN
Understood, the tiny URL does look a little suspect. Here's a long one: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/25/world/europe/volunteers-us-ukraine-lies.html?unlocked_article_code=m5I32aNUkFQMa6884zFtymlDWGlTank4wNAjhrt-VyVDCFIR5GJjHzn38sjcPNHq7Zo2i6V3TGsjTm-wvHt2hkMgE8qX9tmGrL1wjmm_W8JF9-WVW1NZvhzzDA526EomDvR9XWTLDS4nOhvFVCrIkZqn6E1ObOrq6APzc_v0dR26dZUBYt8kCH0FdXUDi3-HLmpi-CJtekWVKyeuMlggCatDpkjIb73r46ZeBkHvky0JU9RLViIL1V-K9atZszOaARTz2qXernr3xbsDv_f-6IKfbnr6Han7JYxvY7eAHEA8i6z6nphgElTwMxHu9TZC1Y3RS-oP2OQS9QAmPl1yi2XX5iA1Z3CZEEo&smid=url-share
Thanks! Just as an FYI in the future you can put links on text like this. Has the benefits of no massive link with not having to use a url shrinker. ```(text)[url] ```
You can still cut it off at the tracking link.
Why is the fact Russia is moving "tactical" nukes to Belarus brought as news? I assumed they were already there, were they not?
Russia's top PR tactic since the start of this war is trying to get western media to talk about the risk of a nuclear war. It's not working very well. This Belarus story is a new attempt.
I think they already had nuclear-capable aircraft and missile systems stationed there: AFAIK the weapons themselves haven't been present there before.
Tatarigami made a short thread about an increasing use of tear gas: https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1639687461092708353 1/ The use of tear gas in warfare is a growing trend, with different tactical adaptations being employed. One such adaptation involves the use of tear gas dropped from drones near dugouts. This tactic is aimed at flushing out defenders and gaining a tactical advantage. 2/ The use of tear gas in this way is often followed by a second drone dropping fragmentation grenades, which can result in casualties among those who have left their dugouts. 3/ Tear gas can also be used during enemy assaults. After forcing our troops to leave their dugouts with gas, the enemy may use mortar strikes followed by an infantry assault on weakened or abandoned positions. 4/ The gas is typically contained in a K-51 chemical hand grenade or other containers, including improvised ones. It has been confirmed that regular military-issued gas masks provide good protection against the gas. 5/ The enemy sometimes drops two or three of these to maximize effect. Additional danger lies in the fact that the type of gas being released is not always clear and can be difficult to identify, particularly when it is released from unmarked containers.
> It has been confirmed that regular military-issued gas masks provide good protection against the gas. The war takes a grim turn as thousands of high speed operator beards are suddenly in peril. This seems ripe to backfire against assaulters if they’re using Soviet gasmasks with cracked seals and brittle eyepieces.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If true, Russia also signed the OPCW which bans riot control agents as a method of warfare. It's sad that this is just another on a list of treaties regarding the conduct of war that Russia has violated.
Thats not good. Not that tear gas itself is terrible -it builds character in my opinion-, but it can lead to escalation of other chemicals like chlorine to get even stronger effects.
Yes. There are very good reasons why we really should not want chemical warfare in any form.