The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

QEDdeq

Member
Not sure if Nathan Ruser's maps have been posted already? IMHO a good alternative to maps produced by mainstream media:
Nathan Ruser on Twitter: "And finally, the traditional map that I've been making since the start of the invasion" / Twitter

Basically his maps don't show territorial control, they show the movement of Russian troops. He explains why, and the issues with the "standard" maps: Nathan Ruser on Twitter: "Because a few people seem to be confused and misreading the daily Ukraine maps that I have been making, this THREAD will talk about what they do show, and more importantly what they don't show. " / Twitter

He has also other maps, e.g.
Hmm, he says yellow means 'recaptured' by Ukraine but then for example the Russian move to Voznesensk was nothing more than a quick movement of opportunity. They didn't actually occupy the area between the northern outskirts of Nikolaev and Voznesensk so that it could be claimed as recaptured. They just pushed up some recon/SF elements hoping to secure that bridge for later. They retreated after the Ukrainians counter-attacked with superior numbers, tanks and drones. I think is not factually correct to indicate an area as recaptured when it was never properly occupied to begin with.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hmm, he says yellow means 'recaptured' by Ukraine but then for example the Russian move to Voznesensk was nothing more than a quick movement of opportunity. They didn't actually occupy the area between the northern outskirts of Nikolaev and Voznesensk so that it could be claimed as recaptured. They just pushed up some recon/SF elements hoping to secure that bridge for later. They retreated after the Ukrainians counter-attacked with superior numbers, tanks and drones. I think is not factually correct to indicate an area as recaptured when it was never properly occupied to begin with.
All of these maps should be taken with a grain of salt. You notice how they show vastly different areas of control for Russia, some just along the roads and towns, some coloring in vast swathes of area. Russian control across these areas varies. I would look at where the clashes are happening far more then I would look at who controls what. If Russian troops drove through an area with no resistance, because no Ukrainian forces were nearby, that could end up on a map as "Russian controlled". If subsequently Ukrainian troops enter that town, and get photographed, suddenly the area was "recaptured". Again, just be mindful of what it means to have an area on a map shaded in. This isn't WWII where giant front lines with almost no gaps are moving across the continent.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Hmm, he says yellow means 'recaptured' by Ukraine but then for example the Russian move to Voznesensk was nothing more than a quick movement of opportunity. They didn't actually occupy the area between the northern outskirts of Nikolaev and Voznesensk so that it could be claimed as recaptured. They just pushed up some recon/SF elements hoping to secure that bridge for later. They retreated after the Ukrainians counter-attacked with superior numbers, tanks and drones. I think is not factually correct to indicate an area as recaptured when it was never properly occupied to begin with.
The "recon/SF elements" at least according to wiki (yes I know dont groan but its not a bad base to use IF the particular point you are referring to also has a source linked to it which it does in this case to the WSJ) based upon Ukrainian claims was the 126th Naval Indantry brigade with about 400 personnel, That IMO is a bit more then a recon. Not counting what other elements they may or may not have encountered as they 'recaptured' (I am unsure if there was any fighting or if the Russian forces simply pulled back that far) that particular territory.

Should point out was a 2 part battle, With the first part (2-3 March) having Russian forces pulling back and second part having them capture the town before being counter attacked and pushed back (9-13 March).

It is likely one of those battles we wont know the ins and outs fully for some time after the conflict until we can get a better understanding of what units exactly where involved and where etc
 

GermanHerman

Active Member
The "recon/SF elements" at least according to wiki (yes I know dont groan but its not a bad base to use IF the particular point you are referring to also has a source linked to it which it does in this case to the WSJ) based upon Ukrainian claims was the 126th Naval Indantry brigade with about 400 personnel, That IMO is a bit more then a recon. Not counting what other elements they may or may not have encountered as they 'recaptured' (I am unsure if there was any fighting or if the Russian forces simply pulled back that far) that particular territory.

Should point out was a 2 part battle, With the first part (2-3 March) having Russian forces pulling back and second part having them capture the town before being counter attacked and pushed back (9-13 March).

It is likely one of those battles we wont know the ins and outs fully for some time after the conflict until we can get a better understanding of what units exactly where involved and where etc
From the sources cited by wikipedia and the article itself in the first attack russia did use paratroopers too which would indicate there were even larger russian forces involved then just the naval infantry (or do they use helicopters for deployment?).

This sounds indeed like a planned attack, but the same sources state that the russian forces actualy abandoned most vehicles when they retreated instead of losing them in the battle.

It's a bit of a strange situation and begs the question how strong the forces where that actualy did capture the town?
 

QEDdeq

Member
The "recon/SF elements" at least according to wiki (yes I know dont groan but its not a bad base to use IF the particular point you are referring to also has a source linked to it which it does in this case to the WSJ) based upon Ukrainian claims was the 126th Naval Indantry brigade with about 400 personnel, That IMO is a bit more then a recon. Not counting what other elements they may or may not have encountered as they 'recaptured' (I am unsure if there was any fighting or if the Russian forces simply pulled back that far) that particular territory.

Should point out was a 2 part battle, With the first part (2-3 March) having Russian forces pulling back and second part having them capture the town before being counter attacked and pushed back (9-13 March).

It is likely one of those battles we wont know the ins and outs fully for some time after the conflict until we can get a better understanding of what units exactly where involved and where etc
My comment was not about the village of Vosnesensk itself, that in my opinion can be flagged on the map as 'recaptured' since it was occupied, or at least parts of it, for a few days by some Russian troops. It is correct to put a yellow dot on that map and say the village was recaptured. But most part of the road to Vosnesensk was used just for travel. And even that was for part of the troops only since from various sources I gathered that some of them were brought by helicopters. The road itself and the areas next to it were not occupied or captured in any sense by the Russians and therefore should not be represented on a map as being 'recaptured'.

Regarding maps, surprisingly I find the one on Wikipedia to be quite an objective and unbiased one. Pretty well updated too. I hope it wont fell victim to either side trying to hijack it.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
My comment was not about the village of Vosnesensk itself, that in my opinion can be flagged on the map as 'recaptured' since it was occupied, or at least parts of it, for a few days by some Russian troops. It is correct to put a yellow dot on that map and say the village was recaptured. But most part of the road to Vosnesensk was used just for travel. And even that was for part of the troops only since from various sources I gathered that some of them were brought by helicopters. The road itself and the areas next to it were not occupied or captured in any sense by the Russians and therefore should not be represented on a map as being 'recaptured'.

Regarding maps, surprisingly I find the one on Wikipedia to be quite an objective and unbiased one. Pretty well updated too. I hope it wont fell victim to either side trying to hijack it.
Same argument however can be made in reverse, so many maps showing Russia controlling vast swaths of land yet as the seem to rarely venture from the main roads can they really control it all. Makes it very easy for Ukranian forces to simply sneak past convoys and strike at the rear.

Thinking about it it appears the territory they control is similar to the way they did so in Afghanistan controlling main roads towns etc but little to no forces outside of them and look how well that turned out. To be fair the former Afghan government made the same mistake (allegedly on US advice) and it allowed the Taliban to take most the nation and isolate those cities/towns.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. Moody's Investors Service said it intends to withdraw its credit ratings on Russian entities, following similar moves by Fitch and S&P Global Ratings — while the Russian Army is fighting in an invasion of Ukraine, Russian consumers are fighting over sugar at home, as an iron curtain descends on Russia, with regards to trade as sanctions begin to bite.

The 15,000 KIA is roughly the official Ukrainians number, and for sure inflated, but that's the upper limit of the range they provide...
2. Thank you for your consistency in citing sources and your efforts at trying to add to the discussion. Like you, I do like Nathan Ruser's maps — they are a valued data point on what is happening.

3. Guys, just a friendly reminder to all that the Russian loss numbers reported by Ukraine’s media is nothing more than propaganda. We know that the Ukrainians have a vested interest in under reporting their losses and congratulate them on their ability to maintain OPSEC, even on the very few TIC videos that was released.

4. Third party estimates of Russian troops KIA/ WIA/ MIA/ POW have gone up since then but these are all low confidence numbers. Being aware of this fact just means we need to talk about numbers with care (proper sourcing and all that), with clear disclaimers on confidence levels.

5. There is an emerging and illogical American media narrative (by many that include Tyler Rogoway), that Ukraine ‘won’, when the fight on the front lines is a hard slog. Again, we need to be careful with such hubris in reporting. Media interest in this war is dying down and Ukrainian civilians are dying everyday. Does the Russian bombardment of Mariupol, look like victory for Ukraine? I am sure the Mariupol residents who went through this hell feel different. My heart bleeds for Ukraine but I want to remain objective about what is happening on the ground.
62E657FC-311B-4B0D-B0B7-D4B7C17E311B.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The front line is simply too long to be manned all the way, therefore some places are being "taken" and "retaken". As a reminder: the 1943 Battle of the Dnieper river involved more than 2,500,000 Soviet soldiers and more than 1,250,000 Axis soldiers (although Soviet offensive operations were then conducted as far north as Smolensk; now part of the front runs along eastern part of the Ukrainian-Belarusian border). I find interesting that the southern front line on the after-battle-map is very similar to the one we see today:


 
Last edited:

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Missing senior Putin lackies, perhaps polonium 210 flu? Probably quite a few are looking over their shoulders now, the consequences of telling Putin what he wanted to hear. Better to have told him real stuff and gotten fired compared to what they are likely to face.


Questions swirl over whereabouts of Russia's defense minister
Questions swirl over whereabouts of Russia's defense minister
With the failures Russia has had, i expect several high level lackeys will simply become too ill to make public appearances. Lavrov is the only one, that I think is 100% safe from a purge. But then again, I have no idea how Putin's inner circle works.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
1. An interesting computer sciency take on Russian-Ukrainian war "using the lens of networks and hierarchies on the Russia-Ukraine conflict":


For a quick take, scroll down a bit to the table. He touches on the US experience in Afghanistan before moving on to Russia vs Ukraine:

"Methods of American warfighting have evolved from the command-and-control approach used in most wars to Gulf War 1 towards a more network-centric doctrine, developed at the turn of the century. Americans were forced into more network-centric modes of battle when fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And yet, ultimately, the Americans were defeated, not by Al Qaeda, but the Taliban who adopted a network-centric approach to their resistance, both in terms of internal military mobilization and external funding and support."

Money quote: "Can a hierarchy smash a network? It can cause deep problems. Hitting key nodes. In the case of this war, that means casualties. But networks are resilient: suppressing them takes time, attention and long-term will. To suppress a network requires overwhelming force and patience."

Nothing new to old hands here, but I thought he couched the concept in interesting terms and a fairly succinct way that might be helpful to readers and lurkers here less familiar with the concept.

2. You know how it is when you've been thinking something for awhile but can't find anyone else thinking the same, so you wonder if you are way out in left field? I finally found someone else thinking along the same lines as I when I was puzzling over why Putin decided on this invasion of Ukraine when he did:

"If you’ve been in power for 20 years in an authoritarian state, nobody dares to contradict you anymore. You have established a system, you have become the system yourself, and you can’t imagine that the entire country doesn’t reflect that. You also can’t imagine there being anybody who could be an adequate successor. So, you have to solve all problems yourself for as long as you are alive. For Putin, Russia has long since ceased being a country in the standard sense; it is a kind of historic, 1,000-year-old body." [emphasis mine]

I don't think, never thought, this is the whole answer to that question, of course, but perhaps an important piece of the puzzle. He makes other interesting observations as well. I don't agree with everything he says and predicts, but overall an interesting read:

 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
What would also make things difficult for the Russians is the intelligence the Ukrainians must be getting. Manoeuvring troops and tanks without being noticed must be virtually impossible. Imagine how the Germans would have faired in 1943 with nightly televised footage showing the position of their troops and tanks. During the Gulf War the US made sure that it carefully controlled the media. The Russians don't have that luxury. Everything they do is videoed, tweeted and reported almost as it happens. I don't think any army has had to contend with this ... at least not on this scale.

It must be even harder for the aggressor since they are the ones who need to actually push forward. The old axiom was that the attacker needed to be at least 3 times stronger than the defender. In today's world I would hazard a guess that that number would be much higher.

I actually think the Russians are pretty much stuffed. If they move out of an area it will immediately be retaken. If there is a weak spot in there defences it will be exploited. If they build up their forces it will immediately be reported. The defenders will always know where to set up the ambushes, where to lay mines and when to fall back.

They also seem to have developed a happy knack of knowing where to find Russian Generals. So far 6 of the estimated 20 Generals sent to the Ukraine are dead. To put that in perspective five US Generals have been KIA in every single war the Americans have been involved in and that is including one who died in the Pentagon on 9/11.

I have a friend who suggested that they should drop several thousand mobile phones into Russian held territory. Not only would it be an intelligence gathering boon for the Ukrainians but you could further demoralise Russian troops when they read what has been reported on social media. Also calling relatives at home and reporting conditions could bolster the anti-war sentiments in Russia.
 
Last edited:

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Off topic thread derailment attempt — you were warned
Last edited by a moderator:

STURM

Well-Known Member
I doubt it. Both were different wars with different dynamics and operational circumstances. ATGWs in large numbers would not in my opinion have made a difference.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Keep on topic
I doubt it. Both were different wars with different dynamics and operational circumstances. ATGWs in large numbers would not in my opinion have made a difference.
It would have lead to a change in tactics and probably higher attrition on the American side. USA of course would have won the war easily, but I expect Abrams and other vehicles lost toll would be much higher.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
In the case of Iraq in 2003 they actually had pretty advanced ATGWs for that period in the form of Metis, Kornet and Konkurs. For some reason [based on news reports]ATGW usage on the.part of the Iraqis in resisting the invasion appears to have been limited and we know that in later years the main means of targeting U.S. armour were IEDs and EFPs.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Update.

Around Kiev.

Ukrainian territorial defense in action in Moschun. Some of the radio traffic suggests that this may have been friendly fire.


Explosions in or near Kiev.


Battle damage Irpen', warning footage of corpses in the first link.


Battle damage in Makarov, Kiev region.


Georgian fighters in Irpen'.


An American fighter near Kiev.


Russian General-Colonel (4-star) awarding soldiers near Kiev. I suspect this is how generals get killed.


Russian troops moving in Gostomel'-Bucha area.


The North.

Russia captured a Strela-10, and a T-72AMT, the same one that was seen earlier at the destroyed checkpoint. This is near Chernigov.


Russian A-50 and Il-22PP over Gomel'.


Kharkov-Sumy.


Russian Mi-28N operating near Kharkov.


Explosions around the southern outskirts of Kharkov. Note this is the same link as the explosions around Kiev above. Some of the videos are Kharkov, some are Kiev. Context is unclear.


Explosions in or near Kharkov. Context unclear. Some are allegedly at the airport.


Battle damage in or near Kharkov.


Alekseevka area, Kharkov, got hit.


Battle damage in Zhuravlevka from the recent Ukrainian strike, Belgorod region, Russia.


Kherson-Nikolaev-Odessa.

Ukraine is bombarding the Kherson airport. It appears some Russian air defenses are firing to intercept.


Russian Kalibr launches, targets unclear.


Ukrainian helos abandoned at Kherson airport.


Mine clearing in Kherson, more footage.


Russian security forces operating in Kherson. I suspect this flurry of activity has to do with recent protests which are relatively small yet persistent and reasonably motivated.


Contradictory info, the Russian BDK that sank/was scuttled in Berdyansk may have been the Saratov, not the Orsk. 3 Russian BDKs were allegedly damaged, the Saratov (casualty count unclear), Caesar Kunikov (8 WIA), and Novocherkassk (3 KIA, 3 WIA). Meanwhile we have contradictory information. The third video allegedly shows a fire that spread from a fuel storage point in the port and caused the incident in question, with no Ukrainian strike. This does make some sense, since Russia had recently shot down Ukrainian Tochka IRBM that was flying at Berdyansk, implying there's air defenses there. It's possible the whole thing was an ugly accident.


LDNR Front.

Fighting in Mar'inka.


Russia claims Izyum has fallen. Last confirmation had most of the town in Russian hands, Ukrainian forces holding a small sector in the south.


It looks like Slavyansk got hit again.


Wrecked Ukrainian positions and vehicles, Donbas. I think that's a destroyed MT-LB, and captured/knocked out BRDM-2.


Novoaydar, LNR area, rebel authorities are distributing passports.


Mariupol'.

Russian Marines operating in Mariupol' alongside rebel forces.


Chechen fighters in Mariupol'.


Russian forces are in the very center of Mariupol'. Warning footage of corpses.


Battle damage in Mariupol'.


7 Ukrainian Marines from the 503rd Independent Marine Btln were taken POW trying to get out of Mariupol'.


Russian Tayfun-K MRAP in Mariupol'.


DNR BTR-80 with soldiers in Mariupol'.


DNR RPG rocketman in Mariupol'.


Improvised cemetery, Mariupol'.


Ukrainian civilian in Mariupol' found near the store METRO, tied up, dead. Post claims he was captured by Ukrainian fighters, tortured, and then blown up with a grenade. Warning footage of corpses.


A Ukrainian civilian out of Mariupol'. The car exiting the city next to them ran over a landmine, and their car got hit too. Her son and husband burned alive next to her.


Civilians exiting Mariupol'. The city is in ruins, and is almost completely uninhabitable.


Misc.

Russian airstrike against a Ukrainian military truck storage facility. Location unclear.


Allegedly Ukrainian SAM taken out by Krasnopol guided artillery shell. I honestly can't make out what got hit.


Ukrainian 2S1s on trailers, destroyed by a Russian strike.


Two abandoned Ukrainian MT-LBs towing Rapira anti-tank guns.


Allegedly a Ukrainian UAV went down over Russia.


Ukrainian 2S7 allegedly captured.


The first 10 for 10 prisoner exchange has taken place between Russia and Ukraine.


Ukrainian troops formed up in what appears to be a school, location and context unclear.


More Chechen volunteers heading to Ukraine.


Ukrainian soldiers with Igla MANPADS, context and location unclear.


Assorted footage of Russian and rebel forces.


Allegedly German fighters in Ukraine. Context and location unclear.


Ukrainian twin-Maxim guns with reflex sights.


Military jeeps provided as aid by the UK to Ukraine are being sold on online auction sites.


More poletaping, this time to a tree. Context unclear.

 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Update.

Around Kiev.

Ukrainian territorial defense in action in Moschun. Some of the radio traffic suggests that this may have been friendly fire.


Explosions in or near Kiev.




Russian Kalibr launches, targets unclear.

Some guys have been connecting this explosion to the Khalibr launches. According to them 4 explosions happened at the same time, one in dnipro, one in slaynsk and one in Kharkov. And they are claiming that one got intercepted in Myokolaiv. they did not release any source, so no way to verify, but if these large explosions happened in a short enough time frame, they could very well be the result of this salvo.

And also what are the Russian sources saying regarding the Irpen counter offensive? I saw videos of International soldiers near there today.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
It would have lead to a change in tactics and probably higher attrition on the American side. USA of course would have won the war easily, but I expect Abrams and other vehicles lost toll would be much higher.
Not necessarily. Take Iraq as pointed out they already had access and made zero difference which indicates that it isn't so much if ATGM's are present but how the force using them is fielding them and the force they are up against how they are set up.

In the US and most other nations infantry works heavily with tanks providing a solid screening element that can make it difficult at best if not impossible at worst for an ATGM to be utilised as intended. The Russian BTG in comparison while heavy on MBT's, IFV's, MLRS, SPG, Artillery, SAM's etc have a much smaller infantry component which limits their ability to provide a screen by extension allowing a properly trained ATGM team a far easier time in picking off vehicles small and large.

At the end of the day it isn't the weapons but rather how you organise and employ the assets you have. The Russian army is still heavily designed around the past perceived large scale tank warfare and it's structure makes it difficult for it to adapt to different situations.
 
Top