- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,041
Russia is not actively controlling the airspace over western Ukraine. Between western AEW and surviving Ukrainian SAMs, Russia can't fully control the skies.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
It depends upon the flight track of the aircraft. If it stays within NATO airspace until it crosses the Ukrainian border then Russia can't do anything about it. And to quote the Supertramp song, it might take the long way home.
Even for low to medium level threads Ukrainian abilities are shrinking. It's the same as with old soviet artillery systems. There is no resupply. At some point, they will run out of missiles and there is of course attrition.
Probably better to plan for alternatives now. AFAIK they were promised one IRIS-T battery from Germany and NASAMs from US/Norway (how many escapes me at the moment). Both of those systems are low-midrange.
Potential suppliers for more capable systems : China, India, Israel, France or the US. Realisticly only the US could deliver in the near future and may be willing to do so.
Last edited by a moderator:
The PRC wouldn't deliver because they are supporting Russia, plus they would be a security risk. That leaves France, Norway, Sweden, Isreal and the US.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Put this only to shown Russian unlike some Western Analysts put on regrouping after controlling all Lugansk, seems continue to push their momentum in Donetsk. Thus they seems did not want to let Ukrainian much time to regroup their defense, on what's left of Donbas area under Ukraine control.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,046
Seversk is a small town, and unlikely to be a major resistance point. Anything is possible in principle but I suspect the current Ukrainian front line of Artemovsk-Soledar-Zvanovsk-Seversk is unsustainable. There next major urban centers left in Donetsk region are Slavyansk-Kramatorsk and Artemovsk/Bakhmut (one town two names), nothing else for Ukraine to hold on to. In principle Russia should be able to roll westward across the Donbass, and push into Zaporozhye-Dnepropetrovsk area next, possible at Pavlograd (the one next to Dnepropetrovsk, not the one between Lisichansk and Severodonetsk). To me the logical next major battle is Kharkov. However Russia may choose to take Zaporozhye first, or even aim for Nikolaev as you have speculated. I honestly don't know, whichever it is, it won't be pretty.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I believe everyone outside Russia inner circle can only guess what Russia will do if they manage to take all Donbas. My suspicion is depends on what condition of Ukraine army in Donbas (this Joint Force Operation) will be. If it is still more or less intact, thus Ukraine JFO practically doing well manage regrouping, perhaps Russia will consolidate first around Donbas area they just took.
However if it is practically routed, and most probable they push back to Zaparozhye and Pavlograd, then Russia will use their momentum to chase them. After all this is still the most capable forces Ukraine Army has.
I put Nikolayev just my speculations on two things (Russian aim):
1. Ukraine now talk on second front in Nikolayev-Kherson, and counter offensive to reclaim Kherson. By moving to Nikolayev, they want to deal on this Ukraine second front.
2. Nikolayev is the last large port Ukraine has beside Odessa. Taking Nikolayev will put Odessa in very edge. Moscow can use that to push Kyiev to the bargaining table on their term. "Either talk to me now on my term, or facing loosing all your ports".
Then again I always say everything depends on how Donbas fight and the condition of Ukraine force in Donbas. If they are routed, not manage regrouping, then practically Russia open to goes anywhere. Otherwise Ukraine will still have large standing army that regrouping to create realistic counter move.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
That is definitely a military action by said third country, thus legally Russia can attack and not be the aggressor.
What IS a bit murky is how arms deliveries must be made to make them legally protected. But that's unrelated to the topic.
Not really that murky. Selling, gifting or loaning weapons and munitions is simply a service for all intents and purposes, as long as their is no UN resolution against it and all the paperwork done correctly then it is entirely legal and I don't see Russia having the votes to ever get a UN resolution placing an arms embargo on Ukraine.
A military base or even civilian infrastructure being used however to launch any form of military action even defensive in nature makes that site a legitimate military target.
In reality had Ukraine had a more capable military and resources to back it up they would legally be well within their rights to attack Belarus as it has and is still being used as a location to launch ground and air attacks into Ukraine.
Also the UK (CAMM/Land Ceptor) & Italy (CAMM-ER/Evolved SPADA).
I think not no resupply for Soviet-calibre artilllery: just nowhere near fast enough. I don't think Poland et al are still relying on >30 year old ammunition stocks for their Soviet-era artillery. They've made or bought some new shells. There are factories in Slovakia & Poland able to make 122m and/or 152mm, I think, & possibly others, but they're not necessarily making any at the moment, or in the necessary quantities. It was reported by the BBC a few months ago that only one factory in NATO was making 152mm shells. And they're all dumb shells AFAIK.
Ukraine had ammunition factories, but at least one has been attacked by the Russians. I'm not sure if any artillery ammunition is being made in Ukraine now.
That would be ROMARM in Romania. They produce HE shells only in 152mm and 122mm for the Romanian Army in limited quantities. I wouldn't expect more than a few 10,000 rounds for Ukraine to be available from that source this year.
Thanks.
MSM group in Slovakia advertises 122mm & 152mm, as well as 125mm tank ammo, but presumably it's made to order, & there'd be a lead time to start up.
ARTILLERY AMMO | MSM GROUP
Poland was reported to be placing a small order for 152mm ammunition last year, but I don't know who got it, & the number quoted was tiny: 1500 rounds. The Polish ammunition makers which used to make Soviet calibre artillery ammuntion seem to have dropped it: no mention on websites.
MSM group in Slovakia advertises 122mm & 152mm, as well as 125mm tank ammo, but presumably it's made to order, & there'd be a lead time to start up.
ARTILLERY AMMO | MSM GROUP
Poland was reported to be placing a small order for 152mm ammunition last year, but I don't know who got it, & the number quoted was tiny: 1500 rounds. The Polish ammunition makers which used to make Soviet calibre artillery ammuntion seem to have dropped it: no mention on websites.
HIMARS in Ukraine
1. It is my belief that the US needs to send up to 18 HIMARS (aka 3 batteries) to Ukraine by June 2023 but the limitation is not just about sending more rockets or rocket launchers.
2. The Ukrainian Army is a complex organisation that needs many different capabilities layered in function, range, time and impact.
4. As the war turns into an artillery slug fest, the US has sent 4 HIMARS systems, on top of 100 M777s & these are sharing the field with World War I-style trenches & repurposed old motorcycles.
1. It is my belief that the US needs to send up to 18 HIMARS (aka 3 batteries) to Ukraine by June 2023 but the limitation is not just about sending more rockets or rocket launchers.
2. The Ukrainian Army is a complex organisation that needs many different capabilities layered in function, range, time and impact.
(a) The delivery of HIMARS is an addition of one layer, in an larger national and military deterrence framework. IMO, Ukraine’s sense and strike capabilities in the depth of the enemy is ultimately limited.
(b) Without the needed C4SIR system, the Ukrainian Army can’t feed enough intelligence on the depth of the enemy, on a daily basis, to their HIMARS batteries. At this stage of the war, the Ukrainian Army need mass, not just silver bullets (such as the MGM-140 ATACMS, that Ukrainian Army supporters are irrationally screaming for).
(c) The Australian Army is also buying HIMARS. And, the Australian Army will receive the long-range variant of the HIMARS rockets for an important strike and deterrent capability. Australia is a partner in the longer range Lockheed Martin PrSM precision strike missile, that I believe Ukraine should not and must not be given access to. With the future Lockheed Martin PrSM, an Australian HIMARS battery can deliver 500+ km ballistic missiles on target.
3. There are a lot of people looking at weapons effects on a battle & in the video below, the presenter explains HIMARS for the layman.New video claiming the first use of HIMARS near Shyroke (from www.liveuamap.com):
Video reportedly showing the first combat use of HIMARS in Ukraine Ukraine - Ukraine Interactive map - Ukraine Latest news on live map - liveuamap.com
Video reportedly showing the first combat use of HIMARS in Ukraine. Live Universal Awareness Map Liveuamap is a leading independent global news and information site dedicated to factual reporting of a variety of important topics including conflicts, human rights issues, protests, terrorism...liveuamap.com
The distance from the indicator on the map, to the bridge at Kozatske is ~94 km. The max range of the M31 munition is 84 km (wikipedia). Other parts of the southern front are close enough to the Kosatske and Kherson bridges to be within M31 range. Im not sure if the 200 lb warhead is capable of knocking out a span of those bridges (the Kosatske bridge appears to be a dam, but I cant be sure from the pics I have seen).
4. As the war turns into an artillery slug fest, the US has sent 4 HIMARS systems, on top of 100 M777s & these are sharing the field with World War I-style trenches & repurposed old motorcycles.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,055
It's been far more then a HIMARS deployment though. Its coupled with a new tactic, that pairs Tochkas and even old El'brus missiles with newer HIMARS to deliver strikes specifically against Russian logistics, in an attempt to nullify the vast advantage in artillery and long range fires.3. There are a lot of people looking at weapons effects on a battle & in the video below, the presenter explains HIMARS for the layman.New video claiming the first use of HIMARS near Shyroke (from www.liveuamap.com):
Video reportedly showing the first combat use of HIMARS in Ukraine Ukraine - Ukraine Interactive map - Ukraine Latest news on live map - liveuamap.com
Video reportedly showing the first combat use of HIMARS in Ukraine. Live Universal Awareness Map Liveuamap is a leading independent global news and information site dedicated to factual reporting of a variety of important topics including conflicts, human rights issues, protests, terrorism...
The distance from the indicator on the map, to the bridge at Kozatske is ~94 km. The max range of the M31 munition is 84 km (wikipedia). Other parts of the southern front are close enough to the Kosatske and Kherson bridges to be within M31 range. Im not sure if the 200 lb warhead is capable of knocking out a span of those bridges (the Kosatske bridge appears to be a dam, but I cant be sure from the pics I have seen).
4. As the war turns into an artillery slug fest, the US has sent 4 HIMARS systems, on top of 100 M777s & these are sharing the field with World War I-style trenches & repurposed old motorcycles.
The general idea is to keep pushing giving your enemy no time to pause and regroup, but you have to have the men and material on hand to be able to do it.
As we well know Russian logistics haven't been a startling success during this war and if the Russian Commander doesn't have the logistical support, how far can he go before he comes to a grinding halt? They are succeeding in enveloping large Ukrainian forces and annihilating them which surely must be the mission goal, and they are no advancing quickly and far enough. They lack enough momentum and winter is coming; and they are wasting both men and material using Soviet CONOPs, strategies, tactics, and C2 from the 1980s, plus the systemic corruption endemic within the Russian military, political class, and military industrial complex.
By rights within 2 weeks of the war starting the Russians should have been in total control of the whole country, with the Ukrainian military a smashed smoking ruin on the battlefield and Ukraine a beaten nation that was a nation no longer but just another Russian Oblast. Didn't turn out that way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Something they did very well in WW2
and they had the resources; even then they often had to pause because of logistics issues and the fact that the Germans who were always outnumbered; were inflicting horrendous casualties. By 1944 the Soviets were facing serious manpower issues.
A question I have is that even if the Russians from Day One had sound logistics and were not hampered by highly flawed political assumptions which had an impact on operational planning; would they still have succeeded given that for the past decade or so they trained and equipped units for small wars of a limited duration [similar to what was faced in Georgia, Syria and the Donbas]; planners never thought they'd have to conduct a major strategic offensive of this magnitude.
Russian TOEs also reflected the type of wars they expected to fight. The Battalion Tactical Group a prime example. These were ideal for the Donbas campaign but as Lester Grau mentions in his book the Russians were never under any illusions that Battalion Tactical Groups were ideal for every war; yet for the Ukraine invasion Battalion Tactical Groups were the norm.
Last edited:
Most of the war it was literally the opposite, Barbarosa had 4 million german soldiers and Soviet Union had 2.5, its one of those myths like "Winter defeated Germany", or "it was Hitler fault that we lost", many generals in the new german army of the GDR had to cover the truth in the same fashion they created the "gentlemen war" myth of the Africa Korps and of course Erwin Romel figure.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,059
No. The RKKA (Workers and Peasants Red Army) had ~5.5 million at the start of the war. I don't know where you're getting 2.5 from. The Germans often had a number advantage locally because they had better recon and better ability to concentrate forces effectively.
And how many were on the West?
A good chunk of the Soviet Army was in Siberia until Germans were close to Moscow cause the feared japanese attack. Im talking about the Barbarosa itself, no the total numbers since then German one would be bigger too adding the rest of armies in other fronts like Africa. + all the allied countries of Germany like Italy, Romania, Hungary ...