The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Larso66 · Aug 28, 2023

Does the cardboard composition make them much harder to track and shoot down?

Mark_Evans · Aug 28, 2023

Larso66 said:
Does the cardboard composition make them much harder to track and shoot down?

It most certainly does make them harder to track and shoot down. Basically left with acoustic signature.

Big_Zucchini · Aug 28, 2023

Larso66 said:
Does the cardboard composition make them much harder to track and shoot down?

Radars need strong signal return to analyze it, and signals are reflected best by conductive materials like metals. Non-reflective materials also distort the signal's phase. I'm not an expert on radars, let alone military standard ones, but a distorted phase could possibly mean more difficulty discerning multi-path signals.

To my understanding, there are many methods to achieve stealth. Some include using non-reflective materials, others use reflective materials that basically cause the signal to bounce between conductive plates many times until they're strongly attenuated.

Sycarion · Aug 29, 2023

Black Jack Shellac said:
I think you need to be prepared for disappointment.

Latest Polls

It's an interesting read. The majority of Americans believe that the attacks on Trump are politically motivated. The more they attack, the stronger he gets.

I think Europe better be prepared to carry this burden after 2024, we cannot count on the USA.

You mean the poll made by an organization whose main client is Trump and Republican + conservative politician and parties is saying that the "majority" of americans think that it is politically motivated? *gasp* Say it aint so!

Political Clients | McLaughlin & Associates

Public Opinion, Survey Research, Strategic Consulting, Media Buying for Corporate Clients and Political Campaigns.

mclaughlinonline.com

John Fedup · Aug 29, 2023

At present the US political situation after 2024 is a huge variable. Given Trump and Biden’s ages, it is possible neither will be sucking air by Nov/2024! Then there are the court cases???? For both, their VP choice could be key. Finally this discussion might be more suited for the “Russia and the West” thread.

KipPotapych · Aug 29, 2023

Pskov, about 800 (?) km from the Ukrainian border. According to “witness reports”, about 20 drones took part in the attack on the airport. 4 Il-76 aircrafts are damaged, according to the authorities. Airbase personnel was reportedly attempting to shoot down the drones with their issued firearms (the “witness reports” and the latter are from Russian sources and basically hearsay).

Russian military repelling drone attack in Pskov, four planes damaged -officials

Russia's military is repelling a drone attack at an airport in the airport in the city of Pskov in western Russia, where four transport aircraft were damaged, officials said early on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Edit: it appears that just over 700 km is about the shortest distance (via air) from any point in Ukraine to Pskov. That would account for a flight over Belorussian air space though. In fact, it seems it would be pretty hard to avoid Belarus for the flight of these birds. There is also a possibility, however remote, they flew over (some of) the Baltic states as well.

ngatimozart · Aug 29, 2023

It appears that I have made an error concerning the proliferation of NVG through out the UKR Army; my apologies. Whilst every UKR soldier on the front line isn't issued ith individual NVG, the UKR do have far more and better NVG than the Russians, and what they do have they are quite effectively using. Some of it has been supplied as part of western military aid, and there has also been crowd funding to procure more NVG for the UKR Army. They have been inventive in the use of NVG, including the use of items such as the Javelin ATGM control unit and similar capabilities to search for enemy soldiers at night. Some of the crowd funded COTS gear isn't NVG per se., but image intensifiers using IR light emissions that can be detected and tracked by the enemy, giving the enemy a viable targeting solution. The UKR appear to be winning the night war, but not as well as some, including myself, thought.

Russian sources report Ukrainian troops now have 'excellent' night vision optics supplied by the West, giving them a tactical edge in the counteroffensive, says think tank

Russian sources said the hi-tech night vision optics used by Ukraine in the counteroffensive gave a "tactical advantage," according to an ISW report.

www.businessinsider.com

Why Russian forces can’t match Ukraine’s night-vision equipment

Russian troops are failing to detect Ukrainian strikes under the cover of darkness

www.economist.com

The stealth strategy giving Ukraine the edge in counter-offensive

Western-supplied night-vision equipment allows forces to seize territory under the cover of darkness

www.telegraph.co.uk

Russia can't really fight Ukraine at night because Moscow's military is so broke and degraded it can't afford night-vision gear for its troops, war expert says

An expert told Insider that Ukrainians have an advantage in nighttime operations because they make the most of Western-provided equipment.

www.businessinsider.com

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/16/europe/ukraine-drone-night-strike-russia-intl-cmd/index.html

Russian doctrine also has a considerable component to play in their forces overall performance, regardless of whether it is day or night fighting. They found that their Battle Tactical Group (BTG) structure failed during the Feb 22 invasion and have reverted to their traditional four infantry unit types:

disposable;
line;
assault; and
specialised.

Whilst this structure is not doctrinal, it appears to be able to respond better to situational changes on the battlefield. The BTG appears inflexible (in Russian terms), was lacking:

sufficient infantry,
cohesion between units and capabilities within the BTG, and
sufficient staffing to best utilise the different capabilities that the BTG offered.

https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf

I think that if proper personnel resourcing and integration of units within the BTG was addressed, it could be a worthwhile concept. I have heard and seen various claims over time that the cooperation and communication between different battalions / regiments / brigades and divisions of the current Russian army is quite rare. They do not appear to be adequately disseminating battlefield lessons learned throughout the army, resulting in the same costly mistakes being continually repeated. Of course the Ukrainians exploit this as much as they can.

I have said more than once that the Ukrainian General Staff is performing quite well during this war, and that is not me saying just because I can. Military experts such as Gen Ben Hodges (US Army retired), Gen Philip Breedlove (USAF retired), and retired UK generals have been saying that for the last year. They should know because they are SME (Subject Matter Experts) in that field. I have been just repeating their assessment. To put it bluntly their assessment carries far more weight with me than those who think that they are strategic and tactical experts. There are those in the west who have been critical of the speed of the Ukrainian advance, but they aren't there fighting and they don't understand the battlefield in Ukraine. They expect repeats of last years brilliant offensive and they complain that the Ukrainians are fighting the NATO way.

What these people fail to understand, is that the battlefield is completely different now because the Russians have had time to dig in, fort up, and really develop their defences. It helped them that Surovikin knew what he was doing when he built the defensive lines. The Ukrainians are still fighting with one hand behind their backs because people like Biden and Scholz are being restrictive in what they supply the Ukrainians with; they aren't giving them the tools that they require to finish the job of evicting Russian from Ukrainian territory. They are just giving the Ukrainians enough to support a "frozen" battlefield. This brings me back to the complaints about Ukraine not fighting as NATO has taught them. They can't because they don't have the equipment and capabilities.

Biden has repeatedly held back from supplying them with modern combat armour and fighter jets. What he has authorised is always to little to late and even then both he and Scholz have placed restrictions on what Ukraine can use the western weaponry for. None of the US M1A1 tanks have reached Ukraine yet; the UK only supplied 14 Challenger tanks, only enough for two understrength tank companies. The Germans have supplied Leopard 2 tanks in piecemeal quantities and refuse to provide the KEPD Taurus ALCM, which the Ukrainians badly need and could put to good use. Both Biden and Scholz appear to be quite happy for Ukraine to give over territory to Russia in any negotiated peace settlement. Then there are the US domestic politics with no guarantee that the US will support Ukraine in any shape and form after the November 2024 US Presidential elections. By all accounts both the US and Germany political leaderships certainly appear that don't want Ukraine to win this war. They are punishing the victim and rewarding the war criminal invader.

I see claims on here that Ukraine is using human wave tactics against the Russians. When those posters respond to validity challenges they generally cite social media claims and some other sources that are not reputable and / or verifiable. In tracking most of the claims, the sources cited are repeating Russian disinformation which is how the Russians sow discord. Reputable, verifiable sources should be the only ones cited without posters providing a validity declaration. So if I or others question and / or disparage your sources you should provide better sources that can be independently verified, or state that the source cited is unverified etc. This includes all Russian, Ukrainian, PRC, Iranian, North Korean, Fox News, Sky News Australia sources. CNN is somewhat dodgy as well, because of its poor reporting quality.

Larry_L · Aug 29, 2023

KipPotapych said:
Pskov, about 800 (?) km from the Ukrainian border. According to “witness reports”, about 20 drones took part in the attack on the airport. 4 Il-76 aircrafts are damaged, according to the authorities. Airbase personnel was reportedly attempting to shoot down the drones with their issued firearms (the “witness reports” and the latter are from Russian sources and basically hearsay).

Russian military repelling drone attack in Pskov, four planes damaged -officials

Russia's military is repelling a drone attack at an airport in the airport in the city of Pskov in western Russia, where four transport aircraft were damaged, officials said early on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Edit: it appears that just over 700 km is about the shortest distance (via air) from any point in Ukraine to Pskov. That would account for a flight over Belorussian air space though. In fact, it seems it would be pretty hard to avoid Belarus for the flight of these birds. There is also a possibility, however remote, they flew over (some of) the Baltic states as well.

Here are a few Videos of the action at the airport. Air defense seems minimal at this location.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696645412210213243

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696641415575675078

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696640583106994389

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696634492146888795

Larry_L · Aug 29, 2023

A few odd things that popped up. In one of them an artillery unit (14th Mech) of Ukraine claims to have shot down a Russian helicopter. Unlikely, but I witnessed my brother take down a pheasant on the wing at 60 yards with an old Mauser 8mm rifle so it's possible.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696586260725342642

Ukraine displays some of the robotic devices they are creating. The one that really interests me is bottom left in the image. It looks like it could be part of a SHORAD system. It obviously has antennas of many different frequencies. Possibly it is an anti drone unit with detection and offensive capabilities.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696246072367010225

The following is a long history of Ukrainian Defense Intelligence.

Defence Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine

Defence Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine | Honest news about the army, war and defense.

mil.in.ua

KipPotapych · Aug 29, 2023

ngatimozart said:
I see claims on here that Ukraine is using human wave tactics against the Russians. When those posters respond to validity challenges they generally cite social media claims and some other sources that are not reputable and / or verifiable. In tracking most of the claims, the sources cited are repeating Russian disinformation which is how the Russians sow discord. Reputable, verifiable sources should be the only ones cited without posters providing a validity declaration. So if I or others question and / or disparage your sources you should provide better sources that can be independently verified, or state that the source cited is unverified etc. This includes all Russian, Ukrainian, PRC, Iranian, North Korean, Fox News, Sky News Australia sources. CNN is somewhat dodgy as well, because of its poor reporting quality.

What is a reputable and, most importantly, verifiable source in this case? Which one can be considered to be such making claims about the Russian “human wave” attacks?

Is Ben Hodges reliable? Other retired Generals? UK MoD? According to a mix of those, Russians were completely demoralized fighting with shovels last fall/winter and had no food or proper clothing and equipment and should be back to Russia now, if not further, because of ingenuity of the Ukrainian General Staff, as well the Ukrainian soldiers being morally prepared, properly equipped and trained (funny enough, I am not even exaggerating here for the most part and the tweets and articles in various outlets by the people mentioned above reflect just that).

Is Washington Post reliable? For example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/russias-human-wave-attacks-are-another-stepinto-hell/2023/02/14/574e7202-ac27-11ed-b0ba-9f4244c6e5da_story.html

“Keep going until you’re killed.” That’s what Andrei Medvedev recalls being told by his commanders at the Wagner Group, a private Russian mercenary army that recruits people like him out of prison to wage the Kremlin’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

This is the first paragraph and all they are providing as the reference to the “tactic” that they call “human wave attack” in the next paragraph (or the one after). Literally. They then proceed with quite a propagandistic article that bears no substance. So is WP reliable? Generally, yes, absolutely.

How about The Atlantic Council, is that organization reliable? For example:

Human wave tactics are demoralizing the Russian army in Ukraine

Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has not gone according to plan but he still hopes to win a long war of attrition. However, Russia's reliance on human wave tactics risks undermining morale within his invading army, writes Olivia Yanchik.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

While Russia enjoys significant demographic, industrial, and economic advantages over Ukraine, questions remain over the ability of the once-vaunted Russian military to achieve the Kremlin’s goals. Crucially, an apparent reliance on human wave tactics during Russia’s recent winter offensive has led to catastrophic losses which threaten to undermine morale within the ranks of Putin’s invading army.

I specifically left their link for the source they are using, which is… You guessed it, the WP article posted above, which is 2 months older than the AC article itself. They do provide more sources (after again describing what a human wave attack is and examples from the past) way later in the article, all of which reference posts on various social media.

Furthermore, is ISW reliable? They are referencing various social media reports by the Ukrainian and Russian sources, as well as claims by the UA and RU MoD’s, as well as other authorities. This is what they do literally: sum up (some of) the social media and official claims and draw their conclusion based on those claims. Just one example:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1690868922952699904

What about Reuters, is it reliable? An example was brought up by me a few days ago in regards to the Prigozhin incident where they referenced US officials claiming it was shot down via the means of a surface-to-air missile(s), while Pentagon was claiming they do not have such info and an explosive device on board may be the cause of the crash.

What about Associate Press? For example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/11/21/james-laporta-associated-press-poland-russia-missile/

Behind a paywall, so a few quotes:

The Associated Press on Monday fired a national security reporter who had provided erroneous information about a missile strike in Poland last week that resulted in a widely circulated but inaccurate news alert and story suggesting Russia was responsible for the incident.[…]

The Nov. 15 explosion in Przewodow, a Polish village near the border with Ukraine, killed two people and triggered global anxieties. Hours later, the Associated Press issued a news alert stating that an unnamed “senior U.S. intelligence official says Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland, killing two people.”

That information was apparently incorrect. Officials in Poland and the European Union later said they believed a single missile fired by Ukrainian forces had gone off course and landed over the border in Poland.

But the initial AP alert, sent to thousands of news outlets around the world, suggested a dire new escalation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Poland is a NATO member, and a Russian attack on its territory might have invoked a western military response under the treaty organization’s mutual self-defense provisions. Other news organizations quickly passed along the news.[…]

Officials at the Associated Press declined to identify LaPorta as the source of the alert. In a statement, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said, “The rigorous editorial standards and practices of the Associated Press are critical to AP’s mission as independent news organization. To ensure our reporting is accurate, fair and fact-based, we abide by and enforce these standards, including around the use of anonymous sources. When our standards are violated, we must take the steps necessary to protect the integrity of the news report. We do not make these decisions lightly, nor are they based on isolated incidents.”

Internal AP communications viewed by The Post show some confusion and misunderstanding during the preparations of the erroneous report.

LaPorta shared the U.S. official’s tip in an electronic message around 1:30 p.m. Eastern time. An editor immediately asked if AP should issue an alert on his tip, “or would we need confirmation from another source and/or Poland?”

After further discussion, a second editor said she “would vote” for publishing an alert, adding, “I can’t imagine a U.S. intelligence official would be wrong on this.”

Can there be any more bias expressed than there is in the last sentence quoted above? In an respectable organization such as AP, that is? Note that Ukrainian official position is still the Russian S-300 missile lost in Poland. That, in turn, and by the way, should cast doubt on any claimed Russian S-300 strike anywhere in the country. Has any of the proper and verifiable sources suggested that?

I can keep going and provide examples and multiples of such from the New York Times, … basically any respected and most respected organization in the world that is doing any reporting on this subject matter. It is extremely difficult to come with information that is actually reliable and nothing can be taken as fact in this environment, aside that an actual event took place (more often than not, lol, because some reported “facts” didn’t happen either).

Like I said my previous post on the subject of trust and reliability (probably just above or the previous page), there is hardly anyone out there that I trust and even then a grain of salt or two is always in mind. Our biases and perception likely do more sorting here than anything else.

I agree with most of the rest of your post (and stated basically the same previously) with a couple of exceptions. One is NVG: we can’t be serious discussing that it is a difference maker to any extent. Second is “brilliant offensive” of last year. I already commented on this subject previously. In short, there was no brilliance in it. Kharkiv was… well, there was nothing to run over, almost. Kherson was a grind and was only made possible by the great river behind the Russian troops that there was no shortage of. You cannot move tens of thousand of troops over a river such as Dnipro, occupy 40-60 km deep of adjacent land and call it dandy. In other words, like I said before, the Russians made an easy strategic retreat to the better ground. We would likely see what we are seeing today if there was no river. Or maybe the Russians would move forward. We can only speculate. So was it a brilliant offensive or an epic fail on the Russian counterparts? Could be both, of course.

Edit: Just to add, every outlet and organization I provided examples of above I, personally, find reliable. In the general sense.

ngatimozart · Aug 30, 2023

The Ukrainian army and marines are using tactics from the US Army Field Manual 7-7 According to a pro Russian field commander:

"Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the pro-Russian Vostok Battalion, observed the marines’ evolving tactics. “Instead of an armored herd in numbers exceeding the number of the defenders of Novodonetske, [the enemy] dashes on light armor as close as possible to the village, dismounts the infantry intended for the assault and [then] the armor returns for a new batch,” Khodakovsky wrote on Telegram.

What Khodakovsky described are classic mechanized infantry tactics, as detailed in the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 7-7. “If the enemy is in well-prepared defensive positions or the terrain restricts vehicle movement onto the objective, the assault is dismounted,” the field manual advises.

At The Bleeding Edge Of Ukraine’s Counteroffensive, The Ukrainian Marine Corps Switches Up Its Tactics

In and around Novodonetaske, near the border of Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk, the Ukrainian navy’s 37th Marine Brigade is switching up its tactics in order to compensate for a lack of tanks.

www.forbes.com

.

It has been noted by many commentators that the Ukrainians are using small units rather than the larger, (Company, Battalion, Regiment etc,.) units that the US and NATO would use. I would argue that the Ukrainians are forced to conduct the war this way because they don't have enough of the required equipment, (western tanks etc.,) and lack air superiority over the battlefield through no fault of their own; I have posted about the air superiority in my previous post. Hence they have had to return to non western tactics. Put it this way, if you give a cook only spam to cook with no way to heat it, you are not going to have a high class feast, but spam sandwiches, and rubbish ones at that. Cue Monty Python "Spam, spam, spam".

"Ukrainian units are now ditching plans to attack Russian positions head-on using complicated Western maneuvers and are instead wearing the enemy down with artillery and missile barrages, the Times says. Analysts told the Times that Western allies of Ukraine pushed for the Ukrainian military to adopt more aggressive offensive tactics. Western allies believe that a protracted conflict would further deplete Ukrainian ammunition supplies and play into Russian hands, the report says. But having received only weeks of training, it said Ukrainian forces were reverting to more familiar methods. Ukrainian troops are abandoning US tactics in their counteroffensive because they haven't worked

The war appears to be an attritional war and Ukraine cannot afford the casualty rate that the Russians appear to be suffering. It simply doesn't have the human capital for such a war. It is also dependant upon NATO and other friendly nations for support right across the board. This report from earlier this year discusses this attrition and the need for Ukrainian innovation. It states in its conclusion that:

"Ukraine’s Soviet-era air force needs more, better aircraft to outcompete Russia in a war of attrition. Combat losses in the past five months have cost it over 50 combat aircraft out of an original fleet of approximately 124 combat aircraft.[67] With fewer aircraft available, each plane endures more sorties and wears down faster. Without replenishment from the West, Ukraine could lose the ability to defend its airspace and target Russian ground forces, potentially allowing Russia to resume its blitzkrieg. The U.S. Air Force is divesting more than 200 A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s to make room for sixth-generation fighters, hypersonic weapons, and other systems.[68] Ukraine could use some of these aircraft—along with trainers and spare parts—particularly for close air support missions to aid Ukrainian ground forces.

Ukraine needs munitions, weapons systems, logistics, training, and intelligence at the appropriate scale. Russia still has an advantage over Ukraine in the number of munitions and the quality of some weapons systems—such as long-range artillery, advanced fixed-wing aircraft, and naval capabilities—though Ukrainian military innovation has been impressive. U.S. and other Western military aid to date has been helpful, though sometimes too slow. Moving forward, the U.S. and Western defense industrial bases will be essential for a long, grinding war of attrition."

Ukrainian Innovation in a War of Attrition

However the Biden Administration would not authorise the transfer / sale of USAF F-15 / F-16 and A-10 aircraft for use by Ukraine. Since the USAF has finally received Congressional approval to retire the A-10, it could and most likely would be a good capability to replace the UKR AF Su-25 Frogfoot losses. The Frogfoot is one tough bird, probably as equally as tough as the Warthog, however the Warthog would bring capabilities to the battlefield that the Frogfoot can't. I could think of no better use for retired USAF Warthogs.

Feanor · Aug 30, 2023

ngatimozart said:
The Ukrainian army and marines are using tactics from the US Army Field Manual 7-7 According to a pro Russian field commander:

"Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the pro-Russian Vostok Battalion, observed the marines’ evolving tactics. “Instead of an armored herd in numbers exceeding the number of the defenders of Novodonetske, [the enemy] dashes on light armor as close as possible to the village, dismounts the infantry intended for the assault and [then] the armor returns for a new batch,” Khodakovsky wrote on Telegram.

What Khodakovsky described are classic mechanized infantry tactics, as detailed in the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 7-7. “If the enemy is in well-prepared defensive positions or the terrain restricts vehicle movement onto the objective, the assault is dismounted,” the field manual advises.

At The Bleeding Edge Of Ukraine’s Counteroffensive, The Ukrainian Marine Corps Switches Up Its Tactics

In and around Novodonetaske, near the border of Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk, the Ukrainian navy’s 37th Marine Brigade is switching up its tactics in order to compensate for a lack of tanks.

www.forbes.com

.

It has been noted by many commentators that the Ukrainians are using small units rather than the larger, (Company, Battalion, Regiment etc,.) units that the US and NATO would use. I would argue that the Ukrainians are forced to conduct the war this way because they don't have enough of the required equipment, (western tanks etc.,) and lack air superiority over the battlefield through no fault of their own; I have posted about the air superiority in my previous post. Hence they have had to return to non western tactics. Put it this way, if you give a cook only spam to cook with no way to heat it, you are not going to have a high class feast, but spam sandwiches, and rubbish ones at that. Cue Monty Python "Spam, spam, spam".

"Ukrainian units are now ditching plans to attack Russian positions head-on using complicated Western maneuvers and are instead wearing the enemy down with artillery and missile barrages, the Times says. Analysts told the Times that Western allies of Ukraine pushed for the Ukrainian military to adopt more aggressive offensive tactics. Western allies believe that a protracted conflict would further deplete Ukrainian ammunition supplies and play into Russian hands, the report says. But having received only weeks of training, it said Ukrainian forces were reverting to more familiar methods. Ukrainian troops are abandoning US tactics in their counteroffensive because they haven't worked

I think there is another reason. Any large troop concentrations get hit. Around Izyum Russia had entire artillery btlns on-line with minimal dispersion firing on Ukrainian positions. Now even single batteries disperse along large distances and hide thoroughly. Ukraine is in the same boat. The proliferation of masses of very cheap UAVs make it very hard to mass forces without them getting hit and neither side has managed to successfully shutdown enemy UAS ops. Ukraine uses smaller units because if a Russian artillery element has to try and counter a platoon attack, it will cause fewer casualties and expend more shells per enemy forces committed to do it. And if it fails, it's only a platoon. Attack with platoons everywhere, eventually you find a weak spot you can exploit. You will notice, Ukraine started with larger attacks in a few locations. They failed miserably. Then they launched many smaller attacks across more areas. And suddenly there were small gains here and there. They were reinforced, exploited and led to larger gains. The cost was bloody, but there were results. Unless the ever-present quadcopter can be negated, neither side can mass large formations.

ngatimozart · Aug 30, 2023

@KipPotapych It's not about what sources you or I personally find reliable, but what the Defence Professional community find reliable. I have sources about some things but they sure aren't what I call reliable. Some of the sources that have have seen cited are less reliable and authorative than the old Battler Britain or Commando war comics. I am not joking.

"What is a reputable and, most importantly, verifiable source in this case? Which one can be considered to be such making claims about the Russian “human wave” attacks?"

There is plenty of evidence to substantiate claims of Russian human wave attacks. You just have to look at the Wagner assaults on Bakhmut as an example. Next point on this, if the Russians were not subjecting their troops to human wave attacks, then why have they been deploying blocking forces to fire on Russian troops who try to retreat?

"Is Ben Hodges reliable? Other retired Generals? UK MoD? According to a mix of those, Russians were completely demoralized fighting with shovels last fall/winter and had no food or proper clothing and equipment and should be back to Russia now, if not further, because of ingenuity of the Ukrainian General Staff, as well the Ukrainian soldiers being morally prepared, properly equipped and trained (funny enough, I am not even exaggerating here for the most part and the tweets and articles in various outlets by the people mentioned above reflect just that)."

Are you seriously disparaging and calling into disrepute the professional abilities and qualifications of those senior officers? Are you really serious? They have forgotten more about military thinking and life than you will ever know. Yes I disparage the senior Russian military leadership, but then I do have a copy of their Operational Doctrine and Tactics, which I have read. They didn't follow that. Go read it for yourself.

You are NOT a SME and are ONLY an enthusiast who apparently does not have a formal military education. You have a anti western pro Russian bias and that shows. In a free world you and everyone else are entitled to your opinions, BUT on here your opinion is TO BE INFORMED, by reputable verifiable sources. That's in the rules by the way. I know that we all make mistakes: I have been stood corrected on here more than once, most recently by @Feanor and that's how it should be.

@Feanor WRT my claim about Ukrainian Divisions, that was a mistake on my part and should have read Brigades. I shall go and place myself in the naughty boys corner.

Feanor said:
I think there is another reason. Any large troop concentrations get hit. Around Izyum Russia had entire artillery btlns on-line with minimal dispersion firing on Ukrainian positions. Now even single batteries disperse along large distances and hide thoroughly. Ukraine is in the same boat. The proliferation of masses of very cheap UAVs make it very hard to mass forces without them getting hit and neither side has managed to successfully shutdown enemy UAS ops. Ukraine uses smaller units because if a Russian artillery element has to try and counter a platoon attack, it will cause fewer casualties and expend more shells per enemy forces committed to do it. And if it fails, it's only a platoon. Attack with platoons everywhere, eventually you find a weak spot you can exploit. You will notice, Ukraine started with larger attacks in a few locations. They failed miserably. Then they launched many smaller attacks across more areas. And suddenly there were small gains here and there. They were reinforced, exploited and led to larger gains. The cost was bloody, but there were results. Unless the ever-present quadcopter can be negated, neither side can mass large formations.

That is so and the Russian military don't appear to be learning. I saw a video a few weeks back were some senior Russian officer lined his forces up outside in parade formation. Trouble was they were behind the frontline but within both Ukrainian UAV and artillery range and unfortunately for them some UKR drone driver spotted them and called in a strike. Such a waste of life and resources because of a senior officers ego. He should be shot for such stupidity.

The US Army Field Manual 7-7 does provide the tactics for use against dug in, forted up enemy supported by artillery etc., and that is small units on foot. Unfortunately I can't access an later copy because the US Army publications site appears to be undergoing maintenance. I think that both sides are having trouble negating the ubiquitous quad copters because that capability is still proving both successful and cheap. The problem from the Russian side is that they are inflexible in their command structure, doctrine and military culture, which limits their innovation and ability to respond quickly to quick changing circumstances. IMHO that inflexibility is historical, especially from Soviet and Stalin times. I also think that the lack of an educated, experienced, long serving NCO cadre has sever limiting effects upon the Russian military. Whilst the Russians use junior officers for many of the NCO / SNCO taskings, that's a waste of officer material. They won't question stupid orders.

Many of us non officer types are always very leery of a junior officer type with a map, compass, and says "in my experience ..." It is well known that officers, especially junior officers, can't read maps or drive compasses.

I an now see the commissioned officer sharks circling.

What I would find interesting is a comparison between the Russian military NCO / SNCO capabilities and culture with that of the PLA. How does the PLA troop and NCO / SNCO cadre tasks, flexibility, culture, experience etc., compare to that of the Russian military.

ngatimozart · Aug 30, 2023

Please keep US domestic politics out of this discussion. This is the wrong thread and forum for such discussions.

Big_Zucchini · Aug 30, 2023

KipPotapych said:
Edit: it appears that just over 700 km is about the shortest distance (via air) from any point in Ukraine to Pskov. That would account for a flight over Belorussian air space though. In fact, it seems it would be pretty hard to avoid Belarus for the flight of these birds. There is also a possibility, however remote, they flew over (some of) the Baltic states as well.

Simply from a physical standpoint, drones can be made sufficiently small and stealthy and simultaneously with sufficient range to reach Pskov from Ukraine.
Logically I don't see a reason to avoid Belarus considering it's technically an active participant in the war (even if it doesn't employ its own armed forces in Ukraine).
For something as little (relatively) as a few strategic transport planes, initiating an armed attack on Russia, against the potential consequences, doesn't really make a lot of sense. But the option of some form of sea-based deployment is interesting.

Iran built for itself a quite formidable naval presence by converting commercial vessels into bases of operations and drone carriers. I'm interested in seeing whether Ukraine can replicate something of the sort in the future.

vikingatespam · Aug 30, 2023

ngatimozart said:
There is plenty of evidence to substantiate claims of Russian human wave attacks. You just have to look at the Wagner assaults on Bakhmut as an example. Next point on this, if the Russians were not subjecting their troops to human wave attacks, then why have they been deploying blocking forces to fire on Russian troops who try to retreat?

Prigozhin himself gave an estimate of Wagner KIA for Bahkmut and that suggests or implies something along the lines of "human wave" or "casualty insensitive" methodologies.

There are so many anecdotal tales, its difficult to know whats true.

rsemmes · Aug 30, 2023

ngatimozart said:
@KipPotapych It's not about what sources you or I personally find reliable, but what the Defence Professional community find reliable. I have sources about some things but they sure aren't what I call reliable. Some of the sources that have have seen cited are less reliable and authorative than the old Battler Britain or Commando war comics. I am not joking.

"What is a reputable and, most importantly, verifiable source in this case? Which one can be considered to be such making claims about the Russian “human wave” attacks?"
There is plenty of evidence to substantiate claims of Russian human wave attacks. You just have to look at the Wagner assaults on Bakhmut as an example. Next point on this, if the Russians were not subjecting their troops to human wave attacks, then why have they been deploying blocking forces to fire on Russian troops who try to retreat?

"Is Ben Hodges reliable? Other retired Generals? UK MoD? According to a mix of those, Russians were completely demoralized fighting with shovels last fall/winter and had no food or proper clothing and equipment and should be back to Russia now, if not further, because of ingenuity of the Ukrainian General Staff, as well the Ukrainian soldiers being morally prepared, properly equipped and trained (funny enough, I am not even exaggerating here for the most part and the tweets and articles in various outlets by the people mentioned above reflect just that)."
Are you seriously disparaging and calling into disrepute the professional abilities and qualifications of those senior officers? Are you really serious? They have forgotten more about military thinking and life than you will ever know. Yes I disparage the senior Russian military leadership, but then I do have a copy of their Operational Doctrine and Tactics, which I have read. They didn't follow that. Go read it for yourself.

You are NOT a SME and are ONLY an enthusiast who apparently does not have a formal military education. You have a anti western pro Russian bias and that shows. In a free world you and everyone else are entitled to your opinions, BUT on here your opinion is TO BE INFORMED, by reputable verifiable sources. That's in the rules by the way. I know that we all make mistakes: I have been stood corrected on here more than once, most recently by @Feanor and that's how it should be.

@Feanor WRT my claim about Ukrainian Divisions, that was a mistake on my part and should have read Brigades. I shall go and place myself in the naughty boys corner.

That is so and the Russian military don't appear to be learning. I saw a video a few weeks back were some senior Russian officer lined his forces up outside in parade formation. Trouble was they were behind the frontline but within both Ukrainian UAV and artillery range and unfortunately for them some UKR drone driver spotted them and called in a strike. Such a waste of life and resources because of a senior officers ego. He should be shot for such stupidity.

The US Army Field Manual 7-7 does provide the tactics for use against dug in, forted up enemy supported by artillery etc., and that is small units on foot. Unfortunately I can't access an later copy because the US Army publications site appears to be undergoing maintenance. I think that both sides are having trouble negating the ubiquitous quad copters because that capability is still proving both successful and cheap. The problem from the Russian side is that they are inflexible in their command structure, doctrine and military culture, which limits their innovation and ability to respond quickly to quick changing circumstances. IMHO that inflexibility is historical, especially from Soviet and Stalin times. I also think that the lack of an educated, experienced, long serving NCO cadre has sever limiting effects upon the Russian military. Whilst the Russians use junior officers for many of the NCO / SNCO taskings, that's a waste of officer material. They won't question stupid orders.

Many of us non officer types are always very leery of a junior officer type with a map, compass, and says "in my experience ..." It is well known that officers, especially junior officers, can't read maps or drive compasses. I an now see the commissioned officer sharks circling.

What I would find interesting is a comparison between the Russian military NCO / SNCO capabilities and culture with that of the PLA. How does the PLA troop and NCO / SNCO cadre tasks, flexibility, culture, experience etc., compare to that of the Russian military.

What rank do you need to be "reliable"? If two generals provide two different points of view, not for the first time in history, which one is reliable? Was he giving his biased opinion or a cold, accurate analysis?, I haven't been talking to him.
Von Manstein was right every single time?, because of his rank? J. F. C. Fuller too?
A general (what about a lieutenant) has, certainly, a qualified opinion, that does not mean he is right; even if he were to be sincere.

"To substantiate claims" Yourself, you are using the word "claim".
"Calling into disrepute", I don't think KipPotapych was doing that. Myself, I am not going to accept something as true because a general, or a duke, says so.
"Why have they been deploying blocking forces to fire on Russian troops who try to retreat?" I have not seen those orders in writing, nor the transcript of that transmission. Are they available? I am sure Feonor can get us a reliable translation.
We shouldn't take the words of a general with a pinch of salt?
And, in my opinion, your reply to him looks a bit ad hominen.

rsemmes · Aug 30, 2023

ngatimozart said:
The Ukrainian army and marines are using tactics from the US Army Field Manual 7-7 According to a pro Russian field commander:

"Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the pro-Russian Vostok Battalion, observed the marines’ evolving tactics. “Instead of an armored herd in numbers exceeding the number of the defenders of Novodonetske, [the enemy] dashes on light armor as close as possible to the village, dismounts the infantry intended for the assault and [then] the armor returns for a new batch,” Khodakovsky wrote on Telegram.

What Khodakovsky described are classic mechanized infantry tactics, as detailed in the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 7-7. “If the enemy is in well-prepared defensive positions or the terrain restricts vehicle movement onto the objective, the assault is dismounted,” the field manual advises.

At The Bleeding Edge Of Ukraine’s Counteroffensive, The Ukrainian Marine Corps Switches Up Its Tactics

In and around Novodonetaske, near the border of Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk, the Ukrainian navy’s 37th Marine Brigade is switching up its tactics in order to compensate for a lack of tanks.

www.forbes.com

.

It has been noted by many commentators that the Ukrainians are using small units rather than the larger, (Company, Battalion, Regiment etc,.) units that the US and NATO would use. I would argue that the Ukrainians are forced to conduct the war this way because they don't have enough of the required equipment, (western tanks etc.,) and lack air superiority over the battlefield through no fault of their own; I have posted about the air superiority in my previous post. Hence they have had to return to non western tactics. Put it this way, if you give a cook only spam to cook with no way to heat it, you are not going to have a high class feast, but spam sandwiches, and rubbish ones at that. Cue Monty Python "Spam, spam, spam".

"Ukrainian units are now ditching plans to attack Russian positions head-on using complicated Western maneuvers and are instead wearing the enemy down with artillery and missile barrages, the Times says. Analysts told the Times that Western allies of Ukraine pushed for the Ukrainian military to adopt more aggressive offensive tactics. Western allies believe that a protracted conflict would further deplete Ukrainian ammunition supplies and play into Russian hands, the report says. But having received only weeks of training, it said Ukrainian forces were reverting to more familiar methods. Ukrainian troops are abandoning US tactics in their counteroffensive because they haven't worked

The war appears to be an attritional war and Ukraine cannot afford the casualty rate that the Russians appear to be suffering. It simply doesn't have the human capital for such a war. It is also dependant upon NATO and other friendly nations for support right across the board. This report from earlier this year discusses this attrition and the need for Ukrainian innovation. It states in its conclusion that:

"Ukraine’s Soviet-era air force needs more, better aircraft to outcompete Russia in a war of attrition. Combat losses in the past five months have cost it over 50 combat aircraft out of an original fleet of approximately 124 combat aircraft.[67] With fewer aircraft available, each plane endures more sorties and wears down faster. Without replenishment from the West, Ukraine could lose the ability to defend its airspace and target Russian ground forces, potentially allowing Russia to resume its blitzkrieg. The U.S. Air Force is divesting more than 200 A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s to make room for sixth-generation fighters, hypersonic weapons, and other systems.[68] Ukraine could use some of these aircraft—along with trainers and spare parts—particularly for close air support missions to aid Ukrainian ground forces.

Ukraine needs munitions, weapons systems, logistics, training, and intelligence at the appropriate scale. Russia still has an advantage over Ukraine in the number of munitions and the quality of some weapons systems—such as long-range artillery, advanced fixed-wing aircraft, and naval capabilities—though Ukrainian military innovation has been impressive. U.S. and other Western military aid to date has been helpful, though sometimes too slow. Moving forward, the U.S. and Western defense industrial bases will be essential for a long, grinding war of attrition."
Ukrainian Innovation in a War of Attrition

However the Biden Administration would not authorise the transfer / sale of USAF F-15 / F-16 and A-10 aircraft for use by Ukraine. Since the USAF has finally received Congressional approval to retire the A-10, it could and most likely would be a good capability to replace the UKR AF Su-25 Frogfoot losses. The Frogfoot is one tough bird, probably as equally as tough as the Warthog, however the Warthog would bring capabilities to the battlefield that the Frogfoot can't. I could think of no better use for retired USAF Warthogs.

"They don't have enough of the required equipment ... and lack air superiority over the battlefield through no fault of their own" They are fighting this war, who's fault is it? (They were invaded, I mean fighting to not win).
How many planes exactly do they need to win? What logistics do they need? How long for? They do not have them, I don't think it is a realistic strategy to win a war.

Feanor · Aug 30, 2023

ngatimozart said:
@KipPotapych It's not about what sources you or I personally find reliable, but what the Defence Professional community find reliable. I have sources about some things but they sure aren't what I call reliable. Some of the sources that have have seen cited are less reliable and authorative than the old Battler Britain or Commando war comics. I am not joking.

"What is a reputable and, most importantly, verifiable source in this case? Which one can be considered to be such making claims about the Russian “human wave” attacks?"
There is plenty of evidence to substantiate claims of Russian human wave attacks. You just have to look at the Wagner assaults on Bakhmut as an example. Next point on this, if the Russians were not subjecting their troops to human wave attacks, then why have they been deploying blocking forces to fire on Russian troops who try to retreat?

"Is Ben Hodges reliable? Other retired Generals? UK MoD? According to a mix of those, Russians were completely demoralized fighting with shovels last fall/winter and had no food or proper clothing and equipment and should be back to Russia now, if not further, because of ingenuity of the Ukrainian General Staff, as well the Ukrainian soldiers being morally prepared, properly equipped and trained (funny enough, I am not even exaggerating here for the most part and the tweets and articles in various outlets by the people mentioned above reflect just that)."
Are you seriously disparaging and calling into disrepute the professional abilities and qualifications of those senior officers? Are you really serious? They have forgotten more about military thinking and life than you will ever know. Yes I disparage the senior Russian military leadership, but then I do have a copy of their Operational Doctrine and Tactics, which I have read. They didn't follow that. Go read it for yourself.

You are NOT a SME and are ONLY an enthusiast who apparently does not have a formal military education. You have a anti western pro Russian bias and that shows. In a free world you and everyone else are entitled to your opinions, BUT on here your opinion is TO BE INFORMED, by reputable verifiable sources. That's in the rules by the way. I know that we all make mistakes: I have been stood corrected on here more than once, most recently by @Feanor and that's how it should be.

@Feanor WRT my claim about Ukrainian Divisions, that was a mistake on my part and should have read Brigades. I shall go and place myself in the naughty boys corner.

That is so and the Russian military don't appear to be learning. I saw a video a few weeks back were some senior Russian officer lined his forces up outside in parade formation. Trouble was they were behind the frontline but within both Ukrainian UAV and artillery range and unfortunately for them some UKR drone driver spotted them and called in a strike. Such a waste of life and resources because of a senior officers ego. He should be shot for such stupidity.

The US Army Field Manual 7-7 does provide the tactics for use against dug in, forted up enemy supported by artillery etc., and that is small units on foot. Unfortunately I can't access an later copy because the US Army publications site appears to be undergoing maintenance. I think that both sides are having trouble negating the ubiquitous quad copters because that capability is still proving both successful and cheap. The problem from the Russian side is that they are inflexible in their command structure, doctrine and military culture, which limits their innovation and ability to respond quickly to quick changing circumstances. IMHO that inflexibility is historical, especially from Soviet and Stalin times. I also think that the lack of an educated, experienced, long serving NCO cadre has sever limiting effects upon the Russian military. Whilst the Russians use junior officers for many of the NCO / SNCO taskings, that's a waste of officer material. They won't question stupid orders.

Many of us non officer types are always very leery of a junior officer type with a map, compass, and says "in my experience ..." It is well known that officers, especially junior officers, can't read maps or drive compasses. I an now see the commissioned officer sharks circling.

What I would find interesting is a comparison between the Russian military NCO / SNCO capabilities and culture with that of the PLA. How does the PLA troop and NCO / SNCO cadre tasks, flexibility, culture, experience etc., compare to that of the Russian military.

The point I was making that Russia can't afford to put an artillery btln on line, even single batteries disperse. I used this as an example to illustrate why Ukraine may also have shifted to smaller attacks. They started out with larger attacks, those failed, and they pivoted to smaller attacks. They aren't the only ones. Russian larger mechanized attacks have also been unsuccessful. But smaller units attacking strong point by strong point have allowed for gains over time (see the Oskol front).

Feanor · Aug 30, 2023

Update.

I'm going to just do Zaporozhye this time around. It's the only place we have anything happening. Near Kupyansk Russian forces have mostly halted, gaining a little ground here and there, but there is no decisive attempt to grab Sinkovka or forces the Oskol. Near Artemovsk/Bakhmut Russian forces have recaptured Klescheevka completely but don't hold the hills south-west of the village, meaning Russia's hold on their positions is tenuous. On the flip side Ukrainian forces seem to have run out of steam at least for now. Nothing has changed around Kudryumovka or Andreevka. In Mar'inka Russian attacks have stopped completely. Russia spent a long time slowly inching forward through the ruins. However this came at a considerable cost.

Zaporozhye.

In Pyatihatka Ukraine has stopped attacking. It appears they have decided they can't accomplish a breakthrough there. Ukrainian forces have also minimized efforts at the Vremyevskiy bulge. Note they still have considerable forces sitting there and are likely going to try again at some point. Note in total ground gained the Vremyevskiy bulge represents the biggest Ukrainian advance. But it's also, well, a bulge. So despite having sliced off about 60% of the total bulge (eyeball estimate on a map, don't kill me if I'm off) this doesn't promise rapid gains. Instead Ukraine has committed their last major reserves all in one big group for a breakthrough at Rabotino. After many failed attacks there in the past, Ukraine has finally pushed Russia out of the village though much of it remains in no man's land. Russia may still retains some positions in the south of the village, but if they do these are likely forward LP/OPs. Reportedly Russia's front line is now in Novoprokopovka. However advancing past Rabotino southward or south-westward was apparently impossible. Instead Ukrainian forces have concentrated in attacking towards the south-east and east towards Verbovoe and in between Verbovoe and Rabotino. Ukraine has taken some Russian positions between the villages, but the exact situation remains murky. Some sources suggest they have broken through the first Russian line there. Some not. The situation remains murky, with coming days likely to bring clarity.

Moscow calling

Бойцы ВСУ прорвали укрепления "линии Суровикина" на Запорожском направлении и приближаются к селу Вербовое. "Зубы дракона" и прочие сооружения сдерживали украинских солдат лишь около суток, — Bild.

t.me

Рыбарь

Ореховский участок обстановка по состоянию на 15.00 30 августа 2023 года У Работино из-за огромных потерь в живой силе и бесперспективности движения на юг через село командование украинской группировки скорректировало планы, оттянув силы 82 одшбр в район восточнее Работино. Совместными...

t.me

https://rybar.ru/piwigo/upload/2023/08/30/20230830153146-560a3e64.jpg

Moscow calling

t.me

Moscow calling

Первые фотографии ВСУ в Работино, ключевого узла обороны ВС РФ в 40 км от Токмака. Бои за село были кровопролитные и стоили обеим сторонам больших потерь (на крайнем фото - уничтоженный украинский танк). Судя по спутниковым снимкам, ВС РФ в настоящий момент закрепляются на линии в нескольких...

t.me

Moscow calling

Отход бойцов ВС РФ с позиций под Новопрокоповкой под артиллерийскими ударами ВСУ. Напомню, именно под Новопрокоповку, предположительно, отошли российские военные после потери Работино.

t.me

Colonelcassad

Поселок Работино в Запорожской области находится в серой зоне, заявил врио губернатора региона Балицкий. По его словам, поселка Работино «больше не существует»: населенный пункт остался нанесенным на карту, но в реальности там были такие ожесточенные бои, что стоят только остовы домов.

t.me

Moscow calling

Сообщают, что бойцы 47-й отдельной механизированной бригады ВСУ установили флаг Украины в селе Работино.

t.me

Small clip of ombat in the center of Rabotino. From the Russian side the 810th MarBde and 19th MRDiv are engaged.

VK.com | VK

vk.com

Ukrainian forces advancing on Rabotino, old footage, from about a week ago. Note the knocked out T-90M there. We've seen that tank before when Russia hit their own knocked out tank with a loitering munition, presumably to prevent it from being captured. It's unclear what the order of events here is.

VK.com | VK

vk.com

Moscow calling

Поврежденный и брошенный 7 августа российский танк Т-90М "Прорыв" в районе н.п. Работино Запорожской области (47.444028, 35.843167) добили с помощью БПЛА "Ланцет", чтобы он не достался врагу. Абсолютно логичное действие с точки зрения любой армии мира, если ты по каким-то причинам не можешь...

t.me

A Russian Ka-52 ATGM launch allegedly against a Stryker. It might be one of the ones we've seen destroyed.

Colonelcassad

«Винтокрылые Архангелы» уничтожают БМП «STRYKER» на Запорожском направлении. @rusich_army

t.me

A Ukrainian Leo-2A4 knocked out on a landmine and getting finished off by artillery north of Rabotino. Note with the nature of the fighting and configuration of the front line, it's entirely possible for a Ukrainian tank essentially behind friendly lines to still hit an uncleared mine and get hit by Russian artillery.

Colonelcassad

Вчера "Акация" из состава гаубичного самоходно-артиллерийского дивизиона 38 гвардейской бригады наградила 152мм звиздюлиной Leopard 2a4, который, судя по всему, ранее наехал на мину и загрустил вместе с экипажем где-то к северу от Работино. @voin_dv

t.me

Allegedly a Ukrainain 2S1, 2S3, M777, and M109L hit in Zaporozhye by a Russian loitering munition.

The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator