The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

seaspear

Well-Known Member
There have been a lot of claims about material losses by Russia that might explain the use of civilian vehicles covered in light plate being used as troop transport ,understanding the impact of drone warfare in this war should be critical to any military observer.
This paper by Doctor Malloy published in the Australian Army Research Centre outlines many lessons to be learnt
This article also goes into both sides use of drones in this war with a conclusion that the present development of artificial intelligence would counter much of the jamming used
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Do you ever question why Russian forces have resorted to using golf carts and motorcycles for assaults and logistics?
First off I have to wonder if you've read the thread. This question has been discussed and questioned many times, including by me.

Second off I think we have to separate these things out because they happened at different times. As late as 2023 Russian forces were routinely using BMPs and MT-LBs for front-line logistics. Slowly but surely the availability of armored vehicles for this sort of thing shrank. Russian forces remained mechanized but had to conserve armored vehicles for actual combat. By early-mid 2024 unarmored vehicles had taken over all logistics. Now in late 2024 we have a handful of cases where it appears unarmored vehicles were used to carry assault teams. This suggest depletion of armored vehicles in some units.

However the use of motor-bikes and ATVs on the front lines started as far back as 2022 in some cases, and Russian forces have reported that they can use them in places and situations where an armored vehicle wouldn't get through. It's faster to dismount and run for cover from a motorbike then out of a BMP. And their movement speed can be considerably greater. Additionally some Russian assault elements have been very small, pairs or 4-man teams. Two bikes carrying two soldiers each in some scenarios is actually safer then a 4-man team riding a BMP. Additionally it means that if the assault fails the casualties are lower.

And has the weather been so bad that SU27/34/35s are unable to fly? And F16s can’t compete? Has there been any air to air duels? Surely The Russian Airforce with all their advanced radars and satellite tracking knows where the F16s are. Why don’t they just blow them up?
It's not a binary situation. It's not that either they're completely unable to fly, or that there are some restrictions on their operations impacting op-tempo. For the purpose of measuring strikes we typically rely on Ukrainian data because Russia isn't really putting out good data, at least that I'm aware of. Now consider the FB post above regarding strikes. It actually explains everything, the decrease, the perceived decrease, and even the problematic Russian military culture.

On the question of the F-16, it was addressed by another poster above as to whether they can compete or not. But as far as we can tell there have been no air "duels", mostly because wars aren't fought in duels, and partly because it appears Ukraine has been hiding their F-16s in Romania and Poland. They seem to be based out of there, dip into Ukraine for a quick mission, intercept some Russian inbounds, and then do their maintenance abroad. We did see a Russian strike on Starokonstantinov that apparently killed some foreign instructors that were training Ukrainian ground crews on the F-16. Some reports claim that one or more F-16s were damaged/destroyed in that strike. Starokonstantinov has HAS all over the place so it's also not always possible to tell from satellites where the jets are.

Does anyone wonder why they are using truck as an assault vehicle?
Yes. Many people are wondering. Hence my post.

It’s quite clear that Russian with a Population 4 x of Ukraine has a manpower advantage. with a NKs in Kursk it does appear they have sent special forces and some of their better units but at this stage they are restricted top operating on Russian soil. If they operate on Ukrainian soil it would open the door to other countries assisting Ukraine with troops On the ground.
It's probably far more then 4X. Ukraine's population on paper was 40+ million but Ukraine hasn't had a proper census since 2000 and has had both substantial outflow of emigrants, and very low birth rates. Then 2014 happened where Ukraine lost Crimea and a large chunk of the Donbas, including the most populated areas of Donetsk and Lugansk. Something to the tune of 2.3 million people in Crimea and 4.5 million in the Donbas. We also know that war caused a massive wave of emigration largely by the economic hardships it was accompanied by. Yet we don't see Ukrainian population numbers dip by 7+ million post 2014. I understand that Ukraine considers their territory and therefore the population to be theirs (though they don't always act like it). But for the purposes of our discussion it matters far less what's legally Ukraine's population and far more what Ukraine can tax, employ, and mobilize. In fact we have quite the opposite, Crimeans and former DNR/LNR citizens paying Russia taxes and serving in the Russian armed forces. So realistically we have a Russia with a population somewhere north of 140 million, and a Ukraine with a population in 2022 of somewhere around ~32-35 million. But since 2022 Ukraine has lost areas with another substantial amount of population including the entire northern half of Lugansk region and approximately 2/3rds of Kherson and Zaporozhye region. Also all of southern Donetsk region. Some of the population fled in the wake of Russian occupation, but much did not, and some of those who fled returned aftewards (handing out free housing in Mariupol' probably helped). We also have somewhere around 6-7 million Ukrainians as refugees in the EU right now. We also have nonrefugee Ukrainian immigrants in the EU, and the US, and also Russia, and Brazil, China, UAE, wherever else educated professionals could find jobs and leave to, to escape the war and the failing economy. If the territory controlled by the Ukrainian government today has 25 million people living in it, that's quite the success. I suspect the number is lower. Russia's population advantage is something like 6:1 and growing, as Ukraine continues to lose both population and territory.

The F-16s not being able to compete was not a Russian declaration. It was from an excerpt from an official of the Ukranian airforce. Regarding weather conditions, I think its more of the fact, that it causes poorer ISR from drones than the jets being able to fly. The Ukr front is huge, no point blindly tossing bombs.

As for golf carts and motorcycles and even more hilarious electric sccoties, its more an indication of the current level of small drone war fare and mining. Russian assaults with motorcycles and electric scooties are harder to hit with drones and when hit, cause less causalties.if I have to choose between cramping 20 men into a MTLB thats going to get obliterated from one FPV or 20 men on 20 electric scooties, I will go with the scooties.
I think terrain is a key feature. There are places you can ride electric scooters and places you can't, where you need that armored tractor. What there aren't, are places where you can ride an up-armored GAZ but can't ride an MT-LB. It's why there's a notable difference between motorcycles and ATVs being used, vs regular light trucks and pickups.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
The F-16s not being able to compete was not a Russian declaration. It was from an excerpt from an official of the Ukranian airforce. Regarding weather conditions, I think its more of the fact, that it causes poorer ISR from drones than the jets being able to fly. The Ukr front is huge, no point blindly tossing bombs.

As for golf carts and motorcycles and even more hilarious electric sccoties, its more an indication of the current level of small drone war fare and mining. Russian assaults with motorcycles and electric scooties are harder to hit with drones and when hit, cause less causalties.if I have to choose between cramping 20 men into a MTLB thats going to get obliterated from one FPV or 20 men on 20 electric scooties, I will go with the scooties.
So nothing to do with running out of vehicles? How is 2 guys on a golf cart going to over run a position compared to delivering a squad in range with 10 plus shooters?
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
So nothing to do with running out of vehicles? How is 2 guys on a golf cart going to over run a position compared to delivering a squad in range with 10 plus shooters?
Russia is running out vehicles and at some point this year or perhaps next, their refurbs wont be able to keep up with their demands. But there are still many points, where their improvised vehicles are better suited. Russia with small infantry assaults using lighter vehicles across shorter distances has been able to achieve more than their giant armoured assaults.
No matter how advanced your armoured vehicle is, a fpv to the tracks or wheels and its game over.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
First off I have to wonder if you've read the thread. This question has been discussed and questioned many times, including by me.

Second off I think we have to separate these things out because they happened at different times. As late as 2023 Russian forces were routinely using BMPs and MT-LBs for front-line logistics. Slowly but surely the availability of armored vehicles for this sort of thing shrank. Russian forces remained mechanized but had to conserve armored vehicles for actual combat. By early-mid 2024 unarmored vehicles had taken over all logistics. Now in late 2024 we have a handful of cases where it appears unarmored vehicles were used to carry assault teams. This suggest depletion of armored vehicles in some units.

However the use of motor-bikes and ATVs on the front lines started as far back as 2022 in some cases, and Russian forces have reported that they can use them in places and situations where an armored vehicle wouldn't get through. It's faster to dismount and run for cover from a motorbike then out of a BMP. And their movement speed can be considerably greater. Additionally some Russian assault elements have been very small, pairs or 4-man teams. Two bikes carrying two soldiers each in some scenarios is actually safer then a 4-man team riding a BMP. Additionally it means that if the assault fails the casualties are lower.



It's not a binary situation. It's not that either they're completely unable to fly, or that there are some restrictions on their operations impacting op-tempo. For the purpose of measuring strikes we typically rely on Ukrainian data because Russia isn't really putting out good data, at least that I'm aware of. Now consider the FB post above regarding strikes. It actually explains everything, the decrease, the perceived decrease, and even the problematic Russian military culture.

On the question of the F-16, it was addressed by another poster above as to whether they can compete or not. But as far as we can tell there have been no air "duels", mostly because wars aren't fought in duels, and partly because it appears Ukraine has been hiding their F-16s in Romania and Poland. They seem to be based out of there, dip into Ukraine for a quick mission, intercept some Russian inbounds, and then do their maintenance abroad. We did see a Russian strike on Starokonstantinov that apparently killed some foreign instructors that were training Ukrainian ground crews on the F-16. Some reports claim that one or more F-16s were damaged/destroyed in that strike. Starokonstantinov has HAS all over the place so it's also not always possible to tell from satellites where the jets are.



Yes. Many people are wondering. Hence my post.



It's probably far more then 4X. Ukraine's population on paper was 40+ million but Ukraine hasn't had a proper census since 2000 and has had both substantial outflow of emigrants, and very low birth rates. Then 2014 happened where Ukraine lost Crimea and a large chunk of the Donbas, including the most populated areas of Donetsk and Lugansk. Something to the tune of 2.3 million people in Crimea and 4.5 million in the Donbas. We also know that war caused a massive wave of emigration largely by the economic hardships it was accompanied by. Yet we don't see Ukrainian population numbers dip by 7+ million post 2014. I understand that Ukraine considers their territory and therefore the population to be theirs (though they don't always act like it). But for the purposes of our discussion it matters far less what's legally Ukraine's population and far more what Ukraine can tax, employ, and mobilize. In fact we have quite the opposite, Crimeans and former DNR/LNR citizens paying Russia taxes and serving in the Russian armed forces. So realistically we have a Russia with a population somewhere north of 140 million, and a Ukraine with a population in 2022 of somewhere around ~32-35 million. But since 2022 Ukraine has lost areas with another substantial amount of population including the entire northern half of Lugansk region and approximately 2/3rds of Kherson and Zaporozhye region. Also all of southern Donetsk region. Some of the population fled in the wake of Russian occupation, but much did not, and some of those who fled returned aftewards (handing out free housing in Mariupol' probably helped). We also have somewhere around 6-7 million Ukrainians as refugees in the EU right now. We also have nonrefugee Ukrainian immigrants in the EU, and the US, and also Russia, and Brazil, China, UAE, wherever else educated professionals could find jobs and leave to, to escape the war and the failing economy. If the territory controlled by the Ukrainian government today has 25 million people living in it, that's quite the success. I suspect the number is lower. Russia's population advantage is something like 6:1 and growing, as Ukraine continues to lose both population and territory.



I think terrain is a key feature. There are places you can ride electric scooters and places you can't, where you need that armored tractor. What there aren't, are places where you can ride an up-armored GAZ but can't ride an MT-LB. It's why there's a notable difference between motorcycles and ATVs being used, vs regular light trucks and pickups.
great explanation thankyou. I was asking this question as an earlier posted had hypothesised that Ukraine would falter very soon due to the population difference but so far they have managed to hang on admirably. Do you think the length of the war and the cost to Russia will anyway hurt Putin hold on the presidency?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
great explanation thankyou. I was asking this question as an earlier posted had hypothesised that Ukraine would falter very soon due to the population difference but so far they have managed to hang on admirably. Do you think the length of the war and the cost to Russia will anyway hurt Putin hold on the presidency?
I don't think so. Even under Putin Russia was far more democratic 15 years ago then now, and even more so 20 years ago. This war has led Russia down a path of increasing loss of both liberalism and democracy. I think the real problem will be the post-Putin transition, and it's not clear how Russian elites will handle that. I think Putin's power is secure until his death, unless something very drastic happens.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Some russian sources claim 700,000 soldiers killed or wounded, lower than the 800,000 claimed by Ukraine but still a staggering number. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.

Since the start of the full scale invasion NATO has not lost a single soldier; on the contrary, more than 350,00 soldiers have been added (Finland: wartime strength of 280,000, Sweden: wartime strength of 55,000; Poland: increased armed forces by approx. 40,000)

More than 150 modern fighter jets have been added (Sweden: 100, Finland: 64). More than 1,500 artillery systems, and several hundred MBT, and several hundred IFVs have also been added.

As for drones: the easiest and cheapest for NATO countries would be to purchase from Ukraine, they are rapidly expanding drone manufacturing capabilities.

Some NATO countries are disappointing when it comes to re-arming, in particular Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada. However some are doing the right thing and rapidly expanding: Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Sweden. Some are in between, like Norway, Denmark, Netherlands. I think the pressure will increase to spend more, and I expect the new NATO target to become at least 2.5%, perhaps even 3%. In percentage not a lot compared to what Russia is spending but we must keep in mind the much larger economies of NATO. If Germany starts spending 3% it will make a significant difference.

In other news sanctions against the Russian "shadow fleet" have finally been made, this will make it harder for russia to sell oil in the future. Treasury Intensifies Sanctions Against Russia by Targeting Russia’s Oil Production and Exports | U.S. Department of the Treasury
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Do you have anything that links the data to the dates? I'm curious because the explanations I've encountered from an otherwise trustworthy source indicate something else is going on.
The significant slowdown of (reported) use of glide bombs happened in the last week or so of November:

IMG_8427.png

The permission to strike the “old Russia” with the western long-range missiles was first reported on November 17:

IMG_8449.jpeg

Reports suggesting that Russia had moved at least 90% of their aircraft beyond the ATACMS range started appearing in August of last year:



This was also confirmed by the Ukrainian “think tank”, one of the later examples (I don’t want to scroll through looking for earlier posts when they talked aboutaccompanied by the satellite images, etc):

IMG_8451.jpeg

Some reported that it directly correlates to weather, though no certainty on the subject:

IMG_8452.jpeg

I guess it should be mentioned that it wasn’t just drop in the glide bomb usage, Shahed strikes slowed down as well.

In general I wouldn't advise arrogance against any adversary lest you end up looking like the Saudis in Yemen (or Russia during the initial invasion of Ukraine). However I suspect DPRK forces sent to Kursk region aren't representative. They probably sent elite forces, highly trained and motivated. I doubt the entire DPRK military is like this.
I don’t know about the type of guys they had sent, honestly. There are reports about some super duper troops - NK best of the best - while there are also reports that suggest the opposite. The guy I cited the other day says that the latter is the case (how would he know though?).
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Ukraine is using the drones it is manufacturing on a larger scale it seems

7 Regions we’re hit with targets at distance os 200km to 1200km from the front lines Including-

▪Aleksin Chemical Plant (Tula region): A major fire was reported after Ukrainian drones struck the facility.

▪Ammunition depots (FAB, KAB, cruise missiles) at the "Engels" airfield (Saratov region): Drones reached their targets, and explosions continue.

▪Saratov Oil Refinery: A large-scale fire was recorded.

▪Bryansk Chemical Plant: Direct missile strikes caused significant fires and subsequent detonations.

it appears their strategy is to destroy logistics bases, fuel and ammunition storage and logistics with HQ groups also being high priority targets. The Russian MoD only aknowledged the attack by 5 ATCAMS and claimed that all the weapons were shot down and there were no casualties or damage.

 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
The significant slowdown of (reported) use of glide bombs happened in the last week or so of November:

View attachment 52203

The permission to strike the “old Russia” with the western long-range missiles was first reported on November 17:

View attachment 52204

Reports suggesting that Russia had moved at least 90% of their aircraft beyond the ATACMS range started appearing in August of last year:



This was also confirmed by the Ukrainian “think tank”, one of the later examples (I don’t want to scroll through looking for earlier posts when they talked aboutaccompanied by the satellite images, etc):

View attachment 52205

Some reported that it directly correlates to weather, though no certainty on the subject:

View attachment 52207

I guess it should be mentioned that it wasn’t just drop in the glide bomb usage, Shahed strikes slowed down as well.


I don’t know about the type of guys they had sent, honestly. There are reports about some super duper troops - NK best of the best - while there are also reports that suggest the opposite. The guy I cited the other day says that the latter is the case (how would he know though?).
I think all nearly NK troops are highly motivated. They are seriously indoctrinated with SK and America being evil and their leader given god like status. He once got 15 hole in one’s during game of golf. What’s not to love and die for!
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I don't think so. Even under Putin Russia was far more democratic 15 years ago then now, and even more so 20 years ago. This war has led Russia down a path of increasing loss of both liberalism and democracy. I think the real problem will be the post-Putin transition, and it's not clear how Russian elites will handle that. I think Putin's power is secure until his death, unless something very drastic happens.
What do you think of the thesis to starting the war? I’m in Australia and the main case given in media here and from what I can gather online was twofold….ethnic Russians were treated badly in the Donbasregions and he didn’t want NATO on Russian borders ( aside for Norway, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonian and Turkey with a sea border ). At this stage, even if Russia does end up holding the lands they occupy, as a massive mistake or calculation failure to think it would take 3 days And lead to such massive losses on both sides.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
What do you think of the thesis to starting the war? I’m in Australia and the main case given in media here and from what I can gather online was twofold….ethnic Russians were treated badly in the Donbasregions and he didn’t want NATO on Russian borders ( aside for Norway, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonian and Turkey with a sea border ). At this stage, even if Russia does end up holding the lands they occupy, as a massive mistake or calculation failure to think it would take 3 days And lead to such massive losses on both sides.
I think the war started because Russian leadership realized they lost the 2014 chess game. They were stuck with Minsk Accords that Ukraine was legally obligated to execute, but would never execute, and the collective west wouldn't lift a finger. They decided they could knock all the pieces off the board and try again. I don't know that they ever realistically thought it would take 3 days. But I think a several weeks long campaign was probably what they had in mind. And in principle it wasn't a crazy idea. If Russia hadn't stopped the Serdyukov reforms and instead continued the RMA through to the logical conclusion, maybe they could have rolled over Ukraine like the US did with Iraq. Though of course western intelligence and recon support from even before the start of the invasion played a big role. I think sometime around fall of '22 Russian leadership re-oriented the goals of the war to keep all annexed territory (or as much as they could reasonable get), Ukrainian neutrality, no NATO troops in Ukraine, Ukraine militarily weak enough to never again pose a serious obstacle, and some sort of concessions to the rights of Russians and Russian-speaking populations. How much of this is realistically achievable is another question.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I think the war started because Russian leadership realized they lost the 2014 chess game. They were stuck with Minsk Accords that Ukraine was legally obligated to execute, but would never execute, and the collective west wouldn't lift a finger. They decided they could knock all the pieces off the board and try again. I don't know that they ever realistically thought it would take 3 days. But I think a several weeks long campaign was probably what they had in mind. And in principle it wasn't a crazy idea. If Russia hadn't stopped the Serdyukov reforms and instead continued the RMA through to the logical conclusion, maybe they could have rolled over Ukraine like the US did with Iraq. Though of course western intelligence and recon support from even before the start of the invasion played a big role. I think sometime around fall of '22 Russian leadership re-oriented the goals of the war to keep all annexed territory (or as much as they could reasonable get), Ukrainian neutrality, no NATO troops in Ukraine, Ukraine militarily weak enough to never again pose a serious obstacle, and some sort of concessions to the rights of Russians and Russian-speaking populations. How much of this is realistically achievable is another question.
Thanks you. Another great sum up.
 
Top