S-70 lost over Ukraine

fdcg27 said:
While Russia may ultimately reach a negotiated agreement yielding them some gains, at what cost in lives, hardware, national wealth and future relations with the developed world?
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty important that Russia gains nothing. If they gain anything at all it will only encourage them to do this again to someone else. The one exception I would consider is "enough territory to bury their dead". That would be symbolic of the futility of the whole thing.

They've done this before. A good example was their invasion of Finland in '42. In that episode the world said "stop that" but no-one did anything to help the Finns - who were eventually outflanked when the Baltic froze and they ran out of artillery shells.
 
Pablo said:
Not a lot of chance there. Both sides are NOT good. Putin is only worser, way worser, sure.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help the Ukrainian peoples. We should, but at what cost? This is why this conflict is so nasty, IMHO. If Ukraine was straight up GOOD, by all means.

Anyway, yeah, may Russia fail utterly. Period.
Click to expand...
I think Zelenskyy and the average Ukrainian who opposes russian rule are pretty good! It seems there's not much point of winning the cold war, and then letting a Putin led Russia re-establish something worse than the soviet union?
Also I bet 95% of the money given to Ukraine, has to be spent either directly in the US or in other NATO countries. Also lots of countries in the region have ordered lots more weapons from the US. I think the US will come out pretty good financially.
 
fdcg27 said:
It seems to me that a major part of Russia's failure to achieve more in Ukraine is that they lack a strong cadre of junior officers and non-comms and those that they have are not allowed to make tactical decisions on the ground.
Remember how many general officers Russia lost early in the war? What were these guys doing anywhere near the front?
Another puzzling question involves how easily Ukrainian forces have penetrated Russian territory and held it with little opposition. How can this be?
There may be limits to the effectiveness of just throwing men and hardware into a fight and hoping that the country you're invading runs out before you do. While Russia may ultimately reach a negotiated agreement yielding them some gains, at what cost in lives, hardware, national wealth and future relations with the developed world?
Russia had made of itself a pariah for decades to come.
Click to expand...
Oh man, don't get me started on that. Few weeks ago I gave lecture on that at USAFA.
NCO's don't exist (pretty much) in Soviet/Russian doctrine. It is a cultural thing. Everything is heavy top-down. 2nd Lt. needs permission from Lt., who needs permission from Capt, who needs permission from Major, who needs..... There is no tactical decision-making in real time.
So, how did UKR defended Kyiv in first days of invasion? NCO's!!! Since before 2014, but especially after 2014, NATO, and especially the US, has heavily emphasized NCOs in developing a new UKR military. In real time tactical decision making was emphasized. That is what save UKR in first few days.

Russians, like I said, are heavy top-down. The lower you are in the food chain, the higher probability you will be blamed for something so that others or the political elite can get away with it. Example: Few years ago SU-34 crashed at take-off into building. They killed a bunch of people, pilots ejected. They immediately arrested pilots, 2nd day they accused them of negligence. Why? To save that perception of institutional stability, power etc, among their people. It is never the fault of elite! They "always know the best!"

As for Russian doctrine currently, it is complicated. The question is: do they care about being pariah? I would say: No. Two fold reason: 1. They simply don't care. 2: Soviet doctrine is to create problems. Problems makes you party at the table. They can always sell story to their own people how they are "superpower!" My former boss, who is the foremost expert in military leadership, in conversation about the Russian invasion of UKR (this was the day after it happened), said that Russians are really good at suffering. I would say: 100% right. The question is: do we have patience they have?
 
IndyIan said:
... there's not much point of winning the cold war, and then letting a Putin led Russia re-establish something worse than the soviet union?
Also I bet 95% of the money given to Ukraine, has to be spent either directly in the US or in other NATO countries. Also lots of countries in the region have ordered lots more weapons from the US. I think the US will come out pretty good financially.
Click to expand...
A lot of the money given to Ukraine is "in kind." For example, you give them artillery shells (which they need) and you charge their cost against the "money you've given them". That results in turnover of your munitions stockpile, and jobs for your defense industry workers to replace all those artillery shells, which benefits the gifting nation almost as much as Ukraine.

The Russian military has been weakened, and their once feared military is seen to be not so fearsome. And what a testing ground for tactics and military equipment! Who would have thought that precision artillery, anti-tank mines and drones would play such a big role in a future conflict.

The ones paying the biggest price are the Ukrainians who are killed or injured. Supporting them is not a lot to ask. And all NATO countries are chipping in.
 
From the beginning of this war, I thought it was going to be a long drawn out war with the goal of the countries "supporting" Ukraine being to bleed down Russia's ability to start another war for a very long time. To that extent, a quick total stopping of Russia going into Ukraine at the beginning would have not accomplished that.

The US knew long enough before the first tank entered Ukraine that they were going to invade. IF the US had wanted, that invasion could have been turned into a turkey shoot with absolutely no Russian anything getting a mile into Ukraine.

Also, I think many don't care at all about Ukraine. It's the old enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or in this case, let's bleed out the Russian military equiptment, manpower, economy, and maybe even get lucky and inspire a change in their government. Though it's kind of a coin toss as to weather or not a change in the Russian government would be an improvement.

Payback is a B!÷(=.

Russia, and ( the US and many allies ) have a long history, and it ain't about exchanging great gifts at Christmas every year.

Throw in Russia openly expressing desires to have many countries that are on land that once was a part of Russia, and it's a no brainer for those countries to utilize this war to bleed down Russia.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the US Civil War, both sides were seriously considering surrendering to the other side, and wondering how bad the concessions would be that they would have to give up in doing a surrender. We all know that the South surrendered, but few know that Grant was getting ready to surrender.

It may be likewise with the Ukraine vs Russia war. It may have to get to a point where both sides are seriously thinking of surrendering, before real talk of ending this war happens. Some wars do end this way.
 
The only way any war ends is one side making the political decision that it is not worth it to continue fighting. No country has fought until there was no one left.

Would Russia have quit if there were massive Ukrainian defenses assisted by whatever they wanted (except troops) from the West right at the border from the outset? Unlikely. Fighting at the border means that they have ready access to resources inside Russia, and they could send more and more tanks and troops until eventually breaking through. "Defense in depth" is a sound strategy. It isn't nefarious to fall back a bit and allow the enemy into your territory, so that you can then isolate and encircle them.
 
Last edited:
mk378 said:
The only way any war ends is one side making the political decision that it is not worth it to continue fighting. No country has fought until there was no one left. Would Russia have quit if there were massive US-Ukrainian defenses right at the border? Unlikely. Fighting at the border means that they have ready access to resources inside Russia, and they could send more and more tanks and troops until eventually breaking through. "Defense in depth" is a sound strategy. It isn't nefarious to fall back a bit and allow the enemy into your territory, so that you can then isolate and encircle them.
Click to expand...
A killing field can be set up to be MANY miles wide. When properly set up nothing and no one makes it across, no matter how much is thrown at it and no matter how many days, weeks, or months. It's a virtual wall.

Interesting, such a killing field was set up at the end of the Korean war, but for a very unusual reason. North Korea had a LOT of troops trained in Gorilla Warfare. Those trained troops were a problem to North Korea. They were too much of a threat to the North Korea Goverment to have them around after the war. So, North Korea agreed on an end to the war, but part of that agreement was that the US and South Korea would help North Korea dispose of all of those trained Gorilla Fighters. North Korea let the US and South know that there would be a non-stop massive attack for 3 days and where that attack would happen. And for 3 days the US Bombed that killing zone as thousands and thousands tried to attack by going across it. Not one made it all the way across, and not one made it out alive.

And while this massive killing field was small compared to what would have been required to be a virtual wall to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the idea is the same.
 
Last edited:
edyvw said:
T72, compared to Abrams, had obsolete targeting equipment. At that time, the Yugoslavian M84 was probably the best version of the T72, considering it had Western and YU targeting equipment and much stronger engine. I have seen both in action, and they are serious stuff since they are small, have a low profile, and pack a serious punch (125mm). However, the problem is with auto-loading and ammo position. M1 is not without weaknesses. It is a large tank, it is easy to spot, etc. But, like all western tanks, it has separate ammon compartment with exhaust to vent out the fire and allow the crew 20-30sec to bail out.
So far in UKR it seems Leopard and Challenger are proving most effective.
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised if the M1's sent over were not fitted with the same level of armor plating which the US uses.
 
fdcg27 said:
It seems to me that a major part of Russia's failure to achieve more in Ukraine is that they lack a strong cadre of junior officers and non-comms and those that they have are not allowed to make tactical decisions on the ground.
Remember how many general officers Russia lost early in the war? What were these guys doing anywhere near the front?
Another puzzling question involves how easily Ukrainian forces have penetrated Russian territory and held it with little opposition. How can this be?
There may be limits to the effectiveness of just throwing men and hardware into a fight and hoping that the country you're invading runs out before you do. While Russia may ultimately reach a negotiated agreement yielding them some gains, at what cost in lives, hardware, national wealth and future relations with the developed world?
Russia had made of itself a pariah for decades to come.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the Russian strategists are waiting for winter, and hope to encircle the Ukrainian forces, doing a repeat of Stalingrad some 82 years later.
 
Number_35 said:
I wonder if the Russian strategists are waiting for winter, and hope to encircle the Ukrainian forces, doing a repeat of Stalingrad some 82 years later.
Click to expand...
In Stalingrad they fought army not equipped and accustomed to harsh winters. Ukrainians are fighting on their own soil and also know winters.
There is no “winter advantage “ here.
 
edyvw said:
In Stalingrad they fought army not equipped and accustomed to harsh winters. Ukrainians are fighting on their own soil and also know winters.
There is no “winter advantage “ here.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Hitler expected a quick victory, and once that didn't happen, Goering committed the Luftwaffe to the impossible task of supplying Von Paulus's encircled army with sufficient supplies - from the air.
 
Number_35 said:
That makes sense. Hitler expected a quick victory, and once that didn't happen, Goering committed the Luftwaffe to the impossible task of supplying Von Paulus's encircled army with sufficient supplies - from the air.
Click to expand...
Also, take into consdieration that training of Russian recruits is absolutely abysmal. Theya re realying on recruits from far east, minorities, prisoners etc. They are not recruiting people from financial centers like St. Petersburg or Moscow as they want to keep illusion of peace.
 
ecotourist said:
I think it's pretty important that Russia gains nothing. If they gain anything at all it will only encourage them to do this again to someone else. The one exception I would consider is "enough territory to bury their dead". That would be symbolic of the futility of the whole thing.

They've done this before. A good example was their invasion of Finland in '42. In that episode the world said "stop that" but no-one did anything to help the Finns - who were eventually outflanked when the Baltic froze and they ran out of artillery shells.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that aggression must not be rewarded.
My idea of a negotiated settlement would be status quo ante, IOW formalize Russia's annexation of Crimea, Russia vacates all other areas of Ukraine, including its fake republics, give them about half of their sequestered foreign holdings back, with the rest going to Ukraine as reparations and agree to allow at least limited resumption of trade in at least crude and natural gas, with a more gradual resumption of broader trade but maybe not technically sensitive goods absent a decade or so of good Russian behavior.
Ukraine's membership in NATO would be left between the member states and Ukraine as would any accession to EU membership.
IOW, Russia gains nothing it didn't already have and still loses a lot, as is fitting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
A chronological record of events?
Replies
3
Views
3K
andyd
Back
Top Bottom