War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

(Thread IKs: fatherboxx)

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Moon Slayer posted:

Jumping on the "post things that got a bit lost at the end of the last thread" bandwagon:

Just in time for a summer offensive. These things are going to go through the Russian lines like a hot knife through butter that's been rotting in a warehouse for 30 years.

It�s interesting to see all this stuff coming together right now. Just last week 18 German Leopard 2 tanks and 40 Marder IFVs were handed over (so a mechanized battalion). It really seems like any time now a Ukrainian offensive using massed Western equipment can be attempted.

The results of that will quickly show if Ukraine has a realistic chance in 2023 of making large gains like during the Kharkiv offensive or only slow slugging offensives like in Kherson.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2023 18:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 18:51

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Icon Of Sin posted:

Jesus loving Christ, 650 dead per day would be an entire battalion rendered combat ineffective (if not destroyed outright). 4 days of that would render an entire US brigade combat team ineffective for combat ops, with 3 infantry battalions and a cav squadron (cavalry�s equivalent to a battalion).

According to that estimate it is roughly 650 casualties per day - with roughly a fifth of that being dead. So that would be 130 dead per day.

# ¿ May 1, 2023 20:05

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Vaginaface posted:

How do the quantity and quality of Ukraine's various military equipment compare to other NATO countries at this point?

Going by the numbers from ArmedForces.eu

Quantity wise for tanks and AFV: a lot lower than Turkey, similar to Greece, more than every one else.
Quality wise behind every one else in NATO (except for the newest most modern stuff just delivered).

For artillery it seems Ukraine is ahead in quantity than everyone except the US and by now has a lot of highest quality stuff, but also still has lots of lower quality stuff.

For aircraft Ukraine is behind in quantity in comparison to all bigger NATO countries and behind in quality for all of NATO.

# ¿ May 13, 2023 14:52

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Charliegrs posted:

Kinda hard to keep fighting if your supply of weapons gets cut off. Which is a very real possibility if Trump or Desantis gets elected. Especially if we are in the midst of a massive recession from defaulting on the debt ceiling.

I didn't know that the US President also dictated foreign policy for the EU and all its individual member states.

# ¿ May 24, 2023 21:26

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Storkrasch posted:

This was the original comment for context:

I'm talking about 12 months from now, when then plan supposedly produces 1 million shells per year. Today, both the EU and the US is providing shells from stocks. I was just saying that there are other suppliers than the US, and they would be able to sustain the war if they had the will. The EU alone planning to produce 40% of their current expenditure in 12 months is an example of that. Current expenditures are based on existing stocks, both on the Ukrainian and Russian side, so they are likely to come down once supply is limited by production.

This is my hot take: Trump is unlikely to become president in the next 12 months, and once he does, he's unlikely to cut of all supplies to Ukraine from every source. Those sources could probably sustain the war, if the will to do so exists.

I'm pretty sure you meant this, but to make it 100% clear: If Trump or Desantis cut off all aid to Ukraine as their first act as president, that won't happen 12 months from now, but 20 months from now.

So still lots of time for a ramp up of military production to happen, not to mention that obviously a lot of stuff will have happened in the war until then, considering that the current phase of the war is only 15 months old.

# ¿ May 25, 2023 14:50

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Ynglaur posted:

Any explosion that blows out windows 80km away would be tens of thousands of kilos of TNT. I've heard 10,000 pounds of explosives go off when I was 15km away. It's loud as gently caress but didn't know break any windows.

This didn�t happen. Supposedly some windows 80 km away were rattled. Windows right next to the dam are intact.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2023 05:43

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

lilljonas posted:

Meanwhile, in the real world, the act of sending cluster munitions is being critizised by pretty much every relevant NGO, which could be expected. But also by most governments supporting Ukraine's war effort, including countries like Spain, Germany and the UK. A UK, mind you, that was ready to send MBTs to Ukraine when the US still said they were off limits. A UK that sent Storm Shadows when the US said that longer range missiles were off limits. Hardly the dove faction of the coalition supplying Ukraine with weapons.

With that said, there is clearly room to support sending cluster munitions to Ukraine. Obviously, the national leadership of the US and Ukraine both deemed it necessary. But that position is, internationally, in the minority. There are a lot more actors that are opposed to this act. And not just internet posters, but national governments, which I hope have a little bit more insight in the matter than D&D.

The official German position is more nuanced than that. As Germany is a signatory of the Oslo treaty banning cluster munitions, the government is not able to support delivery of cluster munitions. However, the government has expressed �understanding� why Ukraine would want and the US deliver cluster munitions.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2023 20:06

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

daslog posted:

Isn't that how the US ended WW2? Or is this a goon joke?

Yes, it was the more than 100k civilian deaths in a single city in a single night that lead to the surrender of Japan in WW2. They did surrender in March 1945, right?

# ¿ Jul 10, 2023 17:43

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Small White Dragon posted:

I'm not from the EU but I have a hard time imagining this happening. Per wikipedia, sounds like Turkey would be the EU's most populous country and have the most parliament members.

EDIT: Plus, don't all EU members have to approve? Pretty sure the Greeks would not be up for this.

There are quite stringent requirements with regards to having a working democratic system, independent judiciary, human rights support, free and open media, etc. Since Erdogan took over, Turkey has been consistently been moving away from meeting those requirements.

If Turkey wants to get into the EU, step one would be getting rid of Erdogan�s and his party�s stranglehold over Turkey�s political system.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2023 23:32

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Nenonen posted:

Yep, it's just shameful when Bundeswehr doesn't even have reliable rifles.

The key difference though is that NATO would dominate the airspace, and air reserves are a lot quicker to call up than big ground formations because they can operate from bases in Germany, Poland, Finland etc. Baltic Sea has also become a NATO lake now so Russia's Baltic Fleet can't do much. So rapid deployment forces might be enough on ground until more forces are mobilised.

And looking back into the preparation for the invasion of Ukraine, Russian deployment was painfully slow to the point of confusing observers. I believe they had genuine problems with putting together attack formations, and despite extra time not all of those issues were solved. If Russia was going to attack any NATO territory it wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Germany is planning to permanently base a full brigade in Lithuania. In the future, there will be no need to mobilize from Germany before having boots on the ground there. Up until now, only a tiny staff was stationed there, with units scraped together and transferred for exercises in the Baltic states. Starting in 2026 or so (infrastructure needs to be built), roughly 4000 German soldiers (+ families) will be right on the frontline of any shenanigans in that area.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2023 05:54

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

As far as I can tell its less of a training issue (although that is a issue for something like a minefield breach while under attack) and more of a lack of GBAD to defend and/or their own air force to attack the Russians with.

I can't remember which Ukraine thread it was in, but a summary was posted that said very clearly that it very much is a training issue. More specifically it is the issue that the Ukrainian military is not capable of performing combined armed operations on a level larger than a company or so.

To be fair, they said that probably many NATO states weren't able to do so as well.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jul 21, 2023

# ¿ Jul 21, 2023 15:22

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Starsfan posted:

^^I'm not recommending him for his political commentary, only that his work in reviewing what Oryx does has been recommended by others as a critique of their methodology and presumably that work can be reviewed and considered on the face of the evidence provided.

lol I don't follow his account, like I said he is referenced by other people when this question comes up. I wasn't aware that he is apparently a pedo?

Oryx provides a reasonable floor of losses on both sides. What they don't provide is a ceiling or a real estimate of the overall losses. However, if the floor is already in a relatively critical or significant amount then that is still very useful information.

If there were any evidence that Oryx are double and triple counting losses then that would change, as they would then no longer provide a floor of losses.

I haven't seen any evidence of that being the case in any significant amount.

Do you have any?

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jul 25, 2023

# ¿ Jul 25, 2023 20:40

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Starsfan posted:

The war has been going on for 500 days now, I was relating that I had seen evidence which questioned the veracity of the Oryx analysis (which all of you initially seemed open to) and then when asked to provide an example unfortunately I picked a bad one it seems. I can't recall at this point where that information was posted or even when to be honest.

yes it is possible if I spent more time searching that I would have found more or different information.

You made very specific accusations: That Oryx is unreliable as a source for providing a floor of losses, because they are counting photoshopped images, single losses multiple times, and counting Ukrainian losses as Russian:

Starsfan posted:

I've observed evidence and arguments that Oryx has been shown to accept photoshopped images, multiples of the same equipment being destroyed from different angles (and sometimes not from different angles) photos of Ukrainian equipment which is claimed to be Russian . Their verification process appears to have serious shortfalls.

You say you "observed" this.

Do you have any evidence that you can show?

# ¿ Jul 25, 2023 21:10

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

The fact is that nobody knows the true depths of Russian reserves, including the Russians

Well not completely unknowable. Many of their depots are above ground, without roofs and tarps. So it would be theoretically possible to look at satellite images from before and more recent times in order to see what is happening.

Luckily we live in 2023 and there is a Youtuber doing exactly that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVqHY5hpzv8
Of course, some of the satellite images are relatively old and bad quality. Luckily we live in 2023 and another Youtuber (Perun) has apparently ordered some satellite overflies in order to get newer, better pictures of some of those depots, so we should get better numbers "soon".

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jul 25, 2023

# ¿ Jul 25, 2023 21:23

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

Yeah, we can see their depots, but:
- how much of the stuff in there works? How much labor and resources would the inoperable equipment take to activate? How can you tell superficial damage from hollowed out husks on satellite imagery?
- if they've removed let's say 20% of their mothballed gear, does it mean they are 20% through their stocks ? Or have they been activating their first rate reserves first and perhaps the remaining 80% is rusted scrap metal?
- how much can they manufacture to repair the equipment that doesn't work? How much has been looted and sold off in the past 30 years?

Yes, there are still many open questions (which is also mentioned in the video). However, generally you would expect the best equipment to be taken first and the worst equipment last. In addition (as also mentioned in the video), a lot of the equipment could also be used for spare parts (especially barrels - barrels are only good for a few thousand rounds each at most, so firing 30k rounds a day�.). So even if equipment is still there - but moved - that could be because the usable parts were taken out and the rest is scrap. So again, it is more of a floor of how many reserves Russia still has.

Some of the depots are almost untouched (or even slightly increased), but others have almost been emptied. The 94th Arsenal had more than 1400 towed artillery pieces befire the war - now there only 159 left. In total they counted 12345 towed artillery pieces visible before the war, 7500 now and 5093 self-propelled artillery pieces before the war and 4408 now. Again, as mentioned many of those left have been obviously moved and parked again much more haphazardly - draw your own conclusion about what that might mean.

Starsfan posted:

I don't have anything further to provide at this time. I did view evidence of comparisons of photographs with links to the Oryx site for reference which seemed compelling to me at the time, but I can not locate that analysis now. I'll retract my statement that I have specific knowledge or awareness of instances where Oryx has accepted manipulated or inaccurate data, which was likely irresponsible for me to make in the first place given the circumstances.

Thank you for retracting your statement. I hope you will refrain from making similar evidence free statements in the future.

# ¿ Jul 25, 2023 22:32

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

MikeC posted:

It's a tough call right now. As I posted about a month ago, the Ukrainians are probably going to have to make a tough call about pulling their chips back from the rail and save them either to counter an anticipated Russian winter offensive or continue to send in infantry probes and hopefully develop better conditions to try and unleash a new offensive. Most observers on both sides agree that the Ukrainians retain a significant percentage of well equipped units that were prepared for this attack

What does Russia have in the pipeline that would enable them to lead a winter offensive?

Last year they had the partial mobilization. This year they have nothing so far.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2023 14:21

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Wibla posted:

I hope they're collaborating about improvements to the design to make it more maintainable over time.

Most of the maintenance is replacing barrels.

Peace-time barrel life is 1000 rounds. Ukraine is apparently often shooting hundreds of rounds per day per Pzh2000. The barrels have supposedly still been usable after shooting up to 10k rounds.

This problem is inherent to artillery, and probably why Russian artillery pieces are rapidly disappearing out of depots. Shooting tens of thousands rounds per day means using up dozens of barrels per day.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Aug 14, 2023

# ¿ Aug 14, 2023 07:39

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Kennedy posted:

No need to preface it!

I think you're right overall - that them explaining the details of the operation puts them at risk of their overall aid package being diminished due to political pushback etc. But I wonder if there's something else at play here - whether there's a war goal that is being moved forward by being so open about it. Does being open about the operational details force the Russians to change _something_ that the Ukrainians can then exploit later? i.e move forces, change detection techniques etc.

I imagine they've thought of the political loss here, and have come to some conclusion that their war goals - or the impact of this disclosure - will overall be a bigger gain to them than the potential political loss.

Well, if Ukraine had proper long range missiles and the platforms to launch them from, then they wouldn't need to go to such extreme lengths in order to attack one of the most important logistical bottlenecks on the Russian side of this war.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2023 22:23

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

KillHour posted:

I hope this isn't Clancy chat but I really enjoy the effort posts by equipment experts so I'm wondering, given that we have already escalated from shells and small arms to MBTs and F16s - is there a thing that we COULD give Ukraine that would drastically change the calculus of the war? Everyone seems to agree with this being good but relatively modest in overall impact, so I'm wondering what (if anything) would be a real heavy hitter in terms of capability, if we suddenly didn't care about optics or maintaining our own stocks.*

*Excepting nuclear poo poo like Ohio class subs.

Simply give them more. Instead of 50 to 60 tanks, give them 500. Instead of a few MLRS system give them hundreds. Instead of a hundred IFVs give them a thousand and more. Instead of a few F-16 give them hundreds. And so on.

Ukraine is still a mostly Soviet force with some modern systems. Ukraine has mostly replaced losses with Western and captured Russian systems. Except that their military has massively expanded and therefore needs huge amounts of additional equipment.

I do wonder how effective some F-35 would be �

# ¿ Aug 21, 2023 18:45

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Tuna-Fish posted:

In the area, Russia has essentially 3 parallel defensive lines: The forward line, whose job was to protect the main line and bleed the Ukrainians as they breached it, the main line that is supposed to hold them, and the fallback line which is probably not a viable position on it's own but which allows withdrawal from and counterattack against the main line if parts of it are breached.

Ukraine has now successfully punched past the forward line, and Russia is evacuating segments of it. The main Russian defensive line is 10km to the south. Everyone is now pretty much holding their breath to see if Ukraine can or cannot breach the main line this year. Probably not happening until mud season.

I do think they are now cleanly through the first line, based on aerial photographs of the trenches it was anchored on the northern side of Robotyne. Of course, two more lines remain.

The big question is if Russia threw most everything into defending the forward line and breaching it is a sign of Ukraine being able to go to to toe with Russia and win, or if the main line is defended and entrenched even more and Ukraine won't be able to make meaningful progress at an acceptable price there.

My personal expectation is that there is no really significant difference in quality of defense between the forward and the main line. This is based on mostly nothing except the amount of effort Russia seems to be expending in order to defend the forward line.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2023 16:35

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

While I still want Ukraine to win, I just don�t understand the strategy. If it would be hard for a NATO army to perform a full frontal assault - with air superiority that the Ukrainians lack - against multiple layers of prepared defences (anti tank ditches and minefields), then how can the Ukrainians possibly succeed in this scenario when they lack air support?

Because they are fighting differently in comparison to NATO. The Ukraine isn't fighting like the US did in Gulf War 1 and 2. The Ukraine is fighting much slower, at a much lower intensity in comparison to the US, NATO, WW2 or WW1.

quote:

When was the last time in history that an army successfully performed a full frontal assault against multiple layers of prepared defences (without air superiority) and won? Has this ever happened? Who can they learn from?

Every successful offensive on the Eastern Front in WW2. Neither Germany nor the Soviet Union ever had air supremacy. The Soviet Union up until its dissolution was prepared to fight against NATO without air superiority. Guess what military the Ukrainian military is modeled on?

quote:

Without proper historical parallels to inspire us, it just seems to me that they are burning precious Ukrainian lives throwing them into the Russian lines for seemingly nothing in a strategy that has never been proven to work. It�s deeply depressing.

The Ukraine is not throwing lives at the Russian lines for nothing. They are successfully fighting within the limitations of their equipment, training, and other capabilities.

It would have been nice to see the Ukraine do a NATO style full press maneuver offensive, but the West isn't willing to open the floodgates of support to the extent needed for that.

The Ukrainian military is smart enough (after one smallish attempt) to recognize that and is instead trying (somewhat successfully) to use the stuff they do have as effectively as possible. That the results aren't that spectacular on a map is your problem, not theirs.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2023 20:46

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Bar Ran Dun posted:

If you think that number (Soviet or Germany days in combat / time unit) is going to be substantially different why don�t you find it and post it. The American experience of war intensity from WWII to Vietnam is a 24 X difference.

This is to say it�s a very large and caused by changes in many technologies (helicopters and medicine are big areas).

I�m very comfortable with my point. If you have German or Soviet days in combat per year in WWII figures post em. My point is still correct even if they are 10X higher than the marines in the pacific ( and my understanding that was higher than US army in Europe).

Modern war is much much more combat dense and you are quibbling. We are talking greater than an order of magnitude more combat dense from the American numbers.

You seem to have a very � particular � interpretation of what �intensity� means.

In WW1 roughly a billion artillery shells were fired. France saw 20% of their soldiers killed - on average 1000 dead every single day over 5 years.

In WW2 the Soviet reconquest/liberation of Crimea in 1944 involved almost 750k troops combined from both sides, 180k casualties (70k dead or wounded) and lasted a single month. And that is some minor campaign that probably almost no one knows about.

The current war does not come close.

Eiba posted:

Even if Ukraine is inching forward, what's the end game? Controlling a few more towns for the inevitable de-facto partition at the cost of a lot of blood?

Honest question. I wouldn't have imagined the Russian army was as incompetent as it is before this all happened. Maybe I'm missing something. But it sounds like it's a stalemate now, which I can't imagine is worth untold ongoing bloodshed to neither side's ultimate advantage.

Russia is currently speedrunning the destruction of 40 years of Soviet military production. Russia has shown no capability of producing new military vehicles like tanks and other vehicles in any number since the 1990�s. It is all old Soviet equipment that is refurbished or modernized. There is no new production. Russia can produce large amounts of dumb artillery shells, a good number of missiles, rockets, and Iranian drones. Endgame for Ukraine is the depletion of usable ex-Soviet military stocks.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 29, 2023

# ¿ Aug 29, 2023 23:37

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

The thing is, I don�t see a pathway for Ukrainian success on the battlefield, miserable though that is. The question then becomes, is it sensible to throw away thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of Ukrainian lives for a fait d�accompli - similar to the Volksturm at the end of WW2 - or to seek peace with the same eventual outcome in terms of a peace treaty, just with fewer dead soldiers. A negotiated settlement, painful though it may be, would save so many more lives that would otherwise be thrown away for nothing.

Celebrating Ukrainian soldiers dying in the meat grinder to take inconsequential pieces of territory is not supporting Ukraine at all.

This is completely devoid of any relation to reality.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2023 23:49

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Again scale is not intensity. All you are saying is WWII was a bigger war. It was.

A way to think about it is as Modern wars being a lot more dense. I mean poo poo the Germans used horses and mules for logistics. 750,000 horse drawn artillery pieces east walked in Russia. Think about how much longer that takes to move around than modern artillery

I brought up the intensity of the current war. For some weird reason you�ve then pivoted to interpreting that as �time in combat of individual soldiers.�

I don�t.

Again, the liberation of Crimea in WW2 involved similar numbers of soldiers as the current war, incurred similar casualties as the current war, and was completely over after a single month.

That is why I described the current war not in any way close to as intense as WW2.

I dont give a poo poo about your personal bug bear of time in combat in the WW2 pacific theater.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2023 06:26

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Bar Ran Dun posted:

I think you don�t have a working definition of intensity. I�m using how much time soldiers spend in combat.

You're interpretation sucks and runs counter to any definition a normal person would think of when talking about the intensity of a military conflict.

I am thinking of stuff like this:
Number of people involved (both in total and density), amount of casualties incurred (both in total and per time), amount of equipment involved (both in total and density).

You're definition sucks and as Kikas mentioned even with your idiotic definition you are comparing it with an irrelevant special case when looking at WW2. You completely ignored the numbers provided by Mirificus:

quote:

Days in Combat in ETO, June 6, 1944 � May 8, 1945 posted:

1st Infantry Division, 292
2nd Infantry Division, 303
4th Infantry Division, 299
9th Infantry Division, 264
90th Infantry Division, 308

The total divisional casualties are as follows:
4th Infantry Division, 35,545 (252 percent loss)
9th Infantry Division, 33,864 (240 percent loss)
1st Infantry Division, 29,630 (206 percent loss)
90th Infantry Division, 27,617 (196 percent loss)
2nd Infantry Division, 25,884 (184 percent loss)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Aug 30, 2023 07:31

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

SpannerX posted:

Funny thing about LNG, the gas in pipelines is also liquid. And it takes (basically) the same equipment to transport it down the pipeline that it takes to put it on the ship, minus the dock, connections,etc. Still have to pig the pipe to remove the ice and other contaminants in each situations to transport the product to the final destination... Blah blah blah. It's the same product, just much less efficiently transported. And I doubt the major petrochemical tech companies are helping right now, and that stuff is propitary, expensive, comes with technicians to work it, and, etc. It's a drop in the bucket that either will reduce over time as the pipelines aren't maintained, or reduces on overall profit. C'est la vie.

This is just not true.

Natural gas in a pipeline is transported as a compressed gas. The equipment needed to create and transport LNG is completely different. There is a reason Germany invested a lot of effort in order to quickly get regassification ships off our coasts. Those are ships that take the LNG, regassify it and then pump it into the national and international natural gas pipeline infrastructure.

Hell there was a big blow up last year, because Spain and France couldn't agree to expand the interconnections between their respective natural gas pipeline grids, as Spain and Portugal have a large surplus of LNG regassification capacity.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2023 20:08

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Cicero posted:

Isn't that only true for a handful of platforms, like the Abrams and F-35? Are Bradleys or Strykers or Paladins unusually hard to supply and support compared to other options from peer nations?

And even with those two, the Abrams is heavy, but the Leopard is similar, and while the Abrams has a turbine engine, technically it can run on diesel too (just worse IIRC). And the F-35 is a stealth fighter, there's probably some inherent logistical issues with that (though we don't have any other allied 5th gen fighters to compare against).

The F-35 is turning into an export hit though? Everybody with money and access has started ordering those things in quantity.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2023 20:54

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Antigravitas posted:

Here's the newest Perun, by the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctrtAwT2sgs

I thought that this one was quite interesting.

Especially with regards to the point that it is important for Ukraine to keep up a high tempo of operations in order to ensure that Russian materiel losses keep on being much higher than new production. Currently Russia can keep up to a certain degree by drawing from Soviet era depots, but even those are finite.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2023 22:06

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

That strike last week was supposedly a lot more successful than first reported:

"The Guardian posted:

Ukraine claims to have killed commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet

Ukraine has claimed it has killed the commander of Russia�s Black Sea fleet in an unprecedented missile strike on the naval headquarters in the annexed Crimean peninsula last week.

It marked a major blow for Moscow, which has suffered a string of attacks on the strategically important port of Sevastopol in recent months, AFP reports.

�Thirty-four officers were killed, including the commander of the Black Sea fleet. Another 105 occupiers were wounded,� Ukraine�s special forces said.

The strike on Friday sent plumes of black smoke billowing from the building in central Sevastopol, the largest city in Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014. �The headquarters are beyond repair,� the special forces added.

Russia�s defence ministry said on the day of the attack that one serviceman was missing, after having initially reported that one person had been killed.

In the live ticker they�ve also reported that the first Abrams tanks have arrived in Ukraine.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Sep 25, 2023

# ¿ Sep 25, 2023 14:11

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Libluini posted:

Looks like history is repeating itself: Like with the tanks, now that the US has decided to deliver ATACMS, there's growing pressure on Scholz to finally allow Taurus-deliveries.

In a couple months, we are now facing the real possibility of seeing Swedish jets launching German cruise missiles into Russian fortifications

Pressure has been growing for weeks and months to deliver Taurus, long before the announcement that ATACMS wiil be delivered. However, now that ATACMS are being delivered, it will become more likely that Taurus will be delivered, as it will become even more of a �just another weapon system like those delivered by our allies� instead of an escalation by delivering a weapon system giving Ukraine new capabilities.

That this is a factor sucks, but here we are.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2023 22:18

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Charliegrs posted:

I mean does Russia even need the more advanced weapons platforms like that to wage this war? I think if they get into a full scale war economy they will be building tons of the stuff that isn't cutting edge like T72s, BMP3s, etc. Also they could probably still drag a lot of old rear end cold war stuff out of storage and refurbish it.

A recent Perun video was about this exact question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctrtAwT2sgs

From his look at the loss statistics, his conclusion is that it seems like Russia has a certain (lowish) amount of new built or modernized vehicles (T90M, T80BVM or BMP-3 for example), as well as a good (larger) number of refurbished (but not modernized) vehicles (T80B or BMP-1). So Russia is already pulling a lot of stuff out of depots and sending it directly to the front. How long they can keep that up is a good question, but some huge depots gave already seen 50% and more of the stored equipment disappearing. So a lot is gone, but a lot is still there, but also not infinite.

Aircraft production in comparison is basically zero.

Here is the video about Russian artillery in depots:
https://youtu.be/EVqHY5hpzv8?si=vbf6yHJChPZvqF0r

Always keep in mind that Russia isn�t the Soviet Union. Russia does not have the same capability of producing ludicrous amounts of armored fighting vehicles of every kind.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2023 00:34

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Charlz Guybon posted:

Why hasn't there been much more night fighting? Haven't the Ukrainians been shipped tons of night vision gear while the Russians sold all there stuff as "second hand" gear to collectors before the war? I expected it to be a much bigger factor than it has.

Basically all Ukrainian offensive action is taking place at night.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2023 02:29

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

I�ll just quote this post:

Moon Slayer posted:

Speaking of night combat, here's a CNN piece with one of their reporters embedded with a Ukrainian drone unit:

https://twitter.com/fpleitgenCNN/status/1706751548028572082

Fighting! In Ukraine! At night!

There have been numerous videos and news articles about how a lot of the fighting is taking place at night and has been shifting there more and more, because Ukraine has the advantage there.

You can see it in this video, as the Russians need to use flares, while the Ukrainians use night vision equipment.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2023 06:49

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

We do know how they�ve laid out their minefields: millions of mines haphazardly thrown around the frontlines, hundreds of meters or several kilometers deep:

# ¿ Sep 28, 2023 19:36

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

The source is Bild (a tabloid), but they do have good contacts in the government.

Bild - Machine translated posted:

The German government is not planning to deliver the Taurus cruise missiles so urgently requested by the Ukrainian army in the foreseeable future. This was confirmed to BILD from German and Ukrainian government circles.
...
This is why Scholz does not supply Taurus missiles

Germany has not yet given the government in Kiev a formal denial of the request, but has made it clear internally that the Taurus missiles will not be delivered at present. Thus, Scholz is theoretically keeping the option open for the future, but delivery is considered highly unlikely.

What are the reasons for Scholz's current no to Taurus?

Last week, according to BILD information, the chancellor was asked in an internal meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee why France and Great Britain supply cruise missiles but Germany continues not to. Scholz responded in the meeting, according to participants, that the two countries "can do something we are not allowed to do, so the question doesn't arise." A clear Taurus rejection!

What Scholz apparently means by this is that the UK and France contribute the geospatial data for missile targets directly themselves, the UK also with its own personnel on the ground.

In addition to the issue of geospatial data and possible personnel, German government officials are also said to have expressed concern that Taurus cruise missiles could be used to hit the Kerch Bridge.

Thus, in recent weeks, there have been talks between British and German government officials in which British representatives tried to convince Germany to supply them. During these talks, according to BILD information, the German side expressed concrete concern that the bridge in Crimea could be destroyed with the German weapon.

There is clear criticism of the chancellor's actions from the CDU. "With the cancellation of the Taurus delivery, Scholz confirms Germany's total failure as a self-proclaimed leading nation for European security and offends our partners like Great Britain and France, who are already supplying cruise missiles," foreign affairs and defense expert Roderich Kiesewetter (60) told BILD.

Kiesewetter still believes a Taurus delivery is the right thing to do, but that the Chancellery's stance is dangerous. "With Taurus, there is a chance for Ukraine to cut off Russian supply lines to Crimea and liberate Crimea, thus ending the war more quickly. Putin's fate hangs on Crimea, Scholz knows that," the CDU politician said. "He is thus deliberately sacrificing the lives of many innocent Ukrainians and opposing coalition partners FDP and Greens, apparently because he does not want Russia to lose. This is bitter and harmful for European and German security!"

Emphasis mine.

Note: CDU is in the opposition, Greens and FDP are in a coalition government with the SPD.

drat the "centrists for centrism's sake" people.

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Oct 5, 2023

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 16:56

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Dull Fork posted:

What kind of actual area coverage can these systems provide? Is it like 1 system per metropolis? Larger? Only 6 systems seems rather low.

The IRIS-T SLM variant that Ukraine received has a range of ~40 km.
The Patriot with the PAC-3 CRI missile has a range of at least 70 or so km.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 19:52

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

beer_war posted:

"German government officials are also said to have expressed concern that Taurus cruise missiles could be used to hit the Kerch Bridge." is a sentence that just blows my mind.

Yeah, it's why I triple emphasized it. Like, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

However, I do find it interesting that apparently the French and the British are explicitly setting the target coordinates of the various cruise missiles they provided. Has the Kerch bridge been hit by anything from Western delivery? Do they maybe also have the same fears? Or have they already shown that those fears are stupid?

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 21:00

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Orthanc6 posted:

Oh Putin himself is tossing this one around it seems:

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1709984130207793279?s=20

I don't speak Russian, no subs on this one, there's a breakdown in the tweet thread but obviously I can't confirm it's accuracy. But if that's what he's saying then we've got a new fun version of the Putin defenestration:

Just because we are the warcrime-ing heads of a PMC doesn't mean that we too can't not die in a freak coked-out grenade on a plane accident.

Doesn't seem too farfetched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYuhMAy7j0
/sarcasm

DTurtle fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Oct 5, 2023

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 22:04

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Bashez posted:

The footage coming out of Avdiivka is mind boggling. Russia has (had?) significantly more reserves than the optimists, like myself, had thought. It will take a few days to get a clearer picture of how much land they were able to take but they have thrown away so many men and materiel.

From one of the other Ukraine threads:

JudgeJoeBrown posted:

In actual Ukrainian news Russia has been making a lot of questionable pushes into Ukrainian defenses around Avdiivka and its not going so great for them it seems.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1712341762860032128

That�s quite a lot of stuff to lose in one area in two days. I also find the breakdown of causes quite interesting. A lot of FPV drones hitting softer targets (obviously getting video proof of those is easier, but still).

# ¿ Oct 12, 2023 07:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 18:51

DTurtle: Apr 10, 2011

Dick Ripple posted:

Shout out to the Leopard 1 getting a confirmed kill against Tank.

Nice find. I overlooked that. That is actually amazing.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2023 14:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

«‹›3 »