In reply to aircooled :
insert image of a tank on blocks with the tracks, wheels and guns missing, and a group of Russian soldiers looking at it going "дерьмо..."
In reply to aircooled :
insert image of a tank on blocks with the tracks, wheels and guns missing, and a group of Russian soldiers looking at it going "дерьмо..."
aircooled said:Possibly, but also possibly not:
T-62 tanks with additional DIY armor spotted in Polohy district of Zaporizhzhia region
This is the the northern part of southern occupation area, and an area they are a likely at least hardening for defense (they likely have given up attacking in that area?). I would guess they might setup them up as sort of dug in semi-mobile pill boxes. I will say, I would NOT what to be crewing one!!
Plopping T-62's in town squared etc. to keep the populace intimidated could have some use, but I would worry the Ukrainians would start parting them out or lighting them on fire when the crew gets drunk (
)
Just drone/Excalibur targets at this point.
Russian official who demanded that President Vladimir Putin end the war against Ukraine was branded a traitor, escorted out of a high-level meeting and denied the right to vote, according to local media reports.
Update:
- Russian forces unsuccessfully attempted to advance southeast of Izyum near the Kharkiv-Donetsk Oblast border.
- Russian forces continued steady advances around Severodonetsk and likely seek to completely encircle the Severodonetsk-Lysychansk area in the coming days.
- Russian forces continued to make persistent advances south and west of Popasna toward Bakhmut, but the Russian pace of advance will likely slow as they approach the town itself.
- Russian forces in occupied areas of the Southern Axis are reportedly preparing a “third line of defense” to consolidate long-term control over the region and in preparation to repel likely future Ukrainian counteroffensives.
Using drones, Excaliburs, Javelins, ect against T-62s is almost a waste of hi-tech ammo.
Think about it. Russian soldiers are "disposable". Russian soldiers in obsolete tanks would also be disposable.
Time to whip up an anti-tank weapon that costs about $200 a shot.
In reply to Noddaz :
Gotta be the firstest with the mostest. Trying to engineer the perfect weapons design while in the middle of a protracted war is a lot of what caused Germany to fail despite having numerous advantages.
Oh and Barbarossa.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Noddaz :
Gotta be the firstest with the mostest. Trying to engineer the perfect weapons design while in the middle of a protracted war is a lot of what caused Germany to fail despite having numerous advantages.
Oh and Barbarossa.
I get that. But I bet there are stores of RPG-7s in Ukraine that no one would dream of shooting at modern tanks.
One slight answer to that is the MLAW, which is substantially cheaper than a Javelin but with a much shorter range, that also does a top attack. I am sure the Ukrainian's have a boat load of RPG's (I mean who doesn't). Ukraine is a pretty big arms producer, so they may even make RPG's there. I know they do make there own AT missile, that is the one that can be setup somewhere on a tripod and fired from a remote box near by (optically guided I think?)
They also have Panzerfaust 3's, which are similar to RPG's, direct fire, but the newer ones are designed to defeat reactive armor.
They have lots of options. Must be fun for the T62 crew... which of a variety of options will they kill us with....
Some news:
Ukraine receives Harpoon missiles and howitzers, says defense minister
This potentially makes the Black Sea a lot less hospitable for the Russians. I am not sure this will stop the blockade of Odessa though (where the grain needs to be shipped out of) since the Russians still have subs in the Sea. I do suspect the Russians would pull the D move of sinking grain freighters.
Other updates:
- Russian forces continued to incrementally capture areas of Severodonetsk but have not yet fully encircled the city.
- Russian forces focused on regrouping near Izyum to renew offensives towards Slovyansk and Barvinkove and conducted only minor, unsuccessful, attacks. Russian forces are making incremental advances towards Slovyansk and seek to assault the city itself in the coming weeks, but are unlikely to achieve decisive gains.
- Russian forces in Kharkiv continue to focus efforts on preventing a Ukrainian counteroffensive from reaching the international border between Kharkiv and Belgorod, and Ukrainian forces have not conducted any significant operations in the area in recent days.
- The limited Ukrainian counterattack in northern Kherson Oblast did not take any further ground in the last 48 hours but has disrupted Russian operations. Russian forces launched several unsuccessful attacks against the Ukrainian bridgehead on the east bank of the Inhulets River.
- Mounting casualties among Russian junior officers will further degrade Russian morale and command and control capabilities.
Is it safe to assume with more concentrated Russian forces, we've hit the "grinding war of attrition" stage, and there just won't be a lot of new news? Hoping the Ukrainians can hold out longer than the Russians.
From the Russian side, I think we can pretty safely say the only thing left is grinding.
From the Ukrainian side, there is probably potential for some big moves. I would suspect the next big thing to hit the news will be the Ukrainians making some sort of offensive move to get some of their territory back, that of course could be expensive casualty wise.
Some additional thoughts I picked up:
The Ukrainians may be training now (using more western tactics) for an offensive in the southern areas to clear up the ports (something to look out for). This of course is essentially a humanitarian goal as starvation is a possibility in parts of the world if they can't get their grain out (so it is more likely to have broad support). The Russians have been noted to be setting up defenses in anticipation.
One of the aspect I did not think about as to the absurdity of rolling T-62's into Ukraine: The T-62 uses and entirely different caliber gun than the rest of the tanks being used! This creates huge supply problems (you may have heard, the Russians have a bit of an issue with logistics). Not only that, but the T-62 is the last Russian tank without an autoloader so it's significantly different from later tanks. This might reduce the "pop-a-top" problem a bit, but it also means that there are likely almost no one trained on this tank that isn't younger than 80 years old! Really just a good example of the desperation going on.
aircooled said:From the Russian side, I think we can pretty safely say the only thing left is grinding.
From the Ukrainian side, there is probably potential for some big moves. I would suspect the next big thing to hit the news will be the Ukrainians making some sort of offensive move to get some of their territory back, that of course could be expensive casualty wise.
Tactically if Ukraine has the man power they can eliminate the potential of a "grinding" war by cutting off Russian supply access from the North.
Effectively "Starving" military supplies to Russians in the south.
Russia would waste time fighting to prevent that from happening. Likely only reacting when they realize that battle is over and they lost.
Then they would change directions and try to supply from the Black Sea which would be costly from an efficiency and man power term. With Missiles, RPG's, and 25 mile Howitzers. Costly to the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Failing that they'd try air support which would dramatically reduce their air power.
Plus the only time that has been successful was the Berlin Airlift. Which was not done in a shooting war situation. Nor does Russia have the air power to achieve that.
With the loss of officers in Russian ranks. the Russian army is forced to rely on the 2nd term enlisted. ( Sargent core). Who are not used to thinking tactically, merrily to following orders.
The drafted soldiers are also reacting as Americans did during Vietnam either ignoring orders, following them half hearted, or fratricide.
Lying to your men prior to the start of combat is a sure way to lose their support. It's doubtful there is much esprit's de Cour left in the Russian Army
It's like the people of Arkansas were told to attack Iowa. Most would simply want to go home.
In reply to aircooled :
Well, does it really matter WHAT caliber the guns are if they have no effective way to move ammo forward?
Well, you would need to cut their supply lines first, which are still entirely intact as far as I know (not that they are likely to be super efficient). Adding complexity to the supply situation can only make things worse.
In a similar vein, I could see the Ukrainians making a push to cutoff Kherson (south west of occupied area) and maybe even use their anti-shipping missiles (including the new Harpoons) to stop supply from the sea.
I am not sure if the Ukrainians would be able to launch a Harpoon over the occupied territories into the Sea of Azov (depends a lot on what version of Harpoon they are). If that can get within that range though, the Russians will likely start doing a lot of sweating.
An observations of interest:
Moscow’s concentration on seizing Severodonetsk and Donbas generally continues to create vulnerabilities for Russia in Ukraine’s vital Kherson Oblast, where Ukrainian counter-offensives continue. Kherson is critical terrain because it is the only area of Ukraine in which Russian forces hold ground on the west bank of the Dnipro River. If Russia is able to retain a strong lodgment in Kherson when fighting stops it will be in a very strong position from which to launch a future invasion. If Ukraine regains Kherson, on the other hand, Ukraine will be in a much stronger position to defend itself against future Russian attack. This strategic calculus should in principle lead Russia to allocate sufficient combat power to hold Kherson. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has chosen instead to concentrate all the forces and resources that can be scraped together in a desperate and bloody push to seize areas of eastern Ukraine that will give him largely symbolic gains. Continuing successful Ukrainian counter-offensives in Kherson indicate that Ukraine’s commanders recognize these realities and are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that Putin’s decisions have created.
aircooled said:Moscow’s concentration on seizing Severodonetsk and Donbas generally continues to create vulnerabilities for Russia in Ukraine’s vital Kherson Oblast, where Ukrainian counter-offensives continue. Kherson is critical terrain because it is the only area of Ukraine in which Russian forces hold ground on the west bank of the Dnipro River. If Russia is able to retain a strong lodgment in Kherson when fighting stops it will be in a very strong position from which to launch a future invasion. If Ukraine regains Kherson, on the other hand, Ukraine will be in a much stronger position to defend itself against future Russian attack. This strategic calculus should in principle lead Russia to allocate sufficient combat power to hold Kherson. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has chosen instead to concentrate all the forces and resources that can be scraped together in a desperate and bloody push to seize areas of eastern Ukraine that will give him largely symbolic gains. Continuing successful Ukrainian counter-offensives in Kherson indicate that Ukraine’s commanders recognize these realities and are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that Putin’s decisions have created.
Not to mention that the Crimea Canal starts just upstream of Kherson. If the Ukrainians can close that down again and keep it closed, Russia's long-term problems are increased significantly.
(note: I had to do a quick edit as it looks like the system I heard a rumor about was canceled, sub-munitions that self-guide to vehicles, but there may be a new version of it?)
Some more stuff on why you really don't want to be a Russian soldier right now.
The Ukrainian offensive is expected possibly within a few days or a week. As you may have heard, they are getting some of the US made multiple rocket launch systems (rocket artillery) the HIMARS. Those system can launch missiles that can contain multiple sub-munitions that are apparently capable of taking out tanks. In the least, they would be super effective against artillery.
In reply to aircooled :
What's in the photo is an ATACMS, which is much longer ranged and Ukraine is not getting; nor is it getting MLRS launch vehicle shown, but HIMARS, which uses the same system but with one box instead of two. There are a variety of smaller rockets available, both guided and unguided, though the latter seem to all be DPICM, which are great in theory, but not so much in practice, both due to inconsistency and persistent remaining munitions in places where there are potentially going to friendlies at some point.
Germany is also talking about sending their MARS (similar to US MLRS) and IRIS-T. The latter would be the first truly advanced medium range SAM system Ukraine would have in service, but it's going to take months to get that in place, as the system only exists in limited numbers and production time appears glacial.
Yeah, sorry. I heard a story about them wanting the guided sub-munition style, but found that did not exist (from what I can tell) so it's a bit of half-a story at this point. The pic I pulled must have been mislabeled or I just screwed up. Here is an actual one... I am pretty sure... 
Still probably pretty good at artillery sniping. Almost twice the range of the 777 (which already out ranges the Russian stuff), and can shoot and scoot very quickly if needed.
Just seeing all this artillery and armor in use is wild. I think the biggest lesson for other nations that may be interested in quickly taking over another country (cough...China), is how important air superiority (or supremacy) is. Precision guided munitions could render most of this ground hardware useless. The US demonstrated that over 30 years ago in Desert Storm. I guess Russia wasn't taking any notes.
An interesting discussion of Germany's policy toward Ukraine and Russia as it relates to the history of the First World War from the New Statesman. Feels a bit of a reach in places, but it's worth considering the perspective at least.
It does touch on the "pacifist" trend that is clearly present in Germany (possibly supported by the FSB?), and the position he seems to be taking has kind of the same problem, which I like to refer as:
Pacifism is great in every way... right up to the point when the tanks start rolling across the boarder.
Pacifism is the willingness to sit on your hands while evil triumphs.
OK, I think I found a very good explanation of what is going on. Did the NATO excuse never entirely make sense to you? Well, I think, this makes a LOT more sense. I am sure there is some minor NATO concerns, but this seems much more realistic.
You can scroll back to the start to get a full perspective, but the main explanation starts around 18 min. I started a bit early because of the hilarity of the Russians demand there is no pipeline across the Caspian Sea... because of environmental reason!! (insert large crowd laughing sound).
It's probably the best advertisement for renewable energy I have seen. I really don't see Europe doing that without a lot of nukes though.
The basic points as explained in the video:
- Russia is a huge energy supplier and is VERY dependent on it.
- A LOT of Russian oil / gas goes through Ukraine
- Ukraine has become much less cooperative with Russia
- Ukraine has recently discovered large reserves of gas and oil.... take a guess where in Ukraine.... just a wild guess... Also a potential on how Ukraine can pay back Europe and the US for the help.
- Russia fights when oil prices are high (which further reinforces the reluctance to raise output before the war)
- Not terribly shocking where Russia has invaded... when you overlay oil/gas deposits.
This is a thoughtful article on what happens after the fighting stops, specifically as it relates to Western security. I tend to think this is a conversation that needs to be had, and the sooner the better.
An interesting counterpoint to that general argument (full recapture of Ukrainian territory is a bit unreasonable and maybe dangerous) might be:
OK then, Russia invaded to "free" ethnic Russians, fine. Let Russia maintain governorship of some (most?) of those areas, subject to local approval of course, but Ukraine maintains mineral rights to the lands it originally held.
Russia gets what is says it wants, Ukraine is not harmed as much. I can pretty much guarantee Russia will reject that outright but does, theoretically give them what they say they want, and that might sell internally.
As an optional bonus, allow Russian loyalists to relocate to those areas, and of course Ukrainian loyalist out.
But, as noted in my previous post, it's obviously not the reason they are there, but this might at least be a way for them to have to admit that.
I still can't say I agree with the idea that Russia is likely to use tactical nukes defending the territory they "righteously" stole. I still don't see that as productive in any way. March towards Moscow? Maybe. Retake Crimea? Not likely.
You'll need to log in to post.
