Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

Elpenor said:
How does the USA prolonging the war save lives?

I also think of the immense cost of the war, hundreds of billions of dollars and the opportunity cost as that money could have been spent far better on countless non-military uses eg clean water, green energy, public transport etc
Click to expand...
The vast majority of military aid has been in equipment that's already in reserve or prepared for disposal. The money was spent years and years ago. This is exactly what it was bought for in the first place, so the Americans are getting more value for their money sending things to Ukraine than if they left them to rot in a field. Almost nothing new has been sent to Ukraine, barring some light antitank weapons that I'm sure they were itching to try out in the real world. So money couldn't have been spent on anything else unless you can pay teachers and build solar panels with M2 Bradleys.

The aid money for the people of Ukraine could have been spent on other things, but I'm not going to begrudge them food and medical aid.

The West has been very reluctant to send anything new other than ammunition thus far, and I think Ukraine is going to be in serious trouble if they eat up all the reserve because there's going to be a real reluctance to spend billions in new money for new systems to go directly to Ukraine.
 
strung out said:
Christ, you're hard work. My entire point is that Ukraine needs the more survivable heavy armour that's been provided recently such as the Bradley or western MBTs. You'll get no argument from me about the shortfalls of the less decent stuff, whether that's the Soviet equipment provided by former Eastern Block nations, or the older APCs like the M113.
Click to expand...
And? For why do they need them? That's the bit on which you're showing up short. Judging by reports such as MSN the vaunted counteroffensive isn't reaping the rewards the Ukrainians hoped for. The action in the article you linked to showed that more survivable isn't necessarily survivable. The entire rationale behind the supply of western tanks, ifvs, apps, is for the Ukrainians to gain an advantage on the battlefield, where it counts. It's not really going kyiv's way atm, and the tide of the war appears from my pov against them. Russia may have inferior vehicles, they may have inferior equipment, they may indeed be retrieving vehicles from tank graveyards. But survivable vehicles are, in at least the case you advance in support of your claim, not entirely assisting in breaking russia's defences.

For every life sacrificed Ukraine loses a resource it can ill afford, as they emulate the western way of warfare. Putin may squander Russian lives but he's many more of them. And the Russian grip on the territory they've seized seems little weakened despite the influx of bradleys and so on.

We've spoken before on this thread about factors which may limit future western aid for Ukraine. One of those things could be how the current fighting season goes. Every day that passes takes us nearer to the end of it, and priorities may well change in the chancellories of many of the NATO countries over the coming winter: the supply of western weaponry over the next year may not be similarly generous next year. And then wither Ukraine?
 
Pickman's model said:
And? For why do they need them? That's the bit on which you're showing up short. Judging by reports such as MSN the vaunted counteroffensive isn't reaping the rewards the Ukrainians hoped for. The action in the article you linked to showed that more survivable isn't necessarily survivable. The entire rationale behind the supply of western tanks, ifvs, apps, is for the Ukrainians to gain an advantage on the battlefield, where it counts. It's not really going kyiv's way atm, and the tide of the war appears from my pov against them. Russia may have inferior vehicles, they may have inferior equipment, they may indeed be retrieving vehicles from tank graveyards. But survivable vehicles are, in at least the case you advance in support of your claim, not entirely assisting in breaking russia's defences.

For every life sacrificed Ukraine loses a resource it can ill afford, as they emulate the western way of warfare. Putin may squander Russian lives but he's many more of them. And the Russian grip on the territory they've seized seems little weakened despite the influx of bradleys and so on.

We've spoken before on this thread about factors which may limit future western aid for Ukraine. One of those things could be how the current fighting season goes. Every day that passes takes us nearer to the end of it, and priorities may well change in the chancellories of many of the NATO countries over the coming winter: the supply of western weaponry over the next year may not be similarly generous next year. And then wither Ukraine?
Click to expand...
That's all very nice dear, but not actually anything to do with what I was talking about wrt western military aid saving civilian and military lives in Ukraine.

As Kebabking says, western heavy armour offers better survivability, so if that means half as many (or whatever it ends up being) Ukrainian soldiers die or are seriously injured in what remains of the counter offensive, then the aid has done a valuable job.

You carry on with whatever you think it is that you're arguing with me about, but I'm done.
 
strung out said:
That's all very nice dear, but not actually anything to do with what I was talking about wrt western military aid saving civilian and military lives in Ukraine.

As Kebabking says, western heavy armour offers better survivability, so if that means half as many (or whatever it ends up being) Ukrainian soldiers die or are seriously injured in what remains of the counter offensive, then the aid has done a valuable job.

You carry on with whatever you think it is that you're arguing with me about, but I'm done.
Click to expand...
Half as many? You're not making sense here (as you haven't been for some time tbh). Half as many as what? As in a hypothetical counteroffensive without bradleys? Would there be a counteroffensive without western aid? I don't understand how you think this 50% would be measured and I don't believe you have an answer to that.

The purpose of the aid is surely to help with the successful prosecution of the war. But even with such assistance scant progress is being made, and you've adduced no evidence to suggest it will be before positions harden for the winter.
 
You say there wouldn't be a counter offensive without Western aid, but what will happen to Ukraine's people without one in the months ahead? Reprisals, domination? How would that scene look in practice? They ask for aid, why not give it? It's no faster a route to peace and justice to 'stay out of it' in terms of shortening the overt war of 'fronts' by letting them down.
 
Pickman's model said:
Half as many? You're not making sense here (as you haven't been for some time tbh). Half as many as what? As in a hypothetical counteroffensive without bradleys? Would there be a counteroffensive without western aid? I don't understand how you think this 50% would be measured and I don't believe you have an answer to that.

The purpose of the aid is surely to help with the successful prosecution of the war. But even with such assistance scant progress is being made, and you've adduced no evidence to suggest it will be before positions harden for the winter.
Click to expand...
As I said, you seem to be trying to have an argument about something I haven't said.

I said that more western military aid was required, for various reasons, including air defense to protect civilians and heavy armour to better protect soldiers on the battlefield, and perhaps speed up the slower progress of the offensive.

If you're trying to argue against providing any further military aid, then fine, I disagree, but you've spent rather a lot of words on this thread in the last 12 hours trying to have an argument about things I've already said I basically agree with, such as Ukrainian soldiers needing better training, and improved access to medical treatment, and that poorer equipment such as M113s aren't as good as the more modern vehicles which are built with higher survivability in mind.

Anyway, hope you've had a good day, I'm off to bed now. Let's see if a good night's sleep brings a better quality of debate from you tomorrow.
 
Pickman's model said:
And? For why do they need them? That's the bit on which you're showing up short. Judging by reports such as MSN the vaunted counteroffensive isn't reaping the rewards the Ukrainians hoped for. The action in the article you linked to showed that more survivable isn't necessarily survivable. The entire rationale behind the supply of western tanks, ifvs, apps, is for the Ukrainians to gain an advantage on the battlefield, where it counts. It's not really going kyiv's way atm, and the tide of the war appears from my pov against them. Russia may have inferior vehicles, they may have inferior equipment, they may indeed be retrieving vehicles from tank graveyards. But survivable vehicles are, in at least the case you advance in support of your claim, not entirely assisting in breaking russia's defences.

For every life sacrificed Ukraine loses a resource it can ill afford, as they emulate the western way of warfare. Putin may squander Russian lives but he's many more of them. And the Russian grip on the territory they've seized seems little weakened despite the influx of bradleys and so on.

We've spoken before on this thread about factors which may limit future western aid for Ukraine. One of those things could be how the current fighting season goes. Every day that passes takes us nearer to the end of it, and priorities may well change in the chancellories of many of the NATO countries over the coming winter: the supply of western weaponry over the next year may not be similarly generous next year. And then wither Ukraine?
Click to expand...

True about the Ukrainians but also true about the Russians who are now conscripting 60 yr olds and issuing them bolt-action mosins. Russia's entire military has been reduced by 1/3 in a year and a half. Russia is losing tons of hardware every week, everyday actually. What competent leadership they had is being replaced by loyal-to-Putin leadership. They're shooting soldiers who give up and retreat (big surprise). They're running out of ammo and this is before the recent bridge hits. They're running out of tanks and have started deploying T-55s from mothball storage and even museums. The Russian military is shit in its leadership and its equipment. It's a just very big turd, that's the issue at the moment. Ukraine's strategy is to spread the Russian defenses out - starve them of supplies by cutting off supply lines like the bridges and railways - and at some point to release the Ukrainian reserves waiting to push into the land bridge and cut the Russian army in half. Ukraine is doing this without air support. They are schooling the western world in their adaptability and ingenuity. Whether or not they can do it before the wet season remains to be seen. Ukraine is proving themselves to be one of the most NATO worthy countries.
 
Humberto said:
You say there wouldn't be a counter offensive without Western aid, but what will happen to Ukraine's people without one in the months ahead? Reprisals, domination? How would that scene look in practice? They ask for aid, why not give it? It's no faster a route to peace and justice to 'stay out of it' in terms of shortening the overt war of 'fronts' by letting them down.
Click to expand...
There is no route to peace and justice
 
strung out said:
As I said, you seem to be trying to have an argument about something I haven't said.

I said that more western military aid was required, for various reasons, including air defense to protect civilians and heavy armour to better protect soldiers on the battlefield, and perhaps speed up the slower progress of the offensive.

If you're trying to argue against providing any further military aid, then fine, I disagree, but you've spent rather a lot of words on this thread in the last 12 hours trying to have an argument about things I've already said I basically agree with, such as Ukrainian soldiers needing better training, and improved access to medical treatment, and that poorer equipment such as M113s aren't as good as the more modern vehicles which are built with higher survivability in mind.

Anyway, hope you've had a good day, I'm off to bed now. Let's see if a good night's sleep brings a better quality of debate from you tomorrow.
Click to expand...
You're really on the ball. I've literally am arguing about something you haven't said, namely a) what should be actually done with the western aid and b) your half as many nonsense - half as many as what? You've a nerve talking about quality of debate when you say eg you've agreed with me - on things I haven't actually said. How can you agree with me on things I haven’t said, points I haven't made?
 
I'm wondering what the Ukrainians were hitting the Kerch Bridge with this week.
The images on livemap / telegram from the shore showed smoke, at least.
The russians said S-200s were used and claimed to have shot at least some of 'em down, according to the BBC
www.bbc.co.uk

Ukraine war: Crimea bridge targeted by missiles, Russia says

The bridge that connects Russia to occupied Crimea has been attacked at least twice before.
www.bbc.co.uk

So I wiki'ed, as you do.
en.wikipedia.org

S-200 missile system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
tl:dr = That's a long-range [150 to 300km] surface to air system [NATO reporting name is Gammon] designed in 1964.
Warhead is 478lb HE {plus fragmentation pellets} and is semi-active radar-homing ...

The Ukrainians have hit that bridge - and the Chondar crossings - with a range of weapons, in a similar way to the hammering that the Kherson bridges received for the Autumn 2022 counter-offensive.
 
The big Soviet SAM's all have a secondary surface to surface capability, it's just not something we took particularly seriously because we took the view that their SAM systems would be rather busy with NATO airpower doctrine, and so wouldn't have time for secondary pursuits.

It's an interesting peek into Soviet thinking - Russian SAM warhead sizes are vastly larger than western equivalents: Hawk (1960's) was about 60kg, Patriot was originally about 100kg but is now down in single figures...
 
According to wiki, the S-200 were also capable of having a small{ish} artificial sunshine warhead.
Which is another peek into soviet thinking.

Quite a lot of countries - not all ex-soviet - have / had the system, and some users were not especially "careful" / accurate with it ! [my interpretation of remarks in the wiki item]
 
Actually, what I think Ukraine needs atm is massive assistance in mine-field clearing, and spot-on munitions to demolish "strong points" / field fortifications.

From an article I read a while back - I think they need a large number of flail equipped tanks and plenty of spare chain ! and protection against anti-tank munitions when clearing mines.
I wonder if you can have a remotely operated flail tank ?
 
StoneRoad said:
Actually, what I think Ukraine needs atm is massive assistance in mine-field clearing, and spot-on munitions to demolish "strong points" / field fortifications.

From an article I read a while back - I think they need a large number of flail equipped tanks and plenty of spare chain ! and protection against anti-tank munitions when clearing mines.
I wonder if you can have a remotely operated flail tank ?
Click to expand...
Mines appear to be a major issue:

www.theguardian.com

Ukraine desperate for help clearing mines, says defence minister

Exclusive: ‘Most heavily mined country on Earth’ critically short of sappers and equipment to clear frontlines
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
teqniq said:
Mines appear to be a major issue:

www.theguardian.com

Ukraine desperate for help clearing mines, says defence minister

Exclusive: ‘Most heavily mined country on Earth’ critically short of sappers and equipment to clear frontlines
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
yeah, they really don't have enough trained personnel {sappers} for what is a phenomenally dangerous activity under "normal" conditions and when doing it "under fire" reaches a whole new level of dangerousness.
Not to mention that there's literally millions of the bxxxxxdy things and at very high density {of 5 mines per square meter was indicated}.

There's several NGOs at work in various liberated areas such as Kherson Oblast, but there's more than a decade's worth of work already ...
 
Pickman's model said:
Anyone who has read the classic 'Street without joy' will recall that on occasion the Viet Minh were confronted with French armour which they immobilised but didn't have weapons capable of penetrating. Nothing daunted,they simply fired rpg after rpg until the crew were roasted inside the tank. I don't know - though doubtless someone like kebabking can tell us - whether modern armour would prevent such a fate.
Click to expand...

I expect the immobilising part would be a lot trickier with a modern tank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDC
SpookyFrank said:
I expect the immobilising part would be a lot trickier with a modern tank.
Click to expand...
Not really, the tracks are still very vulnerable to being damaged. Either by mines or a "direct hit" ...
The "skirts" can only cover some of the tracks otherwise the crud will block / jam them if you are tearing cross-country ...
 
Vulnerable is doing a lot of heavy lifting there as they say.

Anyone that argues immobilising a modern day MBT is not any harder than French ones from the 1960s is deluded. Is that right kebabking? Haven't there been single figure tank losses in the last 30 years?
 
LDC said:
Vulnerable is doing a lot of heavy lifting there as they say.

Anyone that argues immobilising a modern day MBT is not any harder than French ones from the 1960s is deluded. Is that right kebabking? Haven't there been single figure tank losses in the last 30 years?
Click to expand...

Quite a few mobility kills on MBT's - primarily in Iraq - but not many that also got a capability kill that prevented the crew from hosing down anyone who kept firing at them, as well as the standard wild overmatch of land force and air power that allowed western forces to recover the vehicle in fairly short order.

That said, the kind of attacks that would get a mobility kill of a 70 ton MBT we're pretty big - like having a dozen 152mm artillery shells fused together, or a 500kg bomb buried in the road.

Nothing is impervious to everything, and an anti-tank mine can throw a track, but an MBT is vunerable in the way that a Great White Shark is vunerable - to a pod of Orca, sure - but to much else, not so much....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

platinumsage
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, Feb 2022 - tangentially related crap
29 30 31 32 33
Replies
978
Views
52K
The39thStep
The39thStep
tim
The 2023 Russian Coup.
51 52 53 54 55
Replies
2K
Views
69K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Dogsauce
The Russian defenestration thread
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
platinumsage
Ukraine invasion memes and viral content
70 71 72 73 74
Replies
2K
Views
122K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
Back
Top Bottom