Unfortunately, the Russian advance in Donbass seems to be making progress. Are we seeing the collapse of Ukranian defenses there? The news does not look good
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/re ... li=BBnb7Kz

victrola wrote:

Unfortunately, the Russian advance in Donbass seems to be making progress. Are we seeing the collapse of Ukranian defenses there? The news does not look good
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/re ... li=BBnb7Kz

I see nothing at the link you provided to support your post. The Russians have been making very slow progress in Donbas for the last month or more as the Ukrainians trade land for time. There is nothig I know of to suggest any collapse of Ukrainian defenses on a either local or a general level.

Collapse is a strong word. Losing ground, yes. They may even lose the pocket. As long as they can get supplies to the pocket via secondary roads, it would not be a collapse.

All depends if the Ukrainian can get enough of the new artilery into the area in time to make life more difficult for the Russian in the salient.

For it to be a collapse, the Russian have to show that they can quickly exploit any breach in Ukrainian lines. They have failed to show they are flexible enough to do so.

It's a grinding battle with ups and down. We are at the down part. We can only anticipate when the up comes around.

If you look at the FIRMS map for the last 2 days, there were fires in Alchevsk. Ukrainian artilery is still able to hit targets 28 mile behind the front line. Getting supplies to the Russian troops is still a challenge is suspect.


bt

bikerthai wrote:

Collapse is a strong word. Losing ground, yes. They may even lose the pocket. As long as they can get supplies to the pocket via secondary roads, it would not be a collapse.

All depends if the Ukrainian can get enough of the new artilery into the area in time to make life more difficult for the Russian in the salient.

For it to be a collapse, the Russian have to show that they can quickly exploit any breach in Ukrainian lines. They have failed to show they are flexible enough to do so.

It's a grinding battle with ups and down. We are at the down part. We can only anticipate when the up comes around.

bt

I hope you are right. However, it looks like a large chunk of the Ukranian army is on the verge of being surrounded. I'm looking for some evidence of the predicted exhaustion of the Russian army and I'm not finding it. The Russian tactic of just pounding everything in sight with artillery seems to be working. Have we sent anything over to counteract the artillery? If the artillery is neutralized then I could see the Russian strategy falling apart.

Vintage wrote:

victrola wrote:

Unfortunately, the Russian advance in Donbass seems to be making progress. Are we seeing the collapse of Ukranian defenses there? The news does not look good
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/re ... li=BBnb7Kz

I see nothing at the link you provided to support your post. The Russians have been making very slow progress in Donbas for the last month or more as the Ukrainians trade land for time. There is nothig I know of to suggest any collapse of Ukrainian defenses on a either local or a general level.

It looks like my link didn't go where I expected.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru ... 72d2c6fac7

victrola wrote:

It looks like my link didn't go where I expected.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru ... 72d2c6fac7

I still see nothing to suggest a collapse of Ukrainian defenses.

victrola wrote:

However, it looks like a large chunk of the Ukranian army is on the verge of being surrounded.

Read on a comment section on YT that Ukraine as one brigade in the pocket. It also has one brigade in the Bakhrmut area.

If the Ukrainian can successfully withdraw, they would have two brigades on a shorten front line. If they can hold rhe pocket, the Russian salient is exposed on the flank by a potential Ukrainian counter attack.

Who knows if the pocket can hold. But we have seen that the Ukrainian can hold for 80 days in Mariupol, the can probably hold the pocket through summer, even if surrounded.

Battle of the Bulge in the 21st century?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

victrola wrote:

However, it looks like a large chunk of the Ukranian army is on the verge of being surrounded.

Read on a comment section on YT that Ukraine as one brigade in the pocket. It also has one brigade in the Bakhrmut area.

If the Ukrainian can successfully withdraw, they would have two brigades on a shorten front line. If they can hold rhe pocket, the Russian salient is exposed on the flank by a potential Ukrainian counter attack.

Who knows if the pocket can hold. But we have seen that the Ukrainian can hold for 80 days in Mariupol, the can probably hold the pocket through summer, even if surrounded.

Battle of the Bulge in the 21st century?

bt

Hopefully it turns out like the Battle of the Bulge and this is the last we see of a serious Russian offensive.

Kind of ironic. Prior to the war, many countries with no skin in the fight was anticipating a quick victory and had only minor worries about food supplies. After all buying grain from Russia controlled Ukraine would be no different than buying from Ukraine, right?

There is a lesson to be learned. But I supposed, like before, the lesson will also be forgotten.

bt

victrola wrote:

Hopefully it turns out like the Battle of the Bulge and this is the last we see of a serious Russian offensive.

The Battle of the Bulge broke the German army in the west. But it still took 5 more months to complete the defeat. If this war extends into the winter, what kind of supplies situation will the Russian soldier have? I doubt any Russian soldier is looking forward to the on coming winter still stuck in Ukraine.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Kind of ironic. Prior to the war, many countries with no skin in the fight was anticipating a quick victory and had only minor worries about food supplies. After all buying grain from Russia controlled Ukraine would be no different than buying from Ukraine, right?

There is a lesson to be learned. But I supposed, like before, the lesson will also be forgotten.

bt

The lesson is older than history : a country should be able to produce 100% of its food, relying on imports only for nice to have stuff.

bikerthai wrote:

victrola wrote:

However, it looks like a large chunk of the Ukranian army is on the verge of being surrounded.

Read on a comment section on YT that Ukraine as one brigade in the pocket. It also has one brigade in the Bakhrmut area.

If the Ukrainian can successfully withdraw, they would have two brigades on a shorten front line. If they can hold rhe pocket, the Russian salient is exposed on the flank by a potential Ukrainian counter attack.

Who knows if the pocket can hold. But we have seen that the Ukrainian can hold for 80 days in Mariupol, the can probably hold the pocket through summer, even if surrounded.

Battle of the Bulge in the 21st century?

bt

Speaking of the Mariupol pocket - this was probably one of the reasons they managed to hold out so long:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/e ... d-mariupol

Aesma wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Kind of ironic. Prior to the war, many countries with no skin in the fight was anticipating a quick victory and had only minor worries about food supplies. After all buying grain from Russia controlled Ukraine would be no different than buying from Ukraine, right?

There is a lesson to be learned. But I supposed, like before, the lesson will also be forgotten.

bt

The lesson is older than history : a country should be able to produce 100% of its food, relying on imports only for nice to have stuff.

There are foodstuffs that countries produce to 100% for own consumption.
Germany for instance produces (can produce) 100% of its required wheat.

The problem is that the prices still rise there, too due to global prices.
They won't starve like other countries though.

Prices can be temporarily controlled by the government, along with exports. It would be a good idea to do it at the EU level in our case.

Controlling domestic prices means less supply for the global market (e.g., as we saw with Indonesian food oil or India's wheat).

Now, politicians either look after their own people...

bt[/quote]

Speaking of the Mariupol pocket - this was probably one of the reasons they managed to hold out so long:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/e ... d-mariupol[/quote]

What an amazing story. In my parents generation (WWII for the US) it was the Battle of Corregidor where outnumbered and out gunned American and Filipino fighters and civilians held out in a massive fortified structure until they ran out of everything and were overwhelmed. Unfortunately the survivors of Mariupol are most likely going to suffer the same fate as those on Corregidor. A modern Bataan Death march.

The Americans wiped out the Japanese defenders of Corregidor in 1945. They (I believe) did not take any prisoners. The Russians would be well served to study history because IMO the Ukrainians won't forget either.

Aesma wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Kind of ironic. Prior to the war, many countries with no skin in the fight was anticipating a quick victory and had only minor worries about food supplies. After all buying grain from Russia controlled Ukraine would be no different than buying from Ukraine, right?

There is a lesson to be learned. But I supposed, like before, the lesson will also be forgotten.

bt

The lesson is older than history : a country should be able to produce 100% of its food, relying on imports only for nice to have stuff.

People in Costa Rica produce bananas and pineapples because people with money all over the world want bananas year round.

People in South Africa produce grapes and oranges because people in the Northern hemisphere want grapes and oranges outside their natural season in their climate.

Costa Rica and South Africa could produce cereal to fit their domestic consumption. It just turns out that other crops pay better.

Sudan and Ethiopia could feed themselves, but growing cotton, coffee and cocoa for the world pays better.

And let's not go to the ethanol crops and cereal for animal feed rabbit hole.

JJJ wrote:

People in Costa Rica produce bananas and pineapples because people with money all over the world want bananas year round.

You produce what is ideal for the local climate. What you want I'd more people all over the world to try different types of food all over the world instead of monoculural crops.

bt

Bananas are a staple food so it's not necessarily an issue. Making flowers or cotton, on the other hand...

Aesma wrote:

Bananas are a staple food so it's not necessarily an issue. Making flowers or cotton, on the other hand...

We live in a connected world, not everyone lives in a country like France. Not every country has the options France has.

"MohawkWeekend"]bt

Speaking of the Mariupol pocket - this was probably one of the reasons they managed to hold out so long:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/e ... d-mariupol

What an amazing story. In my parents generation (WWII for the US) it was the Battle of Corregidor where outnumbered and out gunned American and Filipino fighters and civilians held out in a massive fortified structure until they ran out of everything and were overwhelmed. Unfortunately the survivors of Mariupol are most likely going to suffer the same fate as those on Corregidor. A modern Bataan Death march.

The Americans wiped out the Japanese defenders of Corregidor in 1945. They (I believe) did not take any prisoners. The Russians would be well served to study history because IMO the Ukrainians won't forget either.

Come on, they just now have recognized it? LOL. This was well rumored that regular helicopterflights to and back with wounded from Mariopol were performed. How do you think all the RGW 90 (Wirkmittel 90) got into the city while the siege was already long on-going....There is more than one video, where they have used them to kill some light armored BTRs, armored vehicles or trucks
Example (best known):
https://www.reddit.com/r/bundeswehr/comments/u768fm/pov_rgw_90_einsatz_in_mariupol/
And when one of the helicopters was shot down, if I remember correctly, it was even official announced by Ukrainian site, that a helicopter got lost/ was shot down and the crew + wounded, rescued from Mariopol, have died on board.

Vintage wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Bananas are a staple food so it's not necessarily an issue. Making flowers or cotton, on the other hand...

We live in a connected world, not everyone lives in a country like France. Not every country has the options France has.

Do you mean politically?
Countries that have the farm land can feed themselves, the issue is whether other countries would allow them to not produce crops that other nations desire.
Its funny how the so called connected global world of trade gets turned on its head when politically expedient.

par13del wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Bananas are a staple food so it's not necessarily an issue. Making flowers or cotton, on the other hand...

We live in a connected world, not everyone lives in a country like France. Not every country has the options France has.

Do you mean politically?
Countries that have the farm land can feed themselves, the issue is whether other countries would allow them to not produce crops that other nations desire.
Its funny how the so called connected global world of trade gets turned on its head when politically expedient.

Today's world is connected in every sense, but I was referring to the economic sense. If a country is in a position where it can feed itself independent of imports only if it accepts poverty, but can gain prosperity by growing a cash crop and using the money gained to purchase foodstuffs from abroad, the choice is clear to me.

In a truly Balkanized world they would have to accept poverty though.

[quote="bikerthai"]Collapse is a strong word. Losing ground, yes. They may even lose the pocket. As long as they can get supplies to the pocket via secondary roads, it would not be a collapse.

All depends if the Ukrainian can get enough of the new artilery into the area in time to make life more difficult for the Russian in the salient.

For it to be a collapse, the Russian have to show that they can quickly exploit any breach in Ukrainian lines. They have failed to show they are flexible enough to do so.

It's a grinding battle with ups and down. We /quote]

bikerthai wrote:

Collapse is a strong word. Losing ground, yes. They may even lose the pocket. As long as they can get supplies to the pocket via secondary roads, it would not be a collapse.

All depends if the Ukrainian can get enough of the new artilery into the area in time to make life more difficult for the Russian in the salient.

For it to be a collapse, the Russian have to show that they can quickly exploit any breach in Ukrainian lines. They have failed to show they are flexible enough to do so.

It's a grinding battle with ups and down. We are at the down part. We can only anticipate when the up comes around.

bt

I like your positivism, but it looks like making lemonade out of lemons. Ukraine is only pushed back in the Donbas region when Russia went all-in, despite the western heavy metal they have.

The up has come very soon, otherwise Russia is declaring victory, annexate the Donbas and declare it part of the Russian Federation.

marcelh wrote:

The up has come very soon, otherwise Russia is declaring victory, annexate the Donbas and declare it part of the Russian Federation.

The up? I don't understand that.

Russia may declare Donbas a part of Russia, but that won't mean anything outside of Russia.

The USA are considering sending MLRS rocket artillery system to Ukraine.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/26/poli ... index.html

marcelh wrote:

Ukraine is only pushed back in the Donbas region when Russia went all-in, despite the western heavy metal they have.

Despite all the "heavy metal" commitment, the hardware has just begun to reach the front.

Most of the M777 artilery is now at the front for barely a week. The 100-200 Polish tanks seems to just began the fight in the Kerson area. The self propelled artilery provided by the French have just arrived and there is not enough.

Not sure what the calculus is, but my guess is it will take month or so for the 155 artilery to slowly degrade the Russian artilery and the M113 to finally get to the front (probably still on transport ships right now).

It is frustrating to see the the Russian advances. But I have read enough history to accept the back and forth tide of any war.

My only fear is the threat of nuclear exchange. But I trust the Russian generals are not foolhardy enough to follow that order. After all, the fighting in Ukrainian right now does not threaten any if their family. Refusal to fight would bring down the wrath of Putin on their family. A nuclear exchange would definitely threaten their family, thus would losen Putin's grip on the Generals.

bt

marcelh wrote:

The up has come very soon, otherwise Russia is declaring victory, annexate the Donbas and declare it part of the Russian Federation.

It would be quite ironic if the Russian Federation gain the Donbas but lose the far east.

bt

Vintage wrote:

marcelh wrote:

The up has come very soon, otherwise Russia is declaring victory, annexate the Donbas and declare it part of the Russian Federation.

The up? I don't understand that.

Russia may declare Donbas a part of Russia, but that won't mean anything outside of Russia.

We’ll see what happen. It has done before (Crimea)

Crimea isn't recognized as Russian by the vast majority of countries on the planet.

Mr Putin visiting heroic regular Russian people:

https://mobile.twitter.com/igorsushko/s ... 0206978048

Or is that visiting the rent-a-crowd mob… some of those folk look very familiar.

Vintage wrote:

marcelh wrote:

The up has come very soon, otherwise Russia is declaring victory, annexate the Donbas and declare it part of the Russian Federation.

The up? I don't understand that.

Russia may declare Donbas a part of Russia, but that won't mean anything outside of Russia.

Does that not mean that a new red line is created? Attack the newly termed Russia (Donbas) and the conflict is escalated?

I don't like the way in which those powers that condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine have limited the conventional military aid they are prepared to provide to Ukraine. I understand that there is great concern that this could become a confrontation where nuclear weapons could be unleashed by Putin but furnishing the materiel needed by Ukraine late handicaps Ukraine (eg multiple rocket launchers, heavy artillery and MiG's and Sukhois available in eastern Europe) . The way I see this conflict is that if you support Ukraine, the materiel support given should not be governed by what Russia considers acceptable.

I would urge well meaning governments to ignore Russian ire and to provide Ukraine with the means to survive. If they are not prepared to do that wholeheartedly, what is the point of their involvement?

Vintage wrote:

marcelh wrote:

The up has come very soon, otherwise Russia is declaring victory, annexate the Donbas and declare it part of the Russian Federation.

The up? I don't understand that.

Russia may declare Donbas a part of Russia, but that won't mean anything outside of Russia.

The front seems precarious. Since no one expected Ukraine to be in the fight on day 94, no assumptions can be made.

This is the time when morale truly collapses. It is a matter of which side first. Ukraine invested in Kharkiv with the intention, in my opinion, of breaking through to the road and rail network. That is still possible. If that happens, Russia will have to retreat out of their current gains.

This is a WW1 paced all out assault. The Russians just scrapped age limits to keep going. I do not see how bringing in men my age will help them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61619638.amp

We are in the final race on who runs out of equipment first loses. I think that will be Russia.
https://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-says-ru ... 32179.html

art wrote:

Does that not mean that a new red line is created?

If everybody ignores the Russian claim of annexation, there is no red line to be ignored.

art wrote:

I don't like the way in which those powers that condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine have limited the conventional military aid they are prepared to provide to Ukraine. I understand that there is great concern that this could become a confrontation where nuclear weapons could be unleashed by Putin but furnishing the materiel needed by Ukraine late handicaps Ukraine (eg multiple rocket launchers, heavy artillery and MiG's and Sukhois available in eastern Europe) . The way I see this conflict is that if you support Ukraine, the materiel support given should not be governed by what Russia considers acceptable.

While I agree that Ukraine should be supported with all that's needed, I push back at criticism of the assistance given; there has been enormous aid given and ongoing, much more than most people realize. Not all the artillery pieces are in country yet, there's still 10 0r 20% of these guns yet to arrive or be put online yet, so I wonder about the delivery capabilities, I wonder if that is a holdup. It may be that the discussion of MLRS is just taking place now because delivery slots are only now opening up.

I think that the Ukrainian air force is more effective and has more resources than most critics are aware of. I don't know that Ukraine is hamstrung by not having enough aircraft. Keep in mind that the Ukrainians can never gain air superiority against the Russians because the Russian border provides a refuge for aircraft to fly from, and a place for SAM sites to work from.

Then there is the issue of Ukraine being able to strike inside Russia; I assume that is fine with the NATO planners as long as it isn't done with long range weapons given them by the west. Surely there is a debate going on in Russia about the use of tactical nukes and I assume that our intelligence services know more about this than what gets released to the media. We can only hope that the people making the decisions know what they're doing. I don't know if this has been a consideration in the MLRS decision or not.

That said, I am a hawk on this subject myself; I believe that military power now may forestall a stalemate later, and I do think the public should make their support for arming the Ukrainians known.

Russia is looking to deploy trainers so they can beef up units.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/newsworl ... NewsSearch

As the article notes, you can do this once. Russia should be doing the opposite, doubling up the trainers. This shows absolutely no plan to fight the war they started.

If Ukraine could capture a few BTGs, it will create a domino effect on Russian losses, in my opinion.

It really seems like we are approaching that critical fatigue point discussed upthread. In this defenders that are not doomed have the advantage as they have the Esprit de Corps engendered by saving their nation.

The next two months will be unfortunately fascinating.

lightsaber wrote:

Russia is looking to deploy trainers so they can beef up units.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/newsworl ... NewsSearch

As the article notes, you can do this once. Russia should be doing the opposite, doubling up the trainers. This shows absolutely no plan to fight the war they started.

If Ukraine could capture a few BTGs, it will create a domino effect on Russian losses, in my opinion.

It really seems like we are approaching that critical fatigue point discussed upthread. In this defenders that are not doomed have the advantage as they have the Esprit de Corps engendered by saving their nation.

The next two months will be unfortunately fascinating.

If this report is true, Russia will create an additional 30-40 BTG’s but without proper equipment (T-62’s). The attrition for these BTG’s will be even higher then before and will make the recovery of the Russian armed forces impossible for the next decade or two, even if all sanctions would be lifted. This would be like a double whammy for the western world. I sincerely hope this report is true and Russia is going ALL-IN to give it a final push to be kicked out of Ukraine eventually…

I didn't realize until now that "BTG" were something specifically Russian : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion_tactical_group

The first sentence of that article mentions "high level of readiness"...

JonesNL wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Russia is looking to deploy trainers so they can beef up units.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/newsworl ... NewsSearch

As the article notes, you can do this once. Russia should be doing the opposite, doubling up the trainers. This shows absolutely no plan to fight the war they started.

If Ukraine could capture a few BTGs, it will create a domino effect on Russian losses, in my opinion.

It really seems like we are approaching that critical fatigue point discussed upthread. In this defenders that are not doomed have the advantage as they have the Esprit de Corps engendered by saving their nation.

The next two months will be unfortunately fascinating.

If this report is true, Russia will create an additional 30-40 BTG’s but without proper equipment (T-62’s). The attrition for these BTG’s will be even higher then before and will make the recovery of the Russian armed forces impossible for the next decade or two, even if all sanctions would be lifted. This would be like a double whammy for the western world. I sincerely hope this report is true and Russia is going ALL-IN to give it a final push to be kicked out of Ukraine eventually…

You forgotb the BMP-1....
As they are already reaming the heavily battered units with older versions of the T-72 and BMP-1 (and not any more BMP-2 (or even BMP-3), seems these are already not any more availabe/gone to the maker and already in use). As example, the failed river crossing where armored vehicles and tanks in total number of the size of 2 to 3 BTGs have been erased...These were elite/guard units, which had been heavily battered at the begin of war, taken back and refilled with the equipment from stock/arsenal, which was any more available, and thse were BMP-1 as example.(source Oryx, attack on Europe:https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html), all from the failed river crossing.
BMP-1https://postimg.cc/wyy6chMG
BMP-1https://postimg.cc/67qDYf6K
BMP-1https://postlmg.cc/ZB7Pj6qG
BMP-1https://postlmg.cc/0z8Dt39J
I am surprised, no one has not already mentoned it here.


Also regarding the T-62, I have seen T-62 BV (so the last T-62 version in Russian army use, officially all retired nd destroyed in 2013). But some of the T-62 tanks in delivery were even only T-62 B versions and this is really only a bad joke...These have been last upgraded in 1983, are in best case tanks in status of the 70th and these are not even equipped with ERA of the first generation (so Kontakt 1).
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1529488085729288193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1529488085729288193%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedrive.com%2Fthe-war-zone%2Frussia-deploys-50-year-old-t-62-tanks-to-ukraine-front

I have also seen already earlier (perhaps already one month ago), BM21a Grad 1 on trains on transfer from storage to the front as replacement as they had high losses of BM-21 Grad. This is the version on ZIL-131 trucks with only 36 tubes. It is lighter version and also newer in comparison to the original BM-21 Grad with 40 tubes (the standard Grad version in use), but put early out of duty as benefit (lighter truck) was negible to the disadvantage of only 36 tubes. The BM-21 Grad seems to be already out of stock, so the trains are now full with the BM-21a as replenishment.

And to the other point; yes, it seems they will now send in the reserve conscript training reserve BTGs....They must be completely desperate already.
Ukraine has mobilized hundreds ot thousands of volunteers and they are first training them and forming complete new brigades till these will be send to the frontline, so Ukraine is forming several new armies (alone 300.000 have started in Feb and around 100.000 each additional month). And all of these units are still in training and still not send to the front (will be send in Jun/Jul, if I had understood the news(official announcements correctly).
And Russia will not even be able to mobilize any additional units, as all reserve training units soon will have been already sent to the frontline as bad trained and worst equipped 3rd line cannonfodder....

Russia is doing well, so well, you will not believe, how well they are doing....

A balanced review of both sides successes.

Ukrainian success starts at 3:25 (always does Russian success first):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQp03sdNPs

I like how this presenter switches to Google maps to give a strategic over-view. At about 6 minutes showing how a counter attack that presents quite a risk to certain Russian troops.

I'm of the opinion, the next few months are a key opportunity for Ukraine.

JonesNL wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Russia is looking to deploy trainers so they can beef up units.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/newsworl ... NewsSearch

As the article notes, you can do this once. Russia should be doing the opposite, doubling up the trainers. This shows absolutely no plan to fight the war they started.

If Ukraine could capture a few BTGs, it will create a domino effect on Russian losses, in my opinion.

It really seems like we are approaching that critical fatigue point discussed upthread. In this defenders that are not doomed have the advantage as they have the Esprit de Corps engendered by saving their nation.

The next two months will be unfortunately fascinating.

If this report is true, Russia will create an additional 30-40 BTG’s but without proper equipment (T-62’s). The attrition for these BTG’s will be even higher then before and will make the recovery of the Russian armed forces impossible for the next decade or two, even if all sanctions would be lifted. This would be like a double whammy for the western world. I sincerely hope this report is true and Russia is going ALL-IN to give it a final push to be kicked out of Ukraine eventually…

If true, this is insane. As you note, the Russian armed forces won't be intimidating for a decade. They lose their ability to train the next generation.

I'm going to admit, I was fooled more by the "paper tiger" of the Russian army than I thought possible. I expected T90Ms, T80s, and a few reserve T72 brigades, not majority T-72s, a handful of the other tanks, and now T-62s back-filling. Those T-62s need different (lesser) tank gun ammo. They lack modern networked battlefield computers. Thus, their casualty rate will be elevated.

Where will they get the armored personnel carriers from for this 30 to 40 BTGs? I'm just not aware of the ready stockpile of the BMPs. Since we were fooled by the ten thousand tanks, I think it worth discussing how few BMPs might be ready.

Lightsaber

marcelh wrote:

We’ll see what happen. It has done before (Crimea)

The thing that has changed is the stated goal of the Biden administration. Would a cease fire with Russia holding all of the Donbas and the majority of the coast line be considered as Russia sufficient degraded to not be able to do another "special operation"?

The thing about the US is it can be slow to react, but once it does, it is difficult to slow down or turn around.

As for the constant call for more sophisticated weapons. Remember at the beginning of the war where we roast the Russian for insufficient planning and logistics?

Well, "The West's" military planner have been very deliberate in the type of arms being sent. I have no visibility of the logistics happenings in Ukraine, but I wager they are moving supplies through as fast as the infrastructure and training allowed. No use sending MLRS when it's just going to be stuck at the border.

And don't forget the Russian is trying to bomb the supply line at every point the way.

I understand Zelinsky is doing what he is supposed to do by keep asking for all the weapons he can get his hands on. But I am not discouraged that Patriots or MRLS have not been sent.

In fact words of some Harpoons (Block I) may/will be on the way is encouraging. It should set the stage for Harpoons Block Ii.

bt

So M109 are in country. And Ukrainian is now receiving more NATO standard artillery shells than Soviet standard shells.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/en.interfa ... 1-amp.html

bt

This animated map is fascinating. It really shows how slow the progress has been for a month:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU_oYaa6ZOU

bikerthai wrote:

So M109 are in country. And Ukrainian is now receiving more NATO standard artillery shells than Soviet standard shells.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/en.interfa ... 1-amp.html

bt

From your link:
"At the same time, we must be aware that over the past month and a half, for example, we have received more NATO-type artillery shells than are within the reach of Soviet-style shells! The main thing is that we have already received more than all friendly plants of the countries where there are lines for the production of Soviet-type ammunition can produce within six months. And we will get more," Reznikov said.

In other words, the use of NATA standard artillery will become the standard for Ukraine moving forward as there just doesn't seem to be enough Soviet standard manufacturing in the EU.

That said, far more seems to be needed.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/kajakallas/status/1529439404477100032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1529439404477100032%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2Flive%2F2022%2Fmay%2F25%2Frussia-ukraine-war-latest-russians-trying-to-destroy-donbas-says-zelenskiy-as-fighting-intensifies-live


We cannot give anything to the aggressor that it didn’t have before – or the aggression will sooner or later return.


In my opinion, any concession will encourage a future war. Hopefully, we can get enough weapons to Ukraine to end this unjust war and they can reclaim their full borders.

I'm even more hardline than that! I think the Russians should be required to evacuate all forces from Transnistria in Moldova. They should be also required to unilaterally get rid of all their tactical nuclear weapons and drastically cut strategic nuclear forces to get rid of economic sanctions. They can't afford the costs of upkeep anyway.

T4thH wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Russia is looking to deploy trainers so they can beef up units.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/newsworl ... NewsSearch

As the article notes, you can do this once. Russia should be doing the opposite, doubling up the trainers. This shows absolutely no plan to fight the war they started.

If Ukraine could capture a few BTGs, it will create a domino effect on Russian losses, in my opinion.

It really seems like we are approaching that critical fatigue point discussed upthread. In this defenders that are not doomed have the advantage as they have the Esprit de Corps engendered by saving their nation.

The next two months will be unfortunately fascinating.

If this report is true, Russia will create an additional 30-40 BTG’s but without proper equipment (T-62’s). The attrition for these BTG’s will be even higher then before and will make the recovery of the Russian armed forces impossible for the next decade or two, even if all sanctions would be lifted. This would be like a double whammy for the western world. I sincerely hope this report is true and Russia is going ALL-IN to give it a final push to be kicked out of Ukraine eventually…

You forgotb the BMP-1....
As they are already reaming the heavily battered units with older versions of the T-72 and BMP-1 (and not any more BMP-2 (or even BMP-3), seems these are already not any more availabe/gone to the maker and already in use). As example, the failed river crossing where armored vehicles and tanks in total number of the size of 2 to 3 BTGs have been erased...These were elite/guard units, which had been heavily battered at the begin of war, taken back and refilled with the equipment from stock/arsenal, which was any more available, and thse were BMP-1 as example.(source Oryx, attack on Europe:https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html), all from the failed river crossing.
BMP-1https://postimg.cc/wyy6chMG
BMP-1https://postimg.cc/67qDYf6K
BMP-1https://postlmg.cc/ZB7Pj6qG
BMP-1https://postlmg.cc/0z8Dt39J
I am surprised, no one has not already mentoned it here.


Also regarding the T-62, I have seen T-62 BV (so the last T-62 version in Russian army use, officially all retired nd destroyed in 2013). But some of the T-62 tanks in delivery were even only T-62 B versions and this is really only a bad joke...These have been last upgraded in 1983, are in best case tanks in status of the 70th and these are not even equipped with ERA of the first generation (so Kontakt 1).
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1529488085729288193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1529488085729288193%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedrive.com%2Fthe-war-zone%2Frussia-deploys-50-year-old-t-62-tanks-to-ukraine-front

I have also seen already earlier (perhaps already one month ago), BM21a Grad 1 on trains on transfer from storage to the front as replacement as they had high losses of BM-21 Grad. This is the version on ZIL-131 trucks with only 36 tubes. It is lighter version and also newer in comparison to the original BM-21 Grad with 40 tubes (the standard Grad version in use), but put early out of duty as benefit (lighter truck) was negible to the disadvantage of only 36 tubes. The BM-21 Grad seems to be already out of stock, so the trains are now full with the BM-21a as replenishment.

And to the other point; yes, it seems they will now send in the reserve conscript training reserve BTGs....They must be completely desperate already.
Ukraine has mobilized hundreds ot thousands of volunteers and they are first training them and forming complete new brigades till these will be send to the frontline, so Ukraine is forming several new armies (alone 300.000 have started in Feb and around 100.000 each additional month). And all of these units are still in training and still not send to the front (will be send in Jun/Jul, if I had understood the news(official announcements correctly).
And Russia will not even be able to mobilize any additional units, as all reserve training units soon will have been already sent to the frontline as bad trained and worst equipped 3rd line cannonfodder....

Russia is doing well, so well, you will not believe, how well they are doing....

I think most people, like me, don't no the distinctions between the different BMP variants. Tanks usually get more attention and as such people are more aware of tank roll outs.

This war shows again that Russian doctrine is severely out dated and easily countered by a semi-modern army:
1. They rely heavily on their numbers
2. Focus on fire power and limited defence capability which results in low survivability (Moskva) as personnel losses is "not great, not terrible"
3. Engineering that cuts corners on equipment for cost savings
4. Terrible in military logistics
5. Extremely poor military planning and execution on all levels (strategic, tactical and operational)

Looking at China I am not sure how they perform on the last 2 aspects. But first 3 are a carbon copy in their doctrine. So, it might be that China is a paper dragon as well against a semi modern army, let alone a force like the US...

cpd wrote:

Mr Putin visiting heroic regular Russian people:

https://mobile.twitter.com/igorsushko/s ... 0206978048

Or is that visiting the rent-a-crowd mob… some of those folk look very familiar.

It's shocking how bad Russia is at this sort of stuff these days.

LONDON, England: The UK's Telegraph newspaper has reported that Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has proposed that Britain send modern weaponry to Moldova to protect it from a possible Russian invasion.

Although the invasion of Ukraine had failed to achieve quick success, Russian President Vladimir Putin remains determined to create a "greater Russia," she told The Telegraph.

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/272 ... n-invasion

Wiki reports an army of less than 6,000 and an air force with less than 30 fighters. No amount of modern equipment can make Moldova defensible with such a tiny army and air force, can it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_For ... of_Moldova

art wrote:

LONDON, England: The UK's Telegraph newspaper has reported that Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has proposed that Britain send modern weaponry to Moldova to protect it from a possible Russian invasion.

Although the invasion of Ukraine had failed to achieve quick success, Russian President Vladimir Putin remains determined to create a "greater Russia," she told The Telegraph.

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/272 ... n-invasion

Wiki reports an army of less than 6,000 and an air force with less than 30 fighters. No amount of modern equipment can make Moldova defensible with such a tiny army and air force, can it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_For ... of_Moldova

You have to compare it to the threat: Transnistria and the Russian forces in Transnistria.

Russian control of Transnistria is guaranteed by a force of around 1500 lightly-armed Russian troops, together with local militias.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... kraine-war

It sounds like Moldova can handle the job if they have tenacity similar to Ukraine.

art wrote:

LONDON, England: The UK's Telegraph newspaper has reported that Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has proposed that Britain send modern weaponry to Moldova to protect it from a possible Russian invasion.

Although the invasion of Ukraine had failed to achieve quick success, Russian President Vladimir Putin remains determined to create a "greater Russia," she told The Telegraph.

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/272 ... n-invasion

Wiki reports an army of less than 6,000 and an air force with less than 30 fighters. No amount of modern equipment can make Moldova defensible with such a tiny army and air force, can it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_For ... of_Moldova

But that begs the question. How can Russia get access to Moldova? Even if Russia were able to end up in control of the coast of southeastern Ukraine and control Donbas, they are unlikely to be able to invade Odessa and get land access to Moldova. Furthermore with all the losses Russian forces are suffering in Ukraine, they don't have the equipment to expand into Moldova.