• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The depletion of mechanized forces.

Jredbaron96

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
35,724
Reaction score
27,384
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Russo-Ukrainian War has been unique among conflicts in the 21st Century in that is has been a largely mechanized war fought between similarily equipped armies.

For the most part, Russia has been able to rely on a large surplus stockpile of Soviet armored fighting vehicles to replenish its material losses. Ukraine has, to a much lesser degree, been able to maintain mechanized formations due to the supply of foreign donations.

But after three years of war both armies have been decimated in terms of mechanized forces; Ukraine has lost somewhere around 4,000 tanks, APCs, IFVs, MRAPs, and similar, where as Russia has lost somewhere around 9,000 AFVs, and just recently surpassed 4,000 recorded tank losses.

Its unlikely either side will be in a position to substantially rebuild their mechanized forces for the foreseeable future. The Trump admin has been reluctant to support Ukraine and Europe, while voicing support, has smaller stockpiles to fall back on.

Russia meanwhile has depleted its Soviet stockpiles, and while its production rate means they will never run out, its not enough to actually replenish losses.

Just compare Russian storage facilities before the war and now:

1000013957.webp

1000013958.webp

For the past few weeks there has been a substantial decrease in the reported presence of AFVs. Just look at how small the surely exaggerated Ukrainian kill claims have gotten recently:

1000013910.webp

One tank added? 2 AFVs?

The war is likely to continue, but I expect 2025 to witness increasingly non-mechanized forces (light infantry, motorized) to bear the brunt of the fighting. That partially is in favor to Ukraine, since Russian commitment to the offensive doesn't appear to have receded despite the loss of so much material. However, Russia maintains significant advantages in manpower and financial resources. Either way, I suspect the war is likely to continue into 2026 short of some sudden or unexpected development.
 

www.aljazeera.com

Russia races ahead of NATO in arms production for Ukraine war: Report

A new SIPRI study lays bare how NATO is unable to turn spending power into firepower in a crisis.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com


Russia on track to build artillery shell stockpile triple the size of the US's and Europe's combined: top US general

Gen. Chris Cavoli says Russia is rebuilding its forces swiftly, including by producing 10 times as many tanks as the US each year.
www.businessinsider.com

The scale of Russia's rearmament has NATO worried

For many months now, Moscow's defense industry has been reorganizing itself. Its resiliency is increasingly surprising and worrying on both sides of the Atlantic.
www.lemonde.fr

Russia could be ready to strike NATO in two years, new report says

NATO's eastern flank has grown increasingly nervous that Moscow's forces could quickly rebuild after a ceasefire in Ukraine.
www.newsweek.com

Russia's weapons production has actually increased dramatically despite Western sanctions, report says

Russia’s output of artillery rounds, missiles and drones has soared since it invaded Ukraine, says a new report, and the U.S. and allies have “little to show” for their barrage of sanctions.
www.nbcnews.com

https://strana.news/news/485446-zaluzhnyj-zajavil-chto-rossija-obohnala-ukrainu-po-innovatsijam-na-fronte.html

strana.news

 
Cry some more.
 
Please excuse my confusion about that positive note you seem to point toward Ukraine's situation, yet you then specify the Russian Federation's possible advantages in a ground forces dominated conflict zone.

Jredbaron96 said:
That partially is in favor to Ukraine ...
Click to expand...
 
StillBallin75 said:
The fight always starts and ends with light infantry, at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

What about morning attacks like Japan did at Pearl with airplanes or even incursions in the night... like Germany did to Poland to start WWII?


.
 
medi said:
Please excuse my confusion about that positive note you seem to point toward Ukraine's situation, yet you then specify the Russian Federation's possible advantages in a ground forces dominated conflict zone.
Click to expand...

Without AFVs Russian forces would be assaulting Ukrainian lines with lighter vehicles like the converted civilian vehicles we've seen, which would also be more vulnerable to fire and thus likely to result in higher casualties per assault.

But Russia has a larger pool of manpower to draw from, so while it may be a tactical disadvantage to Russia, they still hold a strategic advantage.
 

I have to ask: did you think if you just posted enough links it would make of for not actually writing out an argument?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I have to ask: did you think if you just posted enough links it would make of for not actually writing out an argument?
Click to expand...
No argument required. The links tell the tale. Russia is outproducing NATO all across the military spectrum and has been for quite awhile. Why this is debated or unexpected makes little sense. Russia has done this before.
 
pedex said:
No argument required. The links tell the tale.
Click to expand...

Half your links are about shell production, not AFV production, and the one you do cite uses numbers from 2024, which relied on refurbished models from storage.

If Russia was actually producing enough AFVs to make up for losses, the only reasons Russia would be assaulting Ukrainian lines with civilian vehicles would be sadism on the part of Russian commanders.

 
That is probably the one thing Putin has going in his favor. While there are of course finite limits to human numbers and economic capability to keep up output of equipment and supplies, so far Putin has been able to throw every able-bodied male he can find using equipment going back to the 1980s and 1970s to keep this fight going.

It sets back Russia several generations, but Putin seems hell bent on taking the nation to the brink of resource collapse to keep the west out of Ukraine.

So far, Putin has spent a whole lot to get very little.
 

My apologies, I've gone back and forth between your opening post and your answer and something isn't making any sense. Is there anything you would like to adjust?

I ask, because to properly do an analysis of what you've written so far would take me considerable time, and I am hoping you might be able to clarify what you have written, or see the problems some of us might have trying to dissect what you have written.
 
If you pay attention to the evolution of technology and the tactics on the battlefield you'll stop with the propaganda. Stop thinking like an American. Armored set piece maneuver warfare disappeared for the most part months ago. It doesn't work for either side so they stopped using it. Makes no sense to field super expensive things like tanks that cost millions when they get killed easily with drones that cost $10k. On top of that Russia doesn't prosecute this war to acquire land. It's a war of attrition. The land will come later if they want it.
 
medi said:
My apologies, I've gone back and forth between your opening post and your answer and something isn't making any sense. Is there anything you would like to adjust?
Click to expand...

What is it that's confusing you?
 
pedex said:
If you pay attention to the evolution of technology and the tactics on the battlefield you'll stop with the propaganda. Stop thinking like an American. Armored set piece maneuver warfare disappeared for the most part months ago.
Click to expand...

This isn't an accurate assessment of the reality of this war at all. Russia and Ukraine aren't using their armor for mass mechanized maneuver, they are using then to provide protection and firepower for their infantry.

You seem to subscribe to the techbro idea of war where nothing but drones matter, which tells me you don't actually read anything about this war.

pedex said:
It doesn't work for either side so they stopped using it. Makes no sense to field super expensive things like tanks that cost millions when they get killed easily with drones that cost $10k.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you've never seen the videos of tanks shrugging off drone hits and ATGMs and keep going.


pedex said:
On top of that Russia doesn't prosecute this war to acquire land. It's a war of attrition. The land will come later if they want it.
Click to expand...

1. Russia has explicitly made territorial demands their objective.

2. A "war of attrition" and a "war for territory" are not mutually exclusive.
 

On a related point, I have been quite surprised at some of the tactical blunders the Russian Federation field commanders have made, especially at the outset. I am very familiar with Putin's early career in the KGB and that fantastic con job he pulled when East Germany came apart at the seams and he has shown some cleverness in dealing with political situations inside his nation, but I am beginning to learn that large tactical operations are not one of his strong points.

Yes, the Ukraine forces are really good; very true. But they aren't that fantastic. And in the early days the U.S. was gladly dumping old equipment into that AO to help ourselves. We could then go and build new stuff.

It has only been after the errors made by the Russian Federation field officers made it clear the newer stuff was a good idea that the Ukraine forces starting getting some hotshot stuff. AND they got super good at that new style of drone attacks. Well, kind of new. They have taken that weapons system to a higher tactical level.
 
New equipment burns and gets destroyed just like old hardware. Why not use it? Its not a sign of weakness. It's smart and makes sense. Quantity is sometimes better than quality. Sometimes low technology durable weapons just plain work. It's a war of attrition which is a war of economics and numbers. Russia has a significant set if advantages here. Don't mistake what they do for weakness. They are not trying specifically to take land and gain ground. That's a consequence of what's going on. The goal is to demilitarize Ukraine as in destroy their military. Ukraine has to worry about losing ground and hardware and men. Russia will cede ground to destroy more Ukranian forces. They don't care if they are advancing or falling back. They just keep ratcheting up the pressure.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
What is it that's confusing you?
Click to expand...

Please allow me to set aside some time, maybe my tomorrow; to write up what I am not able to figure out. Maybe I'll even find that I have made the error at my end and I'll inform you of that, if that is the case. But it's 2135hrs and soon I need to take my night medicine and so, at the earliest, tomorrow I can get back to this.
 
pedex said:
New equipment burns and gets destroyed just like old hardware. Why not use it?
Click to expand...

It doesnt though: more modern equipment is generally more survivable.

Russia isnt using T-62s because they are as good as T-80s or T-90s. Its using T-62s because it doesn't have enough T-80s or T-90s.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It doesnt though: more modern equipment is generally more survivable.

Russia isnt using T-62s because they are as good as T-80s or T-90s. Its using T-62s because it doesn't have enough T-80s or T-90s.
Click to expand...
Same reason Ukrainians are using T-62s and Leopard 1s.

Any tank is better than no tank.

However, I would have expected "the world's second army" to have made better use of their armor rather than pissing it away.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It doesnt though: more modern equipment is generally more survivable.

Russia isnt using T-62s because they are as good as T-80s or T-90s. Its using T-62s because it doesn't have enough T-80s or T-90s.
Click to expand...
3 drones costing 30k take out a multi million dollar tank. High value weapons get hit very quickly on the battlefield these days. It's interesting to watch. Hit the motor or tracks. Then the optics. Then the kill shot. Dead tank that lasted just long enough to get near the gray zone at the front. Assuming it even gets that far. And as a bonus the whole crew gets killed. A trained expensive crew.
 
pedex said:
They are not trying specifically to take land and gain ground.
Click to expand...

That is just dishonest agitprop.

The Kremlin intended to conquer Kyiv, assassinate Zelenskyy, and control/occupy all of Ukraine. They even had Yanukovych waiting in Belarus to take charge in Kyiv.

The Russian 40 mile convoy was an extremely bad strategic/tactical idea, and the Russians were defeated at Bucha and at Hostomel. So much for the 7 day war the Kremlin had war-planned for.

Don't give us this claptrap that Putin doesn't want all of Ukraine, all of its lands and all of her people. No one here believes such low-grade disinformation.
 
Tactics vs strategy and end goal. This war of attrition has been going on for years now.
 

You have no idea how this actually works huh
 
Jredbaron96 said:
You have no idea how this actually works huh
Click to expand...
Been watching it on social media posted by both sides and talking to drone designers. You should try it. The innovation and tactic changes are happening very quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.