The depletion of mechanized forces.

[Jredbaron96]

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.

Tanks regularly shrug off drone attacks. You can get lucky, but the average FPV doesn't have the actual power to knock out a protected tank.





The majority of drone killes on tanks you see are against already immobile or disabled tanks.

So the idea that drones have rendered tanks or AFVs irrelevant is nonsense. Both the Russians and Ukrainians clamor for more AFVs.

 

[pedex]

---

They don't have to be rendered irrelevant just not worth using. Your not going to punch thru the front line and protect infantry with them long enough to have much success. The tactics of old are long gone. Masses of armor and people are big fat very easily spotted targets. The amount of surveillance going on is stunning.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Tactics vs strategy and end goal. This war of attrition has been going on for years now.

And Putin is no closer to capturing Kyiv. He was punched in the mouth early today.....

Ukraine hits over 40 Russian warplanes in secret Security Service's operation - Details

Read more

newsukraine.rbc.ua

 

[Jredbaron96]

---

They don't have to be rendered irrelevant just not worth using. Your not going to punch thru the front line and protect infantry with them long enough to have much success. The tactics of old are long gone. Masses of armor and people are big fat very easily spotted targets. The amount of surveillance going on is stunning.

You are conflating two separate things, the usage of armor at all with the employment of mass mechanized forces. The former is still absolutely imperative and neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians claim otherwise.

 

[Chomsky]

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.

As can be seen by the Joe Stalin attribution:

"Quantity has a quality of its own"

There is some truth to this, even while its application may have additional complexities.

 

[Chomsky]

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.

I wouldn't say that's an effective argument to use against what might be the finest & most effective fighting force the world has known.

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.

Is that why Putin led with a blitzkrieg across the country to past Kyiv, in the very earliest days?

 

[medi]

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.

For a hurried technique after an early break while others are at lunch, I came up with the following which uses a color code to explain what I thought were negative per each nation and positive in the same manner. And what seemed neutral or not relevant.



And as I look again at what is in that quote box up above (your answer) you seem to be indicating that even though RF casualties will be high, they have enough personnel to overcome high casualties.

So in your last paragraph of the OP the "partially is in favor to Ukraine" means they can more easily kill RF troops? BUT RF still can replace those troops? So it is essentially a standoff?

It seems that what I was confused about was what is in the two shades of green (positive) you can see in that last paragraph of the OP. I guess you were stating neither nation had any advantage in the long term?

But, now as I review my post, I see I am still confused by this:

Without AFVs Russian forces would be assaulting ...

That use of "would be" means they will use "AFVs"? They have enough AFVs?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

OF COURSE, the dynamics of all this may have drastically changed shortly after you started this thread. Putin may decide to release significant ballistic missile forces and reign [?rain?] such destruction upon Ukraine cities that other will be drawn into the conflict. Tactical nukes may even be used.

Personally, I don't agree with a lot of folks about President Trump's priorities and so if Putin goes too far he'll be surprised that the U.S. strategy will shift and include NATO into the whole mess.

"Whole mess" it is already true; but it could get much, much worse. After all, war is always a mess.

 

[medi]

I wouldn't say that's an effective argument to use against what might be the finest & most effective fighting force the world has known.




Is that why Putin led with a blitzkrieg across the country to past Kyiv, in the very earliest days?

My understanding of the early stage of the conflict was the failure to take Kyiv was due to tactical errors on the part of the field commanders at that time and NOT because they didn't want to take that city. It isn't too hard to find the studies done on that phase of the conflict.

 

[medi]

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.

No, the "land" / territorial gain WILL NOT COME LATER; unless there is an actual total war, which this presently isn't. Or wasn't. Total war would mean the use of tactical nukes.

They blundered in the early stages and lost the chance for total victory, which is what would have happened if that column from north to south toward Kyiv had succeeded.

Of course, with the airfield strikes just within the past 12 or so hours, all bets are off now. This conflict might very well broaden in scope. I already know for an absolute fact that certain of our own forces are on a somewhat heightened state of alert. But that should be no surprise to anyone.

 

[Chomsky]

My understanding of the early stage of the conflict was the failure to take Kyiv was due to tactical errors on the part of the field commanders at that time and NOT because they didn't want to take that city. It isn't too hard to find the studies done on that phase of the conflict.

I believe you are correct, medi.

But my post was in response to another poster claiming this was a war of attrition, not territory. If this was a war of attrition, it's only because the good Ukrainians stymied Putin's ability to acquire territory thereby forcing a war of attrition.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So in your last paragraph of the OP the "partially is in favor to Ukraine" means they can more easily kill RF troops? BUT RF still can replace those troops? So it is essentially a standoff?

Russia's manpower pool is a *strategic* advantage, one that cannot be immediately translated to a tactical one due to various obstacles like training, equipment, and logistics.

Russia's growing AFV shortage is a *tactical* disadvantage, and over time the resulting high casualties will become a strategic nuisance, but not enough to immediately offset Russia's larger population and thus available manpower.

 

[Rogue Valley]

In addition, Moscow found it a necessity to import North Korean soldiers to supplement their forces in the Kursk region.

 

[medi]

In addition, Moscow found it a necessity to import North Korean soldiers to supplement their forces in the Kursk region.

Yep, and that provided necessary research info on how they stood up to that challenge. Can't say as those DPRK folks looked too hot. Plus they ran into an odd problem - the language problem. Seemed odd the Russian Federation command folks hadn't properly prepared for that. seemed almost like a rush job. But, still, the intel gathered is useful. Very useful.

 

[Juin]

I believe you are correct, medi.

But my post was in response to another poster claiming this was a war of attrition, not territory. If this was a war of attrition, it's only because the good Ukrainians stymied Putin's ability to acquire territory thereby forcing a war of attrition.

Exactly. No one likes a war of attrition. You blitz if you can, you attrit if you cannot

 

[Juin]

As can be seen by the Joe Stalin attribution:

"Quantity has a quality of its own"

There is some truth to this, even while its application may have additional complexities.

There is much truth to that. And this war demonstrates it. In this war it seems having a lot of cheap tanks is way better than having one expensive tank.

 

[Chomsky]

Exactly. No one likes a war of attrition. You blitz if you can, you attrit if you cannot

Yes, as long as you don't over-run your supply lines.

I see it kinda' like the old hockey adage:

"The best defense is a good offense!"

 

[Chomsky]

There is much truth to that. And this war demonstrates it. In this war it seems having a lot of cheap tanks is way better than having one expensive tank.

If you have any doubt, ask the Mid Twentieth Century Germans!

Ol' Joe knew of what he spoketh . . .

 

[multivita-man]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html

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

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

РФ обогнала Украину по инновациям на поле боя - Залужный

Валерий Залужный заявил, что Россия обогнала Украину по инновациям на поле боя. Очевидно, речь идет о дронах

strana.news

The problem with this is we're in year 3 of a wartime economy. The first two years are actually pretty good, but it declines thereafter.

 

[multivita-man]

If you have any doubt, ask the Mid Twentieth Century Germans!

Ol' Joe knew of what he spoketh . . .

Germany lost the war because they ran out of energy. Russia has energy and 4X Ukraine's population, which gives them the natural edge, but the coalition against Russia is a thing, even without the US.

 

[medi]

There is much truth to that. And this war demonstrates it. In this war it seems having a lot of cheap tanks is way better than having one expensive tank.

Actually, that was exactly the method used by the U.S. in WW2. But the Brits added a different barrel on some of the tanks we built. Still, the Germans were building some really good tanks that ours couldn't stand up to, but using numbers (quantity) was the key on the Allied side. And bombing any manufacturing plant that could be identified and got to. Germans were rather good at spreading their manufacturing out-and-about. Much better than many historians write about. And a whole bunch better than Hollywood historians want us to believe. One big reason that Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein caught Allied intel by surprise, along with other stuff the Germans did correctly for that last try at a stalemate.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Germany lost the war because they ran out of energy. Russia has energy and 4X Ukraine's population, which gives them the natural edge, but the coalition against Russia is a thing, even without the US.

Russia's energy production/storage/delivery and population are being degraded. Her [wartime] economy is in a very bad way. Without war, hyperinflation will set in.

In addition, Russia is a prisoner of global oil prices of which she has no control.

 

[medi]

Straight up, armed conflict is hard on any nation, especially when it is on one's own land, or the borders.

This whole thing needs to be stopped in some manner.

And, in all honesty, (being "straight up") nobody ever wins. Even the one with the last flag flying loses in some way. We humans need to leave this style of conflict resolution to the feline/canine/other animals populations. We ought to evolve into proper human form/thinking. Aren't we supposed to be the super animal on this planet?

 

[Rogue Valley]

And, in all honesty, (being "straight up") nobody ever wins. Even the one with the last flag flying loses in some way.

Be that as it may, some wars are existential. The very existence of an invaded country - such as Ukraine - hangs in the balance.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Straight up, armed conflict is hard on any nation, especially when it is on one's own land, or the borders.

This whole thing needs to be stopped in some manner.

And, in all honesty, (being "straight up") nobody ever wins. Even the one with the last flag flying loses in some way. We humans need to leave this style of conflict resolution to the feline/canine/other animals populations. We ought to evolve into proper human form/thinking. Aren't we supposed to be the super animal on this planet?

Have you said this to Putin?

 

[iguanaman]

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.

You mean Russia has lost wars before? Yes they have many times.