Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

RedDevilQuebecois said:
You're kidding yourself. Russia hasn't deployed shit to try attaining air superiority in several months.
Click to expand...

i know. Im just saying that maybe, with the perspective of losing the war bc maybe, ukraine will attain ground superiority due to the NATO tanks, they will go all out for air superiority no matter what. It is just my pure speculation. Based in nothing. But war is about adaptability and reassessing situations
 
Carolina Red said:
What?
Click to expand...

Sorry, was out and wrote too fast. I meant not american tanks but from planes or others, probably not many tanks vs tanks battles, but i say that without knowing anything. Just why risk equipement nd lives, when you can do it easily in another way. But again based in nothing. Just an opinion. You might know much more what happened there
 
The United said:
I said that they stabilized their line AFTER they lost those and gained some (minimal) grounds. It does not matter how much they are losing which they don't care but it has big impact on the UKR forces as well.
Click to expand...
I think if they're losing that much manpower as they seemingly are it does matter in the long run.
 
4bars said:
i know. Im just saying that maybe, with the perspective of losing the war bc maybe, ukraine will attain ground superiority due to the NATO tanks, they will go all out for air superiority no matter what. It is just my pure speculation. Based in nothing. But war is about adaptability and reassessing situations
Click to expand...
Maybe they would, but I feel like the Russians missed the time for that. Too many air defense systems have been pledged and delivered due to their ongoing missile attacks, it should be almost impossible for Russia to operate their air force in a truly effective way.
 
stefan92 said:
Maybe they would, but I feel like the Russians missed the time for that. Too many air defense systems have been pledged and delivered due to their ongoing missile attacks, it should be almost impossible for Russia to operate their air force in a truly effective way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is what i was thinking all along. Maybe it is good that ukraine had time to receive, be trained and deploy air defences and now be able to be trained with gtound equipment. All at once could be impossible maybe

Who knows the strategy that is being followed and what tgey let us know or make us believe
 
stefan92 said:
True, but what Russia currently fields is only partially better. They even field T-62s now.
Click to expand...

Probably why they're so pissed about these latest developments. They're going to have to send more of their best equipment because these Western tanks will steamroll the junk they've been getting away with so far.


The other side to my original point is the environment. M1s have only ever fought in the desert, and Challenger 2s have only had minor deployments elsewhere. It will be useful learning.
 
Real Name said:
I think if they're losing that much manpower as they seemingly are it does matter in the long run.
Click to expand...
Again, people talk about the Russian losses in manpower while ignoring the UKR losses in manpower, which are kept secret, but from the little hints we get around, they are not too far away from the Russians in that sense. This becomes an issue if the Russians keep supplying those canon folders, which does not seem to slow down at all at this moment, while the UKR will naturally have less manpower. We have talked about the possible Russian collapse with those tactics for months, and they are still here, gaining (minimal) ground in certain areas where they use it. In those such as the twin cities in the summer and the Bakhmut area now, the UKR were/are losing triple digits manpower a day themselves. Not to mentioned the Russians still have more artillery power than the UKR according to some sources.

I feel good about the UKR getting armored vehicles (hopefully enough) to use some kind of maneuvering tactic instead of head-on defending against the Russian frontal assaults over and over due the lack of necessary equipment to do something else.
 
Last edited:
The United said:
Again, people talk about the Russian losses in manpower while ignoring the UKR losses in manpower, which are kept secret, but from the little hints we get around, they are not too far away from the Russians in that sense. This becomes an issue if the Russians keep supplying those canon folders, which does not seem to slow down at all at this moment, while the UKR will naturally have less manpower. We have talked about the possible Russian collapse with those tactics for months, and they are still here, gaining (minimal) ground in certain areas where they use it. In those such as the twin cities in the summer and the Bakhmut area now, the UKR were/are losing triple digits manpower a day themselves. Not to mentioned the Russians still have more artillery power than the UKR according to some sources.

I feel good about the UKR getting armored vehicles (hopefully enough) to use some kind of maneuvering tactic instead of head-on defending against the Russian frontal assaults.
Click to expand...
I dont think they defend head on in the sense of throwing people out there to defend like Russians do without any support. From what I've seen in some videos and they're using vasious technique and wepons to defend. Of course given they dont have as many forces in the back as Russians it can become an issue, they need to be smart about how and what to defend and at what cost. I dont think people are ignoring their losses but that its not known what the losses are that's true.
But despite the fact they're throwing bodies out there even for Russians they will be a limit. Not to mention they're throwing it all on Bakhmut and gain a km or 2 per day and then lose it.
 
Real Name said:
I dont think they defend head on in the sense of throwing people out there to defend like Russians do without any support. From what I've seen in some videos and they're using vasious technique and wepons to defend. Of course given they dont have as many forces in the back as Russians it can become an issue, they need to be smart about how and what to defend and at what cost. I dont think people are ignoring their losses but that its not known what the losses are that's true.
But despite the fact they're throwing bodies out there even for Russians they will be a limit. Not to mention they're throwing it all on Bakhmut and gain a km or 2 per day and then lose it.
Click to expand...

They have to defend head-on once they start losing ground in their outer defense lines, which has happened in those areas I mentioned. Even if the Russians are losing tons of their men, in that situation, the UKR will have to fight back head-on or they will have to retreat, as they did from those twin cities in the summer. As long as they try to hold on, their losses will be mounting as well. The Russians will hit a limit, and when they get there, it will devastate the UKR forces as well. We keep making fun of the Russians' World War I or II tactics, but they cost a lot for the UKR, and it is a tough pill to swallow because the UKR will need all the manpower to push the Russians all the way back.

We have seen videos of how the UKR operates, hardly from the Russian side, which go back to the point that we are not exactly seeing everything. As I mentioned earlier, the UKR report stated how tough it was to fight against the Russian convicts in those areas, as opposed to how we were making fun of them here online.
 
11101 said:
Probably why they're so pissed about these latest developments. They're going to have to send more of their best equipment because these Western tanks will steamroll the junk they've been getting away with so far.


The other side to my original point is the environment. M1s have only ever fought in the desert, and Challenger 2s have only had minor deployments elsewhere. It will be useful learning.
Click to expand...
 
The United said:
They have to defend head-on once they start losing ground in their outer defense lines, which has happened in those areas I mentioned. Even if the Russians are losing tons of their men, in that situation, the UKR will have to fight back head-on or they will have to retreat, as they did from those twin cities in the summer. As long as they try to hold on, their losses will be mounting as well. The Russians will hit a limit, and when they get there, it will devastate the UKR forces as well. We keep making fun of the Russians' World War I or II tactics, but they cost a lot for the UKR, and it is a tough pill to swallow because the UKR will need all the manpower to push the Russians all the way back.

We have seen videos of how the UKR operates, hardly from the Russian side, which go back to the point that we are not exactly seeing everything. As I mentioned earlier, the UKR report stated how tough it was to fight against the Russian convicts in those areas, as opposed to how we were making fun of them here online.
Click to expand...
But in UA videos you can see how Russians operate too. As for defending that's what I meant of being smart and retreating to the next defensive line when it's not feesible to defend and lose men.
I dont know what you meant about making fun of anyone, war is never fun let alone making one on the internet. Attacking force always loses more men, we dont know whats the ratio and of course it costs UA deerly but its safe to say Russian tactics of just throwing men is absolute madness.
 
Real Name said:
But in UA videos you can see how Russians operate too. As for defending that's what I meant of being smart and retreating to the next defensive line when it's not feesible to defend and lose men.
I dont know what you meant about making fun of anyone, war is never fun let alone making one on the internet. Attacking force always loses more men, we dont know whats the ratio and of course it costs UA deerly but its safe to say Russian tactics of just throwing men is absolute madness.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You are looking at the UA videos, where we can see the stupidity of the Russian forces. But they are still gaining (minimal) ground in those same areas, no? So what does that tell you?

It was to point out the shortcomings of their tactics and how outdated, untrained, and underequipped they were. Of course, not in a hilarious comedy-show kind of way. Don't forget UA have their own offensives happening somewhere for months as well if we talk about attackers lose more. They did lose a lot on Kherson offensive as well and they will have to attack in the future. All "the attackers lose more men" will apply to UA at some point in some way as well.

Trying to invade the whole country was madness from the start. Nothing after that (except for using nukes) gets close to it.
 
The United said:
Exactly. You are looking at the UA videos, where we can see the stupidity of the Russian forces. But they are still gaining (minimal) ground in those same areas, no? So what does that tell you?
Click to expand...
It tells me their invasion failed massively among other things. Losing ton of men and equipment for a few kilometres in a Bakhmut wasteland.
 
Real Name said:
It tells me their invasion failed massively among other things. Losing ton of men and equipment for a few kilometres in a Bakhmut wasteland.
Click to expand...
Their invasion failed, but why do we care so much about it at this point? UA has to get all or most of their lands back, and this is where our concerns should be.

It's not about "Oh, look! The Russians fail, ha! while still occupying 10-15% of your country, and you can't get out of a wasteland."
 
The United said:
Their invasion failed, however, and who cares? UA has to get all or most of their lands back, and this is where our concerns should be.

It's not just "Oh, the Russians fail while still occupying 10-15% of your country, and you can't get out of a wasteland."
Click to expand...
Yes of course. But main concern now is to stop the Russian advances and their bombardment.
Next step will be to get the territory back and it certainly wont happen quickly or easily.
I think we're thinking and saying the same things just in different manner.
 
Real Name said:
Yes of course. But main concern now is to stop the Russian advances and their bombardment.
Next step will be to get the territory back and it certainly wont happen quickly or easily.
I think we're thinking and saying the same things just in different manner.
Click to expand...
Different manner for sure. I am just over "feel good' posts and videos while the reality in the battlefield is saying something else in the present. Just wanted to see from a different perspective, not from the Kremlin btw, more of how the UA forces are actually doing/reacting the situations in the field.
 
The United said:
Different manner for sure. I am just over "feel good' posts and videos while the reality in the battlefield is saying something else in the present. Just wanted to see from a different perspective, not from the Kremlin btw, more of how the UA forces are actually doing/reacting the situations in the field.
Click to expand...
I've asked the similar questions previously here of how tactically smart is to hold on in Bakhmut and lose men in the long run and how much losses there are affecting their manpower on the whole. As I understand they tactically retreated in Bakhmut as well as in Soledad.
Its just lot of people want to hear and see good news, of course they have huge losses there so anything bad it happens to Russian invaders sounds and looks good.
 
11101 said:
The Leopards and Challengers will be equally if not more effective than the M1s and should arrive much sooner.
Click to expand...
The M1's are really just there to give Scholz and the German government political cover to release the Leopards. The Abrams tank is too different a beast to be used sustainably in a theater like Ukraine. Having a friggin turbine engine powering your MTB is a great solution if you're 'Murica and have a massive logistical apparatus to support it, but a diesel engined vehicle like the Leopard just makes more sense in Ukraine.
 
11101 said:
Iraqi T72s were anything but modern.
Click to expand...
Neither are the Russians.
4bars said:
Sorry, was out and wrote too fast. I meant not american tanks but from planes or others, probably not many tanks vs tanks battles, but i say that without knowing anything. Just why risk equipement nd lives, when you can do it easily in another way. But again based in nothing. Just an opinion. You might know much more what happened there
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to the examples given, like 73 Easting, then yeah, those were legit tank vs tank battles like what was seen in WWII. One is actually called “the last great tank battle of the 20th Century”
 
RoyH1 said:
The M1's are really just there to give Scholz and the German government political cover to release the Leopards. The Abrams tank is too different a beast to be used sustainably in a theater like Ukraine. Having a friggin turbine engine powering your MTB is a great solution if you're 'Murica and have a massive logistical apparatus to support it, but a diesel engined vehicle like the Leopard just makes more sense in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
What actually is the big problem about the turbine engine? It can burn a lot of propellants, just like the Leopard engine. Yes, the US Army uses jet propellant, but that's simple for them because they have both tanks and helicopters at their bases and essentially it's the same engine.

Yes I know it's terribly wasteful and uses up to twice as much fuel as the Leopard, but besides that, what is so problematic about logistics with that model?
 
Carolina Red said:
Neither are the Russians.
Click to expand...

Iraq used a watered down version of the T72A with not even composite armour. Night vision capability consisted of a floodlight. Nothing like the upgraded T72s in the Russian Army.

Still, the T72s are just there for numbers and mostly in the hands of reservists. It is the newer models the West will be most interested in seeing.


RoyH1 said:
The M1's are really just there to give Scholz and the German government political cover to release the Leopards. The Abrams tank is too different a beast to be used sustainably in a theater like Ukraine. Having a friggin turbine engine powering your MTB is a great solution if you're 'Murica and have a massive logistical apparatus to support it, but a diesel engined vehicle like the Leopard just makes more sense in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Exactly, they use tonnes of fuel and how are Ukrainian support crews going to fix a turbine engine if it breaks down.
 
Real Name said:
I've asked the similar questions previously here of how tactically smart is to hold on in Bakhmut and lose men in the long run and how much losses there are affecting their manpower on the whole. As I understand they tactically retreated in Bakhmut as well as in Soledad.
Its just lot of people want to hear and see good news, of course they have huge losses there so anything bad it happens to Russian invaders sounds and looks good.
Click to expand...
Good question. This is what the Institute for the Study of War said about it…

“The Ukrainian defense of Bakhmut is likely a strategically sound effort despite its costs for Ukraine. While the costs associated with Ukraine’s continued defense of Bakhmut are significant and likely include opportunity costs related to potential Ukrainian counter-offensive operations elsewhere, Ukraine would also have paid a significant price for allowing Russian troops to take Bakhmut easily … Ukrainian forces have previously employed a similar gradual attrition model to compel Russian operations in certain areas to culminate after months of suffering high personnel and equipment losses in pursuit of marginal tactical gains. Russian troops spent months attempting to grind through effective Ukrainian defenses in Severodonetsk and Lysychansk in the early summer of 2022 and captured Lysychansk only after a controlled Ukrainian withdrawal from the area.[1] The capture of Lysychansk and the Luhansk Oblast administrative border, however, quickly proved to be operationally insignificant for Russian forces, and the ultimate result of the Ukrainian defense of the area was the forced culmination of the Russian offensive in Luhansk Oblast, leading to the overall stagnation of Russian offensive operations in Donbas”
 
Carolina Red said:
Good question. This is what the Institute for the Study of War said about it…

“The Ukrainian defense of Bakhmut is likely a strategically sound effort despite its costs for Ukraine. While the costs associated with Ukraine’s continued defense of Bakhmut are significant and likely include opportunity costs related to potential Ukrainian counter-offensive operations elsewhere, Ukraine would also have paid a significant price for allowing Russian troops to take Bakhmut easily … Ukrainian forces have previously employed a similar gradual attrition model to compel Russian operations in certain areas to culminate after months of suffering high personnel and equipment losses in pursuit of marginal tactical gains. Russian troops spent months attempting to grind through effective Ukrainian defenses in Severodonetsk and Lysychansk in the early summer of 2022 and captured Lysychansk only after a controlled Ukrainian withdrawal from the area.[1] The capture of Lysychansk and the Luhansk Oblast administrative border, however, quickly proved to be operationally insignificant for Russian forces, and the ultimate result of the Ukrainian defense of the area was the forced culmination of the Russian offensive in Luhansk Oblast, leading to the overall stagnation of Russian offensive operations in Donbas”
Click to expand...
Good read. I remember now there was a talk about Bakhmut potentially being their Stalingrad. Of course on a much smaller scale but in the sense of them spending themselves for marginal gains thus preventing them of going on a big offensive in the spring or that possible offensive being less effective. They're spending their force from town to town and Ukrainians are retreating tactically.
 
Carolina Red said:
Abrams has definitely fought against T-72s. And it cleaned feckin house
Click to expand...

It's the T90's everyone has their eye on. They are in the field and I've seen one Ukrainian commander state they need to bring up 3 or 4 of theirs when they come across one, to deal with it.

All the youtube war junkies will be frothing at the groin in anticipation of its first encounter with a leapord/challenger/abrams.
 
Real Name said:
What tanks are UAF using now?
Click to expand...

Export T72s, which are very outdated versions that didn't get many upgrades, and T80s. They also have some older stuff that is probably kept away from Russian tanks.
 
11101 said:
Export T72s, which are very outdated versions that didn't get many upgrades, and T80s. They also have some older stuff that is probably kept away from Russian tanks.
Click to expand...
They also got a huge amount of T-72 from Poland, as well as some M-55 (upgraded T-55) from Slovakia. The Polish tanks are modernised to a certain degree to be integrated in NATO command&control, the M-55 even use a NATO standard 105mm cannon (the same as used by the Leopard 1 tank, significantly weaker as the 120mm used by Leopard 2 or Abrams).
 
stefan92 said:
What actually is the big problem about the turbine engine? It can burn a lot of propellants, just like the Leopard engine. Yes, the US Army uses jet propellant, but that's simple for them because they have both tanks and helicopters at their bases and essentially it's the same engine.

Yes I know it's terribly wasteful and uses up to twice as much fuel as the Leopard, but besides that, what is so problematic about logistics with that model?
Click to expand...
Like @11101 says above, they are more thirsty (lower range on a tank of fuel) and have a more maintenance heavy engine than a diesel engine. Easier to repair for Ukrainian mechanics
 
11101 said:
Iraq used a watered down version of the T72A with not even composite armour. Night vision capability consisted of a floodlight. Nothing like the upgraded T72s in the Russian Army.
Click to expand...
I’m aware, but consider that the US was using the now outdated 1991 version of the Abrams in those battles as well. The current T-72 is still outdated compared to the Abrams, or the Leopard and Challenger, for that matter.
Simbo said:
It's the T90's everyone has their eye on. They are in the field and I've seen one Ukrainian commander state they need to bring up 3 or 4 of theirs when they come across one, to deal with it.
Click to expand...
Yes, the T-90 vs Abrams/Leopard/Challenger will be interesting, but I go back to the fact that the T-90 is just a T-72 with an updated engine and the updated turret from the T-80. If they’re already being knocked out by Ukrainian forces in T-64s and T-72s, then I feel good about all of the NATO tanks chances.
Real Name said:
What tanks are UAF using now?
Click to expand...
For the most part, it’s been T-64 and T-72. The NATO tanks will be considerably better.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
There is one past battle that the Ukrainians can draw inspiration from since it is about how a smaller tank force held the line against a much bigger attacking force, which was drilled by the Soviet/Russian doctrine.

The Valley of Tears (1973)

The first task for the Ukrainians will be to withstand what the Russians will throw at them (expectedly) soon. If that step is accomplished, then the Ukrainians can think about moving armored forces forward. Considering that the Syrians lost between 260 and 300 Syrian T-55s/T-64s compared to 60-80 Israeli Centurion tanks lost back then, I think we can expect the tank casualty ratio will be much more favorable for the Ukrainians in a similar context because of the more recent Western technology as well.
Click to expand...
Link apparently doesn't work.
 
Carolina Red said:
I’m aware, but consider that the US was using the now outdated 1991 version of the Abrams in those battles as well. The current T-72 is still outdated compared to the Abrams, or the Leopard and Challenger, for that matter.

Yes, the T-90 vs Abrams/Leopard/Challenger will be interesting, but I go back to the fact that the T-90 is just a T-72 with an updated engine and the updated turret from the T-80. If they’re already being knocked out by Ukrainian forces in T-64s and T-72s, then I feel good about all of the NATO tanks chances.

For the most part, it’s been T-64 and T-72. The NATO tanks will be considerably better.
Click to expand...

I think the overall point is that no current Western MBT has ever been up against another modern MBT. I dont think there is any concern they will lose but the armies will be keen to see how they perform and where improvements could be made.

Likewise for the environment. The M1 has never fought in this terrain before and the C2/Leopard haven't done much either. There will be lessons to be learned. In the Middle East the environment claimed more casualties than the enemy did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.