Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

Honestly, this article for me sums up what is wrong with all the media and commentary on the Ukraine war. Very few people know what they are talking about, it's fine to discuss it on a forum and argue with the understanding we really don't actually know what's going on but have opinions and want to see the news but to write articles on it and actually try to present yourself as an informed person on this is a problem. People then don't bother reading or critiquing what you write and we are in an era of lazy news, people read a headline and retweet, that's basically the bulk of how most of the general population consume their news.

The article's crux is 'modern tactics' haven't been tested against a 'peer' and have struggled given the scale of Russia's defences + that these tactics assume that trenches and fortifications can be destroyed by artillery. Think about the situation in Ukraine, a weaker army without much of an air force, basically being pressured to attack a giant minefield with one of the biggest artillery based armies behind it. The Ukrainian army is not equal to Russia, they are in no way peers and they are fighting at a disadvantage. An actual peer would be US vs Russia (who used to be seen as the 2nd best army in the world prior to this disastrous campaign) in which case you'd see the modern tactics being implemented: artillery barrage after artillery barrage, air superiority and THEN the offensive manoeuvres come - the Western militaries he references to my knowledge have never done (or would ever do) what Ukraine is having to resort to.

He is also ignoring the alternative which UA came from which was the Soviet doctrine and would have failed miserably against a larger and superior force.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Western militaries he references to my knowledge have never done (or would ever do) what Ukraine is having to resort to.

He is also ignoring the alternative which UA came from which was the Soviet doctrine and would have failed miserably against a larger and superior force.
Click to expand...
Western air power also would never have let Russia have the time and space to create these fortifications in the first place.
 
Hopefully this leads to further chaos in Russia's military. He has some influence inside DPR and LPR.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Honestly, this article for me sums up what is wrong with all the media and commentary on the Ukraine war. Very few people know what they are talking about, it's fine to discuss it on a forum and argue with the understanding we really don't actually know what's going on but have opinions and want to see the news but to write articles on it and actually try to present yourself as an informed person on this is a problem. People then don't bother reading or critiquing what you write and we are in an era of lazy news, people read a headline and retweet, that's basically the bulk of how most of the general population consume their news.

The article's crux is 'modern tactics' haven't been tested against a 'peer' and have struggled given the scale of Russia's defences + that these tactics assume that trenches and fortifications can be destroyed by artillery. Think about the situation in Ukraine, a weaker army without much of an air force, basically being pressured to attack a giant minefield with one of the biggest artillery based armies behind it. The Ukrainian army is not equal to Russia, they are in no way peers and they are fighting at a disadvantage. An actual peer would be US vs Russia (who used to be seen as the 2nd best army in the world prior to this disastrous campaign) in which case you'd see the modern tactics being implemented: artillery barrage after artillery barrage, air superiority and THEN the offensive manoeuvres come - the Western militaries he references to my knowledge have never done (or would ever do) what Ukraine is having to resort to.

He is also ignoring the alternative which UA came from which was the Soviet doctrine and would have failed miserably against a larger and superior force.
Click to expand...


You are right. I think that before anything else the US army would delete the Russian artillery, using both F-35s and long range missiles. Ukraine doesn't have either.
 
I live near a naval base, should I be worried they'll attack Portugal soon?
 
frostbite said:
You are right. I think that before anything else the US army would delete the Russian artillery, using both F-35s and long range missiles. Ukraine doesn't have either.
Click to expand...
Exactly, they would not advance armoured columns with limited air support into a defensive line. They would pulverise it and secure the air before risking ground troops.
 
"Yep, that's me. You're probably wondering how I got into this situation."

 
For all the talk people have done about Russian defenses on the ground, I keep asking myself one thing: do we know if the UA has developped helicopter-based tactics for troop infiltration behind enemy lines from all the time they trained with NATO and US forces? If the Ukrainians can't take those defenses down quickly enough from a frontal attack (for obvious reasons), I hope they have plans for going around and behind those defenses in order to create enough chaos there. After all, that is the main purpose of airborne troops regardless of transportation mode.
 
Now confirmed: The first batch of Leopard 1A5 tanks has arrived in Ukraine. While older and weaker than the Leopard 2s it fits much easier into the operational structure of the Ukrainian army (because its size and weight is comparable to a T-72, so transport and recovery vehicles for those can be used, as well as bridges etc are built for that weight and can be crossed without worries).

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
For all the talk people have done about Russian defenses on the ground, I keep asking myself one thing: do we know if the UA has developped helicopter-based tactics for troop infiltration behind enemy lines from all the time they trained with NATO and US forces? If the Ukrainians can't take those defenses down quickly enough from a frontal attack (for obvious reasons), I hope they have plans for going around and behind those defenses in order to create enough chaos there. After all, that is the main purpose of airborne troops regardless of transportation mode.
Click to expand...
They’d need a very specific set of circumstances available to make that work. Otherwise, they’d risk them all being shot down while flying over the Russian lines.
 
Carolina Red said:
That’s actually something I came across reading about NATO war planning vs Russia that I’d wondered about in Ukraine when we started looking at sending NATO tanks there.
Click to expand...
Germany did take care of that problem by sending the full set of accompanying vehicles to Ukraine. Tank transport trucks, heavy ARV and bridgelaying equipment.

But you already see that western tanks in general can only be effectively used if this full set is available.

Leopard 1 is the only western MBT model that can replace a lost T-tank without needing to change the support equipment of the unit using it in battle
 
Carolina Red said:
The first part is actually a serious concern that many have had for European armies for awhile now. I’ve especially paid attention to the British Army’s changes over the last decade, and they’ve consistently made that problem worse at every chance. The thing they know they can rely on though is 1) they’d most likely be fighting alongside the US and 2) overwhelming air support
Click to expand...

The article is interesting but the writer also seems to be trying to not mention that Western doctrine relies on total air superiority - even when writing about NATO tactics, they fail to mention that the AirLand Battle tactics relied specifically on overwhelming air strikes to punish logistics and degrade front line capability, something Ukraine simply cannot do. I also find it funny that the writer thinks it is "astonishing" that Ukraine cannot match Russian capabilities. I don't understand that idea at all - does anyone seriously believe that Ukraine, even when backed by the West, is at all equally capable as the Russian army?
 
Wittmann45 said:
The article is interesting but the writer also seems to be trying to not mention that Western doctrine relies on total air superiority - even when writing about NATO tactics, they fail to mention that the AirLand Battle tactics relied specifically on overwhelming air strikes to punish logistics and degrade front line capability, something Ukraine simply cannot do. I also find it funny that the writer thinks it is "astonishing" that Ukraine cannot match Russian capabilities. I don't understand that idea at all - does anyone seriously believe that Ukraine, even when backed by the West, is at all equally capable as the Russian army?
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points. The author works really hard to create their own narrative there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.