The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
The Anesthetist at Bakhmut: 90% of wounds that get to us are due to mines and explosives
It seems to me that there is too much made of light infantry due to television and gaming. Even the most elite of soldiers, when facing an artillery offensive will get shredded. This is what happened to the 'elite' German forces in the battle of Normandy WW2. In all modern large scale wars since WW1 firepower has inflicted the vast majority of casualties, often 80% or even 90%.
The infantry should be well trained enough to be useful in the defense and the offense but logistics and fire support are still king.
Russian army doctrine is meant to eliminate or expel most of the Ukrainian troops with artillery fire (particularly annihilation by hectare). Then their reservists and conscripts attack with tank support, occupying the scorched earth/ruins with their infantry.
It seems that Russian firepower has been significantly lower since the pull-out in July but in the Bakhmut front (Wagner PMC/DPR/LPR) there seems to be a buildup of ammunition and personnel. The balance of forces has been tilting more towards the Russian side these past 2 weeks as the Ukrainians complain in the US/UK press that they are running low on ammunition and have high losses.
Wagner has had significant successes in this war at Popasna and Rubizne. Maybe the human wave claim is fiction. If it is not who knows. They have hired a lot of convicts.
I think you are wrong. The Ukrainians have vast infantry superiority, including at Bakhmut. The website militaryland has Ukrainian unit position claims plotted everyday. This was balanced by the vast artillery and armored superiority of the Russians. But the latter had taken high losses. But the artillery superiority, supplemented air power has not achieved decisive success over the Ukrainian conscript masses. The Russians can't kill them fast enough.
In my estimation the with mobilization, the Russian side will achieve some semblance of manpower parity by the spring of 2023 but they will still have manpower inferiority.
It seems that overall the Russian MOD and Russian troop claims (like in WW2 and the absurd Ukrainian military claims) overstate the level of their successes in killing Ukrainians and destroying their equipment with their artillery and airstrikes. Something is wrong I think, it's probably because the Russian weapons and their crews are not as accurate with using them as advertised. Deficiencies with artillery recon due to small infantry forces, high armored losses and other tactical deficits.
Perhaps it's a bit like in WW2, where you have this big Russian army spread across this giant country but significant deficits in training tactical skills due to be underfunded and also with lower income cultural values (more relaxed, lazy professional-contract army) compared to the professional forces of 1st world countries like the US and UK.
Professional mercenary from US and UK did not fare better under artillery. They die as quick as the conscripts. What matters is sufficient manpower to take the grind and artillery to grind enemy back. There will be no maneuver on either side. Ukraine lacks heavy vehicle to maneuver, Russians lacks manpower.
From Russian side the number of units is a decision, not a constrain.
Ukraine side the lack of equipment is a constrain, not a decision.
Means the Russians can form the war by they will, and can seek the endgame by the desired way.
Political and economical constraint is still a constraint.
Broccoli
Senior Member
Another Ka-52 was shot down yesterday.
Russians claims drones hit their airbase hundreds of kilometers away from Ukrainian border.
Russians claims drones hit their airbase hundreds of kilometers away from Ukrainian border.
It is comming from Russian sources, so must be false.
I am get right it ?
And it is another reason why Russia needs to secure an USA weapons and military free zone in easter-central europe.
This attack was aproved and organised by the USA agaisnt the Russian strategic nuclear forces. Means it will put the conflict to new gear.
No, it is a decision. Result of a cost benefit calculation, but in this case the benefit is a surviva of the Russian state, means the cost will ALLWAYS matched.
See the diference ?
NATO CAN NOT send more units to Donbas, Russia can send as much as decided , to gurantee the desired outcome.
So, if we say if the USA won in Donbas then Russia as an independent country cease to exist then we can say the current level of soldiers on Donbas frontline has no upper limit, and the actual level depends on tactical level decisions.
So, the end game CAN NOT BE USA win, only stealmate after a nuclear exchange. Or full russian win.
Last edited: