The War in the Ukraine

baykalov

Senior Member
Registered Member
What? The tweet didn't say anything about the toxin coming from the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant. It accused the Ukrainians of using it as biologic/chemical warfare to infect troops near that village. Which is plausible.

Yes, my mistake, now I saw that it says Zaporozhye region, not Zaporozhye nuclear power plant.

According to Reuters, the cause may be expired canned meat.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Since someone was asking if ukranians shelling ZNPP could be a NATO ploy to escalate, maybe they arent that far off. Then again, british politicians are as reliable as a used car salesman.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It's not NATO (i.e. America) who wants to escalate the conflict. If America to have a nuclear war, it would have happened by now.

I wouldn't trust the deluded Article 5 claims of British or Polish politicians. Only America has a say on the matter.

With UK politicians it's the same except with delusions of the British empire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
If I may chime in, I don't know the exact numbers of military planners and strategists the Russian mod employs, but there is a very small probability that they didn't come up with similar ideas like yours, so the question now is, why didn't they considered such options?

Dude, avoiding attritional warfare was not my 'my idea'.

It was Russia's own idea. And it was the right idea!

The question is how/why it didn't work.

That's why the "lessons" thread exists, where everyone is discussing this.
 

memfisa

Junior Member
Registered Member
How's NATO performance against Serbian Air Defense in 1999 ? How many Kub they can nail ?

I think the 1999's lesson are somewhat forgotten, despite its relevance today. Soviet era SAM's like Kub are proven relatively hard to suppress and even "static" S-125/SA-3 can evade NATO aircrafts. and it all happen in Serbia which like 7 times smaller than Ukraine.

The other lesson is the great scud hunt in 1990's. This is particularly important for people who wonder why Russians cant quickly nail or even find Tochka launchers. Mobile launchers are HARD target particularly when it use solid propellant missile.

IF Serbian with ancient Kub and Neva/pechora can evade NATO surveillance.. imagine what Ukraine can do with more modern Buk and even S-300PT's and about 7 times the area of Serbia. and this time they got free Western AEW support.

Well Russians have their surveillance platform etc.. but as history shown.. Mobile launchers and SAM's are hard to pick in the first place.
These weapons are incredibly difficult to neutralize or even supress in time unless you have constantly aircraft in the air able to quickly deliver (i mean from identification to neutralization in about 5 minutes, before the target disappears into a dense forest)

So what do you do when there is credible threat of air defence scattered anywhere in the country?

Do you risk your expensive aircraft to perform combat patrols over any number if potential air defence means? Do you risk even more expensive stealth aircrafts that arent invisible at all, and quite detectable at various angles? what happens when you lose one of these?

Thats a heavy hit to morale for your frint line soldiers to see your Su57s, F22, or B2s arent invincible.

These systems, some people say they are outdated and it all should be done from the air, but those same people watched or studied only conflicts between disproportiantely matched beligerents, as was mentioned here earlier.

Ukraine and Russia no matter how you slice it are peer level adversaries that have or had, very similar capabilities. This is a kind of war that nobody alive today has witnessed

And one thing for sure is that NATO war planners greatly underestimated Russian capabilities when they were planning and preparing to get this war started
 

memfisa

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why before winter ? It's not like Europe will running out gas or unable to buy gas elsewhere. Everyone i see so far at least those military watchers at twitter and other social media are all believe it's Russia that will run out of steam first before Europe or US.
They can always buy Canadian and American LNG! I mean it ain't cheap but it gets them thru winter.
 

MortyandRick

Junior Member
Registered Member
These weapons are incredibly difficult to neutralize or even supress in time unless you have constantly aircraft in the air able to quickly deliver (i mean from identification to neutralization in about 5 minutes, before the target disappears into a dense forest)

So what do you do when there is credible threat of air defence scattered anywhere in the country?

Do you risk your expensive aircraft to perform combat patrols over any number if potential air defence means? Do you risk even more expensive stealth aircrafts that arent invisible at all, and quite detectable at various angles? what happens when you lose one of these?

Thats a heavy hit to morale for your frint line soldiers to see your Su57s, F22, or B2s arent invincible.

These systems, some people say they are outdated and it all should be done from the air, but those same people watched or studied only conflicts between disproportiantely matched beligerents, as was mentioned here earlier.

Ukraine and Russia no matter how you slice it are peer level adversaries that have or had, very similar capabilities. This is a kind of war that nobody alive today has witnessed

And one thing for sure is that NATO war planners greatly underestimated Russian capabilities when they were planning and preparing to get this war started
Underestimated? Can you explain how NATO initially thought Russia would fare? Wouldn't most say they were overestimated?
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think we need to be objective and realistic and not fall into the same trap of underestimating the opposition as the west has done with Russia.

NATO would have absolutely wrecked Ukraine in a conventional war because the Ukrainian military is precisely what NATO has been tailor made to fight against, and in territory that is very favourable to western favoured air wars. Sure, soviet AD were also tailored against NATO, but Ukraine’s AD have not been upgraded much since soviet times while NATO TacAir have been continuously upgraded and entire new generations have enter service since.

Ukraine is a powerful conventional land army designed to fight powerful conventional land armies. They might be firing thousands of shells a day, but that artillery power would mean absolutely nothing against NATO air power.

Although Russian TacAir has been conspicuous with its absence lately in this war due to early losses to Ukraine AD, those losses were still fairly light in number and percentage and was as much a result of a lack of the right tools by the Russians as it is because of the vast soviet AD systems Ukraine inherited from the USSR. Modern NATO SEAD and DEAD capabilities would have been far harder for their soviet era gear to perform favourable against.

Would NATO have suffered losses? Undoubtedly, and probably heavier losses than since Vietnam, but would it have been enough to stop NATO from eventually gaining air dominance and then curbstomping the Ukraine army from the air? I can’t see how.
You have to first understand key concepts of ground tactics like cover, concealment and maneuver. It is very difficult to find and target mobile targets from the air in terrain that provides cover and concealment.

NATO without US doesn't have the capability to even sustain a campaign against Libya.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Libya has terrain that offers no cover or concealment from the air. It has clear weather for easy employment of laser guided bombs from altitude.

Ukraine is heavily forested with snow and rain for 8 months of the year.

Even all of NATO against Serbia, a country surrounded by NATO, totally cut off from supply, with 100% AWAC coverage, only really managed to destroy a dozen tanks, thanks to its terrain with cover and concealment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And in this scenario, don't forget about Russia shipping weapons to Ukraine.
 

memfisa

Junior Member
Registered Member
Underestimated? Can you explain how NATO initially thought Russia would fare? Wouldn't most say they were overestimated?
It was thought Russia would be crippled by sanctions, and thus the military would be no threat once it collapsed and Putin would be dragged in the streets like Ghaddaffi.

I don't think anyone ever thought we'd be seeing what we're watching today or Ukraine would have had all these cool wunderwaffe from NATO countries before this war.

Javelins were supposed to be all they needed to stop the Russian Fulda gap push, however they forgot to check where the Fulda gap is. These same idiots still think the Soviet Union exists yet there are people breathing air that take their words as gospel

Over estimated? Oh for sure, by a few internet Twitter dorks that never left their moms basement never mind ever handled or cared for a rifle in their lives
 

memfisa

Junior Member
Registered Member
To add to what I was saying, sanctions were supposed to unleash an internal revolt across Russian territories on ethnic lines. It didn't work, and Russians are now more united than since the USSR great propaganda machine and KGB "keep them honest" guys existed.

That was a massive miscalculation by NATO war planners, hugely underestimating the resolve of average Russians. That's not even touching underestimation of military capabilities

We got outplayed at every turn, and the evidence for that is right here for everyone to see themselves. The deciding factor of general perception is how things are presented to the less inclined audience

Hitlers nazis also underestimated Russians in the exact same ways. Curious isn't that?

You start having this superiority complex and that is the greatest weakness. It opens the door for a whole array of miscalculation. Because the control is fundamentally flawed. You don't conduct war against Russia pretending they are some African or Middle East dust bin without means to hit back really hard
 
Last edited:

FriedButter

Major
Registered Member
To add to what I was saying, sanctions were supposed to unleash an internal revolt across Russian territories on ethnic lines. It didn't work, and Russians are now more united than since the USSR great propaganda machine and KGB "keep them honest" guys existed.

That was a massive miscalculation by NATO war planners, hugely underestimating the resolve of average Russians. That's not even touching underestimation of military capabilities

We got outplayed at every turn, and the evidence for that is right here for everyone to see themselves. The deciding factor of general perception is how things are presented to the less inclined audience

Hitlers nazis also underestimated Russians in the exact same ways. Curious isn't that?

Doesn’t help that the West went full xenophobia. Putin telling the domestic public that the West wants to destroy them for years. Then the West goes and proves that.

Even the Russians who hate Putin were shocked at the rapid western xenophobia. Now you got the latest calls to ban all Russians from travelling.

How are you going to convince anyone in Russia that the West supports “freedom” and “democracy” while at the same time continuing the path to treat Russians as sub-human.
 
Top