The War in the Ukraine

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
There is something strange and wholly counter intuitive about the events we are seeing on the ground.
If you were to break down the conflict in terms of a separate front for each of the newly incorporated republics and list them from most to least exposed you would write it as thus

Kherson
Zhaphorisia
Donetsk
Lughansk

Kherson - a very long flat front with little but villages and open fields. Its the furthest point in terms of supply, relying on the potential choke point out of Crimea, and the bridges over the Dnieper. It is the most Western of the Fronts and closest to the open Heartland of the Ukraine and the easiest for the Ukraine to reinforce and resupply.

Zhaphorisia - another long front of flat land with not that many large towns in much of the territory. Also mainly dependent on supplies coming out of Crimea. For the Ukrainians this is a front easily reached and resupplied and the depth of the territory to the Sea of Azov is not particularly great, meaning that a strike capable of dividing the Russian territory is feasible.

Donetsk - Highly Urbanised and Fortified, Russian supplies come in direct from the Russian mainland. Same situation for the Ukrainians but very difficult for either side to make rapid advances.

Lughansk - The ideal territory for the Russians to defend. Its hilly, heavily wooded, deep river valleys, good sized towns and very close to the Russian mainland for not only resupply and reinforcements, but also easy long range artillery and aviation support. For the Ukrainains all the opposite is true, stretched lines due to poor road and rail connections, hard terrain to attack and front most adjacent to a very long and wide Russian homeland border.

Yet in reality

Kherson - Russia has stopped a major Ukrainian counter offensive waged against it for over a month, and prepared for over a much longer time beforehand. The Ukrainians were not able to disable the bridges over the Dnieper, there offensives were turned into traps and they have lost massive quantities of men and material for the sake of gaining a few small towns and villages.

Zhaphorisia - Whatever offensive was planned here never had the chance to start. We can only assume that forces intended were redirected elsewhere, presumably to the North for the current ongoing Ukrainian offensive.

Donetsk - No major offensive apparently planned or initiated on this front. hardly a surprise given what the cost would be to achieve a breakthrough in a head on assault.

Lughansk - The scene of a very successful Ukrainian counter offensive, with the Russians retreating eastwards rather than take advantage of the terrain or the proximity of the homeland. The Ukraine has responded by moving all its available and most combat capable units to this front to maintain the pressure and momentum against the failing Russian defense.

Well something here clearly does not add up. How is it that a Russian army that can perform so well in its most vulnerable front suddenly makes every tactical and operational mistake on the front that should be the most secure and easy to defend.

Sometimes things are exactly what they seem and no amount of cope or wishful thinking will change that.
On the other hand I cannot discount how this is such an almost ludicrous reversal of outcome, that I cannot but start to speculate about the circumstances that have persuaded the Ukrainians to commit there most combat capable units to a front which is potentially the most perilous for them.....

So Massive Foul up or Cunning Trap?
You tell me.....
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
There is something strange and wholly counter intuitive about the events we are seeing on the ground.
If you were to break down the conflict in terms of a separate front for each of the newly incorporated republics and list them from most to least exposed you would write it as thus

Kherson
Zhaphorisia
Donetsk
Lughansk

Kherson - a very long flat front with little but villages and open fields. Its the furthest point in terms of supply, relying on the potential choke point out of Crimea, and the bridges over the Dnieper. It is the most Western of the Fronts and closest to the open Heartland of the Ukraine and the easiest for the Ukraine to reinforce and resupply.

Zhaphorisia - another long front of flat land with not that many large towns in much of the territory. Also mainly dependent on supplies coming out of Crimea. For the Ukrainians this is a front easily reached and resupplied and the depth of the territory to the Sea of Azov is not particularly great, meaning that a strike capable of dividing the Russian territory is feasible.

Donetsk - Highly Urbanised and Fortified, Russian supplies come in direct from the Russian mainland. Same situation for the Ukrainians but very difficult for either side to make rapid advances.

Lughansk - The ideal territory for the Russians to defend. Its hilly, heavily wooded, deep river valleys, good sized towns and very close to the Russian mainland for not only resupply and reinforcements, but also easy long range artillery and aviation support. For the Ukrainains all the opposite is true, stretched lines due to poor road and rail connections, hard terrain to attack and front most adjacent to a very long and wide Russian homeland border.

Yet in reality

Kherson - Russia has stopped a major Ukrainian counter offensive waged against it for over a month, and prepared for over a much longer time beforehand. The Ukrainians were not able to disable the bridges over the Dnieper, there offensives were turned into traps and they have lost massive quantities of men and material for the sake of gaining a few small towns and villages.

Zhaphorisia - Whatever offensive was planned here never had the chance to start. We can only assume that forces intended were redirected elsewhere, presumably to the North for the current ongoing Ukrainian offensive.

Donetsk - No major offensive apparently planned or initiated on this front. hardly a surprise given what the cost would be to achieve a breakthrough in a head on assault.

Lughansk - The scene of a very successful Ukrainian counter offensive, with the Russians retreating eastwards rather than take advantage of the terrain or the proximity of the homeland. The Ukraine has responded by moving all its available and most combat capable units to this front to maintain the pressure and momentum against the failing Russian defense.

Well something here clearly does not add up. How is it that a Russian army that can perform so well in its most vulnerable front suddenly makes every tactical and operational mistake on the front that should be the most secure and easy to defend.

Sometimes things are exactly what they seem and no amount of cope or wishful thinking will change that.
On the other hand I cannot discount how this is such an almost ludicrous reversal of outcome, that I cannot but start to speculate about the circumstances that have persuaded the Ukrainians to commit there most combat capable units to a front which is potentially the most perilous for them.....

So Massive Foul up or Cunning Trap?
You tell me.....
The difference is manpower, materiel resources, and fire power. The open flat terrain of Kherson makes it much easier for the conventional army that has greater aggregate manpower, materiel, and fire power resources to locate the enemy and overwhelm him. The Russians have large numbers of forces and materiel there and can readily see and respond to Ukrainian movements.

In Kharkov and Luhansk on the other hand, the Russians did not commit sufficient resources there, and added to that the terrain makes it more difficult for the Russians to respond readily to Ukrainian movements.

I'd say indeed, because of stated advantages to Ukraine in Kherson, the Russians have been extremely vigilant there, while the greater advantages towards Russia in Kharkov and Luhansk have actually made the Russians complacent, lax, and negligent, given that they will obviously be able to much more quickly bring in reinforcements there as well as much more easily supply forces there given the much shorter distance to Russia. But the Russians have taken complacency and laxity to the extreme.
 

Dragon of War

Junior Member
Registered Member
Shahed-136.JPG

Dr Matthew Powell, a UK Air Power Expert at RAF College Cranwell comments on the new Iranian Shahed-136 suicide drone. He compares the Shahed-136 being similar to the V1 and V2 rockets in the second world war of which he claims they "operate on similar principles". The main differences being the propulsion changing slightly and "the use of technology has been incorporated to make them more effective and more accurate".

UK Electronic Warfare Equipment.JPG

Dr Matthew goes onto give his reasoning as to why we're seeing Russia use the Shahed-136. Dr Matthew says Russia is using them more due to the "increasingly contested airspace of Ukraine through the use of ground based air defense systems such as man pads, electronic warfare being used to detect and to destroy assets such as fast jets". Matthew says the Shahed-136 is a lighter, smaller, harder to target asset and allows Russia to contest airspace. Dr Matthew proceeds to say it's low on cost and to produce since it's not natively produced.

Anti-Air Systems.JPG

Matthew says the weaknesses of the Shahed-136 are the payload of 5-30 kilograms, this limits its disruptive effect in what it can do and what it can achieve. Matthew says the Shahed-136 won't turn the tide of the Ukraine war. Matthew goes onto explain how the UK can support Ukraine in combating the Shahed-136, Matthew says the support can be given in the use of Electronic Warfare and short-range air defense systems, jamming the GPS signals and making them redundant.

Anti-Air Module.JPG

Sources:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
View attachment 98654

Dr Matthew Powell, a UK Air Power Expert at RAF College Cranwell comments on the new Iranian Shahed-136 suicide drone. He compares the Shahed-136 being similar to the V1 and V2 rockets in the second world war of which he claims they "operate on similar principles". The main differences being the propulsion changing slightly and "the use of technology has been incorporated to make them more effective and more accurate".

View attachment 98657

Dr Matthew goes onto give his reasoning as to why we're seeing Russia use the Shahed-136. Dr Matthew says Russia is using them more due to the "increasingly contested airspace of Ukraine through the use of ground based air defense systems such as man pads, electronic warfare being used to detect and to destroy assets such as fast jets". Matthew says the Shahed-136 is a lighter, smaller, harder to target asset and allows Russia to contest airspace. Dr Matthew proceeds to say it's low on cost and to produce since it's not natively produced.

View attachment 98656

Matthew says the weaknesses of the Shahed-136 are the payload of 5-30 kilograms, this limits its disruptive effect in what it can do and what it can achieve. Matthew says the Shahed-136 won't turn the tide of the Ukraine war. Matthew goes onto explain how the UK can support Ukraine in combating the Shahed-136, Matthew says the support can be given in the use of Electronic Warfare and short-range air defense systems, jamming the GPS signals and making them redundant.

View attachment 98655

Sources:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
yeah he doesnt know what contest airspace means.
 

lucretius

Junior Member
Registered Member
More news from the south. Looks like the Russian front line is in trouble.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Possibly reached Dudchany which is a big leap from the last known line of contact.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

unknown.png
 
Last edited:

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
9M123 Khrizantema in action somewhere around Zaporizhzhya

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Dr Matthew Powell, a UK Air Power Expert at RAF College Cranwell comments on the new Iranian Shahed-136 suicide drone. He compares the Shahed-136 being similar to the V1 and V2 rockets in the second world war of which he claims they "operate on similar principles". The main differences being the propulsion changing slightly and "the use of technology has been incorporated to make them more effective and more accurate".

With that logic, then every missile out there is just like the V1 and V2 but with more tech in it. And they fly too, just like the V1 and V2!

To think people get paid big money to say inane shit like this to politicians.

Matthew says the weaknesses of the Shahed-136 are the payload of 5-30 kilograms
The size of the explosion suggests that the warhead is bigger than 30kg, specially if the whole UAV weights around 200kg as it has been mentioned elsewhere. That's almost the same weight of the early AGM-65s
 

MrCrazyBoyRavi

Junior Member
Registered Member
Are S300 so potent that Russian strategic bomber can’t even fly and carpet bomb the advancing UAF counter attacks? Why are russians only using only missiles or artillary to check advancing ukrainian troops? Even if these bombs aren’t accurate, their presence alone will force Ukarinian troops to fall back psychologically. Are they saving these planes for potential NATO invasion ? If RAF can’t go pass S300 then what are their realistic chances against NATO airforce and SAM defense?

I might be wrong, what is the purpose of keeping about 100k troops at Belarusian border ? Ukraine must have already dug up trenches and fortified at that location. Instead They could had been more useful at active battle front at Kharkov or kherson front !!!!
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Are S300 so potent that Russian strategic bomber can’t even fly and carpet bomb the advancing UAF counter attacks? Why are russians only using only missiles or artillary to check advancing ukrainian troops? Even if these bombs aren’t accurate, their presence alone will force Ukarinian troops to fall back psychologically. Are they saving these planes for potential NATO invasion ? If RAF can’t go pass S300 then what are their realistic chances against NATO airforce and SAM defense?

I might be wrong, what is the purpose of keeping about 100k troops at Belarusian border ? Ukraine must have already dug up trenches and fortified at that location. Instead They could had been more useful at active battle front at Kharkov or kherson front !!!!
If fast jets are threatened by s-300s what chances do larger bombers have? Additionally so far Russia has been very limited in terms of using guided bombs in their runs, while dumb bombs are good for static structures, it's not so much for a front that stretches tens of kilometres both in width and in depth. That's why tactical CAS planes have played a much more prominent role in this conflict so far, they are able to fly in, drop their payload and leave with a much better chance of survival than a bomber would have.

Strategic bombers are too expensive to lose to dropping dumb bombs.
 

xypher

Senior Member
Registered Member
I follow a pro-Ukrainian Telegram channel and now I come across a video from the abandoned Lyman. But the comment to the video puzzles me, and I quote with automatic translation:

President Zelensky treats Ukrainians like idiots, posting videos of damaged vehicles and dead soldiers as if they were Russians.
But they didn't even bother to remove the blue tape from the corpses lying on the road, indicating that the dead were on the Ukrainian side. The destroyed equipment was also of the Ukrainian armed forces and they had no time to mark it. It is immediately clear that this equipment came from the reserve, that is, as soon as it reached Ukraine from Poland, it was immediately sent to the front.

Yes, everyone understands that the losses of the armed forces of Ukraine are enormous, but no one is talking about this while we are achieving victories.


This is the video:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Based on what is this channel pro-Ukrainian? I've read a few posts (10-15) - all of them have a pro-Russian slant, push the Russian narratives, and even the use of language is similar to pro-Russian channels. I mean, it uses words like "banderization", lol. Let's keep it factual, this is just misinformation - "Kartel" TG channel is not "pro-Ukrainian". Regarding the losses - time will tell whether VSU losses as bad as Russia claims or not, and whether it was worth it.
 
Last edited:
Top