Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[Rei is Shit.]

How much air power could the USA project against a power with plentiful numbers of effective SAMs?

A better question is how much air power can the US project after a month of maximum intensity operations. Even better is how many sorties will they manage after ~6 months.

This is a point i try to hammer home to people. Western militaries are built around the assumption they will have air dominance. That is because western militaries havent faced an enemy capable of taking that away in a long time. How would we far w/o air dominance? Not well i think.

And access to GPS + com + intel sats. What happens if the US loses that? Even if its just intermittent or local to the battlefield.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

There's a big component to all of this that people are missing, and I know the flag-waving Americans may not like to hear it, but here goes.

America has a big army, yes, but strategically in war, you guys aren't that great. You assume, through past conflict fought, that bigger is better; after all it worked for Russia with their advantage of numbers vs the Nazis, and it worked in Japan with the biggest bombs. Today though, that American view of the battlefield is out-dated, and has been since Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, the European nations (headed by Britain) gave specific instructions to the Americans along the lines of "Do not just flatten everything and murder everyone, or your enemy will become more like by the people and thus the people will turn insurgents against you". That's why the Hearts and Minds campaign was thought up.

The UK and Europe had a deal with the Americans; it was their war, they take the credit but follow the advice of the Europeans strategically. Sometimes America listened, sometimes it didn't.

When America gave the middle finger to its allies and went guns ablazin cause "fuck you, murrica" we ended up with the abysmally withdrawal from Kandahar.

The point of all of this is that America attempting to run a war by itself, using superior numbers and 'superior' tech, would get their shit pushed in by a more strategically capable army/country. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened, just read into how napoleon galumphed around Europe and made a mockery of the biggest standing armies on the continent.

I believe we are seeing a role reversal in Ukriane, where Europe supplies the equipment (I know America are as well) and America take tactical control. I think that's why we are seeing such a shit show.

This may sound like I am slagging America off, I am not. I'm just relaying some information based on past, personal experience.

Thanks for reading this long post I typed up while sat on a train

 

[Rubick]

A better question is how much air power can the US project after a month of maximum intensity operations. Even better is how many sorties will they manage after ~6 months.

And access to GPS + com + intel sats. What happens if the US loses that? Even if its just intermittent or local to the battlefield.

Yep, especially with dealing with an enemy that is strategic and tactical comparable/versed on the battlefield.

 

[LeroyJenkem]

Russia or China could really shit America's bed for them in a conflict by simply shooting as many satellites out of the sky as they can with one big volley of ASATs and letting the space junk ricochet do the rest.

Then it's back to radar, paper maps, and troons in foxholes for the US of A.

 

[just a banana]

Amazing what you can find if you give the bottom of the barrel a good scrape

https://twitter.com/PeImeniPusha/status/1642481575769042951

Donbass Devushka on Twitter: "The new Wunderwaffe just dropped. AFU soldiers towed Maxims. https://t.co/SANfQ8jesu" / Twitter | Ghostarchive

ghostarchive.org

 

[Yak-130 Mitten]

Amazing what you can find if you give the bottom of the barrel a good scrape
View attachment 4954262

https://twitter.com/PeImeniPusha/status/1642481575769042951

Donbass Devushka on Twitter: "The new Wunderwaffe just dropped. AFU soldiers towed Maxims. https://t.co/SANfQ8jesu" / Twitter | Ghostarchive

ghostarchive.org

It's still a gun that fires, so it's useful. But it's quite telling that they have to use what is pretty much a museum piece.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

So

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un's powerful sister accused Ukraine of calling for nuclear weapons. Kim Yo Jong backed her assertion on the basis of an online petition in Ukraine which was signed by almost 1,000 signatures so far.

 

[CaptainAutism69]

Sometimes you have to destroy the village in order to save it.


Your comment made me remember all those videos Bird and Fortune did about military preparation. I miss their little skits so much.

Miss these guys so much, cutting edge satire that cut right to the bone.

 

[The Ugly One]

I'm willing to give you this, but this war is just confirming what people have been saying about the USM for decades now. that the US is too reliant on air support and specialist hardware. this war has shown that numbers still win wars and it still comes down to boots on the ground. id like to also say the the golf war kind of was a bad thing for the US as it showed them that airpower WAS worth investing the majority of their power into, but against a near peer such as the ruskis/bugmen the US wouldn't have the ability's to just bulldoze over them with air power. in the end the US does get to see just how poorly they have been setting things up for the past 2 decades of shrugging off valid criticism of over reliance.

Russia had to learn this themselves. I haven't heard a peep about T-14s in a while. The T-90M is fine. Apparently, the T-72B3M is fine, too. Producing things at scale that can survive an ATGM hit is more important than full automated tank crew toilets or whatever.

Boy oh boy do I have some news for you:

View attachment 4951936



Sounds great. Certainly worked against the Iraqis. But what happens against a real peer when Step 1 is rendered infeasible by technological advancement?

Facing a combination of long-range AA assets and widespread MANPADs, you encounter an overlapping ceiling and floor throughout most of the theatre. Flying anywhere near combat is an extreme risk. Rotary is basically suicide.

To make matters worse, any appreciable concentration of aircraft outside of very hardened shelters is a prime target for ballistic and cruise missiles. As a bonus, surface ships are also basically obsolete.

You attempt Step 2 anyway. Problem is, most modern artillery is mobile, surveillance is ubiquitous, and if you get too close to enemy positions, kamikaze drones or ATGMs will fuck you up. You wind up in a protracted artillery duel across a fluid 10km-wide grey zone that will last until one side runs out of either munitions or tubes.

Also worth considering: how does this plan change when you aren't blasting Arabs for oil and Israel, but attempting to liberate your own people, and your opponents are glowie sociopaths who are blockading the city?

FWIW, we haven't put our best stuff against Russian AA yet. I'm not saying we could wipe it off the map we did with Iraq's, just that it's pretty clear that Russian AA can handle anything thrown at it so far. Maybe our upcoming fleet of B-21s could take it out. But then, maybe we'd need a staging ground closer to Russia to pull it off. Like Ukraine.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Different take

 

[make_it_so]

Bonus: New Lancet vid

See, again, I watch something like this and as cool as it looks I really can't help but get the feeling that it's staged. That MT-LB looks like it's unoccupied, and there's zero people around that would indicate this is actually a vehicle that's getting resupplied or serviced. And moreover, given that it's the MT-LB variant armed with the ZU-23 AA gun, if this was real there could've and should've been someone manning the turret up top that could've feasibly shot the Lancet down as it was coming in.

Amazing what you can find if you give the bottom of the barrel a good scrape

https://twitter.com/PeImeniPusha/status/1642481575769042951

Donbass Devushka on Twitter: "The new Wunderwaffe just dropped. AFU soldiers towed Maxims. https://t.co/SANfQ8jesu" / Twitter | Ghostarchive

ghostarchive.org

It's still a gun that fires, so it's useful. But it's quite telling that they have to use what is pretty much a museum piece.

Except Ukraine had about 100,000 of these museum pieces in storage when the war began, so they aren't really "bottom of the barrel" as far as the Ukrainians are concerned - they were probably piled right up there at the top of the barrel. And as @Yak-130 Mitten said, a gun is a gun, and in this type of warfare any kind of heavy machine gun you can get your hands on is worth it.

And the Maxim design is super fucking reliable, enough so that they've been used widespread in conflicts as recent as Vietnam. Hell, I think during both excursions into Iraq, US troops came across some Iraqi units armed with OG Vickers-built guns. You keep these things fed with ammo and water, and they'll pretty much fire for fucking ever.

 

[Kane Lives]

FWIW, we haven't put our best stuff against Russian AA yet. I'm not saying we could wipe it off the map we did with Iraq's, just that it's pretty clear that Russian AA can handle anything thrown at it so far. Maybe our upcoming fleet of B-21s could take it out. But then, maybe we'd need a staging ground closer to Russia to pull it off. Like Ukraine.

Agreed. I think thus far this war only proves that the American/European wunderwaffes of the last generation isn't technologically decisive. (HIMARS, Javelins, et al)

I would caution against writing out the latest wunderwaffes yet. Maybe they'd all fail and eat shit in the first salvo. Maybe they'd run rings around current Russian tech.

Honestly all I'm getting is that drones are quickly becoming the new aircraft carrier/naval aviation in WW2, in terms of changing the battlefield. We haven't seen this generation's HMS Prince of Wales yet, but I won't be surprised if it happens in Ukraine. (It'd likely be in the form of an Abrams platoon eating shit from drones.)

 

[Yak-130 Mitten]

FWIW, we haven't put our best stuff against Russian AA yet. I'm not saying we could wipe it off the map we did with Iraq's, just that it's pretty clear that Russian AA can handle anything thrown at it so far. Maybe our upcoming fleet of B-21s could take it out. But then, maybe we'd need a staging ground closer to Russia to pull it off. Like Ukraine.

I dont know about the stealth capabilities in current era. I remember, around 2018, israeli F35 flew in a stealth configuration over Syria to bomb some targets, only to be met with AA fire - turns out that russian radars were tracking them from their naval base on the coast (either S300 or S400, not sure). After that they reverted to firing stand off weapons from golan heights in fear of losing their planes. I also remember reading somewhere that russian radar stations close to the bering strait were tracking either F35 or F22 on regular even though they were flying unarmed with missiles - so stealth. Dont know if that is true, but I wouldnt put stealth detection past newest gen of radars.

 

[make_it_so]

I dont know about the stealth capabilities in current era. I remember, around 2018, israeli F35 flew in a stealth configuration over Syria to bomb some targets, only to be met with AA fire - turns out that russian radars were tracking them from their naval base on the coast (either S300 or S400, not sure). After that they reverted to firing stand off weapons from golan heights in fear of losing their planes. I also remember reading somewhere that russian radar stations close to the bering strait were tracking either F35 or F22 on regular even though they were flying unarmed with missiles - so stealth. Dont know if that is true, but I wouldnt put stealth detection past newest gen of radars.

Years ago when the Military Channel was a thing, there was series called "Weapons Races." One episode was "The Race for Radar and Stealth." I distinctly remember one the experts being interviewed on the program opining that ultimately, in the race between stealth and electronics, electronics were going to win.

 

[Yak-130 Mitten]

Years ago when the Military Channel was a thing, there was series called "Weapons Races." One episode was "The Race for Radar and Stealth." I distinctly remember one the experts being interviewed on the program opining that ultimately, in the race between stealth and electronics, electronics were going to win.

They will win simply becauase its easier to develop a radar that can detect ever smaller RCS signatures (and we are already approaching the limits) than it is to keep inventing more and more modern stealth devices and technologies.

 

[The Ugly One]

They will win simply becauase its easier to develop a radar that can detect ever smaller RCS signatures (and we are already approaching the limits) than it is to keep inventing more and more modern stealth devices and technologies.

One way to think of it is that when you design radar systems, you don't have a lot of physical constraints, just raw ones like "how much energy can I physically pull from my source" and "what is the available EM spectrum I can actually generate," that sort of thing. What I mean is, there isn't another task that a ground radar system has to accomplish that constrains detection.

With stealth jets, by contrast, the thing has to actually fly. You must have an airfoil, which must be a large, flat surface. You must have a propulsion system, and that system must eject heat.

 

[JoseRaulChupacabra]

I dont know about the stealth capabilities in current era. I remember, around 2018, israeli F35 flew in a stealth configuration over Syria to bomb some targets, only to be met with AA fire - turns out that russian radars were tracking them from their naval base on the coast (either S300 or S400, not sure). After that they reverted to firing stand off weapons from golan heights in fear of losing their planes. I also remember reading somewhere that russian radar stations close to the bering strait were tracking either F35 or F22 on regular even though they were flying unarmed with missiles - so stealth. Dont know if that is true, but I wouldnt put stealth detection past newest gen of radars.

If I'm not mistaken, those planes in the Bering Strait were patrol planes and since they're not looking for a fight, they are flying with RCS increasing parts (forgot what they were called) because they want to be seen. The clean configs are reserved for actual conflict.

The F35I's being tracked by the Ruskies are news to me.

On the general topic of stealth, the infamous Serbian shot down was due to the Burgers fucking up. The removers had visual of the aircraft and it flew the same flight path multiple times. The official story was that they couldn't get a lock on it until it flew directly over the installation and one of the missiles fired at it actually missed.

AFAIK, granted, it's been years since I read about this stuff, stealth is projected to be ahead of radars for years, possibly decades to come. You can use more power but that comes with more noise to process out, or you can use another frequency band, but that makes it harder to track the target.

Of course, much like how safe and effective is the official story, we only have their word to take for it. And as we can see now, such people's words are often empty.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Stealth planes are only stealthy to electronics. Satellite imagery and cameras can still see them

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

Doing some reading on the Czechoslovak Legion these past few weeks

Could we please get a recommendation for all us history nerds?

 

[Cold Root Beer]

See, again, I watch something like this and as cool as it looks I really can't help but get the feeling that it's staged. That MT-LB looks like it's unoccupied, and there's zero people around that would indicate this is actually a vehicle that's getting resupplied or serviced. And moreover, given that it's the MT-LB variant armed with the ZU-23 AA gun, if this was real there could've and should've been someone manning the turret up top that could've feasibly shot the Lancet down as it was coming in.

I don't think it's "staged" per se, but it instead speaks to the tactical doctrine the Russians are using for their drones.

The grenade drone videos show the drones being used overwhelmingly as "harassing fire", where they're used against sleeping/resting/resupplying troops (presumably) away from the front lines, similar to the tactics of the Night Witches and their PO-2s in WW2.

The videos of the Lancets show them being used for similar-ish targets, like converting mobility-killed (but still recoverable) vehicles into hard-kills without the need to be within LoS and use a slightly more expensive Kornet (~$28k vs ~$20k). I've also seen the Lancets used for various forms of "harrassing fire" against rear vehicle targets as well.

The drone warfare seems to be mainly used as a "nowhere on the battlefield is safe" weapon, which aids in stressing out the enemy, forcing them to maintain full vigilance and guard during times that would normally be a chance for R&R, etc. It also gives opportunities to take out targets that would otherwise be inaccessible or inadvisable given the risk/reward. That's been my observations on this at least.