Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

Ukraine is playing the long game, while Russia is wastefully grasping to secure a symbolic victory, because their initial ambitions were proven unattainable.
I do wonder what role the status of Bakhmut plays in shaping operations and the direction of planned Ukrainian counter-offensive. I would expect Russian army to dig in and likely stop there until Ukraine makes its move - I don't think they have the capability to launch major offensives at this point, and I doubt they want repeat of Bakhmut further down the line. We'll see I suppose.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Ukraine is playing the long game, while Russia is wastefully grasping to secure a symbolic victory, because their initial ambitions were proven unattainable.
I do wonder what role the status of Bakhmut plays in shaping operations and the direction of planned Ukrainian counter-offensive. I would expect Russian army to dig in and likely stop there until Ukraine makes its move - I don't think they have the capability to launch major offensives at this point, and I doubt they want repeat of Bakhmut further down the line. We'll see I suppose.

Maybe. Ukraine's issue is its reliance on western backers to keep their army equipped and soldiers paid. That sort of relationship means the rug could be pulled at any moment, so the Ukrainians also can't afford to drag their feet despite western claims of backing Ukraine for however long it takes. The vast bulk of their military industry was in the east, and its been totally wrecked. No doubt it could recover, AFTER the war, but for now even Ammo is hard for Ukraine to produce domestically despite having all the institutional knowledge to do it and some very competent production companies. Ukraine made the Soviet Unions tanks after all. But all that can't count for shit because Russia blew the Kharkiv tank works to smithereens along with the manufacturing plant for Ukraines Neptune Missiles in Kiev.

From a purely numbers game Ukraine CAN win a war of attrition. Russia cannot outspend or outproduce the NATO block, and Ukraine is in no danger of running out of warm bodies to send to the front any time soon. The question is whether NATO is actually willing to do this or whether or not a peace may eventually be forced on both sides. Russia should be less worried about this war and more concerned with the next one. Putin is not going to live forever, and there is no clear line of succession. I suspect this Ukraine War was supposed to be capstone of Putin's career in 2022, and 2023-2024 would have been focused on setting up inheritance. Hell, had Putin managed to pull it off, he probably could have declared himself Tsar, Kiril would have signed off on it, and anyone who didn't agree would get a one way trip to a nickel mine in Siberia.

Instead 2023 and 2024 are going to be more fighting in Ukraine, and if Putin were to die without a clear line of succession the Boyars will all make their plays for the throne, or in the case of Kadyrov, outright independence.

 

[Coffee Mugshot]

It's gruesome, but Bakhmut probably bought Ukraine a lot of political clout, much of which is being exchanged right now for more Western goodies and priceless good will. Zelensky's world tour wouldn't have been nearly as productive as it has been if the Ukrainians hadn't proven themselves to be highly motivated by their sacrifices in Bakhmut.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Iraq and Afghan wars in my view was the quality of the fighting men in the local population. They largely had no motivation and just fell apart without some Western oversight. Ukraine, in Bakhmut and elsewhere, has proven that their men are extremely capable and motivated, which makes this seem like it's not Yet Another Endless War. They aren't third worldies; give them the tools and they'll finish the job.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

I'm more worried about how much it cost Ukraine than the stepping stone they (finally) got their mitts on. They seem to be running low on tanks but unless they run completely out, as in fielding literal WW2 stuff on frontlines that even a LAW will peel open like a tin can, the orcs might still win with numbers.

Where are you getting this info that Ukraine is running low on tanks from?

 

[Fuck It We'll Do It Live]

Where are you getting this info that Ukraine is running low on tanks from?

They've lost 500 visually confirmed tanks, according to Oryx's "Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine", and, unlike Russia, they don't even have T-62s and T-54/55s to put out of storage from Siberia, let alone T-80s and T-90s (besides any they have captured from the Russians). Part of this loss in material includes the at least 44 Eastern European NATO T-72s they were given. And they haven't committed their Western-donated tanks yet, as well as to the fact the Abrams aren't to be expected as least as early as this Fall.

 

[mindlessobserver]

They've lost 500 visually confirmed tanks, according to Oryx's "Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine", and, unlike Russia, they don't even have T-62s and T-54/55s to put out of storage from Siberia, let alone T-80s and T-90s (besides any they have captured from the Russians). Part of this loss in material includes the at least 44 Eastern European NATO T-72s they were given. And they haven't committed their Western-donated tanks yet, as well as to the fact the Abrams aren't to be expected as least as early as this Fall.

This isn't quite the loss you think it is for two reasons.

Reason 1: At the Start of the War Ukraine had over 1,000 tanks in Inventory.

Reason 2: By all accounts, Russia's disastrous defeat at the Battle of Kiev (sorry, reposition to more advantageous positions away from Kiev) resulted in the capture of an additional 500 Russian Tanks that were subsequently put into service. Of which only 7 are estimated to be T64s, which constituted the bulk of Ukraines Armor prior to the war.

By all accounts, the vast majority if Ukrainian T72 Losses have been T72's captured from the Russian Army in the first two months of war. So by all metrics Ukraine is at "break even" on its armored losses. Which does not account for the hundreds of tanks NATO has sent in the interim.

This is hard to judge because of how cagey Ukraine is about its armored forces, but all open source information indicates they are holding the vast majority of it in reserve at the moment.

 

[Least Concern]

Congratulations to the Russian military* for finally being able to raise their tricolor over a massive pile of rubble. The benefits to the people of the Russian homeland, as well as the Russian-speaking peoples in eastern Ukraine who went from a decade of political prosecution in retaliation for just a little bitty sedition to living in a literal warzone, from finally driving the Ukrainian military out of Bakhmut cannot be overstated. This amazing victory will be remembered in the annals of Russian history, much like Pyrrhus's historic victory in the Battle of Asculum.

For parallels as to what might happen when Prigozhin turns over the city to the regular Russian military and finally GTFOs like he's apparently been wanting to do for a while, we perhaps can look at what happened when Afghanistan was left to its own defense. But even if it's not that disastrous I really have to wonder what the goal for Russia is at this point beyond just saving face.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

They've lost 500 visually confirmed tanks, according to Oryx's "Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine", and, unlike Russia, they don't even have T-62s and T-54/55s to put out of storage from Siberia, let alone T-80s and T-90s (besides any they have captured from the Russians). Part of this loss in material includes the at least 44 Eastern European NATO T-72s they were given. And they haven't committed their Western-donated tanks yet, as well as to the fact the Abrams aren't to be expected as least as early as this Fall.

1) I asked about the idea that Ukraine is running low on tanks, not disputing that they've taken casualties
Losing 500 tanks out of 750 tanks with no external sources is running low on tanks.
Losing 500 tanks out of >1000 tanks with hundreds compatible tanks captured and hundreds more foreign tanks flowing in is still bad, but its far from the implication that Ukraine is losing its ability to conduct armored operations.

This isn't quite the loss you think it is for two reasons.

Reason 1: At the Start of the War Ukraine had over 1,000 tanks in Inventory.

Reason 2: By all accounts, Russia's disastrous defeat at the Battle of Kiev (sorry, reposition to more advantageous positions away from Kiev) resulted in the capture of an additional 500 Russian Tanks that were subsequently put into service. Of which only 7 are estimated to be T64s, which constituted the bulk of Ukraines Armor prior to the war.

Don't forget that Poland sent over 200 PT-91 Twardy, which is basically an upgraded T-72, to Ukraine.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Did you know the F16 ideally needs to take 2 miles for take off?

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/russia...-in-the-ukraine.150029/page-348#post-16338409

Its true! Only Denver International Airport can appropriately handle every F16 in North America, with maybe the NASA facilities for the space shuttle as a back up. This may come as a shock to everyone here, but apparently its very informative in the cope thread.

 

[khaine]

Oh America absolutely can and should spend more money on it's own people. The thing with a lot of the aid to Ukraine is it's kind of misleading because a lot of it is drawdown from existing stocks (which has already been paid for, and was mostly bought to be lobbed at Russkies in the first place), and a lot of it is shit that would have expired and had to be replaced anyway, because shit doesn't last forever. Might as well give it to the Ukies and let them be the ones to toss it an Russians, risk free to Americans.

Its America's WW2 strategy. Sell old/obsolete weapons to the British at inflated prices, and then use that money to buy new modern weapons/ships/planes. Oh, and then after the war, bail out the losers but still expect to be overpaid for your war loans to your allies. No doubt, Hollywood will be creating movies about how America single handedly won the war in Ukraine in 20 years or so.

 

[Ghostse]

They've lost 500 visually confirmed tanks, according to Oryx's "Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine", and, unlike Russia, they don't even have T-62s and T-54/55s to put out of storage from Siberia, let alone T-80s and T-90s (besides any they have captured from the Russians). Part of this loss in material includes the at least 44 Eastern European NATO T-72s they were given. And they haven't committed their Western-donated tanks yet, as well as to the fact the Abrams aren't to be expected as least as early as this Fall.

This isn't quite the loss you think it is for two reasons.

1) I asked about the idea that Ukraine is running low on tanks, not disputing that they've taken casualties
Losing 500 tanks out of 750 tanks with no external sources is running low on tanks.
Losing 500 tanks out of >1000 tanks with hundreds compatible tanks captured and hundreds more foreign tanks flowing in is still bad, but its far from the implication that Ukraine is losing its ability to conduct armored operations.


Don't forget that Poland sent over 200 PT-91 Twardy, which is basically an upgraded T-72, to Ukraine.

Daily reminder that a disabled tank is not necessarily a destroyed tank but will be claimed as destroyed for stats.

They represent an increase in range, protection and kinetic effect over these IFVs, and therefore pose a serious battlefield threat when there are a limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them at their stand-off range.

Because if there is anything lacking in Ukraine its ATGMs.
Also ignores that the old tanks suck fuel, are outranged by proper MBTs. its decent enough as a mobile pillbox/SPG if you have them.

 

[Scout Trooper]

Did you know the F16 ideally needs to take 2 miles for take off?

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/russia...-in-the-ukraine.150029/page-348#post-16338409

Its true! Only Denver International Airport can appropriately handle every F16 in North America, with maybe the NASA facilities for the space shuttle as a back up. This may come as a shock to everyone here, but apparently its very informative in the cope thread.

View attachment 5131780

Yes, F-16 operations had to halt whenever a space shuttle was landing because Edwards Air Force Base was the only divert option for both craft.

Of course, you can see here satellite imagery of Luke AFB, the main training site for USAF pilots transitioning to the F-16,

Runway 03L/21R is a mere 1.85 miles which forces students to practice the infamous "off-road" landing and take-off maneuver.

The runways are constantly covered in Foreign Object Debris and the number 1 maintenance expense is new tires (followed by turbine blades from the low-slung intake frequently sucking up gravel).

 

[CuzinEd]

Ukraine is playing the long game, while Russia is wastefully grasping to secure a symbolic victory, because their initial ambitions were proven unattainable.
I do wonder what role the status of Bakhmut plays in shaping operations and the direction of planned Ukrainian counter-offensive. I would expect Russian army to dig in and likely stop there until Ukraine makes its move - I don't think they have the capability to launch major offensives at this point, and I doubt they want repeat of Bakhmut further down the line. We'll see I suppose.

Bakhmut has no real strategic value. The role Bakhmut played is it was a meat grinder for the Russians. A place the Russians kept dumping men and vehicles into and losing. It was like a trap for the Ukrainians to sit back and destroy Russian vehicles and thin out Russia's soldiers. That's about all it is. The Russians dug themselves into a hole with the propaganda surrounding Bakhmut. We have to take Bakhmut to win. The Ukrainians spent almost a year sitting in Bakhmut making Russia look like a clown.

It's gruesome, but Bakhmut probably bought Ukraine a lot of political clout, much of which is being exchanged right now for more Western goodies and priceless good will. Zelensky's world tour wouldn't have been nearly as productive as it has been if the Ukrainians hadn't proven themselves to be highly motivated by their sacrifices in Bakhmut.

One of the biggest disappointments of the Iraq and Afghan wars in my view was the quality of the fighting men in the local population. They largely had no motivation and just fell apart without some Western oversight. Ukraine, in Bakhmut and elsewhere, has proven that their men are extremely capable and motivated, which makes this seem like it's not Yet Another Endless War. They aren't third worldies; give them the tools and they'll finish the job.

I used to post on an alt-right forum and some of the people on the board were former US military that had been in Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember one story that was told by this one guy. This was after the invasion when it turned into an insurgency. He said they would be out on patrol and would get a call over the radio requesting help. That some locals house was being surrounded by armed men. Of course they were out on patrol so they didn't have time to help every single local having an issue with the insurgents. He said every Iraqi family was allowed to have 1 AK for home defense with a full mag. Then when they showed up to the house that needed help everyone would be dead and it was like a nightmare. Blood everywhere. Some people had their heads cut off and some were all shot up. The AK was never touched.

The theory was that these dune coons in Iraq are like subservient people. They are used to being ruled over and controlled. If someone doesn't protect them they won't do themselves. They will just roll over and die.

 

[Foltest]

Ukraine Military of Defense claim that they have done a semi encriclment of Bakhmut.

Hanna Maliar, Ukraine’s Deputy Defence Minister, has said that Ukrainian defenders have semi-encircled the city of Bakhmut, enabling them to effectively destroy the Russian army in that area.
Source: Maliar on Telegram
Quote from Maliar: "Russia failed to surround Bakhmut and lost some of the dominant heights around the city.
This means that the advance of our troops in the suburbs on the flanks, which is still ongoing, makes it very difficult for the enemy to remain in Bakhmut.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/21/7403168/

https://archive.ph/TOhRb

You can check the map of Bakhmut over at https://liveuamap.com/ and get to your own decision. Personally, I disagree with them doing a semi encirclement.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Did you know the F16 ideally needs to take 2 miles for take off?

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/russia...-in-the-ukraine.150029/page-348#post-16338409

Its true! Only Denver International Airport can appropriately handle every F16 in North America, with maybe the NASA facilities for the space shuttle as a back up. This may come as a shock to everyone here, but apparently its very informative in the cope thread.

View attachment 5131780

10,000' is preferable for landing, 5000' will do. You know how to use Google right? Does Ukraine have any air bases left with mile-long runways? If they do I sure as hell wouldn't want to be there.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I think Russoids over in the other threads have forgotten that there are things that determine a country's quality besides whether or not they throw gays in jail.

 

[draggs]

Did you know the F16 ideally needs to take 2 miles for take off?

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/russia...-in-the-ukraine.150029/page-348#post-16338409

Its true! Only Denver International Airport can appropriately handle every F16 in North America, with maybe the NASA facilities for the space shuttle as a back up. This may come as a shock to everyone here, but apparently its very informative in the cope thread.

View attachment 5131780

Seems kinda inefficient and inconvenient to have to fly every domestically based F-16 out of Denver

A lot of aerial refueling for when they fly over places far away from Denver like they do all the time I guess

 

[Blatant hypocrite]

10,000' is preferable for landing, 5000' will do. You know how to use Google right? Does Ukraine have any air bases left with mile-long runways? If they do I sure as hell wouldn't want to be there.

You're not wrong. People are forgetting this, but Perun also talked about the runway problem.

 

[teriyakiburns]

10,000' is preferable for landing, 5000' will do. You know how to use Google right? Does Ukraine have any air bases left with mile-long runways? If they do I sure as hell wouldn't want to be there.

It only needs 1500'-2000' to land. Fully armed, it needs about 4000.

 

[Blatant hypocrite]

It only needs 1500'-2000' to land. Fully armed, it needs about 4000.

The issue is that (in many cases) takeoffs need more length than landings, and you'd never want to take off without fuel and armaments.

10000 foot runway is something of an overestimate, though pretty much every US air force base has one. USA being USA, they decided there's no point making different runways for fighters and bombers. 5000 feet is not terrible but it's a lot more than their existing Su-27 and other aircraft, except seemingly the An-70.

Ultimately, it seems that paving 2 miles of runway is preferable to using a different plane. Ukraine will continue to have difficulties with their air force, but having a good supply of planes will stop them from being wiped out.