piemonster
Free Member
I wonder how many times you two can keep circling back round to restating your opinions like some sort of endurance sport.*post overlap
I just find thols analysis a bit too optimistic.
I hope I'm wrong.
Well, so do I, but its easy to make that clear in a single post.
Nothing wrong* with going on and on and on and on and on and on about it mind you. More a case of me checking in this morning and thinking "gosh, those two are still bickering"
*Well, so long as it doesnt get as bad as the domestic politics threads which are almost literally the same opinions getting reposted for years on end.
Seems like Russia is offering early release to a lot of prisoners in exchange for them going to fight in Ukraine,
Putin's watched too many movies
piemonster
Free Member
you don't have to read it.
Well, virtually no Russian artillery yesterday, attrition of ammo dumps taking its effect?
you don’t have to read it.
Well, you usually post something worthwhile so...
Glad you're getting something out of it. 😆
Well, virtually no Russian artillery yesterday, attrition of ammo dumps taking its effect?
The Russians knew that Ukraine was getting HIMARS and it was predictable that they would target ammo dumps and logistics hubs but Russia made no apparent effort to disperse before Ukraine attacked. Hopefully this will see the start of a Russian retreat.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1546745869642383362
Interesting article here:
States that Russia is actually profiting overall due to the sale of gas.
A question I keep wondering about yon Strelkov/Girkin fella, given they aren't even allowed to mention the word war in Russia, why is this guy allowed to openly criticise Russia?
Logically the biggest logistics hubs would be set up just across the border into Russia with smaller, dispersed stores in Ukraine. The problem is that they don't have either stuff to store or reliable logistics.
This is backed up by the Defence Intelligence update of 9th July "many of its reinforcements are ad hoc groupings, deploying with obsolete or inappropriate equipment" https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1545639125331677186/photo/1
This stuff about the ammo dumps is interesting and seems to be illustrative of some of the wider issues being discussed. In no particular order:
- Incompetence of military leadership. Many of the decent ones have been taken out - either pre war as they tried to challenge corruption and incompetence, or during the war as they were forced to the front, using unsecured comms because their encrypted stuff didn't work (see above) and the Ukrainians said hello and goodbye.
- Logistics challenges. They lost A LOT of trucks etc in the early weeks of the war. What they had/have was poor quality (Chinese tyres etc), badly maintained and unreliable. They also lack efficient logistics kit, trucks are loaded/unloaded by hand. So very difficult and time consuming to move a massive ammo dump
- Logistics again. If the move the dumps back out of range, they effectively can't access them
- Cowardice/rationality If you KNOW it'll take days at a miminum to move the dump and you KNOW the UA is going to obliterate it soon, you're going to make sure you're nowhere near it
- Morale. I strongly suspect that other than a few diehards in the Kremlin, most of the military leadership wants out of this disaster. That being the case, it would be a terrible shame if loads of ammo dumps got blown up wouldn't it? I mean, how can they prosecute a war with no ammo?
– Logistics challenges. They lost A LOT of trucks etc in the early weeks of the war. What they had/have was poor quality (Chinese tyres etc), badly maintained and unreliable. They also lack efficient logistics kit, trucks are loaded/unloaded by hand. So very difficult and time consuming to move a massive ammo dump
– Logistics again. If the move the dumps back out of range, they effectively can’t access them
Yet in WW1 the Allies managed to move vast quantities of materiel across some of the worst terrain imaginable (ie the Somme) with nothing but horses, mules and sheer stubborn manpower for much of it.
I also suspect not just morale but objection to the war as a whole from a lot of Russian forces. I doubt many of them want to sit there shelling apartment buildings.
"Sir, terrible shame, our ammo dump got hit."
"Oh no, I guess we'll just have to sit here until we get sent home. Do we have any vodka left?"
"Actually sir yes, miraculously the vodka supply was moved out the day before."
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, knowing that the Ukranians were listening, they let some useful operational info float around the airwaves a bit.
Yet in WW1 the Allies managed to move vast quantities of materiel across some of the worst terrain imaginable (ie the Somme) with nothing but horses, mules and sheer stubborn manpower for much of it.
And a system of small railways that went directly to supply trenches, and in some cases; directly to artillery positions and in fact one of the reasons that entrenchment happened was because of the lack of ability of logistics to keep up with the sudden maneuverability and speed of infantry forces.
And a system of small railways that went directly to supply trenches, and in some cases; directly to artillery positions and in fact one of the reasons that entrenchment happened was because of the lack of ability of logistics to keep up with the sudden maneuverability and speed of infantry forces.
Agreed, but I was referring to the Somme offensive (sorry I wasn't clear I specifically meant that). In the autumn of 1916 they had to carry all this stuff across the quagmire of mud and rotting corpses that was No Man's Land to the newly-won trenches when the Germans retreated.
The Somme involved 3.5m troops, not sure whether that helped or hindered logistics
Im not sure how much ordnance they man handled across no mans land either, artillery would have been behind that point by some way.
I think they only moved around 10km?
In the autumn of 1916 they had to carry all this stuff across the quagmire of mud and rotting corpses that was No Man’s Land
I think that's maybe Passchendaele you're thinking of? The Somme has better weather, and while it wasn't a pleasant drive in the countryside by any means , it wasn't the hell-scape that was Ypres Salient a year or so later (August 1917 being one of the worst rainfalls in the area ever recorded)
I think that’s maybe Passchendaele you’re thinking of?
Probably both - certainly being mentioned lots in the book of letters home I am currently reading (which is specifically about the Somme offensive). One passage I have just read was about one team moving just 32 shells up to the front in 36 hours.
Yet in WW1 the Allies managed to move vast quantities of materiel across some of the worst terrain imaginable (ie the Somme) with nothing but horses, mules and sheer stubborn manpower for much of it.
This is actually one of Russia's biggest problems. Modern armies use machines to do as much of the grunt work as possible. The U.S. military can supply large armies using fleets of trucks. The Russian military are used to cheap conscripts so they save money on automation of logistics and load their trucks by hand. They lost a lot of their truck fleet in the first weeks so now they are dependent on depots next to railheads, which make easy targets for HIMARS. The Russians have barely improved their logistics from WW1.
Those HIMARS have a 50 mile range. And that's accurate at 50miles. The equivalent I guess of Man Utd blitzing Elland Road with a volley.
What that means is that, Crimea excepted, there's virtually no place within occupied Ukraine where the Russians can store ammo without it being at risk of being turned into fireworks night at any time.
And as we have covered already, you only have to look st what happened around Kiev to see how bad the Russian logistics capability is once they have to truck stuff any distance. One of our fellow forumites - with a background in logistics - did some analysis much earlier in the thread. Even assuming all their trucks work (they don't) and they have a full complement of them (they don't), he posited something along the lines of that given their trucks are so old, the speed that they can move, combined with the fact that they are loaded and unloaded manually, means their capability on a daily basis is a fraction of what NATO could do.
So it looks as if the Russians are going to have to choose between having their ammo to hand but risking it being vaporised at any time, or storing it at a safe distance and being unable to use it..
In my minds eye I have the image of Vlad in his bunker raging impotently at the fact that yet another dump has been blown, aware that the noose is tightening and that there is little that he can do..
Those HIMARS have a 50 mile range. And that’s accurate at 50miles.
And, of course, there are longer range versions, accurate at several hundred kilometers. Ukraine hasn't been supplied with those but that's always possible in the future so Russia's only viable option is to disperse its supply depots. Which they probably can't do because they don't have enough trucks.
Seems safe to bet that HIMARS is at least partly responsible for this.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1546942690968965120
Unfortunately destroying logistics stores won't win the war, that'll take troops on the ground and it's a huge job. Russian-held Ukraine is about half the size of the UK
If we assume that Russia won't just pack up and go then Ukraine needs troops, transport, tanks, AA, etc plus the communication and logistics structures needed
We're on the downward slope to winter, which is a double-edged sword for the armies, and energy demands in the rest of Europe will rise with its inevitable effect on politicians
Something needs to change or this will be a long haul
The 300km HIMARS will now be delivered. The Crimean bridge is an obvious target.
That'd be very interesting if they blew it up
Sevastopol will also be in range, the Russians must be sweating 👍
The 300km HIMARS will now be delivered. The Crimean bridge is an obvious target.
Is there a source for this?
I’ve seen it on a few YouTube channels that are usually reliable.
Ive seen plenty of chat about HIMARS, but not with the 300km rockets, 80km instead.
Could be inaccurate reporting 🤷♂️ We’ll see I suppose🤷♂️
Is this HIMARS chat not just the next bit of 'game changing' technology? Granted they sound effective, but enough to change the course of the war?
The idea of increasing the Ukrainian forces to 1 million sounds much more optimistic to me. Question of funding on that though.
Not just the funding but the logistics of giving each of them a uniform and a weapon given total NATO military personnel is about 1.9 million.
Is this HIMARS chat not just the next bit of ‘game changing’ technology? Granted they sound effective, but enough to change the course of the war?
Most of what ive read (in articles online) is along the lines of, its very good, but not going to be a game changer.
Ive seen mention that Excalibur is on its way, but again, ****tosphere stuff so far. But they do at least have 100s of artillery pieces that can use that.
Edit
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/08/biden-artillery-ukraine-kyiv-russia-00044735
That suggests 1000 rounds
Is this HIMARS chat not just the next bit of ‘game changing’ technology? Granted they sound effective, but enough to change the course of the war?
It negates a couple of important advantages that Russia has - artillery and air defense. Russia is pretty much limited to massive artillery barrages to drive Ukrainian forces back a few kilometers. HIMARS makes it impossible for Russia to have ammo dumps or command posts near the frontline. It will also force Russia to keep air defense systems back from the frontline so it might make close air support and helicopter operations possible. Ukraine still has to send troops in to retake territory but it will be much easier when Russian logistics and air defense is destroyed.
The 300km HIMARS will now be delivered. The Crimean bridge is an obvious target
Is that for certain? I thought the US were not going to do that?
Some interesting opinion here:
No question that the usage of HIMARS alone won't win the war for Ukraine. What they do is help to at least partially abrogate the heavy artillery advantage that the Russians have been enjoying.
After all, when your enemy is lobbing in one day the equivalent of 50% of the UK's to hand stock of shells, it makes it very difficult to fight an even battle.
By allowing the Ukrainians to target the - obviously enormous- ammo dumps the Russians have created, this significant battlefield advantage can be neutralised. As we have already seen, when the UA is allowed to confront the Russians on its own terms, by dint of better tactics, better technologies and better training, they have tended to prevail.
So take the heavy artillery out of the equation and the RA is not much more than a large force of ill equipped, poorly trained, badly led partial soldiers, most of whom would like nothing more than to get the hell out and go home. As mentioned before, mid - back end of August has been mentioned by UA as when the tide will properly start to turn. Here's hoping..
I hope so, it seems to be a war of attrition, and I'm struggling to see how russia can maintain momentum in the meduim term, never mind long term.
wouldn't 300km bring Rostov and Krasnodar into range if they can get a foothold in Donbass areas?
Has anybody seen evidence of the 300km missile being supplied?
If one of these lands in Russia then there won't be a second wasted before allegations of breaking international law are made. Ironic I know, but something that the international community will want to avoid. The tech might be valuable to the other side too
Officially No but..... who knows?
Has anybody seen evidence of the 300km missile being supplied?
As far as I can tell it was something widely reported on social media 2-3 days ago but it isn't on the list of munitions that the US is providing to Ukraine
I think Ukraine has promised not to attack targets on Russian soil as a condition of getting the ones it is getting. Presumably that would go for the longer range ones also if it got them.
Some interesting opinion here:
Good call that. Now picked up by The Guardian too!
Separately, credible reports now of the Russians putting Ukrainian kids up for adoption. They really are gutter scumbags..
