Do you read old soviet officer manuals that explore the subject of breaking through fortified enemy lines?
Currently reading this book that Zaluzhny mentioned in his latest interview to Economist and it deals with WW1 trench warfare and the application of lessons learned in WW1 in more modern wars. It's enlightening (at least to someone who's unfamiliar with the subject, such as myself).
It mentions something funny that I've already heard before from servicemen (in relation to the USAF's experience in Iraq and other conflicts in the middle east): lessons learned during wartime aren't taught to soldiers in peacetime, because those lessons are "lost" and "forgotten", and experienced officers who fought in those wars have long retired and are unable pass their wealth of knowledge to greenhorns.
Armies also fail to adapt because no one can say no to all the old war heroes who demand everythign be done their way no matter what has changed about things. But sure, trying to get the lessons learned in the war out of the veterans' heads and down on paper in the immediate post-war period before they go and retire is a pretty important thing. Just as learning things during the war. And figuring out what old wisdom is no longer applicable. And then pushing all of this out to the current batch of soldiers.
If the author paints a single aspect of all of this as the one thing that fucks shit up, then you may want to be a bit cautious about his other claims as well.
>no one can say no to all the old war heroes who demand everythign be done their way no matter what has changed about things
Lol. This reminds me of that moronic Soviet general in WW2 (pictured) who tried to do everything in his power to cancel/sabotage the production of the t-34, because he personally thought it was a meme tank.
>If the author paints a single aspect of all of this as the one thing that fucks shit up, then you may want to be a bit cautious about his other claims as well.
The book only mentions it briefly, but I still found it amusing.
Maybe Kulik did it on purpose.
Yes, sometimes malevolence is a better explanation than stupidity.
>captcha ARK088
>I knew I was onto something
No it was just Soviet things:
>Budyonny was a staunch proponent of horse cavalry. During the Great Purge, he testified against Mikhail Tukhachevsky's efforts to create an independent tank corps, claiming that it was so inferior to cavalry and illogical that it amounted to "wrecking" (sabotage). After being told of the importance of the tank in the coming war in 1939, he remarked, "You won't convince me. As soon as war is declared, everyone will shout, "Send for the Cavalry!"[2]
>Sir, you are on the list, come with us
>I HAVE NOT CONSENTED TO BEING PURGED
>Oh, my mistake, we'll just leave then
God, soviets were retarded, imagine being killed in the purges when all you had to do was firmly say "No, I don't consent to being purged".
You can say this about some of the mobniks too
>I do not consent to being mooooobilized into the meatcube
>Flees country
>Shoots officer (for a friend)
>Motolovs (the irony) the local office
They had more than one moron in high places that stayed in longer than they should because of their personal relationships with the right people in power.
Also have a Kulik induced set of casualties:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59397445/#59400226
>abloobloobloo i am le enlightened centrist with only generic rationalist nostrums to contribute
I think we've erred too much on the side of forgetting knowledge rather than listening to overmuch of it.
We actually forget very little, the problem is we do stupid things like assume X is obsolete or Y won't work because it's not expensive/impressive enough. Take flak for instance. Completely useless in jet age warfare where you need a missile to catch up with its target, would only be good against helicopters and you just shoot the shit out of them instead of using clouds of shrapnel. But flak would be perfect for anti-drone warfare, in combination with lasers. But does anybody build any modern flak after Ukraine? Of course not. That'd be too simple.
>That'd be too simple.
Yes, it would.
In the modern age of smaller armies equipment must be multirole to be cost-effective.
Also, the main problem with drones is detecting them, not shooting them down.
Your Wirbelwind is merely a 20mm cannon on tracks, its only advantage over a Bradley is three more barrels. It's not good enough, it will still be an easy target for say three FPVs attacking from three directions; it is unlikely to detect and shoot them all down fast enough.
>lessons learned during wartime aren't taught to soldiers in peacetime, because those lessons are "lost" and "forgotten", and experienced officers who fought in those wars have long retired and are unable pass their wealth of knowledge to greenhorns.
This isn't new and is a problem that is as old as human civilization itself. As a concept it is summarized in the term "institutional knowledge." It applies outside of militaries, such as in production lines where undocumented processes done by the workers on the line are passed down from one set or generation of workers to the next and thus is lost if an interruption (ex: mass layoffs, mass retirements, little/no intake of new workers) occurs.
I would like to point out that i have been warning this board for over a year that the ISR strike revolution makes defense >>>>>> attack. And instead of listening or even producing arguments you just banned me instead.
Now, 100s of thousands of deaths later, generals have come to the same conclusions i have. And the corpses do not lie.
And you are still totally wrong. Because of ISR, Attack is so fucking far ahead of Defence that the Army is talking about concealment and speed being the only viable strategy - oh wait, no, it was predicted nearly twenty years ago.
how is speed working out for the Russians and Ukrainians? oh wait.... arty drops on them within seconds and is corrected in real time.
I notice you avoided concealment. Doesn't suit your narrative?
Speed is important because it allows units to reach their positions in time to dig in and hide, before ISR catches up. It's the scoot part of shoot-and-scoot.
you gonna conceal in 30 seconds?
you gonna conceal a battalion?
Show me where the Russians can find anything in thirty seconds or literally fuck your own face
If they were that good HIMARS wouldn't be making a joke of muh strike recon complex
How can russians destroy ATACMS which fly at Mach 5 but can't get the drip on HIMARS who drive away at 50 km/h?
So show me the dead HIMARS.
Don't deflect.
Unless you're trying for the "I'm only pretending to be retarded xaxaxa" here
I am genuinely curious.
And i said they destroyed ATACMS not HIMARS.
This is what I am wondering myself, I think the russians haven't destroyed a single ATACMS
he deflects
Who deflects what?
You may laugh now, but the bear raises his eyebrow in his sleep and sharts his pants.
Everyone knows everything.
>the bear raises his eyebrow in his sleep and sharts his pants
What the fuck does that even mean
xaxaxa*~~
going biolab zombie))
Your eggs have been measured and the rooster has judged said measurements*~~)
xaxaxaxa
stupid dill your crests are not even worth half the contents of an ass.
You will never reach the ass.
xaxaxa*~~)
kek
You forgot about the black cum in the mouth
Critical mistake
>the rooster
Did they mean Prigozhin
Cock, rooster is Russian slang for the guy you have sex with (not gay)
Thanks for the clarification, Igor
hence the "cock battalions"
You may be disposable cock, but the glove is stuck in ass. Please hold.
>the guy you have sex with (not gay)
Kek
It's prison slang that's sometimes used as an insult by ordinary Russians online.
So long as the яйцa don't touch. Am I rite?
The eggs are beyond measure if they do not touch, correct.
At least not of pride parades.
Why do people keep posting this when the post (in the image) is mocking what somebody said in 2014. It's basically saying 'Ukraine has fucked us' but referencing an far-right ultranationalist Russian group (controlled, of course).
>Why
because it fixates on the idea of sperm in one's mouth to such detailed extent that it seems to say a lot about the poster's, uh, life experience
there's a theory that what people choose to use as an insult or obscenity says a lot about what they value as a person. if you think about it a little, it makes lots of sense
for example, many (if not most) cultures have some kind of insult about someone's intellect as a standard; this is probably because everyone the world over values cleverness
Muslims however uniquely use "pig" a lot, and are almost exclusive in doing so to that extent. this is because they are very religious and very fixated on avoiding pigs, to the extent that some will not even look at pictures of pigs
a third example: when women insult men, they almost instinctively focus on sex and sexual prowess, possibly because they believe men place much value on that. however it speaks more about their own thinking - how important an idealised relationship, represented by a satisfying sex life - than it does about men.
Yeah but as I said, it is mocking what a guy said. It's like going
>many such cases. sad!
in response to somebody, you're not really thinking that, but a guy said it and it is a funny little thing to say.
In 2014 a leading Russian propagandist told a mass gathering of the Night Wolves (an official-sponsored, ultra-nationalist biker gang), that “the black sperm of fascism” was splashed on Kiev by foreigners, the mother (supposedly) of all Russian cities, thereby conceiving a deformed embryo with satanic horns and a hairy face.
It is saying that these 'evil deformed satanic hairy Ukrainians' are fucking Russia. It's using a guys words that implied Ukrainians are deformed and worthless and could never hurt powerful Russia in mockery. As Ukraine is clearly doing just that, despite their deformity.
It has to do with the nature of Moscow and (homo)sexuality throughout history:
>Peter's 1716 military ban on sodomy was intended to begin this transformation where he needed to create "new men" first, in the army and navy. A similar ban was proposed for civilians in a draft penal code of 1754, but was not finally enacted until 1835. This law (which lasted until 1917) was apparently a response to the reports of sodomy in boys' boarding schools, in an era when the state needed another kind of "new man," the pious, conservative yet educated bureaucrat. Yet the growth of cities, and their increasing sophistication, allowed the development of alternatives to the masculinity prescribed by the state.
>Social historians have long relied on foreigners' reports of what they saw in Muscovy. These foreigners wrote vividly about the widespread practice of sodomy or "unnatural vice" between men and boys, between adult men, and between men and animals, in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Muscovy.
>Similarly, as commercial bathhouses appeared for the first time in Moscow in the seventeenth century, the state decreed that the sexes should be separated for the sake of public decency. At least on the men's side of commercial baths, youths were employed to scrub clients' backs, and likely also engaged in paid and unpaid sexual relations with them
>Peter's 1716 military ban on sodomy was intended to begin this transformation where he needed to create "new men" first, in the army and navy. A similar ban was proposed for civilians in a draft penal code of 1754, but was not finally enacted until 1835. This law (which lasted until 1917) was apparently a response to the reports of sodomy in boys' boarding schools, in an era when the state needed another kind of "new man," the pious, conservative yet educated bureaucrat.
They're hella gay, anon. Like Afghans fucking boys gay.
Genuine answer is that HIMARS is designed to execute the shoot-and-scoot mission extremely fast. Road speed is not the key metric, but how long it takes to set up, launch, and relocate. Because once again, there is now no real guarantee of defeating an attack, except for concealment.
The Russian recon-strike complex is SLOW. It can take hours for requests to be fulfilled. Also, their recon, especially deep recon, is not as omniscient as suggested. This plus the above is how how HIMARS gets away with it.
Even SAM batteries are moving around though. That's how the Ukrainians have preserved their S-300s all the way at the front, by moving them around constantly.
And that's also the deciding factor of offensives and counter-offensives now, besides mines. Take the Russian Avdiivka offensive for example. The Russian gameplan was transferring assault units stealthily to the front, finding and striking the Ukrainian CP, and then taking the town before the Ukrainians could react. The Ukrainian response was to move reinforcements in, both speedily and stealthily, and to interdict Russian troop and supply movements. The Russians expected to be able to counterbattery the Ukrainians but couldn't, because shoot-and-scoot. Thus the attack was both stymied and starved.
First the Navy, then the Air Force, now the Army - the mantra has become "if you can see it you can kill it", so the speed and stealth is now paramount for success.
Thanks
>what is tactical vs operational vs strategic
>what is fires vs maneuver
Increased attacking power leads to the primacy of defensive strategems.
>defensive strategems.
in this case, concealment instead of counterbattery, as anon wrongly and naively proclaimed
No need to look at WWI manuals. Just look at Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenoids were slaughtered in their decades developed defensive positions by roach drones with cheapo PGMs because loiter ARMs dressed down Russian emittercuck SAMs. Israel goes down town all day because their ARMs can take out S300s and S400s for pennies on the dollar so the Syrians don't even both to light up.
US simply fails to cough up the good versions of HARM to Ukraine. US could have easily provided a ground launched AARGM to Ukrain eby this year. US SEAD/DEAD is lacking in loiter because the US cancelled a ton a useful projects at the end of the cold war and two decades of COIN brainrot has warped their priorities. US will brute force SEAD everyone but China with MALD and JASSM spam due to economies of scale. Ukraine will never get a whiff of either late model stock.
The real truth is the US will not provide the war winning materiel because the current US administration is largely milleterate and fractious.
Guys how can we help Zaluzhny?
Seems some great minds are writing in this thread
Give him a thermonuclear device.
Give Budanov the trigger.
Would he actually do it the mad lad?
As long as Kyrilo makes it absolutely clear that he is from Idaho and that he is very concerned about NATO biolabs producing zombie soldiers.
I've been staring at the map of Ukraine on liveuamap in despair for ages now, trying to come up with some clever plan, but the situation seems completely hopeless. Zaluzhny himself says in that interview they'd need a combination of wunderwaffen to win the war if it keeps dragging on like this.
I hope planes will tip the scale, at this point I am satisified if they manage to dislodge them all the way to the crimean border
If I understand the AFU's offensive plans correctly, they wanted to "cut" the occupied territories in half and push Z's on two flanks back at the same time, or at least try and push them all the way to Crimea while keeping their forces busy in the north. Overall an okay, but risky (since it relied on steamrolling and overpowering Z's in that area) plan that didn't work because of the minefields which gave the Russians enough time to realize what was going on and concentrate more troops in that area.
Since that failed, what I'm asking myself now is: what can they realistically do besides sit and wait while Z's slowly chip away at their manpower until they can't sustain it anymore? This whole thing was the ace up their sleeve, this is what keeping the momentum of their Kherson offensive hinged on, but now it seems like we're back to what it was like in 2014-2021, where neither side can do shit, and it eats me up.
Let's face it, probably no better than all the previous grand plans that didn't do anything. Those new tank brigades did nothing. That supposed plan to attrition artillery and cut off Tokmak did nothing. Next year we'll have planes that will arrive to the same fanfare. If current trends persist they will do nothing too.
NATO air defence, artillery and missiles have been absolutely carrying Ukraine. The armoured brigades were the exception, countered mainly by mines.
Next year's F-16s may or may not turn the tide as dramatically as ATACMS did, because they only bring the AFU up to a theoretical parity with the Russian Air Force instead of significantly overmatching the enemy as ATACMS did. But mark my words, it will begin the attrition that is key to Ukraine finally achieving the aerial supremacy that will make offensives more viable
Nta but Russia has about a thousand jets, of various ages on top of a huge amount of AA (it went down the AA route during the Cold War because they knew how superior NATO aircraft was). 50 F-16's (which aren't Block 70/72) is not going to change the situation. The F-16's will not be flying above armoured columns as they attack fortifications and deleting artillery. F-16's will (assuming they get them) be used as a system to launch long range missiles at targets. That's it. They would need at least 500 for the way the US would use them. The US and UK (the two main nations that have done 'combined warfare' recently) both spent months bombing Iraq before a foot ever went in. Ukraine doesn't have the pilots, the airframes or the munitions to do that and even if it did, it would suffer horrendous losses because at the end of the day, pilots need to be lucky all the time, Russian AA units need to be lucky once.
So the F-16's main purpose is the (hopeful) donation of long range strike munitions that would otherwise not work or have to be jury rigged to Soviet airframes. Whether they will get those, who knows.
This war will continue in the bloody quagmire it is now for a long time. To me, the West seems to be banking on
>If Ukraine can't win, then make it so costly for Russia they won't be able to try it again for a few years
>a thousand jets that are operational
Anon, come on.
I have no idea how many are operational. Which is why I said 500 is needed, I assumed 50% were not. That's just for parity in jets. The issue remains with the AA network that Russia has. The F-16's main use is going to be throwing strike munitions at key targets because the Ukrainian Su-24's with jury rigged Storm Shadows can't do it forever (and we have no idea how many they have of that munition).
If Russia had that many jets, they wouldn't be mortified of running sorties above contested airspace. I agree that maybe F-16s won't win the war, but the notion that Russia can spam jets is absolutely ridiculous.
>Russia has about a thousand jets
just like they have about 10,000 tanks and more, but actually could field only a third that number in Ukraine
Combat jets are even more difficult than tanks to keep maintained, and combat-trained pilots are a world apart from tank crew. Over the months it's been made clear that in reality Russia not only struggles to field 200 combat aircraft, its pilot corps is nowhere near the theoretical figure of how many aircraft they allegedly have.
>50 F-16's
will be as much as a quarter of the observed fielded Russian airpower in Ukraine and that is a very significant figure.
The AFU don't need F-16s to launch cruise missiles, they're already doing that from the existing aircraft fleet. What F-16s bring is the AMRAAM, a capability which Ukraine lacks totally.
You're looking at the overwhelming American aerial armada of Desert Storm and thinking that's the only way to fight. Not so. Ukraine will fight its F-16s like NATO expected to in a Cold War gone hot scenario, using an outnumbered air force judiciously to exert temporary aerial superiority over a battlefield sector for the offensive to go through. Fifty F-16s plus the remaining Mig-29s and Su-25s is absolutely enough to use those kinds of tactics against two hundred Russian fighters.
This is only the start; the AFU NATO fleet I predict will grow, but slowly. The two bottlenecks are Western fighter production - encumbered by peacetime recessionary budgets - and Ukrainian fighter pilot training. Because unless you put a Ukrainian through the full two to three years of NATO air combat training, it's a waste of an aircraft. The fighter pilot training pipeline, believe it or not, begins in school.
>and it eats me up.
Fag
the war will be won on the current trajectory, but it's drifting toward becoming irreversibly slower & more painful than it needs to be
Everybody rushed to put down the thoughts of their veteran officers on paper after every modern war was fought. They actually get used too, mostly by young officers writing papers and historians. Of course often these conclusions get ignored by those higher-ups best placed to act on it. Even committees and conferences whose entire purpose is to specifically take that knowledge and recommend things get ignored. These things just get used as fuel for pushing someone's plans when they coincide, and ignored if not.
>air defense is of hitting ATACMS with three S-400 complexes
>missiles, da?
>no, complexes
>It's enlightening (at least to someone who's unfamiliar with the subject, such as myself
You're learning the wrong lessons from the most incompetent people.