Most of the weapons sent to Ukraine are tanks, armor and other weapons designed for offensive use, which is more in line with Western tactics. They are rarely used in defensive combat.
Tanks and armor are constantly being delivered to Ukraine, but are rarely used. Considering how much Ukraine has been saving their strength and how much Russia has exhausted theirs. Ukraine currently has a significant advantage in offense. It would be a waste not to use it.
Ukraine should focus on offense rather than defense if it wants to win this war
They don't have enough manpower to focus solely on offense.
You can't go on an offense against minefields if you don't have air superiority
>Just walk around the minefield lol ez
one of the nato officers actually said this when training Ukrainians who then asked him about the minefield
It is the SOP of everyone in the west. Everyone has trained with mines being used to deny an advantageous route like a road to the defenders flank. No one has experience with half click deep and kilometers long minefields.
What the hell do we put on war-games for then? What’s the point of having the best military exercise force if the exercises don’t reflect actual adversaries?
Jerking off generals and letting them play with their action figures.
Ukraine has kind of been a sort of counterpoint to what we've envisioned peer to peer warfare to actually be like. The relatively low escalation with little air support on both sides has made made maneuver warfare difficult. More or less, the conditions in Ukraine were perfect for the kind of war we thought went extinct 80 years ago.
The west doesn't need to plan for this because we don't take 2 years to move 10km. When the west goes to war we cover hundreds of km per day unopposed and km per day opposed.
There isn't a force on earth that can keep NATO off a field long enough for significant defences to be built during a battle.
True but they don't need a fully functional air force with internal maintenance capability, they need jets, pilots and weapons, all the other support can be done by NATO in Poland.
>True but they don't need a fully functional air force with internal maintenance capability, they need jets, pilots and weapons
These things take years anon. Even conversion training takes about a year and then there aren't exactly a bunch of F-16's and F-18's just lying around.
> there aren't exactly a bunch of F-16's and F-18's just lying around.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1KzGjj9tTy_dcLHKjkiwPG_RwpbA&hl=en_US&ll=32.16760838446999%2C-110.8444507321297&z=14
I know it would take time and money to get then going again but the US could do it fast and the cost could easily be covered by making a deal for a cut of Ukie gas sales after the war.
Pretty much, there has been complaints from both the Ukies and the advisors that they are teaching NATO tactics without NATO air support.
>teaching NATO tactics without NATO air support.
You don't need "NATO" air support to do "NATO" tactics. Almost every officer that's gone to Ukraine as an advisor has complained that the only training center that even encourages initiative at the squad and company level is in Lviv and even it still has serious problems with rote memorization with the centers near Kharkiv being the worst about it.
So you think the US could fight the same and they have been for the last 20 years if they couldn't call in CAS on fortified positions?
The prep can be done IN THE US. You don't need to ship over broken planes and fix them in Ukraine, you fix them in the US and fly working planes ready for combat into Ukraine.
>So you think the US could fight the same and they have been for the last 20 years if they couldn't call in CAS on fortified positions?
That's not what I was saying. There's this ridiculous meme that western forces can't fight without 24/7 air cover when in actuality if you really wanted to boil down whatever "NATO doctrine" would be, it's overwhelming fire superiority with precision fires. If it was just 'muh cas' then the US would never have invested so much money into things like Excalibur, Copperheard, ATACMS, PrSM, GMLRS etc and all the supporting assets needed for them to be effective.
True and for the attack there are other options but for defence the options are CAP or SAMs, nothing else.
>The prep can be done IN THE US
so tell me who does the servicing of Uke aircraft after every sortie you fricking genius
>I am advocating a variation of this strategy
right, because doing it the antiquated Russian way has proven to be war-winning
I can't tell if you're a child, moronic, or a troll, but it's too tiresome to try talking to someone spouting ignorant twaddle who thinks he can out-general actual NATO generals without even knowing
>whatever "NATO doctrine" would be
so here's the final word your arrant nonsense deserves:
>Yeah.
Advisors in Poland like I said many posts ago.
Yeah
You're talking to multiple people you spaz.
They said no because even if they stripped and rebuilt them, what was rebuilt would be useless because of G limits. You could offer them the boneyard fleet and they would encounter the same problem.
so there are multiple morons ITT
just another day on the chins
Yeah bud, everyone else is the moron.
>I was only PRETENDING to be moronic!
Every fricking time.
>useless because of G limits
Do you have any source on this being the reason they said no?
I just don't see "we might lose pilots" as a good reason to turn down planes in a war where you are going to lose pilots.
With transports it's different, I wouldn't want to load an "hours X" C-130 with millions of dollars worth of gear or 120 men but when you are talking about a single pilot who's in danger anyway and an airframe you wouldn't have if you said no the risk assessment seams off to me.
?si=Ter8FztuB5HdONUO
I watch them too, good guys. They never say G limits are the reason.
>I watch them too, good guys.
They talk extensively about timed-out F-18's and them not being "tactical" at that limit.
The first thing Gonky says is "I would take them".
If you watch the whole video they talk extensively about time-out planes and the problems associated with trying to use them in combat. If you refuse to watch and acknowledge the video, and continue to misrepresent its contents, I'm going to peace out.
Ok lets break down the whole video
>Gonky
>they'll pull 8g all day
>fly them until the wings fall off
>eject over your own country
>Mover
>It'll cost a lot
>4g limit makes them useless
>Casmo
>It'll cost a lot
>Ukraine has limited resources and shouldn't waste them repairing these
So if they were prepped before being supplied Movers and Casmos concerns are solved, the only remaining issue is Gonky thinks they can still pull high G while Mover says we wouldn't.
Gonky is either an idiot, or more likely, playing a foil for the sake of discussion (is he a pilot? I don't know who he is)
Mover and Casmo are right. The Australians could have kept them if they wanted to, and indeed sold two dozen of the best to the Canadians. The caveat is that they need rebuilding if they're to be flown in proper combat ops, to the maximum standard G loadings. Otherwise, as these people say, they need to be limited to various permissive flight plans to avoid catastrophic failure ie disintegrating mid-manouevre - and I'm sure you would want the ability to pull all the Gs you can in Ukraine, nicht wahr?
>just rebuild them lmao
At peacetime speeds it takes a year and a half. Wanna guess how long it'll take to do it, even if the Americans help at top speed?
frick-all you lot would know
Gonky few F-18s from carriers while Mover few them from land.
I'm not saying the Aussie F-18s were worth fixing or should have been taken, I'm saying the US has enough F-16s laying around to win the war and if the US payed for flight prep they could get the money back from Ukie gas sales after the war.
The main point I'm arguing is the west is so safety conscious in the military these days that just because we would limit hours X airframes to 4g doesn't mean they can't pull 9.
In the west we call UXO for anything and everything, in Ukraine they throw things at.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/watch-ukrainians-use-sticks-and-tyres-to-clear-landmines-3221330
When losing means becoming Russia people take greater risks than when losing means BP only gains 4% marketcap this year.
>Flying a mission in your brand new, pre-owned, F18
>Vatnik launches a SAM at you
>Pull a high speed turn to avoid SAM
>Your wings fly off, SAM explodes you anyway
Good idea moron, let's help Ukraine lose pilots to accidents by giving them clapped out planes incapable of the most basic of defensive maneuvers
So you agree with Mover that it's not worth the risk and I agree with Gonky that they are so overbuilt you could get a few more years out of them.
As both of us can sight a fighter pilot with time on the airframe that agrees with us I guess we'll never know.
>I guess we'll never know.
We do know: Ukraine said no
We know Ukraine said no to rebuilding planes that haven't flown in 21 years, we don't know if the airframe can still handle high G because no one has tried.
>moron is still seething
take your meds before you have another road attack
i've encountered a lot of homosexuals on PrepHole, but you are the gayest one
>the US could do it fast and the cost could easily be covered
no, they can't, because NATO can't send them ground crews
the pace of growing the UkeAF is limited by the number of their recruits they can send for training, and how long it takes them to learn
>Pretty much, there has been complaints from both the Ukies and the advisors
a fricking journalist's nothingburger
Anon, those planes aren't flying ever again. It would be cheaper and faster to build new aircraft. Those are kept around purely for parts.
cool so western instructors are unqualified to teach ukrainians anything because they’re too used to steamrolling isis or whatever the frick
The whole point of doctrine is preparation for a certain thing.
>https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1KzGjj9tTy_dcLHKjkiwPG_RwpbA&hl=en_US&ll=32.16760838446999%2C-110.8444507321297&z=14
Those airframes are in the boneyard for a reason. Ukraine already turned down aussie F-18's for that very reason.
As an Aussie I can tell you those hadn't flown for 21 years, we offered no flight prep and the number was so low it wasn't worth the logistical load for what would likely end up ~6 working fighters.
If the US offers 500 F-16s suddenly all that work could result in 100 working fighters and it's worth it.
Its not about how many serviceable fighters you can get. Its the fact that the airframes are worn out and they would be operating with serious handicaps - like 4g max pull handicaps. An F-18 that can pull a max of 4g's is practically useless, cant even pull defensive maneuvers.
We would G limit them because we aren't fighting for our existence, they can pull 9g and with how over built they are it'll probably be fine and if it isn't you have a rocket chair.
In WW2 we sent B-17s full of holes on missions, just because we wouldn't do that today doesn't mean it doesn't work.
>Yeah bro just throw your trained fighter pilots away cause wartime gets rid of operational safety lmao
Ask Germany and Japan how that turned out for them
>Ukraine already turned down aussie F-18's for that very reason.
It never happened as how it's being described
>There isn't a force on earth that can keep NATO off a field long enough for significant defences to be built during a battle
Because of the fricking air force which Ukraine doesn't have
We are in an air force meta
Russia's failure to secure dominance in the air IS the failure of their "SMO". The two go hand in hand.
Can you imagine how different both Gulf Wars would have been if there was no western air dominance?
I mean yeah if the Iraqis had 3 brigades of S-300s and 2 brigades of Buks the war would have been pretty different also
And if martian tripods had taken part, extremely different.
Being reliant on LGBs and not having glide bombs like the JSOW would have made dealing with S-300s a nightmare.
>I'm going to toss bomb a paveway from my F-15 high and fast
>your job is to maintain TGP on target and buddy lase for the duration of flight
>When the west goes to war we cover hundreds of km per day
Against rice farmers and sand people? Comparing Iraq to Ukraine is laughable. You should be examined for brain damage
>When the west goes to war we cover hundreds of km
you lost against arabs after 20 years
i think you should pipe down
>Occupying a country for 20 years with less casualties than an Avdiivka tuesday is losing.
>Losing 20k+ to capture a town less than 10 km from your border is winning
Indians/Muslim indians from Reddit are raiding all the boards. Something happened. Int, tv, k, his, pol are flooded with the pajeets.
Probably a boat blew up.
Multiple infantry units got shredded and a warehouse of front-line equipment got drone'd in the last day or two.
Israelis intercepted an SRBM with Arrow
Americans intercepted six Houthi drones
>Afghans
>Arab
The Tali”””chads””” would execute you for that.
We're now training for the type of combat happening in Ukraine, the Rangers just spent an exercise on trench warfare
>trench warfare
Unf… I missed that shit…
entering and clearing a trench is and has been a standard battle drill in the army for years and years now. We train for it a lot, even in non coolguy units
>What the hell do we put on war-games for then?
I just like to paint the little figures, anon.
Looks like kot has a bad case of flees.
Issue is that NATO militaries considered the enemy to be sane and somewhat normally risk/loss adverse. So the idea to sacrifice 16k kia for a single town was never really considered.
The the plans operated to some extent on that premise.
Same with the mine fields. The idea was use them but under controlled settings because they affect you and the enemy equally. And even if you win the minefields pose a long term risk. So they will be use but at limited scale. And you can bomb everything to shit that guards the minefield then clear it safely while everything in 5km range is suppressed. Since a normal field is limited in size
>What the hell do we put on war-games for then? What’s the point of having the best military exercise force if the exercises don’t reflect actual adversaries?
Maybe NATO is a defensive organization after all… and doesn’t need to advance over fortified positions….
>What the hell do we put on war-games for then?
fun
It's quite unreasonable to expect any adversary to NATO to be in the position to have the time and opportunity to lay down such massive fields of mines as the Russians have done in Ukraine. Sure there are some artillery-deployed mines but any diggers in the open would be fricked by air assets in the vicinity.
The geneva c**tventions etc
The meme that roosia and china could never be the enemy because economical integrations
To add to this now that I thought about it more
The meme that if r*ssia or china were to be the enemy, they surely would at least try to match NATOs capabilities for fast mobile warfare
Poopin has surprised (almost) everyone by taking it all back to how war was fought a hundred years ago, including setting up minefields that are absolutely massive
The thing about r*ssian minefields is though that most often they're set up by mobiks who don't have enough time or training to dig the mine in, so they just sit out in the open
In US and NATO conflicts, fast moving, technologically superior maneuver forces would never allow minefields and trenches to be set up. And the battlespace wouldn't be confined to such a limited geographical area. The Ukraine conflict in reality is a 'artificial' battlefield with two third-world combatants that resort to WWI-style strategy because of their limitations. The only great surprise in all of this was that Russia was actually NEVER a first-tier military and cannot into modern maneuver warfare despite having some the trappings of a first-tier military leftover from the Soviet Union. Which should have been a surprise to no one.
>In US and NATO conflicts, fast moving, technologically superior maneuver forces would never allow minefields and trenches to be set up.
Suppose you aren't launching a surprise attack against an unprepared country, and your enemy has been setting up minefields and trenches for decades during peacetime.
What do?
You go around them. Or fly over them. Or lob shells over them. All of which NATO and the US can do. Minefields and overlapping trenches supported by artillery? Air drop a brigade behind them. Hit their FDC with long range precision rockets or a TBM then have a BCT supported by an entire BN of combat engineers plow through. Or just breakthrough somewhere else 1000kms away.
Ukraine is an artificial combat environment because Ukrainian Forces can't maneuver across the actual Russian border or invade Belarus to neutralize the possibility of invasion from the North. And they lack the sophisticated technologies and systems to do true maneuver warfare. So lo and behold because of all this hand tying and lack of capability, we see a descent into WWI strategy when for the rest of the world, there are no such things as 'lines' or a front when the battlespace is unrestricted.
>Minefields and overlapping trenches supported by artillery? Air drop a brigade behind them.
Airdropping a whole fricking brigade into contested territory with no logistical support, unsuppressed enemy AA and a gigantic minefield behind their backs is a spectacular way to waste a whole fricking brigade.
>Hit their FDC with long range precision rockets or a TBM then have a BCT supported by an entire BN of combat engineers plow through.
Ukraine could do that. While their resources are limited, they had enough to at least try this tactic. With even greater chances to succeed, arguably, because they have access to invulnerable intelligence while in a hypothetical war with NATO, enemy would try to interfere with the recon aircraft.
Why didn't it work?
>Airdropping a whole fricking brigade into contested territory with no logistical support, unsuppressed enemy AA and a gigantic minefield behind their backs is a spectacular way to waste a whole fricking brigade.
That is the entire point of an airborne BCT. A self supported element that can rapidly overwhelm entire enemy BNs when dropped behind enemy lines And there is no such thing as unsuppressed ADA to the West. The West has air superiority. Period. OPFOR ADA has to be far back enough to be out of Western rocket range (and even further to be capable of being march ordered against an ARM) that airborne BCTs are able to mulch any blocking forces holding the line unless the enemy has a divisional ready reserve to hold them. And forcing the enemy into wasting an entire division on a blocking action is it's own form of attritional warfare. In real conventional warfare, sacrificing that BCT to displace an entire division creates opportunities for theatre-level victories. This is basic chess.
>Ukraine could do that. While their resources are limited, they had enough to at least try this tactic.
They tried exactly that during the last counteroffensive. And failed spectacularly. Because frankly, they aren't trained at maneuver warfare and lack the necessary supporting elements. Combat engineers and CSB/BSTs are not sexy but they are the reason the US can steamroll the OPFOR and just make it look piss easy. And they are the result of decades of institutional knowledge and know-how and most importantly an unlimited defense budget. Only the USA has the fricking ridiculous funding to maintain both an offensive air wing that guarantees air superiority AND the bells and whistles supporting fully capable ground forces. The Ukrainians make due with what they've got and cannot do the insane super kung fu American and (American-led) NATO Forces are capable of.
>That is the entire point of an airborne BCT. A self supported element that can rapidly overwhelm entire enemy BNs when dropped behind enemy lines
Russian defenses in the South had three defensive lines. Where are you dropping your suicide squad?
Behind the first one, sandwiching them inbetween two minefields, surrounded an all sides by entrenched enemy, on open ground, under artillery fire?
Behind all three, some thirty kilometers deep in the enemy territory, with no chance to resupply for days if not weeks even if absolutely everything goes perfectly smooth?
Both of these would make Hostomel look like a joke, but I'm not sure which one is funnier.
>And there is no such thing as unsuppressed ADA to the West. The West has air superiority. Period.
How many jets are you prepared to lose in the process?
>They tried exactly that during the last counteroffensive.
My point exactly. Sounds beautiful on paper, didn't work in practice.
>Because frankly, they aren't trained at maneuver warfare and lack the necessary supporting elements.
Cope. Literally nobody is trained in operations like that.
Thinking that American soldiers would have done any better in the same situation is delusional.
Mind you, I have little doubt that NATO has the ability to overwhelm any enemy if they zerg it disregarding the casualties. It's just pure mathematics of scale, they have way more resources than any potential enemy.
Problem is, you can't disregard the casualties. No US president would ever dare sending American soldiers into an offensive conflict where they would have to be sacrificed by the thousands to distract enemy reserves. That's a political suicide.
>how many jets are you prepared to lose in the process
Wild Weasel has, historically, had about 50% loss rate over the course of a campaign
And US ended up losing the war, because the losses incurred were too high for the population to stomach.
Again, I don't doubt that NATO could theoretically do that in case of some existential, do or die, balls to the wall scenario. It will never happen in real world though.
Yeah, alright, you'll win because you'll just win, ok.
anon, in Vietnam the USA lost the war because they picked the wrong war to fight, just like the Soviets did in Afghanistan, the Russians did in WW1 and the USA did in Afghanistan
if we had thrown the French under the bus and just given Uncle Ho his McDonalds like he wanted we would have come out so far ahead it's not even funny
in scenarios where the goal is military annihilation of an entrenched enemy the USA has absolutely swept
>if we had thrown the French under the bus and just given Uncle Ho his McDonalds like he wanted we would have come out so far ahead it's not even funny
This should be written on the first page of every book analyzing US involvement in Vietnam.
>Behind all three, some thirty kilometers deep in the enemy territory, with no chance to resupply for days if not weeks even if absolutely everything goes perfectly smooth?
Yes. This is how American BCTs work. And this is America, resupply is ALWAYS available. Because, again, air superiority.
>Thinking that American soldiers would have done any better in the same situation is delusional.
Did you not see that video of Day 1 Gulf War? Day 1 of American involvement in Ukraine would be the complete destruction of all Russian Forces in Ukraine. Day 3 would be the beginning of the Battle of Moscow. Day 30 would be a captured Putin signing the Articles of Surrender on the White House lawn. At this point we are fairly confident Saddam's Iraq put up more of a fight than Russia would if we invaded.
>Literally nobody is trained in operations like that.
Why does the same video need to be posted multiple times in the same thread?
>Problem is, you can't disregard the casualties. No US president would ever dare sending American soldiers into an offensive conflict where they would have to be sacrificed by the thousands to distract enemy reserves. That's a political suicide.
That was Iraq. The assumption before the invasion was tens of thousands of US casualties, possibly far more.
>sounds good on paper, doesn't work in practice
>wrong, here's a CGI explaining how good it would work
>my post-soviet shithole's military couldn't pull it off so it doesn't work
>we've rendered a cartoon so it works
>the last century of Western warfare and military science is wrong because a Soviet state did what a Soviet state does
>they had enough
no, they didn't
>And US ended up losing the war, because
China threatened to defend North Vietnam the same way it had defended North Korea, and the South Vietnamese were not committed enough to the war effort to rigorously seal the borders
historically, just about every single insurgency with open borders and a powerful hostile neighbour cannot be stopped. I actually can't think of any where the counter-insurgency op succeeded in such a case.
>can't maneuver across the actual Russian border
Which is mined to the point their own farmers keep getting blasted when plowing fields
No, it's not mined anywhere close to the same degree as the defensive lines to the South.
Thing is, it's not mined not because Russians ran out of mines, or because Russians just can't imagine being attacked from there, or because magical soil deactivates the mines. It's because Russians reasonably assume that Ukraine is unlikely to attack on this axis due to logistical and political issues.
If it was possible for Ukraine to exploit this vulnerability, vulnerability would have been removed.
>It is the SOP of everyone in the west.
what a strange thing to lie about
Do note, this is assuming more or less air and artillery superiority; neither of which Ukraine has. Which is probably why the Germans just said "Go around I guess?"
There's no real SOP for breaching, but Krauts saying "just go around" sounds more and more like bullshit by the day. That video is a pretty clear example of what the US considers to be necessary to get through a heavily defended area for decades now. The key point of it is that you need to overmatch your adversary in firepower to do it, and it specifically says you will very likely suffer casualties
"Just go around" is a meme. Russian defensive belts are based on Soviet doctrine. We have been studying and developing counter-doctrine for ~70 years.
Iraq had massive defensive belts IN DEPTH in Kuwait and we had no problem breaching them.
The issue is that to breach you need suppressive fire that's more than a couple of batteries laying out sporadic fire and most importantly you need to be able to mass your forces. Ukraine has been unable to mass, because its so lethal in the current conflict and because they cant mass they cant get proper suppressive fire and because they cant suppress they cant get the necessary engineering vehicles to stay alive long enough to breach.
A further issue is that engineering equipment has massive signatures and become the No1 target for the enemy when breaching so without suppressive fire they get picked off.
There is however a solution, and it involves copying Montie's antics from WW2 - specifically what he did in North Africa. You use infantry, at night, and you mass your guns and have them fire at grids and according to a time table. The problem is that there is both a gun and a shell famine in Ukraine and also, again, massing is a huge problem.
So you need to:
1. Solve the massing problem
2. Train up entire sapper brigades
3. give Ukraine about a 1000 (one thousand) field guns or big-bore mortars
4. fix shell production
and maybe, MAYBE, they could breach some belts.
>There is however a solution, and it involves copying Montie's antics from WW2 - specifically what he did in North Africa. You use infantry, at night, and you mass your guns and have them fire at grids and according to a time table. The problem is that there is both a gun and a shell famine in Ukraine
yes, but no
in principle yes, but you have to update your tech past WW2, not conduct a "breaching operation" with onagers and ballistae just because the Romans did it successfully
that means using modern NATO breaching doctrine and that means airpower, precision guided munitions, recon, and lots of obscurants
>You use infantry, at night
they didn't have NODs in WW2
they do now
>they didn't have NODs in WW2
>they do now
Russians dont have nearly enough.
>that means using modern NATO breaching doctrine and that means airpower, precision guided munitions, recon, and lots of obscurants
In a perfect world, yes. However, if you cant go high you go low. The use of sappers the manually clear lanes in conjunction with small assault forces to put pressure on the enemy line of contact under cover of darkness would be sustainable. With massed arty suppressing enemy movement in the rear you would be able to grind away enough channels to get some mobility into the front.
What I am talking about re: sappers is manually rolling det-cord through the grey zone at night and them demo'ing it. Think bangalore torpedoes but man portable and modular. You would have your blyat-truppen push across the grey-zone under cover of darkness to assault the first line while behind them sappers demo channels. The plan is to take one defensive line per night and lay low during the day.
Russians would obviously counter, which is where the massed fires come in. If you can turn a 20 by 20 mile zone in their rear into a proper kill-box you can hold what you take. Doing this requires batteries firing as batteries and it requires a shitload of batteries.
>and maybe, MAYBE, they could breach some belts.
pretty fricking doubtful considering they're still using soviet era doctrine despite what every other country has tried to help them with
>Manually breaching a 500m dense minefield when drones with thermals exist
Lmao no, you're not breaching shit until you have Air dominance. There is no suppressing the spotters when the spotters are cheap drones that can cover miles of minefield so quickly and efficiently. Ukrainians best bet is to stay on the defensive and kill as many Russians as possible
>There is no suppressing the spotters when the spotters
Spot whatever you want. If you mass your guns you can supress the absolute shit out of enemy batteries.
Russians did literally this at the start of the war. Remember 60k shells a day and Ukrainians being completely overwhelmed? I am advocating a variation of this strategy. Getting Ukraine 66 F-16's is not happening, getting them a thousand 155m's might actually be doable.
>Russian defensive belts are based on Soviet doctrine.
Nope, they are not. They do not follow their own guidelines. The minefields and defensive lines are way bigger than defined in the soviet manuals.
>Iraq had massive defensive belts IN DEPTH in Kuwait and we had no problem breaching them.
i suggest you re-read desert storm, because a significant part of the operation was going around the fortifications to the west to completely outflank the iraqis. that's not possible in ukraine, which is by comparison a cage match.
the iraqi defenses were also garbage and easily breached
Yeah dipshit and the operation included a huge fixing operation, conducted by the Marine contingent, which entailed them blasting straight through the defensive belts and hurtling into Kuwait city.
>your job is to fight these iraqis in their trenches, just shoot at them so they can't really leave
OORAH
>proceeds to smash straight through their lines
okay
>"Just go around" is a meme.
lol your pleb ass mentions 70 years of doctrine but fails even the most basic of tactic. Which is to BYPASS obstacles. Do you even know what The Maginot line was?
>we had no problem breaching them.
that's because the USA had complete air superiority junior.
I'd argue that Russian equipment is much more offensive oriented.
Just the fact that Western tanks have reverse gears and Russian ones don't should tell you all you need to know.
>russian tanks dont have revearse gear
Thats something gangsta
but if they do it could be useful, they should use some julius tactic like they are trapped in here , give them speeches etc
tanks dont have revearse gear
they do but its max 5km per hour on a t72, so a slow walk
>Thats something gangsta
Also, do you mind speaking English or established board idioms, that does not include 'ebonics'.
>mind speaking english or established board idiomsb
Umm no problem
That's about breaching it dumbshit. If your unit encounters one you go around or wait for engineers to make a breach. Combined arms breaching is a whole fricking operation and not just a move you do on the fly.
This. Buddy was an officer and he said that breaching exercises are the single most complex thing that he has ever participated in, it involves the entire brigade.
>Why doesn't Ukraine just clear through the minefields with tools they don't have, operating in a permissive environment, which doesn't exist, due to lack of air dominance.
Gee, I wonder why Ukraine doesn't just do the impossible anon.
NTA, but they're clearly replying to:
>It is the SOP of everyone in the west.
What is it with Ukraine threads and rebbit autismos sperging out?
>No one has experience with half click deep and kilometers long minefields.
They wouldn't exist if stuff was not after a year of fighting
In the First Gulf War the West did, and they way they got through the Iraqi's defences was to get the armoured diggers and bulldozers to just drive through them. They had air superiority which helped but they were still driving into held areas and at risk.
>Ukraine should focus on offense rather than defense if it wants to win this war
Ukraine cannot even do a proper assault breech of of Russian defenses. Ukrainians do the Soviet meat weave breech through minefields.
Ukrainians cannot even do proper counter attacks nor spoiling attacks on Russians' exposed flanks, while Russians are attacking.
Ukraine also puts far too much value on defending and attacking cities. This is also a filed Soviet strategy. Getting stuck in urban warfare stops offensive action. It causes a great drain of resources and almost complete loss of offensive momentum.
Ukraine's military grew too fast, while also being stuck in Soviet tactics and strategy.
Ukrainians would do far better on defense.
That is what they get for having bongs train them. Brits are always really arrogant, until they get into a war, then they want to hide behind the US Military.
>randomly seethes about bongs
What an odd thing to do
They’ve never recovered morally from being labeled "our Italians" in North Africa, sitting on the beach at Anzio waiting to be saved, and running away at the battle of the bulge, where they were once again saved by the Paras and XXX Corps. Embarrassing, really.
>Ukrainians do the Soviet meat weave breech through minefields.
>source: it came to me in my dreams of Russia Today
next you are going to point at the same knocked out leopards from last spring
>Just walk around the minefield lol ez
That is what you do.
If you can't go around, you've failed and you slink back with your tail between your legs.
>he doesn't bypass the minefield by going straight through belarus
Weak
>The Schlieffen Plan trilogy
How do we weaponize RTS gamers? Obviously they would do a better job than those stupid ass NATO boomers officers.
What other options do you have when facing a minefield in a war?
in fairness to NATO, in their doctrines it wouldn't be allowed to give the russians about 10 months to set up such extensive minefields. they would rely on US air superiority to interdict the shit out of enemy fortification efforts. ukrainians are in the unique position of having NATO equipment but no access to NATO doctrine, training and alliances for which the equipment is made for. NATO officers simply can't imagine the hellscape conditions under which AFU are fighting in, and the scorched earth tendencies of the russian forces. paths through minefields (along with the maps) are supposed to allow defending forces avenues to counter-attack. they laid mines foremost to stop ukrainian advances, and counterattacks are an afterthought. russians will counterattack through their minefields with no maps, because priority is given to stopping ukrainian advances at any cost. counterattacks are made because putin orders it, and not on any other military logic. it's sheer madness by western military conventions, there's simply no NATO answer to fighting conditions in ukraine.
>ukrainians are in the unique position of having NATO equipment but no access to NATO doctrine, training and alliances for which the equipment is made for
no i think we have seen pretty conclusively that ukraine DOES in fact have "nato doctrine, training and alliances"
you may not like it
but this is what ~~*peak nato performance*~~ looks like
These minefields can be deployed in minutes via artillery bro, it doesnt take 10 months to make these giant fuelds anymore. The need for engineers and sappers is gone. Launch a shell and it fragments into a thousand pieces, all mines to rain down on the area.
You have no air superiority to clear it. If you try, you will be swat out of the air. If you try to breach it, you will be shelled and mines deployed behind you to cut off retreat, while you are still in it. You need to learn a new trick, old dog. Rolling over wont get you a treat this time.
>These minefields can be deployed in minutes via artillery bro
some mines can be deployed like that, but not the triple stacked tm-57, which have also been found booby-trapped with rgd-5s. those triple stacked mines were responsible for wearing out NATO de-mining equipment in the counteroffensives.
>The need for engineers and sappers is gone.
>you have no air superiority to clear it
this man has never heard of Wild Weasel
you have never done anything remotely related to EOD in your life. Not even training with dummy pieces
Most intelligent armchair warlord post
>Mines and Obstacles should be tied into restrictive terrain.
>NATO advisors.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-officer-says-sticking-nato-training-would-get-killed-2023-9?amp
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/ukraine-russia-training-nato-west-military/
Pic related.
Walking around in the minefield is a well established way of demining minefields anon. Just don't step on the mines EZ
this
yes, it's called "manoeuvre", homosexual
>minefield breaching exists therefore it's literally unheard of to avoid them
homosexual
I'm sure you fricking geniuses know Desert Storm, the webm's been posted often enough
tell me, did they breach the minefield, or go around it?
>I'm sure you fricking geniuses know Desert Storm
they breached it you mongoloid
trick question: they did BOTH
here endeth the lesson, idiots
>Russians dont have nearly enough
they have a lot more than anyone did in WW2, so once again, tactics need to be adjusted
> if you cant go high you go low
broadly I agree
however,
>would be sustainable
so you theorise, but
>With massed arty
it takes one PGM to do the job of a dozen artillery shells; we have the technology to not need to play the numbers game any more
>What I am talking about
we know, you're reinventing the wheel, and a very outdated one
>manually rolling det-cord
son, even the Soviets had fricktons of mine clearing line charges (MICLIC)
it's not detcord
>here endeth the lesson, idiots
no shit you absolute mongoloid. the sweeping motion was to cut off forces not merely to avoid mine fields
how are you this fricking dumb?
>the breaching action was to assault forces not merely to clear mine fields
this is how stupid you sound
>You can hide a battalion of men. You cant hide an engineering battalion
any APC that can carry a battalion of infantry can carry a MICLIC launcher
>inb4 just walk bro
then the assault doesn't develop fast enough, you lose tempo, and Russian reinforcements crush the assault. or simply thicken the mine belt behind the breach zone
>Building an Ukrainian AF that can get air superiority is multi-year project that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars
yes, but it's better and cheaper than losing men by using WW2 tactics in a 21st century war
warfare has been all about outmanoeuvreing the enemy faster than he can entrench and build fortifications since fricking 1940 you moronic little shit
>making up quotes to argue with
no wonder you don't have any friends.
>projecting
yes, you are. seethe more
>any APC that can carry a battalion of infantry can carry a MICLIC launcher
the signature issue is while on the frontline. As we saw during the offensive, MICLIC's become priority target no1. Also, MICLIC is not effective as its charge can only propel the cord so far and each carrier contains one cord and thus has to withdraw and rearm before firing another. This means that it takes a looong time to clear a lane. The M58, for example, clears 100 yds per charge. With multiple infantry squads, you could theoretically rig one loong cord by simply unraveling it while crawling through the greyzone and by connecting them together you could demo as much ground as you can get bodies to.
>just walk then the assault doesn't develop fast enough
If your start line is own positions and your goal is to clear the greyzone its moot. The plan is not to conduct the entire offensive on foot. The goal is to breach the lines with infantry so that you can create lanes to exploit with armor.
> and Russian reinforcements crush the assault
See: massed fires.
>it's better and cheaper than losing men by using WW2 tactics in a 21st century war
Its literally not cheaper. Not even remotely. There are not 60+ F-16's simply lying around.
Sauron himself leading the attack would be better and cheaper. We are bound by reality. Solutions must be based on what is not what we wish things to be.
>Ukraine currently has a significant advantage in offense.
Apparently not.
>The goal is to breach the lines with infantry
>Russian drone with thermals spots infantry
>arty blows all of them up
>nb4 but that's what massed artillery fire is for
Then you could just be using breaching vehicles, lol
>son, even the Soviets had fricktons of mine clearing line charges (MICLIC)
see what I wrote about signatures. The use of infantry is to deal with the signature and massing problem. You can hide a battalion of men. You cant hide an engineering battalion.
>it takes one PGM to do the job of a dozen artillery shells; we have the technology to not need to play the numbers game any more
Your expectations are unrealistic. Building an Ukrainian AF that can get air superiority is multi-year project that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. By the time its done its moot.
>Building an Ukrainian AF that can get air superiority is multi-year project that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars
Not him, but I disagree. Russia has been losing a lot of craft to AA fire; and it's not like they currently hold much air superiority as is. The bigger trick is Ukraine getting good SEAD while doing air operations.
>Building an Ukrainian AF that can get air superiority is multi-year project that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. By the time its done its moot.
Anon, do you really think this is the last war Russia will fight in? How many fricking wars do you think Russia has been in in the last 30 years? Granted, this will be their worst war since WW2 with equipment and men lost, but unless some big change happens in the Russian political sphere, they will just rebuild and try again in X years (or more likely decades) because Russia is a threat to world stability.
So the tl;dr is, the more development we can do for Ukraine's MIC, the more they'll be able to help out in the next inevitable Russian ape out in Europe. Though hey, who knows, maybe this war will finally be enough to remove Russia from the world stage long enough for them to become irrelevant.
>ou really think this is the last war Russia will fight in?
Yes. Aside from Ukraine everyone else in Europe is in NATO and they are not going to fight NATO. If the do the world ends so its fricking moot anyway.
Ukrainians said no.
>Ukrainians said no.
Yes, they said no to 41 with no prep which would realistically be 10 tops by the time you stripped them for parts to make some work.
I'm saying offer a frickload of F-16s with prep.
It's the difference between saying no to the top pic and yes to the bottom.
>Anon, do you really think this is the last war Russia will fight in?
Assuming Ukraine wins the only feasible scenarios for a war involving Russia would be a nuclear war against NATO(over who knows what casus belli), or a war against China as a result of scaling tension between the countries (this could also end up in a nuclear exchange). Beyond that I simply cannot see any scenario of warfare involving Russia beyond very small scale operations in Syria and other similar places.
They're already laying verbal groundwork to go after Kazakhstan and the other central asian 'stans that were in the USSR.
>Granted, this will be their worst war since WW2
That would be Afghan war. Unlike that one, Russia actually conquered land and secured it to the point where it will never give it up. Losses is a meme. Believing 400k dead claims from Ukraine government is like believing in 6 million.
>Russia is a threat to world stability.
Compare US and Russia military involvements in 10, 20 or 50 years.
US will come out ahead at least three-four fold on any measure.
Ukraine would be peaceful today if it wasnt for the CIA coup.
>t. least deluded pidor
>Ukraine would be peaceful today if it wasnt for the CIA coup.
>Anon, do you really think this is the last war Russia will fight in? How many fricking wars do you think Russia has been in in the last 30 years?
Actual, serious full-scale wars instead of 0.1% of the military dicking around in some border conflict?
Three, counting the current one. The other two are Chechen wars, and if NATO tries to intervene in a scenario like this, it would be both illegal and suicidal.
yeah so why the frick don’t the ukrainians just do the same thing and win the war in 3 days?
they don't have an overwhelming advantage in air power which has been the defining characteristic of every successful American invasion for the last 80 years
>I'm sure you fricking geniuses know Desert Storm
They breached it, with a frick load of artillery and air support. How many tons of bombs were dropped on Iraq?
>I'm sure you fricking geniuses know Desert Storm, the webm's been posted often enough
>tell me, did they breach the minefield, or go around it?
USMC went full frontal assault breech. The USMC went in there so fast that many of the Iraqis were burred in their defensive trenches. General Schwarzkopf was even surprised at the speed the USMC achieved. General Schwarzkopf had to slow them down, because they were making ground too fast... absolutely made the US Army look unneeded.
ur a gay
Pro-gamer tip: mines are neither bullet nor artillery-proof, and dislike holes being put into them as much as humans.
They've been having to use all their shells just to stave off the endless waves of mobiks
>Pro-gamer tip: mines are neither bullet nor artillery-proof,
to be so brazen as to give 'pro tips' when you have no idea what you're talking about.
So is the strategy to just carpet bomb a 1 km strip 100m wide to create a gap?
No, you need large scales demining efforts that are covered by airpower suppressing and destroying enemy long range missile and artillery fires, the main issue with any forward movement by both sides is that it gets swarmed by artillery the moment any troop concentration begins
Pretty much
you can use thermobaric weapons in the mine clearance role, pissrael and Russia both have systems that can do this.
you can also bomb your way out
if only Ukraine had such a thing as GLJDAMs...
>strip 100m wide
Also known as a kill zone for enemy arty
They literally did this and got raped nonstop by KA52’s.
So you go around them. Where is there no minefield that can be breached relatively easily? That’s right, the Russian border. Ukraine needs to invade Russia in self defense
>ukraine needs to invade Russia in self defense
kek, what do you think the entire ukrainian offensive since 2017 has been attempting to do?
the 1991 border restoration attempt *IS* an invasion of Russia, literally and figuratively
that soil is rightful Ukrainian clay anyway
This. We're waiting Ukraine. None of this "they have nukes" excuse. Just YOLO and go for it. Putin didn't nuke Prigozhin. You can reach Moscow in a single day.
Also this. Ukraine wasted all the artillery shells that were given to them. Did they win that general artillery duel in the summer offensive? I was hearing 1:10 kill ratios. What was the point then? They could had just forced a breach with their artillery superiority instead of spending it in penny packets.
>Ukraine wasted all the artillery shells that were given to them
Yes, those idiots used their artillery shells to kill Russians instead of just keeping it in storage and not firing.
The most moronic post in this thread
jetpacks
thank God we have OP to show them how it's done.
Ukraine doesn't have all the needed tools for a successful breakthrough, at least one that won't come at a crippling cost, they still need more shit like bradleys along with a substantial increase in air power, once they can get a decent enough air force rolling is when you will probably see them make another attempt at a large scale offensive, so for now the best strategy is to let the Russians further bleed themselves out
Noob detected go be moronic somewhere else. You know nothing of warfare.
I saw the movie and he's right.
Ukraine needs artillery.
Should have partnered with north korea rather than with worthless eu countries with no shell production… oops
What would you do, OP? Where would you attack?
I would focus on sourcing about 10 nuclear weapons.
Based and McArthurpilled
I like Ike!
Given how much raping the white brad did on defense, it seems like whatever they're doing is at least marginally effective, and the hardware is actually serving its real designed mission of beating back vatnik hordes (as opposed to policing angry hajis).
sending tanks/ifvs/vehicles for direct combat seems like a last resort measure.
seems like throwing drones/pgms/loitering munitions/smart arty would be much safer and cost efficient.
using tanks/ifvs should be used for clean-up operations only.
Imagine believing "operational" shit like this. Of course a tank can be used defensively, you stupid bastard.
>Ukraine is not using western arms properly
You're not wrong
>weapons designed for offensive use, which is more in line with Western tactics.
this is completely wrong though.
>go on the offensive without air superiority
Lol no, they are trying to minimize losses because they both value life and want a functional society at the end of this.
They need enough air power to SEAD / DEAD Russian SAMs and run CAP / CAS of the front before they can consider a significant advance.
The only reason the Kherson offensive worked is because Russia never expected am offensive and air power matters less in urban environments.
Ukraine needs to keep holding the line where they can and making fighting retreats where they can't until either the west gets serious about aircraft supply or Putin dies.
>about aircraft supply
Anon, it takes decades to build the kind of air force Ukraine needs.
I want to see Ukrainian F15Es escorted by Ukrainian F35s flown by Western volunteers, just like the Russians did in Korea/Vietnam/Middle East
How about we give ukraine a massive boring machine and just go under the minefields. Make molemen real!
You think you've had an original thought?
>are constantly being delivered to Ukraine
They are? I've spoken to many Ukrainian soldiers and they say unless you're in the 'prestige' brigades, you're lucky to get a clapped out M113.
I know right. Why don't they just do a thunder run like they did in Iraq?
Oh he big mad. Look at that wall of text lmao.
>verification not required.
Big mad.
Frames are g limited. Its not a question of rebuilds. The frame of the planes themselevs are the problem.
>frick-all you lot would know
The irony.
>Its not a question of rebuilds. The frame of the planes themselevs are the problem.
specifically, the RAAF F-18s need centre barrel rebuilds
go ahead and look that up, frickwit
>I'm arguing is the west is so safety conscious in the military these days that just because we would limit hours X airframes to 4g doesn't mean they can't pull 9
oh yeah? who the frick are you to argue that? what knowledge have you of the subject?
also, once again, another major problem is training Uke ground crews
NO, the AFU is NOT going to host them out of Poland; they're not doing it today, and they're not doing it tomorrow, get your head out of your ass
>specifically, the RAAF F-18s need centre barrel rebuilds
>go ahead and look that up, frickwit
Why would I look up what I literally just told you? You keep doing this.
>it's not a question of rebuilds
>it is though
>yes, that's what I told you
dumbfrick
>strip the parts from 16 planes and make 4
>its not a question of rebuilds, its the frames
>rebuild the frames
omfg homie
>knows nothing
>must sperg
EVERY AUSTRALIAN HORNET FRAME NEEDS A TOTAL REBUILD, FRICKHEAD
>EVERY AUSTRALIAN HORNET FRAME NEEDS A TOTAL REBUILD, FRICKHEAD
I know. Thats literally what I said.
NO, you seem to think they can be assembled together like fricking LEGOs
70 weeks per airframe
>NO, you seem to think they can be assembled together like fricking LEGOs
see
> Its not a question of rebuilds.
>he frame of the planes themselevs are the problem.
Do you have autism? Because that the only explanation here.
>Its not a question of rebuilds.
what did you think was meant by "rebuild" then?
Okay. You have autism.
So, let me be very clear: I was arguing with an anon who was saying cannibalize the fleet to make a few good frames. I was saying that its not about cannibalization, its about the airframes being knackered. When reading, there are these things called context clues. Also, generally, when someone says three, or four, times that they said what you are saying to them, it means thats what they said.
you have shit communications skills
but whatever
actually I'm having a nice bowl of chicken stew to regain my strength, after which I will continue sexually violating your mother in every conceivable orifice
take your meds rebbit tourist
>who the frick are you to argue that? what knowledge have you of the subject?
Math, 4g with a pair of bags, TGP and a half dozen JDAMs is going to produce as much if not more wing loading that 4 AMRAAMs at 9g.
Like all rules it's a catch all that's easy to remember so you don't need to do engineering calculations every time you fly.
>another major problem is training Uke ground crews
Agreed, have claps in Poland that do everything more complicated that fuel and stores.
>NO, the AFU is NOT going to host them out of Poland
They can't fly combat missions out of Poland, they have been sending vehicles there for maintenance for over a year.
>specifically, the RAAF F-18s need centre barrel rebuilds
A quick google tells me that the last time this was done it was a 6 (six) year project. You could order a new one off the production line and get it in roughly the same time and for only a fraction more cost.
BTW what’s the deal with the Poles flipping out on the border? Wasn’t the grain thing solved? Is this actually a Russian-backed “movement”? Or is Ukrainian grain really that destabilizing?
>Or is Ukrainian grain really that destabilizing?
Its really that destabilizing.
Ukraine has god-tier super soil (I am not joking look it up) so they get giga-yields without much effort. Their entry into the Eurozone is going to drive most non-luxury farmers out of business w/o subsidies. Really good for inflation fricked consumers tho.
>Their entry into the Eurozone is going to drive most non-luxury farmers out of business w/o subsidies.
Doubt it. First, Ukraine is going to be fricked economically and for manpower for at least a few years even if they get Marshall Plan'd. Second, the heart of Ukraine's wheat production is in the southeast and there's a very real possibility that by the end of the war most of it will be literal scorched earth and/or in Russian hands. Third, demand isn't going to shift all that much and the EU already buys something like 30% of Ukraine's agricultural exports anyway.
F-16s showing up is going to be pretty interesting. The Russians will either have to cower, go big and hope they can swat them down or commit their own extremely valuable air power. Personally my money is on a surprise appearance during which the F-16s take out something juicy, the Russians chimping out in response and getting HARM'd in a big way before quieting down and Russian aviation being conspicuously absent throughout.
>Ukraine is going to be fricked economically and for manpower for at least a few years even if they get Marshall Plan'd
on the other hand, they might get a Miracle On The Dniepro...
>on the other hand, they might get a Miracle On The Dniepro...
Nah. Europe is going to be watching them like a hawk and they're going to be well-inventivized to get their shit together but they're still a post-Soviet shithole with a GDP per capita that's <25% of Poland's, a huge number of the most productive workforce have been killed or crippled and they're going to have to rebuild about a third of their country. I hope that they pull it together and they've been moving in that direction but there's no way they can just flip a switch and undo centuries of being Moscow's favorite toy.
>the Russians chimping out in response and getting HARM'd in a big way before quieting down and Russian aviation being conspicuously absent throughout.
If we could be so fortunate. I know many experts have said the F-16 wont make a difference on its own and lacks the capabilities needed to get air superiority. But I think they are operating from the assumption RuAF would operate like the USAF. But we have no indication they would and now two years of evidence they do the opposite. I don't think they have the balls to commit the assets needed to win the air war. Ukraine is playing the more aggressive game and I think long term that will allow them to win. They don't have to strike deep into Russia and hit all of their airbases. They just need to kill a few more irreplaceable assets like MiG-31, A-50s or Su-34s and Ivan's balls will retract right up into his gut.
Buying grain from Ukraine is very profitable for Polish producers so some used that opportunity to enrich themselves. More importantly, the protests are also happening because of recent EU directives related to farming. As far as I've read about it, they're not organized by people under Russian influence but they definitely have their people using it and stroking the fires
well at least some of those protesters are actually inviting Putin to "take care of the mess in Poland" if i ever doubted Russia has plants everywhere im convinced now
picrel
>soviet flag
Imagine my shock.
you see, any protest in Europe is actually Putin's destabilisation attempts. real citizens are happy and support the government
Farmers in Europe aren't protesting regarding Ukraine, they just want better subsidies from the EU. 5th columnist polack farmers are basically their own brand of autism. The protests started in France, as they do.
That's not quite accurate.
French farmers did speak about the threat that Ukrainian grain represents, as EU farmers are crushed by environmental regulations and bureaucratic red tape while yookies can just do anything they want at dirt cheap wages.
They want tariffs or more protectionism and I suspect the poles want the same although I'll concede I don't know what the poles claimed.
>The issue of subsidised Ukrainian grain exports to the European Union, which farmers say are undercutting their products, is among the causes of the problem.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-farmers-protest-seige-b2487324.html
They have Coordinated combined arms as many volunteered to train them if they did not have that capability already. The objective is to push the Russians out. If they enter Russia they risk losing support. The name of the game is the same as the Vietnam and Korean campaigns. To stack so many bodies high that the Russian people will rebel. While our genrals were playing chess, and checkers. The Vietnamese were playing a game of go. Pushed us out on one last offensive where they stacked bodies so high the flower children were protesting in the streets. Mac Arthur was fired because he pushed the North Koreans and Chinese into Mainland China rather than have WWIII with china we ended up with the cease fire at the 38th? Parallel I believe. This war is just another proxy war. Having U.S. troops in country would equal a hot mess as only the locals know who really belongs there.
>Ukraine currently has a significant advantage in offense
No they don't. Unfortunately Russia has a huge artillery advantage right now because we've been bumbling around with shell deliveries and production. If we had sent enough ammo for a fire advantage there wouldn't be any Russians in Avdiivka right now
Anon, you could give them 100K shells a month and they would try to shoot 150K.
Remarkbly moronic take. Russia has a 5:1 artillery advantage in some regions right now. Not because of the lack of Ukrainian artillery but because of the lack of ammunition.
Interestingly the artillery balance at the start of the war was reportedly roughly equal. The balance seemed to have shifted towards a clear Russian advantage within the space of a few months. The apperance of good Western guns had an impact, and HIMARS made a splash, but Russia adapted and kept pushing their MIC and got aggressive with acquiring material from international partners. Russia reportedly had some level of shell hunger a year ago but that situation appeared to have been solved over the course of 2023. The Ukrainians haven’t been idle and have flogged their MIC as much as they realistically could but they’re coming from a starting point in which they lost most of their native MIC capacity before the war for various reasons. The West has been helping but the support they needed to keep a level playing field in material has been VERY slow in coming. The major EU players don’t seem to have a very high level of urgency re Ukraine aid, Lend-Lease was allowed to expire (without being used at all interestingly) and current US aid is being held hostage for political football. Not using Lend-Lease when they had it is probably going to be a huge, possibly war-losing mistake — I wonder what went on with that.
I found out today that the Russian mobilization wasnt just a mobilization of manpower but also an economic mobilization - they started going into a legit war economy all the way back then which explains why they are now hitting triple digit armored vehicles per month and god knows how many shells.
Problem is that according to Russia's own estimate they are 3 million shells short for their plan to simply level Ukraine into submission and they can't produce much more than they have, not even Iran and North Korea will be able to make it up easily.
>Lend-Lease was allowed to expire (without being used at all interestingly)
God fricking damn it, Joe Biden.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lend-lease-act-expiration-will-not-affect-current-us-aid-to-ukraine/
>However, the use of the Lend-Lease was deprioritized due to the existence of newer alternative streams for assistance. Military aid efforts instead focused on three other American budget programs: The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), the Foreign Military Financing program (FMF), and the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which have all provided aid to Ukraine without any requirements for the return or reimbursement of weapons.
>Considering the ability of small minorities in Congress to hold up the passage of legislation that has strong bipartisan support, political and bureaucratic barriers and limitations can make voting on aid packages sluggish. In the House, a few members can block progress within the Republican conference, even when a program has majority support. In the Senate, a single senator can deny unanimous consent, forcing the Senate to use cumbersome procedures to end filibusters. Lend-Lease could be an additional tool to clear assistance through simplified procedures. It may also be worth reviving for the purpose of overcoming Congressional gridlock that delays the passage of regular appropriations bills.
>Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, argued in July that “the option of leasing or renting weapons” should ideally remain possible through the Lend-Lease Act in the event of delays or difficulties securing weapons for Ukraine through other packages. She is currently working to extend the Act’s term of validity for another year so that the mechanism stays in place, should stoppages occur in the approval or delivery of other forms of aid.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040
>Updated February 15, 2024
>the Biden Administration has committed about $44.2 billion in security assistance since February 2022. FY2022 and FY2023 security assistance packages were mostly funded via $48.7 billion in supplemental appropriations. This amount included $25.93 billion to replenish U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) equipment stocks sent to Ukraine via Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA; 22 U.S.C. §2318); $18 billion for DOD’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI; P.L. 114-92, §1250); and $4.73 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF; 22 U.S.C. §2763) for Ukraine and “countries impacted by the situation in Ukraine.” Another $300 million per year was provided for USAI in regular FY2022 and FY2023 appropriations and via FY2024 continuing appropriations.
Ukraine should continue engaging in defensive fights where they trade casualties at enormously favourable ratios until Russia's military is entirely depleted, then just take whatever land they want.
Russia is producing about 100 tanks per month and they still have a couple thousand in storage so at this rate they could sustain the war for 2 or 3 more years at this tempo. Avdiivka has big total numbers for vehicle kills but thats because the fight there has been going on for a long time
>tfw can remember the fight for the trash-pile from last year.
They’re pulling them out of storage at 100 per month. They’re producing none.
(Ultrapompom owner did an interview where producing fresh T-80’s from scratch was suggested; he said it would take new capabilities)
They only have less than a dozen tanks each from each major NATO c**t and about 500+ armored vehicles that are scattered across multiple fronts and some were lost during the first month of the failed offensive.
They simply need more and they need air superiority which is what the 50+ F-16s are supposed to bring.
They also need a bajillion shells and demining equipment, maybe CAT can armor up those massive carrier trucks used in actual demolitions.
>each major NATO c**t
Are the c**ts tight?
without shells useless
Probably the most efficient thing Ukraine could focus on currently is intensifying total artillery death again like in last years summer. If the west delivers the stuff for it and enough. Fricking with Crimea is always good. Bleeding the russian airforce is good aswell. Plus hurting russian logistics. All these things would weaken russias strength and maybe open the opportunity for an offense in the future.
Nato doctrine is built around a flexible, efficient, accurate and dependable airforce to soften targets.
Turns out that without it, warfare just becomes WW 1.5 with drones and missiles.
The irony of situation is that they give too little of offensive arms to be properly used for an offensive
And since its impossible to properly use if for an offensive, there is not actual offensive.
US know it perfectly, they are just pussying around afraid of 'muh escalation'.
You cant do good offensive without air superiority and with 50 bradleys vs 1k km front, simple as.
>designed for offensive use, which is more in line with Western tactics
I think the problem is more the giant bloody minefields that are everywhere now, along with some chump with a drone and an attached shell for when you do get immobilized.
Complete lack of air superiority which is a pillar of western doctrine really doesn't help either.
I appreciate the coping, but the RuAF is NOT the super-USSR mega-killer US doctrine is built around fighting. In reality Russian ops thread-bare and just barely functional. You don’t actually NEED a perfectly coordinated combined-arms operation with a dozen elements working together like clockwork and air dominance. You just have to have a relatively decent ability to do large-scale maneuver and fire ops. The problem is Ukraine can’t even do THAT much. Thier doctrine appears to be on-paper only. C4 on both sides seems to amount to, operationally, guys yelling at one another over a radio. Russia actually HAS an ability to conduct doctrinal ops at some level, enough to set up basic defensive lines and minefields anyway. They also have a basic maneuver ability — just not enough to run ops opposed. Ukies have only just recently begun to display even BASIC operational competency.
Everyone is ignoring the biggest single issue with Ukraine breaching the Russian line: they wouldn't be able to exploit if they did. They don't have the ability to coordinate and supply their forces once they break through, and would be outside of friendly artillery range with no air power to take up the slack.
>You just have to outmaneuvre few thousands artillery tubes, while being on a minefield
Lmao.
>Most dont even have a mineral extraction or industrial economic sectors to build such war materiel, we offshored it all to Russia and China.
Anon, Russia doesn't have any significant industrial capacities. all of it's manufacturing (especially military manufacturing) were on life-support towards the end of the Soviet Union, and then it got completely gutted after it fell. Russia's main economic focus in the years after was on raw resource extraction, mostly fossil fuels, rather than on building it's industrial capacities back-up. Nobody ever really offshored anything to Russia, since there's not much it could've been offshored to, As it currently stands, Russia is facing some severe industrial bottlenecks, preventing it from building material at a rapid rate, or even just restoring their dilapidated and ill-maintained soviet-era stockpiles quick enough to meet their needs. That's probably a big reason why they're throwing so much money around, trying to buy-back all of their military exports as a stop-gap measure. Logistically-speaking, Russia is in a very bad spot, and chances are it will probably cost them the war.
>No air superiority
>Running low on shells
>"Offensive NOW!"
As usual OP is a massive gay.
>Ukraine currently has a significant advantage in offense
We have 3 companies in our battalion. Each of those used to have 10 M113 or YPR. That's 30 APCs. How many of them do you think we still have in a working condition? Suspend your disbelief. Ready? 2 (two). And only one driver who is brave enough to regularly go to zero.
Advantage in offence? Bruh, the pidors send dozens of armoured vehicles our way every week. And we lose ground.
>That's 30 APCs
Which are also tin cans
"using western arms properly" and "conducting a successful offensive" requires air superiority, which they do not have
It's just what happens when people get invaded, they get hyperfixated on reclaiming their land. Just look at France in the Great War, though admittedly that was a continuation of attaque à outrance.
Add to that they and the west seriously overestimated themselves after Kharkov and Kherson and thought the Russians would just run away again, no wonder they chose an aggressive strategy in that context.
Last time they tried it didn't end so nicely
>Ukraine's leader is an idiot politician and need to stfu
He got a lot of external pressure for an offensive from countries he needs to keep happy if he wants to keep getting aid.
No one in Ukraine thought the amour charge was a good idea but they accepted that throwing away gear and men in the short term was worth continued support long term.
>Also after firing their top general loved by Azov they ordered the 3rd battalion into the avdiivka salient and to no ones surprise they didn't follow through because its was fricking moronic.
>I'm betting on a Azov coup if they keep this up.
What? Azov commanders have commented on their operation themselves. They did everything that was ordered, namely secure an evac route.
>Can we get F-16?
No
>Can we get A-10?
No
>Can we get ATACMS?
No
>Can we get Taurus?
No
>Can we get those helicopters you're planning to scrap?
No
>Can we get cluster munition? (Only started arriving months after offensive started)
No
>Csn we avoid attacking through minefields by going through Belgorod?
No
>Can equipment arrive before Russia finishes building three lines of defense?
No
>Can we receive Abrams in time for offensive?
No
>Can we train with drones in Germany?
No
>Here's 70 Leopards, 10 Challengers, 100 Bradley's and 10 French clown cars, defeat ze Russians
NTA The only cope on here tends to be Russian influenced brownpol posters like (you). Go saturate your brain in Russian propaganda which is little better than compulsive lying on a national level if you like, just don't expect to be taken seriously when you tell us the SU57 and Armata and the military disaster of Russias attempted annexation of Ukraine is a great success, or any kind of success at all.
he's not Russian influenced, he's either one of two distinct anti-bong trollers on /k/; one is warriorturd, the other is a navy-focused italian
Russia - Ukraine war discussion should only be reserved to ukraine and countries with military capability to defeat North Korea. That excludes Western Europe.
Agree , only U.S can save the ass of europe from getting kicked by asia
>Agree , only U.S can save the ass of europe from getting kicked by asia
And what brown place did you learn your limited grasp of the English language in? Brownistan?
>Russia - Ukraine war discussion should only be reserved to ukraine and countries with military capability to defeat North Korea. That excludes Western Europe.
Checked for breaking up into incomprehensible word spew.
mong
>You will never own a gun
Ah you are THAT vatBlack person c**t. Are you going to post your skirt again?
you'll never be west bootlicker
>Bradleys
Ukraine is actually just being forced to use inferior equipment. IFVs are a proven failure that get soldiers killed.
it's a good thing that the bradley can frontally pen the new tanks that Russia is sending to the front, huh
Bradley Bushmasters did not and cannot frontally penetrate T-90s or even T-72B3s
they can frontally pen a T-55 though
A TOW can, although I wouldn’t want to be the one operating it.
>Ukraine should focus on offense rather than defense if it wants to win this war
They have to trade in excess of 8:1 and that wildly favors defense. Pinkos in the West needed to throw the kitchen sink in from the start - with F-16s or whatever & long range MLRS - if they were serious about taking the fight to Moscow.
>Pinkos in the West
You mean communists, the same hard left stalinist moscow controlled communists who along with elements of the populist right in Europe and America are controlled by Russian agents of influence? Pic related.
>Mom, look. The butthurt bong is trying to call everyone brown
Your country is already like 70% nonwhite
>designed for offensive use
Have you ever read about Russian remote mining systems?
It makes western tactics completely obsolete. Just take a look at the Ukraine 2023 spring offensive failure. Tanks are useless before someone figure out how to disable 10km of mines and keep the rear from being re-mined remotely.
>Have you ever read about Russian remote mining systems?
That it's shit compare to American?
>Just take a look at the Ukraine 2023 spring offensive failure
So by remote mining you mean bio-robots, aka soldiers
Black person if they got enough old soviet shells instead of all this crap theyd be far better of both offensively and defensively, all this gear is useless against remotely deployed minefields, this war is an artillery duel
>delivered to Ukraine, but are rarely used. Considering how much Ukraine has been saving their strength and how much Russia has exhausted theirs. Ukraine currently has a significant advantage in offense.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bong-bros..
>armor and other weapons designed for offensive use
"No"
If anything most western tanks were designed with the idea of a continent wide fighting retreat 10 to 1 until daddy USA get enough forces on the ground or total annihilation
>Tanks and armor are constantly being delivered to Ukraine
A-ha-ha-ha-ha, oh wow. Were there even 30 Abramses delivered?
Like Black person, AFAIK the last time something of this sort was delivered was almost a year ago.
>and how much Russia has exhausted theirs
Naive. They've mobilized 500k more homosexuals. The stockpiles are filled with shit, but they are big.
In your mind?
He must be talking about Vietnam
This has got to be a troll. No one in their right mind would ever suggest this. Ukraine is on the brink of collapse.
>Ukraine is on the brink of collapse
I thought msm only lies? Does that mean they tell the truth when thirdies want to believe what they say?
with what manpower?
Since 2022... time for Russia to end its 3-week tour by sending T-14s into action and ending the fight once and for all! /s
God I can't wait for like 5 years from now when this is all over with Russia and Palestine finally being destroyed (for good measure Assadist Syria as well). We can get back to talking about what we used to.
We can start now if you like
he do be thicc though don't he
>Ukraine should focus on offense rather than defense if it wants to win this war
Wow this is some 200IQ posting kid. Did ya pick up this deduction after a kewl game of war thunder? we here at the NYT would like to know more.
There's no air dominance.
Even worse, despite western AA, Russia is still much closer than Ukraine to achieving air superiority.
Air is king in the end. Launching an offensive without decent air support at this point would be just throwing men into early graves for some small town.
>Russia is closer than Ukraine to achieving air superiority
>Russia has lost another AWACS to potentially friendly fire
>They've lost ~8 other airframes in the last week alone
>Drones are able to regularly get behind Russian lines and bomb their manufacturing plants
Ukraine has been a great source of intelligence for the West, I am sure there have been many talk on how to deal with drone threats at all levels.
is this a bot?
>russia 2.0 cant into proper tactics
a real head scratcher that one
Now that I think about it, how come there's almost never mines in RTS, or if there are, no way of making them rain and spreading them everywhere.
>Ukraine is not using western arms properly
Yeah, but they all burn the same. Russia is just better at warfare than NATO.
The US doesn't care, they get all sorts of useful information either way, great wahy for experimenting with lives
They got like 80
You should go anon and teach them yourself. They will welcome you with open arms.
Slow down baby, ain't no hurry...we want a sllooooww war. We wanna make war to you all night long. Put on something sexy, lay back, dim the lights, get that IV bag on ice. We got 20 years and 80 quarters of positive returns to make it a special, tender kind of war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54LgyqSPfsQ&ab_channel=MarvinGaye-Topic
The fundamental design flaw with western tanks is that they're not designed to be driven over landmines.
>Ukraine is not using western arms properly
They are, but Russian weapons and military tactics are just superior.