We've come full circle since WW1.
I used to tell people that the reason for the stagnation of the front lines was because both sides had to prepare to make strategic decisions and offensives. I used to tell people that it takes time to train men and build / purchase armored vehicles and air craft.
I could be speaking too soon, I truly hope that I am. Because if I am right then war will return to WW1 in terms of time and strategy. If this truly is Ukraine's counteroffensive in full swing, losing precious limited equipment in probing attacks- then war will stagnate.
It's WW1 with a few extra steps and some extra gadgets and toys. It seems that whoever is defending has a huge advantage and current military technology leverages defense many times better than offense.
It's obvious that missile strikes, air strikes and bombing campaigns can hardly occur in this environment due to the air defense coverage and man portable air defense systems on the ground, meaning that even flying on the deck is not an option. If you have watched the battle of cyclops hill then you know that taking a trench is nigh impossible as long as the defenders have a good orchestra of mortars, grenade launchers, grenades and at least some artillery with some quadcopter drones filling in the holes.
We may have returned to thousands of men dying for an inch, and it might just be stuck like that now. Both Russians and Ukrainians have had plenty of time to buildup, yet no major amounts of territory have shifted hands in a timely enough manner. It's just grinding from now on until military technology catches up with defense.
I'm not reading all of that.
;tldr
Modern warfare has stagnated and shit is slow again like WW1.
Russia made all of their territorial advancements in the beginning, Ukraine is narrowly chipping away at those advancements as time goes on- both sides have hade ample time to buildup manpower and resources yet no major amount of territory have changed hands in a timely manner. Modern military technology favors defense to offense.
Of course with major naval and air support things could be different but air power has been lackluster. The only thing that could make significant difference is lack of air coverage or naval support.
Or proper SEAD and DEAD, but apparently only the U.S can do that- even though (please correct me if I'm wrong) HARM's hasn't been used on a proper military.
>tldr
I'm still not reading all of that.
war slow, ukraine slowly winning, russia defense too hard to crack
missile defense too dense
war slow like wwi
Thank you.
Interesting and insightful post
>tl;dr
>actually as long as the post
I'm not reading that either
as long as the post
>754 = 1618
Is it actually possible to be this moronic?
Go back to r*ddit, moron.
Don't base this on slavshit. Ukraine has no navy or air force, and Russian air force is bungling idiots. So the only thing reliable is mines, infantry, and artillery. That results in stagnation.
>this war is slow
>thus
>all war is slow
You're an idiot
Ding ding ding
Russia and Ukraine can't do x-y-z but instead do a-b-c. Thus war has changed to a-b-c.
Wild mindset NGL.
>afghanistan
>yemeni civil war
>syrian civil war
>yugoslav war
>iraq-iran
>vietnam war
>korrean war
>ww2
>ww1
All peer wars are slow ,no shit,if one side does not have overwhelming advantage it takes time for it to settle.
Insurgence wars are also long grinds of willpower.
If anything slow wars are the exception not the rule.The Germans learned that the hard way after the Franco-Prussian war.
>russia has no idea how to wage a modern war
>therefore, all wars will look like the russian war
yeah no.
Well the same thing goes for the Ukrainians. Why hasn't Ukraine managed to make solid progress? They have had plenty of time to build up forces. What's going on? Where are the major breakthroughs?
Too difficult to breakthrough so they are just going to force Russians into small engagements whilst sniping their equipment and sabotaging logistics, solid strategy but going to take years to produce results
>years to produce results
logic behind this claim plz? seems to me Russia needs to increase their defence industry output to replace losses (and keep up with the steadily escalating materiel and capability being given to Ukr) and react fairly optimally every time one of those small scale engagements results in a tactical victory for Ukr. Not impossible, but Ru needs to keep rolling 6s if they don't want things to snowball.
Well I’m just assuming it will take that long because they’d have to totally grind down the Russian economy, no one knows how long that will take but I imagine it’s going to be awhile
Not just that, but Russia has around 33 million fighting aged men judging by public population demographic statistics. Worst case scenario for the Russians is that 800k have died so far. It's hard to know exactly how many Russian men can be removed from their civilian lives before the Russian economy breaks but I'm guessing around 5 million of that 33 million or so before they truly hurt. That means Ukraine is 1/5th the way done grinding down Russian numbers. So if this is a war of attrition, we have about 10 years left before Ukraine mulches enough Russians to make the Russian people step back and get sick of sticking their grubby hands in the beehive.
I don’t think it’s men that’s going to be the deciding, it’s going to be artillery vehicles ammo. Russia is expending a lot all the time that they can’t replace, sooner or later they are going to run out. They can manufacture more stuff to replace losses but there’s no way they can reproduce the entire soviet stockpile they inherited
Well it will be men, if they can buy that stuff from other countries with gold and oil. It's not like nobody on earth is willing to sell Russians artillery shells. I do know that they have been rationing artillery shells for the expected counter offensive.
There are no countries with enough production capabilities to sustain russian shell expenditure rates.
Do we have proof that the amount of shelling is necessary to keep the Ukrainians at bay?
When they used 20k shells a day they gained ground. Now they use less and are losing ground. How's that for an argument?
Just by virtue of the fact that it takes 18 years and tens of thousands of dollars to grow more soldiers and more to train and equip them. 16 years in a pinch, manpower is the one thing that cannot just be replaced as easily as artillery shells. Sure you can be short on munitions, but more can be bought, new factories can be built, the supply issues can be ameliorated.
But nothing changes the fact that it takes damn near 2 decades to produce a halfway decent soldier.
Did other modern attrition wars end because of manpower shortages?
Yes, Vietnam is a good example. Vietnam was proof that if the U.S doesn't believe that the world will end if they lose, the U.S is bad at maintaining morale if faced with any significant losses. GWOT as well, eventually Americans pack up and go home if enough of them die and that number is oh so much lower for them than their enemies.
The enemies that the U.S has faced in armed conflict had near supernatural ability to sustain absolute scores of their insurgents/soldiers getting pink misted right and left. Their ability to stay in the fight regardless of how many of them die was what got them through those wars and the lack of tolerance for casualties is what got the U.S to go home. Even though it has always been a microscopic % of the U.S population that dies in wars.
>cannot argue in good faith anymore, better shift onto a different talking point!
>question was about manpower
>talk about political will instead
The US had the manpower to continue the war a 20 times over when they withdrew from Vietnam, a political decision. Political will is in massive supply in Ukraine and the west, because Russians won't stop murdering 14 year olds in cafes and blowing up dams. The bradleys lost in spammed image have already been replaced by another 30, for example.
Those 14 year olds were special forces.
why does noone ever mention that the US was unwilling to invade North Vietnam and thus actually crush the enemy
literally the same story with afghanistan and pakistan
>they’d have to totally grind down the Russian economy
respectfully disagree - its Russia (and its allies) defence industries that need to INCREASE their output, because Ukr is being backed by the West(ern defence industries).
For one, you'd have to categorise men up to around 50 to get to 33 million by my very rough estimates. For another, their efforts to mobilise 300k in 2022 had numerous difficulties which led to under equipped and poorly (or un)trained soldiers on the front line. That is, Russia has not shown the ability to sustain their armed forces given current equipment and training capabilities, so will struggle to retain current (or Feb 2022) levels of combat capability, let alone increase, as we've noted is required to get themselves out of the rolling-continual-sixes situation they're in just now.
Wars between equal opponents almost always turn into stalemates. Even in the case of the Second World War, the British, French, and German armies spent eight whole months staring at each other over the border because neither side was capable of mounting a large-scale offensive pushing through the other's defenses, until the Germans brought hammer down on Belgium and the Netherlands. On the Eastern Front after Barbarossa fell apart, most of the Soviet-German frontline remained largely static for months or even years because Germany only had the resources to mount offensives in the Caucasus and the Soviets had to basically rebuild their army from scratch.
Really the Gulf War was the exception to this because despite being equal (on paper) in quantity, the Iraqi Army was nowhere near equal in quality.
This we haven't had a real conventional war between two powers with equal industrial footing since the world wars. Cold War Era and up into the mid 2000s was just the US and other superpowers just shitting on smaller countries with no industrial output.
tl;dr op is a moron and a gay
Really, back to concern trolling now?
This war is so fricking boring how did the 2014 conflict produce so much more kino footage?
>how did the 2014 conflict produce so much more kino footage?
What are you talking about moron? We have multiple videos of vatniks getting clapped in FPS trenchkino like it's a fricking videogame, whereas before all we got were endless TOW hits
>how did the 2014 conflict produce so much more kino footage
One day of this war produces more kino footage than all of 2014 conflict combined.
i really thought i was the one with ADHD, but seeing the this board and the rest of the internet discuss the war has proven to me beyond all reasonable doubt that i am a mild case, and many normalgays now suffer from a far worse lack of patience and attention through information overload on the internet.
the incredible ability to draw wide, sweeping, generalized conclusions from a war that hasn't even ended yet is incredible to me.
watching the world act this frantic because this is the first time they get to experience a large scale war in their time, is nearly giving me aneurisms.
calm the frick down everyone, you don't have to know everything, you don't have to be the guy with the opinion that will be revered as prophetic in 10 years because you happened to be right through sheer luck.
relax, and take a nice sip of calm the frick down.
I've been moronation since day 1.
>Russians drives hundreds of tanks into AT-laden highways and towns unsupported like fricking mongoloids
>get their asses predictably clapped
>"DURRRR IS THE AGE OF THE TANK OVER BECAUSE INVALIDS ESSENTIALLY DROVE THEM OFF A CLIFF ENMASSE??"
ADHD dude here, this war is fast.
All you have to do is reject the premises of the arguments of OP and you see the entire thing as just another concern troll.
The US could still do Russia in a couple weeks like its 1991 but we all know the reason it won't. Your shithole being bad at war does not mean we've come full circle since WW1
>Your shithole being bad at war
*gets beaten by rice farmers and tribesmen with ak47s*
Russia has lost twice as many men in a year than the US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan combined. Don't even act like they are comparable
Lol cope you still lost the wars
without collapsing or self terrorizing the area mere hundreds of miles from the nation's capitol
just as you're going to lose this one ivan, just like in afghanistan right buddy, except this time there will be no excuse to have your ass kicked by a country way smaller than yours.
America in its entire history has never lost a war as badly as Russia is currently losing in Ukraine.
How are things in Osetia? Did the families receive their bags of chips?
>How are things in Osetia? Did the families receive their bags of chips?
>vatniks are shartygays
You'd have to be a knuckle dragging moronic troglodyte to talk as though as if Russia is the only country participating. It's been 2 years and Ukraine has not been able to remove the Russians. That's a fact, a shitty fact, but a fact nonetheless.
No there is not just Russians fighting. There's a whole other military involved fighting with modern western military technology and it has not achieved its strategic objectives either.
This means that yes in fact war is slow as frick again.
>modern tech
noone has modern tech in this war
the US is giving them decades old equipment
I understand you're baiting, but the US never lost on the battlefield
if you don’t have the mass to force a breakthrough, you have to do other shit which takes longer (hit supply lines, c2, etc). This is different from WW1 because nobody had precise long range attacks back then. Furthermore, intel collection is way better so partisan and guerrilla forces are doing more in this war. Air defense is not strong enough in this conflict to totally mitigate these things. If Ukraine can keep up the backline attacks, they can eventually weaken the structure and create an opening. Even now we’re seeing a fair bit of movement (sometimes kilometers per day). This is before Ukraine has really sent the full mass of its rearmed brigades at a single point too.
People have been saying this for months. Why should I believe you this time?
The war in Afghanistan dragged on for 20 years, no matter how quick the regime change was.
When the Afghans fought the Soviets, they would just casually carry out weekly rocket attacks on Russian aircraft positions.
During the week, normal life, then casually loading and firing rockets and going back to the village. The Mujahideen smoked a good deal of cannabis and treated war like a casual chore they have done for thousands of years.
They also waged a holy war, so they had complete confidence in God and their ability to overcome the occupation.
I'd say that courage is the most important quality of a fighter, and insurgents will inevitably win if they maintain public support. The USA and especially the ANA was not popular in the country.
Insurgents lost in the Philippine War. Winning requires they fight a highly limited enemy.
Now the holy war has come home, the Patriots were the American veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan
And anyone who has been involved in holy war knows that things can get pretty surreal, but to people in the Middle East, like in Syria, it might as well be another Tuesday
Yeah, pretty much. This war has proven the absolute necessity of stealth aircraft. No air power means all the fighting is done on the ground. Ground fighting without air threats means trenches. Trenches mean artillery spam. Artillery spam + trenches means WW1.
>Kherson left bank slowly getting penetrated by progressively larger forces
>Zap front sliding towards Ukie penetration week by week
>2014 DPR borders penetrated north of Donetsk
It's not boring, you're just not paying attention.
Russians had 20000 casualties in one day 2 days ago
An entire company of Russian special forces deserted today
.
.
.
.
.
I don't even know how to reply to the Indians or the white trash here
>white trash
kys slavBlack person, no matter if hohol or vatnik
>An entire company of Russian special forces deserted today
Got a link? I wanna see.
Bro, what do you think they were reporting in WW1. Slow doesn't mean nobodies dying. It means it's a fricking meat grinder with no clear winner unless it drags on for years.
I read that Russia lost 40,000 tanks yesterday
Same online:
almost everyone pro russian stayed pro russian
almost everyone pro ukrainian stayed pro ukrainian
almost everyone neutral or uncaring stayed neutral or uncaring
All the propaganda efforts seem to only counter "the other side" without really anyone being persuaded to change views. The "online frontlines" remain unchanged.
>almost everyone pro russian stayed pro russian
>almost everyone pro ukrainian stayed pro ukrainian
>almost everyone neutral or uncaring stayed neutral or uncaring
I disagree. I saw a lot of people in the beginning thinking Russia was going to behave like a first world military and not level cities or attack blatant civilian targets for no reason. One month in, I saw a drastic decline in Russian apologists. Most of them simply bowed out as soon as they saw Vatniks are just as violent and moronic as we've said for the last 10 years. Many of those remaining are either willfully ignorant or doubling down.
How do we solve this?
mines?
toyota hilux
fudlore
Dumb dumb question. What's stopping them loading up 50 cals on the front and just shooting the ground every few feet? That would be enough to trigger them right?
>shoot shoot
>move forward
>shoot shoot
>move forward
Then anti-air guns to shoot down UAV's.
air power
you bomb the living shit out of anything that resembles enemy force concentration or with the slightest hint of giving off radio emissions
you bomb suspected armor formations, air defense, command centers, logistic depots, communication systems, etc
anything to push the frontline as far as you could
that way the ground troops can have their time clearing out mines to force a breakthrough, mop up any pockets of resistance, and direct an arty strike/JDAM towards any treeline or bushes that looks at your troops funny
All Ukraine has to do is keep grinding down russian equipment, doesn’t matter if they lose their own the west will just keep sending more until Russia is pulling stuff out of museums
It's not ww1 again just because of the tech, it's because neither side can gain air superiority.
>neither side can gain air superiority
Yes, because of the tech.
>Yes, because of the tech.
No, because Ukraine doesn't have enough airframes in it's fleet and Russia theoretically does have enough but they aren't willing to take risks with them. Again, this is not purely based on tech.
No, it's air coverage. SAMs, MANPADs. That's technology causing that effect as well. Otherwise they would be willing to risk them.
if one side had stealth bombers, then it would achieve air superiority and then it would be able to properly suppress the elements covering the mine obstacles while the ground team cleared a path
War sucks. The biggest PT stud with the best marksmanship skill can be obliterated by a skinny incel with a playstation controller. War has always had a dysgenic effect in which the fittest members of a nations youth get slaughtered in the meat grinder while cowards and weaklings weasel out of their national duty. War is slow also because soldiers aren't keen on dying to entertain extremely online war-porn enjoyers who can't go 15 seconds without a dopamine hit from social media.
Unrelated to this thread because the topic is silly, how did Free French pilots like their P-63s?
I know the soviets loved them but a lot of french accounts for fighters other than the P-40, P-51, and P-36 I haven't really read much on
I have no opinion of the subjects posed by this thread and I don't want to have any.
Meh. It's up to the Polish. They bought a bunch of weapons which they will inevitably get for free so another 6 months.
I don't care about the Polish. I told you that I don't want to know about it.
I don't care either but it's the Polish. It's required. Do as they say or it's ww3. It's been this way since the 90's. They've prevented ww3 several times.
I'm going to keep not caring. Thank you.
You will always care. You will never be an apathetic woman
What do you mean by "in a timely manner"? The Ukrainians have to reduce Russian defences (especially artillery systems, supply network and command center) with their own artillery, this whole thing hasn't lasted more than Desert Storm yet and it's be wild to think Ukies will do better than the US-led coalition running an air campaign.
This whole thing could feasibly remain "stagnant" for a couple of weeks or maybe even months, and then suddenly the front will break and everything will collapse within a few days.
Or Ukies run out of ammo and this thing fizzles out into skirmishes. The quality of information we've been getting from the frontlines has been absolutely shit, so it's hard to come up with any reasonable timeframe for this battle to play out.
Anons taking the wrong lessons as usual. Ukraine is taking so long because neither side has the capability to perform modern multi-domain combined arms warfare. Therefore, neither side is able to efficiently overcome basic fortified defenses. Russia slowly overcame defenses by using disposable troops (separatists and Wagner) to probe and fix Ukrainian positions for massed artillery to clear out. However due to low training and poor quality guns this was super inefficient. If they didn’t have such enormous stockpiles of ammo they wouldn’t have got anywhere close to what they’ve achieved.
Ukraine’s problem is similar but also different. Low-quality soldiers but have received superior guns and advanced AD. The problem is that they don’t have a strong multi-domain mixed arms doctrine and troops are incapable of carrying it out even if they did have it. Inspite of having superior guns and plenty of ISR they didn’t have doctrine or C4 ability to use those guns to full effect. Therefore they managed to lose Bakhmut and most other smaller engagements, and haven’t been able to break through defensive lines.
End result: ww1 with drones.