2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

[S2]

Jomini Of The West provides his latest assessment. Also here (EDIT-to include corrected graphics from the earlier thread). There'll be another thread posted by him shortly covering (I believe) air operations.

[Albany Rifles]

M1A2SEPs arriving in Poland for the Polish Army.

https://twitter.com/MON_GOV_PL/statu...rl62QDEWLl1ygQ

[S2]

I can't remember all the variants around since 1979 but with the Aussies, Egypt, Iraq and Morocco using the M1A1, I'd like to see the M1A1(SA) (or even the M1A2 (already sold to Kuwait), if available, offered for sale or gifted. The foremost benefit AMERICANS gain from weapons in the hands of Ukraine are dead Russian soldiers and a maimed Russian state filled with resentment and dissent. To that end, two things-

1.) understanding reasonable concerns regarding our Pacific theatre. I understand that this war should send all back to the drawing board evaluating weapon/munitions usage rates. However, every weapon and munition at our IMMEDIATE DISPOSAL (once those concerns are addressed) would be better served in Ukrainian hands than ours. Their fight is NOW and both munitions and weapons have a limited service life. Use them on valid targets that serve our overarching objective now as opposed to the undetermined future and,

2.) weaponry/munitions useful to the Ukrainians may also be useful to us and, consequently, deplete U.S. war stocks and, perhaps, degrade the U.S. training/sustainment base for our present forces. Understood. Do what it takes as ingenious, hard-working Americans to re-open production lines ASAP. We live in a demonstrably dangerous world. Russia must be defeated-full stop. Negotiated territorial gains will, again, validate Putin's tactics, teach him valued lessons and whet his considerable appetite for MORE. "It can be done if only we do it better". Equally, the PRC and N. Korea would only be emboldened by victories for Putin justifying their own ambitions.

The peaceful, free-thinking west has enjoyed its "peace dividend" to the point of invalidation as a product of irresponsible governance. The bill for such frivolity has been presented. The new cold war shows up at the price pumps of many and, right now, bombs on the heads of others. We have no choice IMV. Pay the price necessary to WIN. That requires surmounting bueraucratic/administrative barriers to facilitate what's otherwise eminently feasible-moving hardware from here to there. Meanwhile train Ukrainian troops every and anywhere you can. Evidence-literally everything we said in March that couldn't/wouldn't be provided HAS BEEN PROVIDED- excepting ATACMS. Now we're even (slow again to the too obvious draw) considering F-16s and A-10s? Give them all the ATACMS we can spare. They've real targets. We don't. Restart your production lines for the rest or move on the new PGM thingy.

Can't because of Russian sensibilities? For the umpteenth time, why do we care? Nukes? 1.) They won't. 2.) If they do, it's Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia's problem. Has to be since if we REALLY cared we'd be fighting along side Ukraine on an entirely justified and righteous fight. God knows we've spent a lifetime standing up and fighting for shitty governments the world over. Ukraine is a breath of fresh air by comparison. We're not fighting alongside Ukraine. Denying, however, benefit to Ukraine from attacking legitimate targets through the modest periphery of ATACMS (300 km) is ridiculous and embarassing. More to the point-no cojones.

Should Ukraine attack assembly areas and re-fitting stations around Belgorod? Absolutely. Those units will be right back in the fight just as soon as Russia can say (loosely qualified)"they're ready".Airfields around Rostov-on-Don? Sure. Why not? Even munition dumps and railheads in Belorussia? Their territory used to facilitate Russian ambitions? They're a target already.

Aaaah....I feel much, much better.

[S2]

Perun offers thoughts on helicopter operations in Ukraine-

Helicopters have needed to adjust their operating TTPs given some new realities. Nothing is written off but there will be a re-assessed future.

[tbm3fan]

Perun offers thoughts on helicopter operations in Ukraine-

Helicopters have needed to adjust their operating TTPs given some new realities. Nothing is written off but there will be a re-assessed future.

I would imagine playing "The Ride of the Valkyries" will be severely limited now...

[astralis]

probably the most effective use of helicopters was the Ukrainian resupply of Azovstal.

[TopHatter]

This is a loooong essay on the current state of logistics in the Russian Armed Forces, a bit too long to post here.

Logistics Collapse

Spoiler Alert, things suck, they're getting worse and the chances of things getting better are somewhere between "yeah right " and "you've got to be kidding me "

I can only make an assumption, in the spirit of the same Russian propaganda and in a language they understand, that Putin is a sent Cossack, a puppet of the West, staged in order to finally finish and destroy Russia. What they have successfully performed and is being implemented. In exchange, he receives personal benefits in unlimited quantities. This is, of course, conspiracy, but absolutely in the spirit of the obscurantism that Russian state media and officials are now spreading. (Russian officer)

Hey Ivan, fair is far. Putin clearly supported Donald Trump in his quest to destroy American democracy, it's only appropriate that we return the favor.

[Monash]

I would imagine playing "The Ride of the Valkyries" will be severely limited now...

True, based on Perun's report above I can see transport and utility choppers remaining core assets but I struggle to see large numbers of attack helicopters (tank killers) remaining as core assets in most western armies. If, as he notes the campaign centers on insurgency and CT missions armed utility choppers may well suffice. On his point about equipping helicopters with longer range precision guided missiles I still see a problem with such aircraft being reliant in many/most cases on other assets for targeting solutions, which as he noted does sort of turn them into a very expensive way of lugging around small amounts of long range firepower.

(Cue a rampage of flaming posts on Perun's YouTube channel - all traced back to attack helicopter pilots world wide. )

[TopHatter]

True, based on Perun's report above I can see transport and utility choppers remaining core assets but I struggle to see large numbers of attack helicopters (tank killers) remaining as core assets in most western armies. If as he notes the campaign centers on insurgency and CT missions an armed utility chopper may well suffice. On his point about equipping helicopters with longer range precision guided missiles I still see a problem with such aircraft being reliant in many/most cases on other assets for targeting solutions, which as he noted does sort of turn them into a very expensive way of lugging around small amounts of long range firepower.

(Cue a rampage of flaming posts on Perun's YouTube channel - all traced back to attack helicopter pilots world wide. )

I dunno, I think this simply goes back to Russia's use of their tanks: Stupidly, unsupported, etc. Not to mention the poor doctrine that Perun mentioned.

I mean, the 11th Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division sent 30+ Apaches to Karbala in 2003 and got itself a serious bloody nose and a black eye thanks to numerous cock-ups in intelligence, timing and other factors.

I think what we're seeing in Russia is simply more of the same: "Don't be an idiot if you don't want to die". Good doctrine, rigorous and constant prewar training and combined arms are what counts and, while I could be way off, I'm not seeing much of that on Russia's part. They're almost completely unprepared for anything but briefly kicking around small puppies or committing mass murder via artillery.

[Ironduke]

The Ukranians have hit the Dariivka Bridge crossing the Inhulets River with HIMARS. Stitched it full of holes, evenly spaced.

If this bridge were to be taken out, the Russian forces on the west bank of the Dnipro that are west of the Inhulets river in Kherson, would be cut off from those east of it in the Nova Kakhovka direction. There are no other crossings of the Inhulets River under Russian control.

If both the Dariivka Bridge and Antonovskiy Bridge were taken out or rendered impassable, Russian forces in Kherson are stranded on the west bank of the Dnipro without the possibility of retreat or reinforcement, unless the Russians put down a pontoon bridge on the Inhulets.

The Inhulets is about 400-500 feet wide, but I'm sure the Ukrainians could hit any attempt to bridge it with HIMARS and artillery.

The Antonovskiy Bridge and Nova Kakhovka Dam Bridge are the only bridges crossing the Dnipro under Russian control.

[Officer of Engineers]

True, based on Perun's report above I can see transport and utility choppers remaining core assets but I struggle to see large numbers of attack helicopters (tank killers) remaining as core assets in most western armies. If as he notes the campaign centers on insurgency and CT missions an armed utility chopper may well suffice. On his point about equipping helicopters with longer range precision guided missiles I still see a problem with such aircraft being reliant in many/most cases on other assets for targeting solutions, which as he noted does sort of turn them into a very expensive way of lugging around small amounts of long range firepower.

(Cue a rampage of flaming posts on Perun's YouTube channel - all traced back to attack helicopter pilots world wide. )

AT helos did a hell of a job during the Kuwait War wiping out radar installations and entrenched armour, allowing our armour to advance unopposed. Attack helos were the main force that blunted the penetration into Al-Khafji.

And seeing those Russian columns on those roads, it's attack helo pilots' wet dream.

[Monash]

AT helos did a hell of a job during the Kuwait War wiping out radar installations and entrenched armour, allowing our armour to advance unopposed. Attack helos were the main force that blunted the penetration into Al-Khafji.

And seeing those Russian columns on those roads, it's attack helo pilots' wet dream.

Again all true but entrenched armor can be taken out by ground or fixed wing PGMs just as easily and probably with a higher degree of safety and the units attacking at Al-Khafii (from memory) had no air support and were deficient in (then) modern anti air systems. Meanwhile the allies were well supplied with both and had notably superior artillery fire support. In such an environment attack helicopters likely would prove highly effective. I think the issue Perun raises is with near peer conflicts. I don't really see the Iraqi units involved in that battle as being near peer with the Allies - both for the reasons stated and a host of others like training and logistics etc.

Now if it been front line Russian armored brigades from that period that the Allies were fighting? That might well be another story and in that case I can see allied attack helicopters taking heavy losses if thrown forward in that terrain.

[Officer of Engineers]

Rotar wing has advantages fixed wings don't. Namely hovering over the battlefield, engaging multiple targets, and doing suppression fire. They all have their place on the modern battlefield. Typically, it's fixed wing engaging targets furtherest out, then rotar wing, then rocket artillery, then tube artillery, tank fire, mortars, infantry. It's a package deal. Yes, fixed wing and tube artillery can cover what rotar wings cover but you really want those assets softening and fixing the enemy before your ground assets come in.

[Monash]

Rotar wing has advantages fixed wings don't. Namely hovering over the battlefield, engaging multiple targets, and doing suppression fire. They all have their place on the modern battlefield. Typically, it's fixed wing engaging targets furtherest out, then rotar wing, then rocket artillery, then tube artillery, tank fire, mortars, infantry. It's a package deal. Yes, fixed wing and tube artillery can cover what rotar wings cover but you really want those assets softening and fixing the enemy before your ground assets come in.

Again true sir. But modern attack helicopters are a very expensive way of providing medium range fire support! Also, as an aside with the range modern artillery and ground based missile systems bring to the party I'd probably be switching that order around slightly i.e. move attack helis down a couple of rungs towards close range support.

[Officer of Engineers]

Also, as an aside with the range modern artillery and ground based missile systems bring to the party I'd probably be switching that order around slightly i.e. move attack helis down a couple of rungs towards close range support.

At that point, it's get the hell out of my sky. You're in the way of my guns.