Switch Theme:

The war in Ukraine - Military Strategical and Tactical Discussion. No politics of any kind!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







Immediate caveat. This is not a political discussion. This thread is not a place to discuss Putin's health, war crimes, or any other facet of the war. Logistical, tactical and strategic discussion only. If anyone else starts on political lines, do not react or respond to them. Ignore them till the mods excise them. I'm also going to list some more reliable sources people can use to gain a more in depth understanding of military activities as they occur. Mainstream media usually fails to tell the difference between a BMP-1 and a T-72, let alone what's happening in a wider strategical sense.

The first is the Institute for War, who do a daily breakdown on each front:- https://www.understandingwar.org/

The second is Oryx - they have a few articles and are a volunteer group attempting to maintain live tracking individually of certain losses as well as several other logistical facets (weapons transfers, etc):- https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/

The third, bizarely enough, is the Daily Kos, an American left wing news group. If you can filter out the crap where they endlessly rant on about their favourite orange man, they also do daily updates and have quite a bit of input in the form of articles from ex-veterans:- https://www.dailykos.com/tags/Ukraine

The Rand Institute also occasionally has points of interest, though they have a habit of veering off into wider areas of discussion:- https://www.rand.org/topics/ukraine.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





So, with all the above clearly laid out, the actual situation in Ukraine seems to be as follows. Having made the Russians bleed heavily for Severodonetsk in one giant trap, the Ukrainians have now withdrawn to Lysychansk where they're fortifying and preparing a much more in-depth defence. Having incurred horrendous losses to date, the Russians seem incapable of any further breakout activity - lacking both the mechanised forces and the personnel to use them. Even their middle-eastern mercenaries and 'Donetsk Republic' conscripts seem to be running out - with casualties as high as 50% reported amongst the latter. Despite this, the Russians push on and are approaching Lysychansk from the south.

Outside of this tiny pocket, Ukrainian forces seem to be nibbling at the Russians all around. Whenever they run into a fortified Russian position on the Kherson front, they sweep around it and try and envelop and cut it off. The Russians have had to withdraw several times as they don't have the manpower to hold a consistent front - though they've now retreated far enough back to Kherson to become more concentrated. Ukrainian forces are currently edging forward around Izyum, and in the southern Donbas too.

From what I can ascertain, the Russians attempted to put together a distraction in the form of an attack with Donetsk conscripts and antiquated equipment (T-62's) up to Zaporizhzhia, but the growing Ukrainian activity in Kherson forced them to abort and redirect the forces within a day of it beginning. Since then, it looks like they've decided to intensify their activity around Kharkiv in the North to try and draw off Ukrainian forces.

The Ukrainians for their part seem to be rushing Western artillery to the frontlines, but building up the mechanised units (tanks, IFV's, APC's, and so on) along with a significant portion of their newly trained strength behind their lines. Presumably for a strong counterattack come August/September.


So the million dollar question is - how much further do we think the Russians can push? We're getting intimations now that the Russians are finally attempting to unofficially mobilise, but what will they fight with? Everything I'm reading says up to 90% of their armour lots are in disarray due to being looted across the years. The Russian airforce is an unofficial joke now, and surely even their vast preponderance of artillery can only expend so many shells before shell and tube supplies begin to run short. The military academies for officer training had their instructors sent to the frontline a month ago, and from what I've read, even the reserve units for each BTG which normally handle logistics and training have been deployed now. Taking bets now gentlemen.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/06/26 00:04:04



 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

 Ketara wrote:
So the million dollar question is - how much further do we think the Russians can push?


That depends entirely on political factors which you have banned from this discussion. Honestly, what is the point of this thread when you can't even mention the things that will decide the outcome of the war? It's like trying to analyze the Vietnam war while ignoring domestic US political concerns, at best you're going to get nowhere and you're most likely going to end up with laughably inaccurate conclusions.

THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CadianSgtBob wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
So the million dollar question is - how much further do we think the Russians can push?


That depends entirely on political factors which you have banned from this discussion. Honestly, what is the point of this thread when you can't even mention the things that will decide the outcome of the war? It's like trying to analyze the Vietnam war while ignoring domestic US political concerns, at best you're going to get nowhere and you're most likely going to end up with laughably inaccurate conclusions.


Exactly. As Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of [government] policy with other means." Which is, by definition, politics.

To a limited extent we can have a grand old time discussing what has already happened, what tactics and strategy were used and why it failed or succeeded... but projecting into the future cannot realistically be done without dipping into the forbidden.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

We can’t even discuss past strategic decisions since discussing war crimes is banned.

   
Made in fr
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





Watch Fortress Excalibris

You cannot discuss an ongoing real-world military conflict while keeping all mention of politics off the table.

You can't even discuss which information sources to treat as legitimate or reliable without making political judgements!

A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry. 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Fireknife Shas'el





Leicester

Unfortunately, this is now the Western Front from WW1; both sides are too evenly matched on the ground and are becoming entrenched in their positions. You’ll have local losses and gains of a few kilometres, but neither side has the resources to take advantage of them. The Ukrainians simply because of their smaller military and the Russians due to a lack of training and motivation combined with the fact that their technically superior numbers are undeployable due to logistical problems and poor equipment condition from decades of underinvestment and corruption.

When the war first started I predicted it would go one of two ways; either Ukraine would crumble in a couple of weeks or it would develop into a bloody stalemate and, unfortunately (for the guys who’ll be fed into the meat grinder, at least), we’re into the second.

Here are the options going forward as I see them, in rough order of what I consider most likely:

Russia grinds forward to retake enough of the Donbas that they can declare “mission complete” and we end up with some Korean/Iron Curtain style armistice and partition of Ukraine.

Ukraine manages to launch a significant counterattack (potentially just before winter sets in) and, probably combined with the sanctions, forces Russia to the negotiating table. The whole thing goes into deep freeze, with the outcome difficult to predict (and probably dependent on Russian internal politics).

The West slowly forgets about this and the conflict just continues on for years with Russia in de facto control of the Donbas (back to the WW1 analogy and essentially a larger version of what’s been happening since 2014).

Putin disappears (either through illness or unrest) and his successor uses it as an excuse to withdraw.

The West provide sufficient resources, training and tactical support (advisors, training, intelligence, etc.) to allow Ukraine to rout the Russians out.

Some escalation results in NATO becoming directly involved and pushing the Russians out (similar to above). 50:50 as to whether this escalates into WW3.

Russia decides to “unlock” the situation using tactical nuclear weapons on the frontline, probably resulting in immediate NATO involvement, as above.

Russia decide to “unlock” the situation with a decapitation strike against Zelensky and the Ukrainian commmand structure. At this stage, the only realistic way they have of doing that is a strategic nuclear strike on Kyiv. At that point, start praying to your respective deities :’(

DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I seriously doubt Russia will deploy nuclear weapons. Even from the most selfish perspective, no amount of military gain is worth one's own country being obliterated. Even if NATO elected not to use nukes in return, that would be grounds for a complete takeover of Russia. The only way nuclear weapons would be deployed would be a significant amount of delusion, and even then it would take such on multiple levels for the military to even obey such a command. Certainly possible, but hardly the risk fearmongers make it out to be.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/29 20:05:27


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I seriously doubt Russia will deploy nuclear weapons. Even from the most selfish perspective, no amount of military gain is worth one's own country being obliterated. Even if NATO elected not to use nukes in return, that would be grounds for a complete takeover of Russia. The only way nuclear weapons would be deployed would be a significant amount of delusion, and even then it would take such on multiple levels for the military to even obey such a command. Certainly possible, but hardly the risk fearmongers make it out to be.


You're talking about politics and that is specifically banned here.

From a pure military strategy point of view nukes are just bombs with a bigger damage stat and should be used ASAP. Russia's failure to use their nuclear weapons advantage is indisputably poor strategy by their military leadership. It makes sense to hold them in reserve initially, since they are a limited resource and Russia expected to win within a few days, but how many conventional missiles and artillery rounds have they spent attacking targets that could have been destroyed with a single nuke?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/29 20:13:04


THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Military strategy does not discount the reaction of other parties.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Military strategy does not discount the reaction of other parties.


It does when the possible reaction is only because of politics. A nuclear strike on Ukraine does not involve any attacks on NATO forces or territory so there is no reason for NATO to respond to it. Please do not try to derail this thread into banned political discussions beyond the scope of the specific battlefield actions happening in this war.

THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Legitimately cannot tell if you are trolling or not.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Legitimately cannot tell if you are trolling or not.


I thought he was being serious until he mentioned the politics ban. Now I think he was trying to demonstrate that discussing this conflict without discussing the real world politics that define it is like starting with, “if we assume each Ukrainian is a spherical mass of iron weighing 100kg…”.

   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I thought he was being serious until he mentioned the politics ban. Now I think he was trying to demonstrate that discussing this conflict without discussing the real world politics that define it is like starting with, “if we assume each Ukrainian is a spherical mass of iron weighing 100kg…”.


Yes, this. I'm pointing out that the politics ban prevents any meaningful discussion of things like "will Russia use nukes" because that is entirely a political question, not a military strategy question. When you ban politics nukes are just bigger and more efficient bombs that roll 10D6 damage instead of 2D6 and you conclude that they should be used as often as possible.

THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






It is very common for animals with no intellectual capacity for politics to engage in displays or fights over territory where neither animal attempts lethal force. Because if one organism used lethal force, the other would respond with such, and both would lose

Replacing 'organism' with 'nation' does not make actions based entirely on pragmatism inherently political. Guns and tanks kill people, but they don't kill nations. Nukes do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/30 00:20:05


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is very common for animals with no intellectual capacity for politics to engage in displays or fights over territory where neither animal attempts lethal force. Because if one organism used lethal force, the other would respond with such, and both would lose

Replacing 'organism' with 'nation' does not make actions based entirely on pragmatism inherently political. Guns and tanks kill people, but they don't kill nations. Nukes do.


But only one side in this conflict has nukes. Ukraine can not respond to nuclear attacks by Russia, so it is clearly a mistake for Russia to use bombs with 2D6 damage instead of bombs with 10D6 damage.

THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wouldn't the nuclear fallout generated by a nuke dropped on Ukraine be enough to constitute a declaration of war against neighbouring NATO states?
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

 BertBert wrote:
Wouldn't the nuclear fallout generated by a nuke dropped on Ukraine be enough to constitute a declaration of war against neighbouring NATO states?


Unlikely. Fallout goes eastward and east of Ukraine is just Russia. A few tactical nukes or air bursts against city targets would cause very limited fallout. And in strictly military terms, without considering politics, a declaration of war would be pointless. Once the fallout is in the air no military action can stop it so NATO involvement would have no military objective to accomplish.

THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I seriously doubt Russia will deploy nuclear weapons. Even from the most selfish perspective, no amount of military gain is worth one's own country being obliterated. Even if NATO elected not to use nukes in return, that would be grounds for a complete takeover of Russia. The only way nuclear weapons would be deployed would be a significant amount of delusion, and even then it would take such on multiple levels for the military to even obey such a command. Certainly possible, but hardly the risk fearmongers make it out to be.


This treads perilously close to politics, but...

Russia will start throwing nukes around in a heartbeat the moment they feel their own territory is under threat. The question (and political part) is whether they now consider Donbas and Crimea as 'theirs'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BertBert wrote:
Wouldn't the nuclear fallout generated by a nuke dropped on Ukraine be enough to constitute a declaration of war against neighbouring NATO states?


Not to mention prevailing winds would carry some of that fallout back into southern Russia, where much of their own farmland is.

Sure, they could be doing 100d6 damage to Ukrainian targets instead of 2d6. But when that involves taking 10d6 damage to your own farmlands... is it really worth that?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/30 02:59:58


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

 Vulcan wrote:
Sure, they could be doing 100d6 damage to Ukrainian targets instead of 2d6. But when that involves taking 10d6 damage to your own farmlands... is it really worth that?


That is getting into political territory again. We are only allowed to consider the specific battlefield actions happening between Russian and Ukrainian military forces.

THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Fireknife Shas'el





Leicester

 Vulcan wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I seriously doubt Russia will deploy nuclear weapons. Even from the most selfish perspective, no amount of military gain is worth one's own country being obliterated. Even if NATO elected not to use nukes in return, that would be grounds for a complete takeover of Russia. The only way nuclear weapons would be deployed would be a significant amount of delusion, and even then it would take such on multiple levels for the military to even obey such a command. Certainly possible, but hardly the risk fearmongers make it out to be.


This treads perilously close to politics, but...

Russia will start throwing nukes around in a heartbeat the moment they feel their own territory is under threat. The question (and political part) is whether they now consider Donbas and Crimea as 'theirs'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BertBert wrote:
Wouldn't the nuclear fallout generated by a nuke dropped on Ukraine be enough to constitute a declaration of war against neighbouring NATO states?


Not to mention prevailing winds would carry some of that fallout back into southern Russia, where much of their own farmland is.

Sure, they could be doing 100d6 damage to Ukrainian targets instead of 2d6. But when that involves taking 10d6 damage to your own farmlands... is it really worth that?


I genuinely don’t know how much fallout you get from tactical nukes, but I could imagine that it would be significantly less than city busters. As for what the Russians consider theirs? Donbas, probably not, not yet, but Crimea? Definitely. They’ve had it for 8-years now and it’s militarily and strategically significant, both from it’s bases and the access to the Black Sea. However this war progresses, getting them to give it up is going to be the most difficult part of the conflict.

DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

Russian doctrin is more about using nukes as a threat to get others out of a conflict, rather than having tactical ones included in their strategic planning (it is in general more about go big, so instead of using small ones for tactical gains they would go straight to strategic ones)

this is a big difference to US doctrine who planned to use small nukes for tactical advantages in Europe during the Cold War
most also fail to understand Russian tank doctrine and why they are doing what they do, because it is very different from western ones (people making jokes about Russia using old T-62s while it is the perfect Assault gun for the battle of Donbass were no tank vs tank fights are expected)

the problem that remain, how mad is a mad man and is Putin using them because "not losing" is considered a victory? (but here we are also back to the nuclear threat)


a big problem discussing the war in general is that we are missing most of the information
not only because of propaganda, but because the ukrainian side a black hole to avoid giving russia information
not knowing of something is a russian victory or planned ukrainian retreat, makes it hard to judge how it is going for any side

 Jadenim wrote:

I genuinely don’t know how much fallout you get from tactical nukes, but I could imagine that it would be significantly less than city busters. As for what the Russians consider theirs? Donbas, probably not, not yet, but Crimea? Definitely. They’ve had it for 8-years now and it’s militarily and strategically significant, both from it’s bases and the access to the Black Sea. However this war progresses, getting them to give it up is going to be the most difficult part of the conflict.

Russia considers everything theirs they once had, so look at the borders of old Imperial Russia to see what the final goal is (a direct border with Germany again)

and shifting the borders further west is a big goal of russian leaders since the Peter I. in gernal (the last one happend with Stalin and the shifting of Poland, were east Poland was given to Russia, while east Germany given to Poland to compensate)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say





Philadelphia PA

 kodos wrote:
Russian doctrin is more about using nukes as a threat to get others out of a conflict, rather than having tactical ones included in their strategic planning (it is in general more about go big, so instead of using small ones for tactical gains they would go straight to strategic ones)

this is a big difference to US doctrine who planned to use small nukes for tactical advantages in Europe during the Cold War
most also fail to understand Russian tank doctrine and why they are doing what they do, because it is very different from western ones (people making jokes about Russia using old T-62s while it is the perfect Assault gun for the battle of Donbass were no tank vs tank fights are expected)


Yeah, I'm no armor expert, but to me it seems like having something that's bulletproof and mounts a large caliber gun is all that matters. If one side can deploy a tank and the other can't it definitely changes the battle.

And in a world of antitank missiles the exact type of tank isn't as important. A cutting edge Armata and an IS-2 both get blown up the same.

I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






CadianSgtBob wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
Sure, they could be doing 100d6 damage to Ukrainian targets instead of 2d6. But when that involves taking 10d6 damage to your own farmlands... is it really worth that?


That is getting into political territory again. We are only allowed to consider the specific battlefield actions happening between Russian and Ukrainian military forces.
No, we just aren't allowed to discuss politics. Though the irony of dragging the thread off on a tangent with this IS rather poetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CadianSgtBob wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is very common for animals with no intellectual capacity for politics to engage in displays or fights over territory where neither animal attempts lethal force. Because if one organism used lethal force, the other would respond with such, and both would lose

Replacing 'organism' with 'nation' does not make actions based entirely on pragmatism inherently political. Guns and tanks kill people, but they don't kill nations. Nukes do.


But only one side in this conflict has nukes. Ukraine can not respond to nuclear attacks by Russia, so it is clearly a mistake for Russia to use bombs with 2D6 damage instead of bombs with 10D6 damage.
Again, consideration of a target's military allies is entirely within the military sphere. No nation's military makes decisions solely on what happens just to their immediate target in the immediate future. Non-engaged forces representing a potential threat are a huge consideration.

But ultimately, did you report my initial post to the mods for it being politics? Because if not I'd say even you know it isn't.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/30 07:42:04


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

War is politics by other means, I don't think its possible to have a meaningful discussion about anything beyond the tactical layer of the conflict without incorporating politics. Operational and Strategic layers are both driven by and reliant upon political considerations, its very hard to separate them. When it comes to the tactical level, theres only so much "hurr durr Bayraktar make Russia go boom" and "farmers have big chungus tractor army" talk that can be had.

Also of note a couple points in your analysis about Lysychansk appears to not have been correct. It has not been fortified and appears to have been abandoned, leaving only a delaying rearguard. Its possible they are attempting to repeat the Severodonetsk trap (i.e. let the Russians push into the city and then counterattack them to attrit), but more likely that they are withdrawing to more defensible positions at lower risk of encirclement, likely along the E40 Bakhmut-Slovyansk highway.

 BertBert wrote:
Wouldn't the nuclear fallout generated by a nuke dropped on Ukraine be enough to constitute a declaration of war against neighbouring NATO states?


Thats a political discussion. Ist verboten.

Russian doctrin is more about using nukes as a threat to get others out of a conflict, rather than having tactical ones included in their strategic planning (it is in general more about go big, so instead of using small ones for tactical gains they would go straight to strategic ones)
this is a big difference to US doctrine who planned to use small nukes for tactical advantages in Europe during the Cold War


You got that horrendously backwards. Soviet doctrine was centered around the use of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons to leverage tactical military advantages and goes hand in hand with their "escalate to de-escalate" strategy. American doctrine utilized nukes as a political tool. Russians have and have had a far greater number of tactical nuclear weapons than Americans ever did (and currently Russia has an estimated 10x more tactical nukes than the US does). Hell, Soviet (and later Russian) doctrine directly states that nuclear weapons are "the basic means of destruction on the field of battle." You will not find a similar statement in American doctrine. Both the Soviets and the US began to re-evaluate their doctrine and operational concepts of tac. nukes in the late 60s and 70s, which resulted in a massive western drawdown of tactical nuclear weapons which were deemed to essentially be a political liability and a tactical liability. The Soviets drew some of the same conclusions but differed in their approach, rather than divesting themselves of tactical nuclear weapons they modified how they planned on using them - instead of tossing them at an opponent in a direct battlefield nuclear exchange they planned to use them to destroy concentrations of enemy military mass and firepower outside of direct contact with Soviet military forces (i.e. strike the reserves and defensive positions behind the front) in areas that they believed that they could bypass without having to necessarily fight in a radioactive crater.

Either way, your statements are wrong.

Yeah, I'm no armor expert, but to me it seems like having something that's bulletproof and mounts a large caliber gun is all that matters. If one side can deploy a tank and the other can't it definitely changes the battle.

And in a world of antitank missiles the exact type of tank isn't as important. A cutting edge Armata and an IS-2 both get blown up the same.


T-62s are far from "bulletproof". Against small arms, sure, but the proliferation of lightweight man-portable weapon systems and remotely operable drones has made the level of protection offered by a T-62 meaningless. The T-64s that Ukraine operates (especially the modernized variants) are significantly more lethal and better protected (not sure where you got the idea that only one side is deploying tanks, but that is really incorrect). Kodos is right that tank doctrine between the US and Russia differs, but Russian tanks are not "assault guns", they are flanking and breakthrough vehicles intended to destroy the enemy infantry and artillery (preferably from the rear rather than directly into enemy defensive positions from the front) and avoid enemy armor entirely.

Also worth noting that your statement about the Armata vs the IS-2 is incorrect, probably. We don't know much about the Armatas actual capability, its unlikely to be anywhere as good as Russia claims, but if its at all comparable to an Abrams than we can reliably say that an Armata and an IS-2 do NOT both get blown up the same. 2 decades of conflict in the Middle East has shown that British, German, and English tanks are significantly more survivable than Russian tanks (honorable mention also goes to Israeli Merkavas), as these western tanks have in some cases survived several dozen impacts from many of the same weapons being used to devastate Russian tanks today without suffering a single casualty or penetration. In many cases the tank in question is soft-killed, but recoverable and repairable, and the crews inside are rattled but mostly in one piece. Rusian tanks on the other hand brew up easily due to lighter armor (the 20-30ton difference in these designs matters for a lot) and design flaws often related to the way ammunition is fed through the vehicle to the autoloader. France might be a bit worried though as their armor doctrine follows more closely to Russian thinking and the Leclerc is significantly lighter than other western tanks as a result. Italian Arietes may have some trouble on modern battlefields too.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/30 13:54:47


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

I wrote they are using the T-62s as Assault Guns in Donbass, not that Russian tanks are build as such (which is a big difference)

the important thing here is, if you need a big gun to fight against defensive infantry and protections from small arms fire, it does not matter if it is an JS-2 or Abrahams

and for the AT weapons Ukraine got, it does not matter either, just that the AT weapon likely cost more than the tank they destroy
with the problem that Ukraine will run short in AT missiles before Russia runs short in cheap tanks

and the Western tanks are harder to destroy, same way western tanks are build with field maintenance in mind and to protect the crew, were the Russian ones are meant to be left behind and picked up later when the front shifts (because they have enough anyway, and don't need to repair them)
which is a reason why we saw so many tanks left behind by their crew after they broke down or were out of fuel, that is how they were meant to be used and the crew was trained to use them
but the front did not shift to the west fast enough

and there are nor Ukrainian Tanks in the Donbass (not in any numbers that would make a tank vs tank battle an option, so no need for tanks that can do that on the Russian side either), because they are fighting a defensive retreat there
with limited numbers the chance that those are either destroyed or need to be left behind is too high

chaos0xomega wrote:

You got that horrendously backwards. Soviet doctrine was centered around the use of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons to leverage tactical military advantages and goes hand in hand with their "escalate to de-escalate" strategy. American doctrine utilized nukes as a political tool. Russians have and have had a far greater number of tactical nuclear weapons than Americans ever did (and currently Russia has an estimated 10x more tactical nukes than the US does). Hell, Soviet (and later Russian) doctrine directly states that nuclear weapons are "the basic means of destruction on the field of battle." You will not find a similar statement in American doctrine. Both the Soviets and the US began to re-evaluate their doctrine and operational concepts of tac. nukes in the late 60s and 70s, which resulted in a massive western drawdown of tactical nuclear weapons which were deemed to essentially be a political liability and a tactical liability. The Soviets drew some of the same conclusions but differed in their approach, rather than divesting themselves of tactical nuclear weapons they modified how they planned on using them - instead of tossing them at an opponent in a direct battlefield nuclear exchange they planned to use them to destroy concentrations of enemy military mass and firepower outside of direct contact with Soviet military forces (i.e. strike the reserves and defensive positions behind the front) in areas that they believed that they could bypass without having to necessarily fight in a radioactive crater.

Either way, your statements are wrong.

Soviet doctrine was clear that any use of nuclear weapons, no matter how small would trigger a full scale nuclear war, so they never included this in any real planning (specially as their plan was to conquer and not to destroy)
and they had the numerical advantage anyway, so no need to clear the field with tactical nukes
this changed somewhat in modern Russia, with specially Putin a while back made statements of using nukes against reserve forces/NATO bases, were no one is sure if he is just said it to keep NATO out or really considering it as an option
(while the NATO/US had detailed planning on how to use tactical weapons to prevent Soviet forces from taking strategic positions because regular forces would not be able to (more or less nuke Germany to prevent Soviets from taking Europe)
with them not expecting to trigger a nuclear war just because some small nukes were used
which changed, long ago of course)

we don't know anything of the current nuclear doctrine, or how likely they are using it

Would the Russian army consider tactical nukes in Ukraine to win, no they just throw enough man and material in until they are done
Would Putin use nukes to win the war, I don't know

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Leaving aside a number of you need to go review a few decades worth of writings on nuclear weapons to have an informed debate and the difficulty of separating that from international responses based on politics and other factors...

The thinking from most governments is this is a long term conflict. If Russia continues at this pace and the West continues to ramp up supply at the same rate, they would see next Spring as the time Ukraine capabilities would get to a level to be able to effectively fight back.

Internationally and messaging wise Ukraine is trying to counter the Russia vs West narrative with one of 'colonial power tries to take back former colony', was the line they used at the AU meeting recently. Time will tell if that moves the needle at all.

And on a lighter note...

Russian Major-General lyrics by Andrej Nkv (Twitter):

I am the very model of a Russian Major General
My standing in the battlefield is growing quite untenable
My forces, though equipped and given orders unequivocal
Did not expect the fight to be remotely this reciprocal

I used to have a tank brigade but now I have lost several
My fresh assaults are faltering with battleplans extemporal
I can't recover vehicles but farmers in a tractor can
It's all becoming rather reminiscent of Afghanistan

My ordnance is the best but only half my missiles make it there
I would have thought by now that we would be controllers of the air
But at the rate the snipers work my time here is ephemeral
I am the very model of a Russian Major General



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should add part of the Russia weakness, beyond the stuff like tires and corruption and all that, is their operational model assumed mobilisation. Their BTG are undermanned both thorough structure problems but also because the call up they expected didn't happen. It has resulted in stuff like mechanised regiments that to get everything rolling can man their vehicles but not provide dismounts, and of course this encourages abandoning gear perhaps somewhat easier than otherwise.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/30 16:02:59


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 kodos wrote:


and for the AT weapons Ukraine got, it does not matter either, just that the AT weapon likely cost more than the tank they destroy
with the problem that Ukraine will run short in AT missiles before Russia runs short in cheap tanks


This is still incorrect. The western AT missiles being used are fairly inexpensive (tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars) whereas every tank Russia has ever built has cost several million dollars each by comparison. I suppose theres an argument to be made that if you depreciate the value of a 60+ year old tank out over time then the T-62s aren't worth very much today, but thats a level of bean counting I don't care to go into and discounts the amount of labor that went into refurbishing them to put them back into use (and yes, they are being repaired and cleaned up before being shipped out) as well as the value of the lives of the crew who are dying inside of them.

Also, Ukraine has received several times more AT missiles than Russia has tanks, even if you assume some AT missiles will be lost before they can be fired, and not every AT missile will hit and not every hit will destroy a tank, the calculus does not favor Russia. As of March 30th (3 months ago) Ukraine had been supplied with over 30,000 anti-tank missiles of all kinds from various sources, not including its own domestic arsenal, and since then I counted at least another 10-15k additional delivered. By contrast Russia has approx. 3k tanks in active duty use and 16k tanks in reserve.

and the Western tanks are harder to destroy, same way western tanks are build with field maintenance in mind and to protect the crew, were the Russian ones are meant to be left behind and picked up later when the front shifts (because they have enough anyway, and don't need to repair them)


Thats good, because overwhelmingly Russias tank losses are irreperable - a tank that has brewed up (i.e. exploded so violently that the turret has been separated from the hull), as is the case with an estimated 60-80% of Russias tank losses thus far is a hard loss, the hull is structurally compromised and no longer "square" and its systems (for which Russia is presently unable to source or produce parts for most of) are fried. The time and cost involved with repairing a tank in that state is comparable to the cost of simply building a new one, it simply isn't worth it and the only value those tanks have is as scrap and spare parts (for whatever parts are left in functioning condition to be used as spares, anyway).

which is a reason why we saw so many tanks left behind by their crew after they broke down or were out of fuel, that is how they were meant to be used and the crew was trained to use them
but the front did not shift to the west fast enough


Sounds like you're taking some hard copium there. The surprisng truth is that many of the tanks still had fuel and were in working order. The tanks in many cases were abandoned as a result of desertion, not because of some sort of doctrinal standard of training (big hint that many of them were found alongside abandoned supply trucks in similar working order and laden with fuel).

and there are nor Ukrainian Tanks in the Donbass (not in any numbers that would make a tank vs tank battle an option, so no need for tanks that can do that on the Russian side either), because they are fighting a defensive retreat there
with limited numbers the chance that those are either destroyed or need to be left behind is too high


Stop posting. At this point you're either simply making up bs or demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter. The 17th Tank Brigade has been fighting north of Berestove for weeks, including fighting engagements in and around Sievierodonetsk and the 4th Tank Brigade has been deployed east of the Sloviansk-Kramtorsk line mainly engaging Russian forces near Izyum. Likewise the 80th Air Assault Brigade and 30th Mechanized Brigade both have armor units that have been actively involved with fighting in and around Sievierodonetsk, Lyman, and Izyum.

Soviet doctrine was clear that any use of nuclear weapons, no matter how small would trigger a full scale nuclear war, so they never included this in any real planning (specially as their plan was to conquer and not to destroy)
and they had the numerical advantage anyway, so no need to clear the field with tactical nukes


And yet we know that they did plan to use tactical nukes thanks to declassified soviet military planning and exercises, such as Seven Days to the River Rhine (technically speaking the battle plans assumed NATO nuclear first-strike, so the Soviet plan was technically retaliatory in nature - but this proves that they *did* do real planning incorporating the use of battlefield and intermediate range nuclear weapons). A hallmark of the Cold War is that both sides consistently failed to understand the nuclear policy and doctrine of the other party and assumed that they would employ nuclear weapons in the same way. I.E. - The Soviets assumed that Americans and NATO would use their nuclear arsenals the same way the Soviets would, and Americans and NATO assumed the Soviets would use the arsenal their arsenal the same way the Americans/NATO would. I am not surprised that there is so much confusion on this topic.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/30 16:57:14


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





CadianSgtBob wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I seriously doubt Russia will deploy nuclear weapons. Even from the most selfish perspective, no amount of military gain is worth one's own country being obliterated. Even if NATO elected not to use nukes in return, that would be grounds for a complete takeover of Russia. The only way nuclear weapons would be deployed would be a significant amount of delusion, and even then it would take such on multiple levels for the military to even obey such a command. Certainly possible, but hardly the risk fearmongers make it out to be.


You're talking about politics and that is specifically banned here.

From a pure military strategy point of view nukes are just bombs with a bigger damage stat and should be used ASAP. Russia's failure to use their nuclear weapons advantage is indisputably poor strategy by their military leadership. It makes sense to hold them in reserve initially, since they are a limited resource and Russia expected to win within a few days, but how many conventional missiles and artillery rounds have they spent attacking targets that could have been destroyed with a single nuke?

Militarily what good wrecking your own country does? Russian generals(who have to propope use of nukes first) know using nukes result counter nuke. Russia dead.

What military gain that is? Russia loses out.

Nukes used makes zero military sense. It is only feasible without counter nukes.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Cadia

tneva82 wrote:
Militarily what good wrecking your own country does? Russian generals(who have to propope use of nukes first) know using nukes result counter nuke. Russia dead.

What military gain that is? Russia loses out.

Nukes used makes zero military sense. It is only feasible without counter nukes.


Ukraine does not have nukes so any "counter nuke" would have to be from an uninvolved third party. And the hypothetical involvement or decisions of entities not currently present on the Russia vs. Ukraine battlefield is a political question, a subject that is explicitly banned here. You are only permitted to consider the specific battlefield events involving the two armies currently fighting, and within the scope of that discussion nukes must be used and Russia's failure to do so is a major strategic error.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
Leaving aside a number of you need to go review a few decades worth of writings on nuclear weapons to have an informed debate and the difficulty of separating that from international responses based on politics and other factors...


Well yes, that difficulty was my entire point from the beginning. You simply can not have an informed discussion of the use of nuclear weapons or the Ukraine war in general without accounting for the complex political issues involved. This thread is a complete farce and should not exist.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/30 19:59:51


THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD! 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

Yeah, I feel like some of y'all really aren't understanding that CadianSgtBob is having a go at the ridiculousness of a topic of war without politics.

As he has indicated, if we are forced to discount and ignore politics than the strategic calculus changes dramatically. From a purely military viewpoint wherein this is a two-power confrontation with no outside political factors (because we aren't allowed to consider them or discuss them), then Russia should be using nuclear weapons without hesitation, because the only party able to retaliate via nuclear means can't be considered or discussed because they are a non-belligerent and intervention is a political discussion rather than a military one.

Fortunately, the real world doesn't care about arbitrary attempts to create false distinctions between politics and war, and Russia isn't happily turning fields of sunflowers into glass, but that basically just proves the point Bob is making.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: