Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Some of these folks are being disingenous in my opinion or stating the obvious. No one worth taking seriously thought that this counter offensive would be free of casualties and it doesn't seem to me that that's the real controversy.
The real 'controversy' or question is whether Ukraine is using the "right" tactics under the circumstances or making the same mistakes for which we ridiculed the Russians.
The real 'controversy' or question is whether Ukraine is using the "right" tactics under the circumstances or making the same mistakes for which we ridiculed the Russians.
I do agree, this is the question a lot of people seem to be pondering, perhaps worrying about. I still think its fecking stupid to ask it though in such early stages, such tight opsec and mostly Russians for sources
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Ukraine has no other tactic is can use though? They don’t have effective air support so it’s going to be extremely costly attacking a dug in army with superior artillery. They’ve chosen to attack, I guess that’s probably the only question - would it have been wiser to wait longer and stockpile more NATO aid/train troops?
Russia were ridiculed because they had a 10-1 artillery advantage, were fighting a country without a navy or effective airforce and had manpower + armour advantages and still massively fecked up.
There’s many different tactics to use under the attack umbrella. I believe that’s what he’s referring to there.
I guess we won't actually know what they're trying to do until at least weeks from now - all we know is they are attacking a fortified defensive line against an enemy who outguns them without an air force - as much as most of the world hopes they succeed it seems very high risk. Not sure how there's any comparison with their current attack & how Russia fared attacking Ukraine at the start of the war which is what the poster said, differences in the scenario are pretty obvious.
Having eyes in the air (drones/satelites) and modern accurate artillery reduces the impact of air support. They know where russians soldiers are and they can target specific targets from a long distance with good enough accuracy. We're not in the carpet bombing era anymore.
Do they honestly believe that China will fly to Russia's rescue just like they did for North Korea in 1950, when those troops just came out as hardened veterans from a civil war before they eventually got wasted by UN forces?
I don't know what they drink, but I would take some if I need to escape reality.
I think he means Russia should have an army as big as China's, rather than have the actual Chinese one.Do they honestly believe that China will fly to Russia's rescue just like they did for North Korea in 1950, when those troops just came out as hardened veterans from a civil war before they eventually got wasted by UN forces?
I don't know what they drink, but I would take some if I need to escape reality.
I think it would be very effective on trenches. Close air support would help a ton for any offensive campaign in many ways, especially in those open fields where the UA South is.
Last edited:
The trenches usually have a low density of defenders in this war. While more traditional CAS would definitely be helpful, a bunch of drones dropping grenades on soldiers they discover is similarly effective and much more efficient.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We are not exactly talking about efficiency here, though. We are talking about getting this thing done in a quicker manner while saving as much UA manpower as possible. With decent air support (which they don't have), it could have been done.
I am not exactly sure how drones (that UA is currently using) would be more effective here than planes in this kind of offensive campaign. The drones are getting jammed a lot more now apparently and are not exactly effective against infantry. Not to mention the amount of ammunition a drone can carry. A lot of people were arguing that if the UA had a decent air force, the RA would have been gone a long time ago. I doubt anyone would say that about the drones.
Last edited:
The tactic, especially against the trenches, would be interesting. I wonder if the UA would have a different tactic to counter the RA in trenches.
One of the reasons the convicts of Wagner got the Bakhmut in the end was that, according to the UA soldiers, the RA soldiers would just hide in the holes no matter what the situation was outside. Then, once the UA passed, they would come out and shoot them from behind. Eventually, it was too much for the UA to keep doing it. I can see the RA doing same here with UA losing many men, even if the RA does not have enough manpower to man the trenches because they don't have to do that.
In general I agree, but we discussed the trenches. And for that specific case air support can be replaced quite well by drones and additional artillery IF those can operate well. And that's where traditional CAS aircrafts like the A-10 shine, destroying more or less armoured vehicles etc (including EW equipment like the jammers you mentioned).
So yes of course better air force capabilities would help Ukraine, but they wouldn't be used or needed for carpet bombing of trenches first.
Well, yeah, carpet bombing stuff is just for countries with a lot of money and bombs. But it could affect their mental capacity while hiding in the holes with hell going on just above their heads.
Drones really have come to the fore this war - Ukraine/Russia were already world leaders in the area but the usage of them to now even take on and prove successful against armour has probably got a lot of countries rethinking their airforce somewhat. That said, you can't really compare those capabilities to attack helicopters or jets for targeting armour which really is what Ukraine is reliant on for this push and reports say the South is where the Russian air force is able to operate most actively.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Nope, she's quite clear on what she says – she says that Russia needs the Chinese army (or, rather, its soldiers).
He looks nice.
The Russian tactics aside, this tweet sounds very encouraging in terms of Ukraine's progress.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah, fingers crossed.
I do wonder though if the scorched earth policy revolves more around short term goals/cruelty and making it harder for Ukraine to continue to advance as opposed to some long term policy or long term Russia thinking
They have blown up another dam.
What Geraschenko wrote about destroying Ukraine economically seems to be the tactic now.
What Geraschenko wrote about destroying Ukraine economically seems to be the tactic now.
Last edited:
Of course that could be at least part of the motivation, but destroying dams and flooding areas has been done for centuries to stop advancing armies.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Ukraine Got Just 21 Of Its Best Leopard 2A6 Tanks. It’s Already Lost Three Of Them.
Hopefully, they are getting a lot more. The article kind of suggested that the UA was using some of them in improper conditions. If true, hopefully they learned the lesson and corrected the issues.
Hopefully, they are getting a lot more. The article kind of suggested that the UA was using some of them in improper conditions. If true, hopefully they learned the lesson and corrected the issues.
There aren't that many more of them. While there are over a thousand of Cold War era A4, most of them in Greece and Turkey, who are busy threatening each other with them, the more modern A6 and A7 variants are much rarer.
But on the bright side, if a Leopard is in trouble, it might not be finally lost, there might be a Buffalo to help, like we see here:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This Leopard likely lost it's track due to a mine, but was recovered before Russia could destroy it.
Yeah, I saw that video earlier somewhere. Hopefully, the UA will be a bit more careful with how they use them if they are really effective for long-range firing. Obviously, the RA would be highly motivated to search for and destroy these and a few others.
The 120mm L/55 cannon of the Leopard 2 (starting with the 2A6 version) is indeed the most powerful tank cannon in Ukraine's possession.
The problem is, the Leopard 2 is also a highly mobile system that's excellent at driving in reverse. While that sounds like a dumb detail, it is also the reason why it is an excellent system for reconnaissance-in-force operations. It can effectively fight while retreating quickly, something no soviet T-tank can do.
So using them for risky missions that likely end in a retreat makes much more sense than using any T-tank. Using Leopards carefully simply isn't in the best interest of Ukraine.
These things and there to be used tbh, and used at the front where they can be effective. Lost 3? That it? Ukraine has done good work this last week and these things had a part in that.
We can't fret over them using a few, especially without knowing the context, how effective and well used they were etc. How many lives did it save using these instead of a lesser altenative?
Also, the fact these things draw so much attention can be, and probably is, used to Ukraines advantage.
Also, Russia reportedly counter-attacked the counter-attack in the south yesterday. Imagine if Russia is willingly putting armour into range of these Leo's without Ukraine having to hunt them down
This is a good point as well. Many people definitely assumed Ukraine would keep their best tanks for their main attack. So in other words, if Russian troops spotted a Leo 2A6 they assumed that this had to be it and tried to get reinforcements according to that.
Looks like in the first days it wasn't and a lot of Russian reserves good destroyed while moving towards the front. Impossible to say if using Leopards helped to lure more of them out of their hiding places, but it's definitely possible.
That's the key, for sure. But, losing some of your best weapons that early and not gaining much ground in that area (if I remember it correctly) could still question the judgment of using them there, and it is something they would evaluate themselves as well.
I thought the mines got them mostly, and then drones or artillery finished some of them. But to me, it is easy to spot them anywhere nowadays with drones even if you want to use them for other purpose and can become a bit of easy targets without proper support. So using them in main battles or against their tanks would still be a good idea.
It is likely that the RA response time and effort would have been fast and substantial no matter where or who it was against at that time, as they had been expecting the UA troops and high alert for ages.
Last edited:
Voices from Kremlin saying Putin is finally willing to negotiate, apparently, Putin would like to keep Crimea with Moscow ready to give up all other territories. Not sure if there’s much truth to it but this would show how much Kremlin really fears a military defeat optics internally as opposed to a negotiated “peace” plan.