Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[tinker]

8 minutes ago, sidcow said:

All the adversaries the Challenger have been up against before has used Russian armour.

Sure they're not indestructible but they are hard to kill.  They'll take out multiples of Russian tanks.

Will it be tanks? My guess is it will be hand held equipment or anti tank mines that are the main threats to Challenger tanks, or maybe drones/missiles.

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

would be so true against an enemy like Russia, who are more capable than the Iraqi army or the Taliban

In don't think Russia has thank many experienced tankers left in the army that they are prepared to lose to man their tanks, that is thought to be one of the reasons they are chucking very old tanks into the battles. Because they don't have time to fully train tankers in newer equipment as it takes much longer

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

All the adversaries the Challenger have been up against before has used Russian armour.

Sure they're not indestructible but they are hard to kill.  They'll take out multiples of Russian tanks.

I'm not disagreeing with this, because they obviously are better than the Russian equivalents, but I think people are going to be surprised at the level of losses that are taken on a battlefield where the Ukrainians don't have air superiority.

The M1 Abrams is roughly equivalent to the Challenger and the Saudis recently lost over 400 (!) of them fighting Iranian proxies in Yemen, and Iran is probably roughly equivalent to Russia in terms of military power. The Iraqis were using mostly T-55s back in the day and the Americans had absolute air superiority, so I feel like the wars fought by America / Britain are a bit flattering in terms of their vehicle performance.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

t I think people are going to be surprised at the level of losses that are taken on a battlefield where the Ukrainians don't have air superiority

The Russians don’t have air superiority either. They rarely venture over Ukrainian skies because Ukraine do have a lot of ground to air solutions

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

In don't think Russia has thank many experienced tankers left in the army that they are prepared to lose to man their tanks, that is thought to be one of the reasons they are chucking very old tanks into the battles. Because they don't have time to fully train tankers in newer equipment as it takes much longer

Again, I broadly agree with this, but I think they'll still have some decent tank crews in there somewhere. They've just got so many men and so many tanks that there's bound to be some decent tanks and some experienced crews left.

But that's not exactly the point I was making - clearly Western hardware is better than the Russian equivalent, and I'm sure the newly-trained Ukrainians will be better than most Russian crews they face. The Russian tanks will probably still knock out some Challengers due to good luck (hitting the weaker side or rear armour), and there's also lots of other threats to tanks aside from other tanks. Mines, infantry with AGTMs, aircraft with missiles, even crews just getting their tank stuck and being forced to abandon it.

It's still very possible to lose large amounts of Western armour in battle despite it being superior to the Russian equivalent, as the Saudis have demonstrated (they lost almost half of their fleet in Yemen). People might be surprised how much.

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

The Russians don’t have air superiority either. They rarely venture over Ukrainian skies because Ukraine do have a lot of ground to air solutions

No, they don't. But in the various wars America / Britain fought in the middle east, we frequently just bombed enemy vehicles or fortified positions with aircraft rather than engage them with our own vehicles. The Ukranians aren't going to be able to do that, so they're going to take more losses because they'll be exposed to more fire.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Panto_Villan

[magnkarl]

16 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Again, I broadly agree with this, but I think they'll still have some decent tank crews in there somewhere. They've just got so many men and so many tanks that there's bound to be some decent tanks and some experienced crews left.

But that's not exactly the point I was making - clearly Western hardware is better than the Russian equivalent, and I'm sure the newly-trained Ukrainians will be better than most Russian crews they face. The Russian tanks will probably still knock out some Challengers due to good luck (hitting the weaker side or rear armour), and there's also lots of other threats to tanks aside from other tanks. Mines, infantry with AGTMs, aircraft with missiles, even crews just getting their tank stuck and being forced to abandon it.

It's still very possible to lose large amounts of Western armour in battle despite it being superior to the Russian equivalent, as the Saudis have demonstrated (they lost almost half of their fleet in Yemen). People might be surprised how much.

No, they don't. But in the various wars America / Britain fought in the middle east, we frequently just bombed enemy vehicles or fortified positions with aircraft rather than engage them with our own vehicles. The Ukranians aren't going to be able to do that, so they're going to take more losses because they'll be exposed to more fire.

The biggest killer of Iraqi kit was mainly the lighter variant IFVs. Against Iraq it was the Bradley that had most effective hits on enemy armour, not air power. The Bradley has excellent targeting solutions, and will likely hang slightly back behind the tanks to take out atgms, surveillance and tanks. The TOW on the Bradley is top notch and it can operate at night when Russia has very little air capability, in fog or in low visibility conditions such as dusk/dawn.

It’s anyone’s guess what Russia has left in the tank. There’s likely still some t-90s and good double warhead atgms left, and it will take some Leo2s out, but it isn’t going to be any more effective at stopping Ukraine than it was in Kharkiv or Kherson. It’s not like Russia gave those areas away without committing their best stuff.

[Panto_Villan]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The biggest killer of Iraqi kit was mainly the lighter variant IFVs. Against Iraq it was the Bradley that had most effective hits on enemy armour, not air power. The Bradley has excellent targeting solutions, and will likely hang slightly back behind the tanks to take out atgms, surveillance and tanks. The TOW on the Bradley is top notch and it can operate at night when Russia has very little air capability, in fog or in low visibility conditions such as dusk/dawn.

It’s anyone’s guess what Russia has left in the tank. There’s likely still some t-90s and good double warhead atgms left, and it will take some Leo2s out, but it isn’t going to be any more effective at stopping Ukraine than it was in Kharkiv or Kherson. It’s not like Russia gave those areas away without committing their best stuff.

Happy to be corrected if you've got a decent source for air power vs Bradleys kills, but that's not what I've read. However, yeah, I agree the Bradley is probably likely to be the most consequential of the vehicles used in the counter-offensive given its versatility.

As for the offensive - I hope you're right. I don't think Kherson is a good comparison because the way the river starved the Russians there of supplies and forced them to retreat, and I think things will be more difficult than Kharkiv because the Russians there were spread more thinly prior to the wave of mobilisation, were generally poor quality troops, and hadn't dug fortifications like they have now.

But as you say, it's anyone's guess how it turns out at this point. The fortifications could turn out to be absolute junk and it ends up being another rout after the Ukrainians punch straight through them. Or it might be that they take major losses trying to cross minefields while taking fire from pre-sighted artillery, and their attacks break down with little gains. Let's hope it's the former, but we'll have to wait and see.

[magnkarl]

23 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Happy to be corrected if you've got a decent source for air power vs Bradleys kills, but that's not what I've read. However, yeah, I agree the Bradley is probably likely to be the most consequential of the vehicles used in the counter-offensive given its versatility.

As for the offensive - I hope you're right. I don't think Kherson is a good comparison because the way the river starved the Russians there of supplies and forced them to retreat, and I think things will be more difficult than Kharkiv because the Russians there were spread more thinly prior to the wave of mobilisation, were generally poor quality troops, and hadn't dug fortifications like they have now.

But as you say, it's anyone's guess how it turns out at this point. The fortifications could turn out to be absolute junk and it ends up being another rout after the Ukrainians punch straight through them. Or it might be that they take major losses trying to cross minefields while taking fire from pre-sighted artillery, and their attacks break down with little gains. Let's hope it's the former, but we'll have to wait and see.

Do you mean to say that the current Russian troops aren’t poor quality? Spetznas and vdv is essentially no more, and the men currently manning the line are drafted mobiks. Compared to the guards regiments manning the line in i.e Kharkiv when they were routed the current lot are children.

Russia has very few quality infantry or mechanised battalions left on account of their 300k MIA, KIA and WIA.

[Panto_Villan]

10 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Do you mean to say that the current Russian troops aren’t poor quality? Spetznas and vdv is essentially no more, and the men currently manning the line are drafted mobiks. Compared to the guards regiments manning the line in i.e Kharkiv when they were routed the current lot are children.

Russia has very few quality infantry or mechanised battalions left on account of their 300k MIA, KIA and WIA.

Yes, mobilised make up a lot of their forces these days. But that was the same in Kharkiv - it was largely LPR / DPR mobilised, but there weren’t that many of them and they’d been gutted in the urban fighting in the months previously. The guards regiments there were newly raised and only thrown into battle after the line collapsed, and were picked apart before they even found the battlefield.

The question with regards to the mobilised is: how much difference will the extra numbers and the fortifications make (vs Western gear and training on the other side)? We just don’t know yet, as there’s not been any similar battles.

As for the experienced troops, without writing an essay, I disagree. There were plenty of elite Russian troops in Kherson, which is why the Ukrainians made such slow progress there. And it was an orderly retreat from Kherson where most of them made it out intact.

Theres also a middle ground between elite and the untrained, mobilised-only units. You don’t really need elite troops to hold a defensive position.

Anyway, the point of all this is just to say - the counteroffensive isn’t going to be a cakewalk. If we get another Kharkiv then great, but that probably shouldn’t be your baseline. That went better than even the Ukrainians were hoping it would.

[Jareth]

This good?

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

This good?

If True, definitely. And it is probably where Russia expected it least. If they can establish a position there, it opens up the land route to Crimea and gives the Russians another headache in that they'll have to pull troops off the Southern Melitopol front to defend their western axis. If Ukraine cuts off the land route to Crimea, that is huge let alone invading it. They can also easily now re-dam the canal that supplies fresh water to Crimea.

The real task will be to establish a bridgehead across the Dnipro from Kherson to supply the position. The Dnipro is very wide there, so it's no mean task

If they can establish that position and expand it, it could lead to the collapse of the entire Southern front

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

This good?

Unfortunately this has been happening regularly and means very little. The Ukrainian side of the river bank is heavily built up and offers some really good firing positions. It's also perfect for HIMARS to fire from hidden positions and then move back. 

The Russian side of the river bank isn't built up and is hard to defend.  Ukrainians have been going across the river for a few months and setting up small positions. 

It's another headache for Russia.To clear the Ukrainians they would need to commit troops and equipment into a very vulnerable area.  

But its not hugely significant.  

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

But its not hugely significant.

According to Russian bloggers, Ukraine have been repairing the Antonov Bridge for a few weeks now. It maybe more significant than you think

[bickster]

I suspect its just a feint to attempt to make Russia pull troops from the Southern front proper and I doubt they'll ever get the bridge repaired to the level needed to withstand NATO armour

But it should be easily possible to re-dam the Canal that supplies Crimea with water, that in itself will cause Russia a real headache

[Mandy Lifeboats]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

According to Russian bloggers, Ukraine have been repairing the Antonov Bridge for a few weeks now. It maybe more significant than you think

I agree.  

But (at the moment) it's not the breakthrough that people are hoping for.  

Personally I doubt a significant counter attack will use the Antonov Bridge.  I think it will be used to resupply an attack further to the east that will break the Russian land bridge to Crimea.  

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Something is afoot.  

[Mandy Lifeboats]

7 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Something is afoot.  

It appears that Ukraine attacked the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol with drones.   

Russia is reporting no damage and all drones destroyed. 
 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Speeling mishsteaks

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

20 hours ago, bickster said:

I suspect its just a feint to attempt

I suspect there is a lot of this going on at the moment from both sides,  once they really go,  there is no turning back so it has to be decisive. 

If they do what I think they will do successfully then Russia will have serious problems and might just give up.

[magnkarl]

21 hours ago, bickster said:

According to Russian bloggers, Ukraine have been repairing the Antonov Bridge for a few weeks now. It maybe more significant than you think

I'd say you're probably bang on. These things, combined with seriously crippling Russia's best in Bakhmut, as well as likely wanting to dam the canal to Crimea will make Russian planning (which is already bad) even harder. There's also noise about Svatove again where Ukraine  could essentially roll up the whole Donbass front if they get behind the lines with their speedy mechanised assaults again like they did in Kharkiv.

I think Russia is expecting the attack to come towards Melitopol, but I'm not sure anymore if this is where it'll come. Maybe after UA pulls away more troops from the defenses.

Antonov could likely be fixed enough to get Spartans\Dingos\Marders\Jeeps across, and in Kharkiv these proved to be what destroyed the Russians, it's a definite thorn in Russia's side.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

This war has seen trench warfare not seen since WW1. During WW1 both sides dug tunnels under enemy trenches, filled them with explosives and detonated them just before a major offensive.  

There has been no suggestion or rumour that Ukraine or Russia are doing that.  Which is odd.  Particularly when places like Bakhmut have existing networks of mines, mining equipment and ex-miners. 

A long winter of bad weather and stalemate on the battlefield would have been the perfect time to construct something.