Jump to content

Kiev Is Burning


X-Files

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

There I disagree, if the Ukrainians are able to retake the east, they are also able to take Moscow. This is probably a nuclear weapons scenario for the Russians - at least it was what everybody believed in case of a NATO victory in a conventional WW3.

Edited by seahawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    4882

  • Roman Alymov

    8770

  • sunday

    1889

  • glenn239

    2530

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, seahawk said:

There I disagree, if the Ukrainians are able to retake the west, they are also able to take Moscow. This is probably a nuclear weapons scenario for the Russians - at least it was what everybody believed in case of a NATO victory in a conventional WW3.

There's some difference between retaking Kherson,  and driving on Moscow - ultimately NATO will stop Ukrainians if they get too cocky I think, but there's a very very long way to that point.

Edited by Huba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Arguably, the Russians in the South are at the end of a very tenous supply line running to Crimea and the forces around Kherson appear somewhat vulnerable, but it seems the Ukrainians are more intent on running up the Russian casualty figures than taking any territory back, which makes sense as most of the land taken by the Russians can be given up with no significant economic loss.

The forces in the south are also connected by train line to Crimea, so no one advance could cut off the forces there unless it went all the way to the rail junctions just north of Crimea. That would pretty much happen only in the event of a Russian collapse anyway. The forces in Kherson potentially could be isolated by dropping bridges - I assume the major highway bridge and rail bridge in that area are intact for the Russians to be supplying those forces at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

There's some difference between retaking Kherson,  and driving on Moscow - ultimately NATO will stop Ukrainians if they get too cocky I think, but there's a very very long way to that point.

Considering that Ukraine doesn’t even want to admit its own strikes on Russian territory, I highly highly doubt they will do anything to make a drive towards Russian territory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

I disagree with the economic loss part. The Ukrainians are left with just one deep sea port versus the several they had, and a rather large amount of territory that the Russians have taken is fertile farmland. 
 

Not to mention that Ukraine has sustained about 100 billion dollars of damage to its infrastructure thus far

You misunderstood me, I meant that the Russian can trade space for time with no significant loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, seahawk said:

There I disagree, if the Ukrainians are able to retake the east, they are also able to take Moscow. This is probably a nuclear weapons scenario for the Russians - at least it was what everybody believed in case of a NATO victory in a conventional WW3.

Puede ser una imagen de ‎al aire libre y ‎texto que dice "‎Zzzzz Hey,littleguy. Hey, little guy. It's time to wake up. 쿠케키 سل 天天 展 @navy @navy_jopa jopa Are we headed to the Fulda Gap to stop the Russians? Even better. We're headed to Moscow.‎"‎‎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Josh said:

The forces in the south are also connected by train line to Crimea, so no one advance could cut off the forces there unless it went all the way to the rail junctions just north of Crimea. That would pretty much happen only in the event of a Russian collapse anyway. The forces in Kherson potentially could be isolated by dropping bridges - I assume the major highway bridge and rail bridge in that area are intact for the Russians to be supplying those forces at all.

How it unfolds will mostly depend on UAs long range fires capabilities (or lack thereof). We didn't see yet what the new arms packages from the expected 20B $ will consist of. If Ukraine were to have an advantage here (massed employment of GMLRS?), then Russian logistics could be pretty much paralyzed, at least as far as static infrastructure like bridges/ rail lines is concerned. We'll get to see in upcoming weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't that multi-billion USD package spread over many years, not something which will be teleported to Ukraine in a week or two? But of course if it becomes WW1 style multi-year slogfest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Id argue its worse than Georgia in 2008. In fact, some of what Russia was doing, including decimating the Georgian navy by sea, an amphibious landing of airborne troops, Crossing the Carpathians [?] seemingly flawlessly, all of these were undertaken considerably more shorefootedly than they did this year.

...

Think you mean the Caucasus Mountains. Carpathians was in 1944. :P

-- 
Leo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stuart Galbraith said:

Those too. :D

 

In further hilarity...

 

 

So Ukraine and the West have killed 30 million Russians and threatened the very existence of major Russian cities? That’s news to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yama said:

Wasn't that multi-billion USD package spread over many years, not something which will be teleported to Ukraine in a week or two? But of course if it becomes WW1 style multi-year slogfest...

Was it? I honestly don't recall more details apart from the number of $ and general statements that help will be delivered as long as required. I assume the volume of delivered armaments will only go up from the present - and last month saw quite a bit of stuff if you sum it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

So Ukraine and the West have killed 30 million Russians and threatened the very existence of major Russian cities? That’s news to me

I feel sure I would have noticed, even though I watch CNN. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never go full Hitler...

 

As for Western aid, it looks like it will ultimately include about a half dozen battalions of M777 and a couple polyglot SP battalions in the near term. I've heard a lot of HIMARs rumors but seen nothing confirmed, and while the US says the majority of its towed systems have been delivered we haven't seen any trace of them yet (presumably a lot of equipment and personnel have to be integrated to form up the new battalions). I've also heard a rumor of Excalibur being part of the ammunition package, but nothing else referring to guided ordnance. In the absence of significant guided rounds for those 777's, the Ukraine's didn't really get much of an upgrade just some replacement equipment. IMO the only signifcant advantage of NATO 155mm is the ability to use PGK or other terminally guided sub munition rounds. It's also possible the donation had nothing to do with providing a precision capability and was just to allow for the use of NATO stockpiles of ammo, since 152mm is a little harder to find inside the alliance. But given the other advanced weapons being provided I'd think that < $10,000 GPS  guidance kits would be an easy drop in to the aid package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

Never go full Hitler...

 

As for Western aid, it looks like it will ultimately include about a half dozen battalions of M777 and a couple polyglot SP battalions in the near term. I've heard a lot of HIMARs rumors but seen nothing confirmed, and while the US says the majority of its towed systems have been delivered we haven't seen any trace of them yet (presumably a lot of equipment and personnel have to be integrated to form up the new battalions). I've also heard a rumor of Excalibur being part of the ammunition package, but nothing else referring to guided ordnance. In the absence of significant guided rounds for those 777's, the Ukraine's didn't really get much of an upgrade just some replacement equipment. IMO the only signifcant advantage of NATO 155mm is the ability to use PGK or other terminally guided sub munition rounds. It's also possible the donation had nothing to do with providing a precision capability and was just to allow for the use of NATO stockpiles of ammo, since 152mm is a little harder to find inside the alliance. But given the other advanced weapons being provided I'd think that < $10,000 GPS  guidance kits would be an easy drop in to the aid package.

Someone from DoD stated today that M777s are already used in combat. For the precision strikes, I don't think we'll be informed about the details unless some irrefutable evidence surfaces from other then official sources. One advantage the 155mm might bring is the availability of airburst fuses - I don't think we saw 1 video of those being used by 152 artillery in this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Huba said:

Someone from DoD stated today that M777s are already used in combat. For the precision strikes, I don't think we'll be informed about the details unless some irrefutable evidence surfaces from other then official sources. One advantage the 155mm might bring is the availability of airburst fuses - I don't think we saw 1 video of those being used by 152 artillery in this war.

Ukrainians don’t have airburst? I thought that was standard kit for both Ukrainians and Russians 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

Never go full Hitler...

 

As for Western aid, it looks like it will ultimately include about a half dozen battalions of M777 and a couple polyglot SP battalions in the near term. I've heard a lot of HIMARs rumors but seen nothing confirmed, and while the US says the majority of its towed systems have been delivered we haven't seen any trace of them yet (presumably a lot of equipment and personnel have to be integrated to form up the new battalions). I've also heard a rumor of Excalibur being part of the ammunition package, but nothing else referring to guided ordnance. In the absence of significant guided rounds for those 777's, the Ukraine's didn't really get much of an upgrade just some replacement equipment. IMO the only signifcant advantage of NATO 155mm is the ability to use PGK or other terminally guided sub munition rounds. It's also possible the donation had nothing to do with providing a precision capability and was just to allow for the use of NATO stockpiles of ammo, since 152mm is a little harder to find inside the alliance. But given the other advanced weapons being provided I'd think that < $10,000 GPS  guidance kits would be an easy drop in to the aid package.

Could just be that these PGMs will require a bit more training before it’s actually in the hands of the Ukr army? That’s my guess 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crazyinsane105 said:

Ukrainians don’t have airburst? I thought that was standard kit for both Ukrainians and Russians 

You'd think that there would be some video evidence of it being used, right ? I didn't see any yet - either it's a weird coincidence, or they have it in very short supply. Same goes for Russians BTW, seems contact fuses are the only one employed in numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Huba said:

Someone from DoD stated today that M777s are already used in combat. For the precision strikes, I don't think we'll be informed about the details unless some irrefutable evidence surfaces from other then official sources. One advantage the 155mm might bring is the availability of airburst fuses - I don't think we saw 1 video of those being used by 152 artillery in this war.

Does anyone still have Fascam stocks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Biden has a hard job finding the toilet, assuming a conspiracy of this level is far beyond his capabilities.

I honestly don't get this dismissive attitude towards Biden's cognitive abilities that seems to be so popular in conservative circles. He has a mild speech impediment and isn't as quick as he used to be, but on what grounds do people accuse him of being any more dense than most other U.S. presidents, PARTICULARLY when the previous POTUS was Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...