Jump to content

Kiev Is Burning


X-Files

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    14936

  • Stuart Galbraith

    10380

  • glenn239

    4812

  • Josh

    3575

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Forward deployment: MiG is short ranged so they land there to refuel. Note weapons in the wings.

The bigger picture is that Tanknet has just watched in real time a new anti-air force doctrine based on drone attacks.  None of this existed 2 years ago.  This attack occurred with not more than 100km distance travelled by the suicide drone, but I'm sure within a few years they'll have extended that to much deeper ranging strikes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

 None of this leads to the conclusion that Ukraine has artillery parity

None of it explicitly excludes the possibility either. My own best guess is that Ukraine has achieved near parity, likely fire effects superiority in the South along their 2-3 axis of advance. *If* so, then it is likely because this region is harder to supply, not because there is an absolute shortage of ammunition. We don't seem to be seeing the same claims on the Eastern/Northern axis, but this is likely because Ukraine is funneling more pieces and ammunition to the South and Russia has less ability to do so continue volume of fire and replace attrition. Your mileage may differ. We likely will never know with absolute certainty. Nothing short of the Russians and Ukrainians sharing all their data with each other would produce an absolutely accurate answer.

 

16 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

In contrast, the question of Russian reserves is an unknown.  I see claims they have none remaining.  I see claims their reserves are huge.  I yet see nothing which to establish which is actually the case.  I think what we know leads towards the latter, but we'll see.

 

The 76th was one of the last intact front line pre war formations. I don't think it saw major action ever since the Hostomel airport operation fell apart. I think it saw some usage in the East as part of the counter-counter-offensive, but from what I heard it was quickly deployed by ship (!) via Beryansk to the southern front. It seems likely to me that either reserves are running low or alternatively that the newly raised units simply can't reliably hold the line in the conditions in the south. The second situation would easily account for various discrepancies: there are plenty of reserves, but they struggle to function under intense attack in a situation where concentration is impossible. Were the Russians actually running short of reserves, we would likely see that on the battlefield in the coming weeks, so it is question likely to be answered.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Unless its an encapsulated torpedo. Not aware the Russians have those admittedly.

An acoustic or wake following torp would probably hit the stern, but I don't think there would be looking at floating ship afterword. It could be anything; just pointing out it is an odd place for a mine to explode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The bigger picture is that Tanknet has just watched in real time a new anti-air force doctrine based on drone attacks.  None of this existed 2 years ago.  This attack occurred with not more than 100km distance travelled by the suicide drone, but I'm sure within a few years they'll have extended that to much deeper ranging strikes.

 

I think we just watched an indirect fire target of opportunity. As others noted, this is pretty much inside BM-30 range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The bigger picture is that Tanknet has just watched in real time a new anti-air force doctrine based on drone attacks.  None of this existed 2 years ago.  This attack occurred with not more than 100km distance travelled by the suicide drone, but I'm sure within a few years they'll have extended that to much deeper ranging strikes.

 

The better question is why an Air Froce as superior as the Russian Air Force should be, has not destroyed the airfield in 2 years of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

 

It might have been one already! Two Migs were sitting there in broad daylight, nicely contrasting against the ground, not even a camo net in place. And all this just 60-70 km from the front. Oh, that's well within heavy MRLS rage too, isn't it?

Mig-29s have a rather short range when loaded with weapons, hence having an airfield closer to the front as a quick area to refuel and refit makes perfect sense. Especially since Ukraine doesn’t have a fleet of aerial refueling tankers. It’s unlikely these aircraft were to stay there for a long time. It was by chance a Russian drone spotted them. I’m assuming it happens rarely enough where the risk is acceptable for the Ukrainians to do this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The better question is why an Air Froce as superior as the Russian Air Force should be, has not destroyed the airfield in 2 years of war.

Because airfields aren’t something you can destroy. You can bomb the crap out of it, and within hours it will be repaired (the runways at least). 
 

Hitting aircraft on the ground isn’t necessarily easy. Just so happens that Middle Eastern armies haven’t been the wisest when it comes to actually utilizing their aircraft properly, hence the notion that all airfields can be quickly neutralized. 
 

Best way to neutralize an airfield is to capture it outright or have constant drone surveillance overhead to ensure nothing flies or lands. Both of these are beyond the capabilities of Russian military, and any drone with that range can be shot down by air defenses that Ukraine has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Actual NATO membership can be vetoed by any one nation. Ukraine or Georgia were always non starters, and IMO always will be, regardless of how seriously some of the members discuss it.

There is a formal veto and there is also lots of backroom dealing and pressures exerted and all kinds of stuff, but none of that is the point.

The point is the Russian perception. This was strong enough to fight a war in Georgia, and strong enough for the Germans (and friends) to balk at the idea of inviting Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance lest that piss off Russia.

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

But that offer did not materialize nor did the Ukraine show a strong desire to join NATO. Yes, they wanted NATO help in training and equipment but did see themselves asa non-aligned. What they did want was a road to the EU membership.

And this is what made Russia act, NATO aggression is simply a lie to hide the true fear, that the Ukraine (or any former Soviet Republic) would join the EU and then experience an economic and democratic development like the Eastern Europeans. This would be a threat to the person in power in Moscow.

Neither the offer materialising nor Ukraine's (or Georgia's) desire are really relevant. What's relevant is that the US was pushing for it and the Russians saw this as a threat.

Though you are also certainly right that a rich, democratic Ukraine (i.e. Poland Mk. II or West Germany Mk. III) would be a disaster for the regime in Moscow. And they know it. But that doesn't mean the NATO thing is a complete red herring. There can be lots of factors causing geopolitical events. Indeed, it usually isn't t just a single factor.

Edited by ink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The better question is why an Air Froce as superior as the Russian Air Force should be, has not destroyed the airfield in 2 years of war.

There's nothing to destroy, outside of breaking up concrete. It was an abandoned base and is being used as temporary dispersal site:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Crimean+Peninsula/@47.8907155,33.5319063,3512m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x40eac2a37171b3f7:0x2a6f09e02affbaeb!8m2!3d45.3453029!4d34.4997274!16s%2Fm%2F0ndwhc3?entry=ttu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Josh said:

None of it explicitly excludes the possibility either. My own best guess is that Ukraine has achieved near parity, likely fire effects superiority in the South along their 2-3 axis of advance. *If* so, then it is likely because this region is harder to supply, not because there is an absolute shortage of ammunition.

The lack of any progress on this "axis of advance" suggests that the Ukrainians do not have a firepower advantage.  The horrific Ukrainian casualties are suffering while achieving their nil gains suggest that the Russians have ample firepower to deal with any movement detected.  Do you not watch front updates?  Every time the Ukrainians send a convoy towards Robotyne it's like a Death Race 2000 Thunder Run.  

Quote

We don't seem to be seeing the same claims on the Eastern/Northern axis, but this is likely because Ukraine is funneling more pieces and ammunition to the South and Russia has less ability to do so continue volume of fire and replace attrition

There are more Ukrainian drone attack videos in the east than in the south I think.  HIMARS might be about equal.  In both cases, Russian artillery is top priority.  The Ukrainians are press ganging the theatre level systems into the artillery duel because they are losing it.

 

Quote

The 76th was one of the last intact front line pre war formations. I don't think it saw major action ever since the Hostomel airport operation fell apart. I think it saw some usage in the East as part of the counter-counter-offensive, but from what I heard it was quickly deployed by ship (!) via Beryansk to the southern front.

The Russians by any account are creating many new units all the time, so whether or not this is the last of the 'prewar' units means nothing in terms of the total number of Russian units there can be in reserve.

Quote

It seems likely to me that either reserves are running low or alternatively that the newly raised units simply can't reliably hold the line in the conditions in the south.

I think it means that the best Russian units are deemed best suited to repel the enemy's main advance and inflict a strategic defeat upon them.   Why would the Russians piss around with new units and risk the Ukrainians pulling a rabbit from the hat?  They want this offensive to be crushed so that the Ukrainian army will then collapse and Zelensky will start to have to watch his back in the shadow of the mountain of bodies he is responsible for creating.  Why risk giving Zelensky a break?  Didn't the Russians learn after the Kharkiv offensive never to let Zelensky have a battlefield success again?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Josh said:

I think we just watched an indirect fire target of opportunity. As others noted, this is pretty much inside BM-30 range.

I don't think the Russians like pushing their rocket artillery too close to the front lines.  Watch some front updates and you will see Ukrainian kill videos explaining why this is so.  So I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were no rocket units in range and ready to fire.

Now that we know Lancet strike packages can hunt and destroy targets this far behind the front, I assume that the hunt is on for the HIMARS systems operating just as deeply.  These will be highly elusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The lack of any progress on this "axis of advance" suggests that the Ukrainians do not have a firepower advantage.  The horrific Ukrainian casualties are suffering while achieving their nil gains suggest that the Russians have ample firepower to deal with any movement detected.  Do you not watch front updates?  Every time the Ukrainians send a convoy towards Robotyne it's like a Death Race 2000 Thunder Run.  

I think the only way they could even have broken through the first minefield is with a firepower advantage. The road to Robotyne appears to get routinely and randomly bombed with PGMs, sometimes with no specific target. That sounds to me like artillery coverage is not consistently available for the purpose.

 

17 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

There are more Ukrainian drone attack videos in the east than in the south I think.  HIMARS might be about equal.  In both cases, Russian artillery is top priority.  The Ukrainians are press ganging the theatre level systems into the artillery duel because they are losing it.

Counter battery is a primary long range rocket artillery purpose; it isn't weird to use HIMARS that way.

17 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The Russians by any account are creating many new units all the time, so whether or not this is the last of the 'prewar' units means nothing in terms of the total number of Russian units there can be in reserve.

They are reported to have created at least one entire new CAA, though it apparently was deployed to the east. The caliber of these new units seems lacking though.

17 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I think it means that the best Russian units are deemed best suited to repel the enemy's main advance and inflict a strategic defeat upon them.   Why would the Russians piss around with new units and risk the Ukrainians pulling a rabbit from the hat?  They want this offensive to be crushed so that the Ukrainian army will then collapse and Zelensky will start to have to watch his back in the shadow of the mountain of bodies he is responsible for creating.  Why risk giving Zelensky a break?  Didn't the Russians learn after the Kharkiv offensive never to let Zelensky have a battlefield success again?

 

We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

It is clear miss in terms of body-to-body hit, but detonation so close is enough to make the plane into wreck, at least for some (probably, prolonged) time.

   There was at least two drones (second one providing observation), and i wonder as if it was part of large strike reported couple of days ago by Rus MoD (claiming 2 Mig-29 and three Su-25 on this airfield)

Looking at sat photos of the field for the last few years, there's no activity at all, despite supposedly being upgraded to operational status. There's no fire, the aircraft is unarmed, there's no visible equipment... to me, this is a decoy, not an operational aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Looking at sat photos of the field for the last few years, there's no activity at all, despite supposedly being upgraded to operational status. There's no fire, the aircraft is unarmed, there's no visible equipment... to me, this is a decoy, not an operational aircraft.

Didn’t realize there are full size Mig-29s set up as decoys though. Not discounting it though, interesting theory 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Didn’t realize there are full size Mig-29s set up as decoys though. Not discounting it though, interesting theory 

Made in Russia: https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/327374-inflatable-troops-softer-side-of-unusual

these are not difficult to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Didn’t realize there are full size Mig-29s set up as decoys though. Not discounting it though, interesting theory 

The lack of fire with such a close hit is a little suspicious. I don't see how a fueled aircraft wouldn't have brewed up with even a mortar round sized explosion that close. But if if was then it was certainly a very convincing set up compete with what looks like missiles and a starter cart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, seahawk said:

The better question is why an Air Froce as superior as the Russian Air Force should be, has not destroyed the airfield in 2 years of war.

NATO could not permanently KO airfields in Yugoslavia in 1999., so I think that "knocking out airfields" in Ukraine would be a fool's errand - there are too many of them, they are super hard to really KO and too easy to repair.

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...