R-37Ms are nearly useless against the NATO new gen jets (F-35s, B-2s) and not very effective even against those older jets, yet equipped with EW pods and trained to use it. It's theoretically possible to equip and train Ukrainian Air Force in the same way, yet it's... well, expensive. Very expensive. Over $50B, I'd say. Up to date, US have spent less money for all the AFU supplies summarily, of wich the majority was eaten, needless to say, by the Groud Force.
I guess the main reason they are trying to get F16s is that they are running out of their Soviet aircrafts. Something better than nothing, even if only for chasing Shaheds
Judging from here in Greece, the first Rafale landed in a Greek airport after 3+ months of training in France in 19 January of 2022. It's now September 2023, and the last of the 18 Rafales has been delivered, and the squadron isn't yet declared operational (probably in October).
And that's with the Greek air force being familiar with French Dassault aircraft for nearly half a century (Mirage F-1CG, Mirage 2000, and now Rafale)
So, I wouldn't expect Ukraine to have an operational squadron of F-16 before next summer
if I am not mistaken, officially UA has approximately five Su-24 in operation, hard to maintain and quite old, and Russia is continually hunting these. So, Ukraine needs an alternative air weapons platform, urgently.
I thought they had 120 Su-24 total aircraft of which 36 were either salvageable or in service(2 known squadrons for a total of ~23). Oryx says they've lost 16(which could mean more lost since this is just what OSINT could find). So yeah 5 left would be a very good figure of whats left. But possible they still have a squadron left?? Because what happened to the others?
If I am not mistaken, the Belgium and Netherlands F-16 went through an MLU (mid-life upgrade) program, which has substantially upgraded their electronics and radar, almost to Block 50 level.
As for the airframes, it's a matter of maintenance if these can keep up operating.
Perhaps I should have added something in following sense:
The idea of delivering fighter jets to Ukraine, per se, is not wrong. Thus, delivering F-16s to Ukraine is not wrong: it's a good idea.
But, delivering 40-years-old F-16s to Ukraine - and then such like Belgian F-16s that have been grounded for technical problems.... that is a wrong idea.
But alas the USA having a good lot of weapons piled in deserts or elsewhere wants "to exhaust Russia" and "not to provoke Putler" at the same time. So Ukraine must take anything from such "great military powers" as Belgium, Denmark or Greece. If all that weapons were produced by NATO countries to fight Russia why not to give them to fight Russia? The recent cowardice of Romania gives us the answer.
Someone mentioned something I found so profound. That Ukraine is fighting the war against Russia that NATO had trained and built their cold war army for but without the same amount of NATO equipment. We basically have so much equipment lying in the West which was meant to fight this war and we're not providing it. I see so many armoured military vehicle depots(MRAPS and larger logistics vehicles) here in New York I wonder which mechanized army is crossing the pond to invade us.
I think the US and other heel draggers' strategy is not murky, or weak, or cowardly. On the contrary, i fear it is altogether solid. Its just not something they can admit to publicly- that is "we aren't helping you to win, we are helping you to wear down Russia". So the question is, what must we who want a just outcome for Ukraine do?
The leaders of the collective West and NATO are no way "just" or "noble" or simply far-sighted enough to handle the situation. At the same time they consider themselves to be up to the mark. Being not directly involved so far and knowing that for France, Germany and USA there is altogether no risk of the direct involvement in the war they may make the most improbable schemes in security. Certainly to make Russia weak and submissive is of more interest then saving Ukrainians' lives or liberating territories quickly.
I can't understand why are you calling Romania a coward. First we have to remember that a rocket fall killed two in Poland and nothing happened. Most probably these incidents are caused by debris or changed trajectories due to the Ukrainian air defence. The Romanians from the neighboring region feel the war more than some Ukrainians now, hearing sirens and alarms on the other side of the Danube all day. Romania is very active in securing the transport corridor for Ukrainian goods, and in other directions that the government doesn't want to say. This policy of our government of not saying anything is understood by very little people (although the important people for sure understand and no one is complaining). We need internal stability and security. Romania doesn't have a big and well equipped army and now we buy (yes, buy) F16s. For our defence we rely on NATO and we must do what NATO says. Last but not least, Romania is not in the position of Austria or Belgium, it is on the edge of the war. And it is bordered by not-so-friendly neighbours to the West.
I don't think Ukraine wants that. And I understand the people, they are under continuous pressure and see the love-ones dying. And yes, they are brave. Unfortunately, the war continues and this kind of incidents could happen again. It does not mean that NATO is attacked indeed, to call Article 5. But Romania should protest vehemently to these attacks on the Danube. And should summon the Russisn Ambassador or something. This is true. Probably we will do it.
What is the use of NATO if its members "are not so friendly" to each other? It reminds me of the Russian proverb: "Having such friends you do not need to have enemies". Russia understands only when it is beaten. As to Poland its anti-Ukrainian propaganda of the events dating 80 years or more and the losses of income caused by dying transit to Russia bothers much more than Russian missiles.
Serbia is not in NATO and Hungary is...Hungary. Why do you think they forbid military help passing through their territory and they oppose to any EU decision regarding Ukraine? It's history again. Sometimes i think they want Putin to win this war. Poland looks pretty much pro-Ukrainian. But our neighbour is Ukraine to the North.
In 1990, Transnistria was the first frozen conflict, because nobody was thinking back then that Ukraine will become West-oriented some day, but Russia was afraid of the unification of Moldova with Romania. In 1991 the Moldovan parliament voted for independence, but the other option was unification. Even now, half of the Moldovan population wants unification. Putin accuses Romania of wanting to attack Moldova (while he considers it part of the Russian empire). Moldova is not in NATO and practically has no army, so it's the most vulnerable for spilling the conflict (as assessed by CIA), and they count on Romania for help. It's a quite delicate topic in fact. In any case, this is one reason more for you to understand that Romania is willing to help Ukraine winning the war, even if you won't see the officials bragging about it.
Any thoughts on the Gripen buzz though? Some entertain the idea that Sweden is waiting to officially join Nato to give the green light, but seems hard to believe Ukraine could receive any meaningful numbers in the short or mid term. Would even 10 of them make a difference?
Some of us think some of the ones Sweden use for their own air defense today can easily become available once Sweden finally officially get to join NATO.
Many think of course they should be made available and I’ve seen Grippen as vital since day 1. It’s the obvious answer, and so easy to keep current with its electronic suite.
I remember hearing the spokesperson of the Ukrainian Airforce say ideally they'd like 1 western multirole jet but max 2 because of logistics and training related issues. So I think this was leaving the door for Sweden or France to provide the second fighter. A squadron or 2 of Gripens wouldn't be bad at all. If Sweden can give up 2 squadrons(24) I dont think that would put a dent on their defence(They have about 70 in service and about 24 in storage). But listening to former airforce marshalls it could help Ukraine with what they call CAP missions. Other experts such as Jason Bronk even suggest the Gripen is actually built specifically to counter Russian airforce since it also employs meteor missiles(which is the longest range publicly known AA missile in NATO) on top of being able to operate efficiently from road runways. So Gripens with Meteor missiles could cause some serious trouble for Russian jets operating on the frontlines. 24 should do the trick.
Are all F-16 that have been pledged of the same type? I recall reading that another A2A missile was to be provided with a range around 150km, but I don’t remember the 5 or 6 letter abbreviation.
Thanks for your analysis Tom. Thinking about air war, there are no current planes more capable than the F-16 for Ukraine? Thinking in a low penetration one, like Tornados or F-111. Or Mirage 2000s. If the USA don't wan't yo compromise an F-15E.
Today evidence came up about a Challenger tank destroyed. US Army have lots of stocks of Abrams in the desert. What about M-106s?
Isn't the key the attrition of the Russians? If the Ukrainians are inflicting enough casualties, then the Russians don't have troops to defend all the hedge rows, right?
Sep 6, 2023·edited Sep 6, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
Oh God... The Russians have over 40 mln of military trained personnel. It's more then entire Ukrainian population. Yes, the quality of this military training is bad, comparing to NATO profy, yet Ukrainian reservists have the same training, NATO provide for Ukrainian troops even shorter (and yet outdated) training only, and no one is ready to send their troops in Ukraine. So, please, try to think before asking new questions.
There is an honest prospect for attrition, yet it's about combat vehicles and heavy weapons, not troops.
"Oh God... The Russians have over 40 mln of military trained personnel"
The complete mobilization potential is about 31 mln. Trained personal is much more less.
The last mobilization showed that Russia can mobilize and train about 100K-120K each month. Which means that yearly maximum is about 1.5 mln. So it would be needed about 20 years to mobilize and train 30 mln.
But the bottle neck is not the personal but equipment. Russia already started to use 60 years old tanks.
Add then the occupied territories (Donbass, Ukrainian S-E), Osetia and Abkhasia - and you'll got 40 mln. Well, maybe now military trained group is less intersecting with combat ready group, comparing to the data I have in memory, yet even 31 mln is more then entire avialable Ukrainian population.
So, yep, as I've mentioned too, attrition prospects are about eqipment. Tanks and other armoured vehicles, combat aircraft, artillery. Losses and wearout. Sectoral sanctions to disrupt the industry (though I have little hope it can be effective).
Attrition isn't about killing 40 million people. It's about the people having the will to fight and die in an idiotic war. This isn't WWII where the Russians are fighting to exist. It's more like Afghanistan or the Winter War.
The people in question have no will to fight and die for anything at all - that's the exact reason why they are still fighting when being mobilized. They have to fight against Ukrainians or against their own police, Rosgwardia and so on; no option not to fight, and they are opting the easier way, not the honest one. The absolute majority of them are the same as those who already died in this fight, so the fight will continue without personnel attrition.
If the Russians are nothing but robots, and with so many more people, why fight at all then? The only reason to fight with any hope of victory is that the Russians will eventually give up. Sure, the Russians are fatalistic, but are they really THAT fatalistic that they would endlessly accept mass death for nothing. If that's the only possibility, why did so many flee the country? Why are their people fire bombing recruiting stations? Ukranians should be emphasizing Russian casualties and playing divide and conquer with the states of the Russian Federation who have to die for Petersburg and Moscow elites.
Intersting analysis. They have no choice but to fight. I guess yo are right, because the flight option is probably gone now. And you would need to run before they come to take you. If you havent done it, as you say it is either fightnig the Police or joining the military. Of course it is easier to Join the military. Realistisk but depressing.
Attrition is not about men only, but also about the "stuff", like artillery, ATMGS, APCs, IFVs, ... That's why ZSU need better support from the West to make fast attrition of the Russian "stuff" while having enough own "stuff". When Russia would be able to refill it's "stuff" from own sources or other sources (Iran, North Korea, ...), then it would lead to stalemate (because they have enough men) - and that's what Putin hopes now.
Thanks Tom, it was a great idea to do a bit of a Q&A instead of a typical report.
1. The West not providing enough... We can all agree to that, so no point in discussing it further. However, what is happening with the top command of the ZSU, meaning Zaluzhny and the Corps/Operational Commands. They knew what they had, they knew what was in front of them, they had all the information. Yet, they still decided to launch the offensive in the South. It is really difficult to see any overarching strategy in how they are prosecuting this war anymore. What are they actually trying to achieve and how? (specifics please, not "liberate territory" or "defeat Russia").
2. My impression is that there is pretty much a consensus among former/active military officers, that the F16s are basically a direct replacement for the current PSU fleet which is simply running out of aircraft. I don't think anyone is arguing, that there will be some sort of a major change in the way they conduct the air war.
Sure, whether it's a mistake or not will be a topic of debate for years, if not decades to come. It is not an assessment that can be made today. However, it is still mightily interesting as to how they arrived at these plans and decisions. I don't understand what they are hoping to achieve by fighting a war at marching pace.
If the objective is to kill Russians, then that seems the best thing they can do. Going completely passive will be fatal. If you give Russia unlimited time to build up, Ukraine can't win. It's attack and go for the win, or default lose.
While I get this argument, I find it unconvincing. If killing Russians is their goal, than that is a poor way of doing it. Ukraine have no means of affecting any Russian build up. What is limiting Russia, are the economic sanctions and their own useless economy. Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition, all it can do is to hope the Western economic isolation of Russia collapses its economy and state.
I don't know how you can say they haven't been inflicting massive casualties. The Russians have sent many hundreds of thousands into this war. Give Russia time without killing them as they come in, and eventually they will have overwhelming forces. They can win a war of attrition of the ratio of casualties is right, and so far, I would estimate the Russian casualties must be vastly beyond any official numbers. Just consider how many troops the Russians have had in this war, and yet they can't cover the southern front. That implies mind boggling casualties.
True, though it's only best defence if you succeed and strategic initiative only matters if you know what to do with it. Would you make the same assessment of the VSRF farcical winter offensive? The two are offensives are starting to look more and more similar with each passing month.
You mean the with regards to the zeks? Yes, you are right. It is cherry picking and maybe it is not fair. However, whether we like it or not, prisoners are a different pool of manpower from the general population and so it is equally unfair to treat them alike. I can be swayed though.
VSRF managed to deny Ukraine ability to choose the place of battles - taking Soledar when it was defended by a piecemeal collection of units (check Tom's articles at the time), then attacking Bakhmut - so they came very close to breaking through.
They bled - and they won time and territory.
Why would you think experienced brigades, like 93rd or 53rd are still fighting using soviet time equipment, while new un-bloodied brigades got all the best equipment?
Because ruzzia denied Ukraine ability to rotate out, rearm, and use those units for the offensive.
Ruzzia forced those brigades back to the front line.
The result is that new unexperienced units were attacking and receiving significant casualties and degradation of capabilities.
There is a common misconception that one can build a strong defense and let enemy bleed on it.
It never worked, unless you are protected by a large defensive barrier - like English Channel, major river, or high mountains. And even that were breached.
Overall, i can accept this argument. However, as always there are caveats. Bakhmut is the most misunderstood battle of this war. Whoever you ask, will have a different opinion on why it was really fought and in the way it was. It will be interesting to see books released in the years after the war (maybe Tom will write them?) That will show, based on contemporary documents, what was really happening there.
If the main objective for the offensive was to pin the VSRF in place and disrupt their build up, then I fail to understand why it was launched in the one sector of the front where it was simultenously the most obvious and the most heavily fortified.
The main goal of the current operation is to cut the railway road going from Volnovakha to Melitopol. With this railway road cut, the logistics of Russian forces in the south would collapse
Yes, to cut the corridor the ZSU "only" needs to advance about 40km. Then everything will be within the range of the tube artillery. They are far far away from achieving that unfortunately.
First: you can not avoid all the time, you have to fight at last, but the situation may change favorably; second: Sun Tse said that the art of war is at its best when you win the war without the battle. Remember Russian campaign after Moscow was burned.
Morale my man , if you are attacking then you have a hope of winning, population and military have justification for efforts and sacrifices, if you are being hammered and pushed back all the time population and most certainly the military will break at some point , reality will re-assert itself as the cumulative effect of the costant hammering would break the most committed troops when they realize nothing they do works and something is clearly very wrong.
The VSRF wasted its reserves and mechanized forces trying to maintain their cult of offensive and failed miserably and nnow everybody there knows there is no going forward and can barely ( with all of thier might )slow the Ukrainian advance as is.
Their only hope is to make the ZSU advance too costly and force them to give up , meanwhile the ZSU has fresh forces to season.and thoughen up and have neither the mechanized forces nor the fire power (and certainly the logistics to feul both) to collapse the front in go and simultaneously coordinate multiple thursts all over the front line.
So the GenstabU launched a multi-staged operation , advancing piecemeal in a serial fashion, preparing staging grounds for future thrust while degrading the Russian forces and defencives expending their reserves (and preventing build up of any major counter offensives).
This operation has just completed its preliminary stage and have not even entered its middle stages which may take momths and might not even see the final stage for a year or two.
People tend to focus on Crimea and big name cities when there much nearer operational targets (I know two for sure) that would cause a catastrophic disruption in the Russian defences and strategem and the defence of the aforementioned Crimea and big cities untenable and the Russian command know that and thats why theu actually have know where to go and have to stand their ground , this about the viability of the entire endeavour in the south not just some attrition strategy.
ZSU does not have a decisive advantage in numbers or fire or logistic let alone the fact without air cover (actually its an astonishing achievement they managed to advance anywhere at all with all mentioned disadvantages).
And so they have be extremely efficient and creative with what they got along with the determination to see this thing through and most importantly they need time, time to advance carefully and avoid unnecessary casualties, time to build up and season their forces and time to inflict a cumulative death by thousand cuts all they the whilr preventing their enemy from having the time to do the same, GenstabU does not have the privilege to be stupid or do some monumental mistake at the peril of losing the war immediately, the Russian can and they lose long term.
Sep 6, 2023·edited Sep 6, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
What an excellent response. I hope the guy you're replying to learnt something because I did. Even for those things I did know you reinforced them even better.
We're back to the magical morale I see. For all intents and purposes, morale is irrelevant. You don't believe me, then go to one of Tom's old reports where he states the same. It only ever matters when the enemy is given a choice of surrendering. Attrition warfare acts exactly against it. In fact, I don't know if you could devise a more counter productive strategy than "I have more blood to bleed than you".
Define efficient. The ZSU has just introduced the X Corps and largely rotated the IX Corps out. More than 20 brigades from the strategic reserve have been thrown in the South so far. Yes, the casualties seem to be lower than for a typical offensive operation. However, to call it "extremely efficient" is a manipulation.
The bottom line is that the ZSU got 12 challenger 2s, 1 was destroyed, 0 replacements will be provided, so now have 11 left. The VSRF can lose 10 tanks and within 6 months, they will have 10 tanks back. This is a recipe for failure.
I did not state they lose 10 tanks in a month. Nor does the ZSU lose 1. Please calm down, take a breath and read with comprehension.
I am fully aware of the state of the Russian army and economy. There are no more vehicles in NATO to provide. They may find a dozen here or a dozen there somewhere, maybe. However, there is no guaranteed transfer that can be factored in, during the logistical planning. Tom stated many times how the deliveries have been insufficient in quantity and delayed in time. At least the VSRF can expect to get a certain number of vehicles regularly, whatever that number is. I am dismayed by the fact that the West clearly isn't planning to create a large scale production of geavy equipment specifically for Ukraine. This is an extremely precarious situation.
Until I see it, I won't factor it into my analysis. The US has many things and it doesn't mean anything. There are no 2000 leo2s that can be handed over. No country will simply disarm for Ukraine. Leo2s will be serving for the next 20 years. I hope everything is provided but the US are only about to send 10 old m1a1s. From 10 to 6000 is a long way.
A significant part of the Ukrainian tanks are captured Russian tanks. The appearance of old tank models on the battlefield was predicted months ago and is now evident.
Well if morale is magical one must wonder why the Russian military collapsed and evacuated northern Ukraine ,Kherson and Eastern Kharkiv ? Why do they wasted so much fire power terrorizing civilians, leveling cities and plowing empty fields ?
The entire Russian game from day one was for the Ukrainians to lose faith in thier ability to resist a seemingly endless military juggernaut that has enough fire power (including Atomic) to reduce their country to ashes and surrender without a fight and the Russian military could reenact the swift subjugation of Crimea on a massive scale that would cause a domino effect that would force the rest of East European countries to rethink their position to a now neighbouring Russia that could just march on their capitals the next day and repeat the exercise.
What magical factor made the Ukrainians go batshit crazy and think hey +one year from now will be running excursions into Russian proper and target Moscow itself repeatedly not to mention even considering the best method to retrieve Crimea itself ?
What magical factor that prevented the mighty Soviet Union from reenacting opetration Danube in Afghanistan and what magical factor made Afghans somehow able to last military occupation of two superpowers ?
So morale is always a decisive factor in winning or losing a war otherwise people should give up and surrender when ever the odds leans heavily against them.
Regarding how efficient the Ukrainians are ? Well they are advancing against a numerically superior dug in enemy willing to fight for every inch who's entire plan is to "bleed them dry" and has the resources to win a battle of attrition yet they are keeping on advancing?
and according to you
"Attrition warfare acts exactly against it. In fact, I don't know if you could devise a more counter productive strategy than "I have more blood to bleed than you".
ZSU is managing to advance against superior defensive enemy who has the means and resources to outlast them in pure attritional battle , what do you call that but superb efficiency and magical will factor?
Yesterday there was no X-corp nor a XI corp nor any Challengers who knows what tommorow brings ? Who could've imagined last year that Ukrainians would be riding challengers while Russians roll in 50s relics like T-62s
It collapsed because it suffered unsustainable losses and so there was no other choice than either lose them all or retain at least their remnants. Morale had little to do with it.
I do not know why Russians love bombing civilians, I do not have the mind of a psychopath and a genocidal murderer. Countless examples from history prove that the last thing that bombing cities does, is discourage them from fighting.
Morale is always a factor but you are overexaggerating it. It is very easy to make people fight for their homes. It is equally easy to simply force people to fight, otherwise no war of aggression would ever start. Even in 2014, Ukraine fought back, incompetently, chaotically, but they fought and did not surrender. I will not understand Russians who thought Ukraine would just fold, after preparing for 8 years for exactly that eventuality.
10 km after 3 months really isn't much of advancing. There seems to be some interesting development between Velyka Novosilka and Vulhedar. Let's hope for the best.
Yep I am sure the Russian took all the casualties in the invasion of the north and the Ukrainian had easy and suffered no casualties at all certainly not more casualties than the VSRF who were fully prepared for the invasion and released literal artillery and missile storms of millions of shells and thousands of missile to the degree they are not able to replicate so far.
It must have been fun in Mariupol , Lyman , Severodonetsk , Kharkiv , Chernihiv and the rest , and I am sure morale was overblown out of proportion, it was simple to convince/coerce someone to pick an AT missile and stand alone against an entire tank column or set under a TOS-1 barrage that must of been pleasant experience because of course people would fight for homes against impossible odds , everyone knew it was a turkey shoot and spend weeks safari camping hunting Tanks that did not shoot back.
And clearly leveling cities and gassing civilians did not work in Syria and Chechnya one must wonder why stupid Russian military thought it might work in Ukraine because it never worked in history before.
Morale is irrelevant and It not like Bakhmut caused the Wagner to march or Moscow or the Kremlin being casualty shy withdraw their forces from Kherson not being stupid to allow their forced soldier to turn kherson into another Mariupol.
It amusing to witness thr VSRF racing the wind with their tail behind their back instead of proving their point and fight to the last , because of course forced and opportunistic soldiers do not shy away from last stands against impossible odds.
This is complete balderdash, so incoherent it's difficult to even consider seriously. Yes, it's easy to make people fight for their homes, it's been done every single day for hundreds of thousands of years. Telling people to stand and fight is literally the entire point of armies. Where are those mythical Russian deserters that surely must exist, given the terrible morale in the VSRF? Organised withdrawal is not a question of morale but a decision by the command.
Yes, bombing civilians far away from the front is the definition of idiotic and counter productive. You are questioning something that is commonly known and proven in every single conflict ever fought, including the one in front of you. Btw, where do you get your information that the Syrian war has ended, as you claim bombing cities worked so well? Nonetheless, there are dumber things to believe in, so if it makes you feel better thinking that morale will win the day, then all power to you.
Test Subject - please, please can you let us all know what you think ZSU should have done with the resources at their disposal? Please understand that I won't be considering any of your posts to have an overwhelming amount of weight until you do!
I don't know. It is not my job to know and I do not have access to the information that would be needed to know. I don't have to be a professional football player to judge how well a team performs.
I would like to see is some sort of a general long-term strategy. Maybe it is being implemented and we are at a messy phase, so things will be clear later. However, today I do not understand how and why decisions are made at the top. I do not understand what they are trying to achieve. Also, I do not understand why so many find it controversial to ask such questions. Do you prefer not to know and hope for the best?
Thankyou for your detailed response. Well, as we all know, their goal is to take back all their territory, and I believe that the strategy is to threaten Russia's hold on Crimea as soon and as powerfully as possible given that ZSU needs to preserve its forces. I think that the current approach (pressure everywhere) is about the best approach possible given the circumstances.
I have no doubt that the Ukrainian government's objective is to liberate territory. However, the primary objective of every military during war, is the destruction of the enemy forces. Once you destroy them, you can take whatever you want.
At the moment, it is not clear to me how the current actions contribute to shortening the war. Russia's pathetic economy produces/refurbishes a few dozens of armoured vehicles a month (give or take). Yet, it is still more than 0, that Ukraine produces. It is still more than 0 that NATO produces for Ukraine. Therefore, at the moment, only one of the sides has the capability to replace at least a fraction of its equipment losses.
I will repeat myself but I have no doubt that eventually, the ZSU will cut the land corridor and isolate Crimea. However, i also have no doubt, that with current strategy, the VSRF will retain most of its combat power during the widthdrawal, as they did in Kherson. Sieging Crimea in this fashion will take years.
Ok thanks for the additional thoughts. If the Kerch bridge were kept at say max 25% capacity, and Ukraine held the neck connecting to the mainland, and maintained a campaign of harassing military targets on the peninsula, wouldn't it be a matter of months before Russia would have to give it up or let Ukraine roll in?
That depends on their determination, which frankly nobody can assess accurately. The red army defended just Sevastopol for 8 months. Leningrad for 3 years? Sieges can take an incredible amount of time. The main problem with sieging Crimea is that you can destroy the Kerch bridge, you can isolate it from the mainland but Ukraine has no capability of setting up a naval blockade. That means that some logistical capacity by sea will always remain.
You make some good points but out of context statements like " it is still more than 0, that Ukraine produces" ruins your credibility. Russia has targeted many Ukraine factories that had produced military vehicles. Consequently several enterprises have moved production out of Ukraine
Malyshev factory's main focus became supplying new and rehabilitated tanks to the Ukrainian Army.
The war introduced serious changes to the capabilities of the military-industrial complex. However, Ukrainian Armor has maintained its ability to produce the Novator armored vehicle.
I have not seen any evidence that Ukraine can produce, either at all or in any meaningful numbers, any of the following:
Tanks, IFVs, SPGs, radars, SAM systems, aircraft, secure comms equipment, EW systems, infantry heavy weapons (at scale), manpads, trucks, light off road vehicles, heavy engineering equipment... and the list goes on.
It would be quicker to list what we know they do produce, mostly certain types of drones, some stugna, some soviet calibre ammunition + maintenance/repair of the soviet era equipment. Sure, I deliberately used 0 as a hyperbole to clearly contrast the capabilities of the two countries, but it really isn't far from the truth. The moment the flow of help from NATO stops, that's the end of the ZSU.
"At the moment, it is not clear to me how the current actions contribute to shortening the war. Russia's pathetic economy produces/refurbishes a few dozens of armoured vehicles a month (give or take). Yet, it is still more than 0, that Ukraine produces. It is still more than 0 that NATO produces for Ukraine. Therefore, at the moment, only one of the sides has the capability to replace at least a fraction of its equipment losses."
Ukraine starts the war with soviet era equipment. After 1.5 years of war Ukraine has the best and most modern SAMs in the world, modern MBTs, modern IFVs, etc. Meanwhile Russia started to restore 60 years old tank that was obsolete even during late soviet era.
Sounds like a paradox to me.
" Sieging Crimea in this fashion will take years."
As soon as, land corridor to Crimea is cut and the Kerch bridge is destroyed, Crimea is a trap for VSRF
1. Largely true, but if you consider pure numbers, then equipment wise, Ukraine has less than they had on day 1. All heavy equipment from the West is pretty much a direct 1 to 1 replacement. Any SAM systems they gained, they lost through simply running out of soviet missiles. They have received some new capabilities though, especially in mlrs, spgs and SAMs. However, there is simply no more equipment in NATO to give unless the US opens the floodgates to their storages.
2. Yes, Crimea will be undefendable. That does not mean it will not be defended. Mariupol was undefendable, yet the ZSU didn't just gice it up. Sieging Crimea is likely to take years, though it doesn't have to. It's unpredictable.
Thanks for the report Tom, I found the first part interesting and encouraging but it looks to me there will be no big break thru and racing for the coast, and I'm afraid you pretty much right about the F16s.
Yeah, everybody seems to be waiting for a big breakthrough like last year. Not going to happen. Russia learned from its mistake last year and is doing everything to prevent it from happening again.
Meanwhile all these “western military experts” are complaining about Ukraine’s rate of advance while not supplying adequate equipment. It seems they want Ukraine to hurry up and lose so that they can continue with their careers, retire, and then rake in the bucks working for defense contractors. Ukraine continuing to fight somehow interferes with their plans.
F16 maybe old,US probably unwilling to provide best weapons for them etc etc. But one major reason for this delivery exist. Current fleet will worn out sooner then later and even existing capabilities will no longer be there
Yup. That with the wear of the current fleet is my major worry, too.
I just do not find that 40-years-old F-16s are a solution: solution would be something newer - and if it's 20-30-years-old F-16Cs. Just the old junk is no solution.
After delivery of these 40-years-old F-16s the World will see .... nothing important has changed. So, the Western politics would be talking, debating etc. and next year they deliver ... oh wait you expected F-16C? No no, that would be too bold. 40 years old Mirage 2000C.
R-37Ms are nearly useless against the NATO new gen jets (F-35s, B-2s) and not very effective even against those older jets, yet equipped with EW pods and trained to use it. It's theoretically possible to equip and train Ukrainian Air Force in the same way, yet it's... well, expensive. Very expensive. Over $50B, I'd say. Up to date, US have spent less money for all the AFU supplies summarily, of wich the majority was eaten, needless to say, by the Groud Force.
I’d prefer Grippens to untested F 35s
Thank you Tom, sobering but very helpful!
Спасибо за работу, Том.
Probably a dumb question but would Ukraine put Western artillery on Hill166.
If so would the rail line east of Tokmak be in range and would they have enough down hill visibility to target trains?
Probably just spotters on the hill, I would think.
I guess the main reason they are trying to get F16s is that they are running out of their Soviet aircrafts. Something better than nothing, even if only for chasing Shaheds
Judging from here in Greece, the first Rafale landed in a Greek airport after 3+ months of training in France in 19 January of 2022. It's now September 2023, and the last of the 18 Rafales has been delivered, and the squadron isn't yet declared operational (probably in October).
And that's with the Greek air force being familiar with French Dassault aircraft for nearly half a century (Mirage F-1CG, Mirage 2000, and now Rafale)
So, I wouldn't expect Ukraine to have an operational squadron of F-16 before next summer
if I am not mistaken, officially UA has approximately five Su-24 in operation, hard to maintain and quite old, and Russia is continually hunting these. So, Ukraine needs an alternative air weapons platform, urgently.
I thought they had 120 Su-24 total aircraft of which 36 were either salvageable or in service(2 known squadrons for a total of ~23). Oryx says they've lost 16(which could mean more lost since this is just what OSINT could find). So yeah 5 left would be a very good figure of whats left. But possible they still have a squadron left?? Because what happened to the others?
If I remember correctly, Ukraine has lost 70+ Su-24 from their fleet (but don't quote me on that)
oh hell no, 70 is too much. Oryx recorded only 16 Su-24 lost. They had 2-3 squadrons in service about 36. The rest(~90) were being used for parts.
I don't remember where I saw that number, so -as I said- don't quote me on this (probably it's the total losses of Ukrainian Air Force?)
If I am not mistaken, the Belgium and Netherlands F-16 went through an MLU (mid-life upgrade) program, which has substantially upgraded their electronics and radar, almost to Block 50 level.
As for the airframes, it's a matter of maintenance if these can keep up operating.
Perhaps I should have added something in following sense:
The idea of delivering fighter jets to Ukraine, per se, is not wrong. Thus, delivering F-16s to Ukraine is not wrong: it's a good idea.
But, delivering 40-years-old F-16s to Ukraine - and then such like Belgian F-16s that have been grounded for technical problems.... that is a wrong idea.
But alas the USA having a good lot of weapons piled in deserts or elsewhere wants "to exhaust Russia" and "not to provoke Putler" at the same time. So Ukraine must take anything from such "great military powers" as Belgium, Denmark or Greece. If all that weapons were produced by NATO countries to fight Russia why not to give them to fight Russia? The recent cowardice of Romania gives us the answer.
Someone mentioned something I found so profound. That Ukraine is fighting the war against Russia that NATO had trained and built their cold war army for but without the same amount of NATO equipment. We basically have so much equipment lying in the West which was meant to fight this war and we're not providing it. I see so many armoured military vehicle depots(MRAPS and larger logistics vehicles) here in New York I wonder which mechanized army is crossing the pond to invade us.
The Canadians will hunt you down, coming from the north 😉
I think the US and other heel draggers' strategy is not murky, or weak, or cowardly. On the contrary, i fear it is altogether solid. Its just not something they can admit to publicly- that is "we aren't helping you to win, we are helping you to wear down Russia". So the question is, what must we who want a just outcome for Ukraine do?
The leaders of the collective West and NATO are no way "just" or "noble" or simply far-sighted enough to handle the situation. At the same time they consider themselves to be up to the mark. Being not directly involved so far and knowing that for France, Germany and USA there is altogether no risk of the direct involvement in the war they may make the most improbable schemes in security. Certainly to make Russia weak and submissive is of more interest then saving Ukrainians' lives or liberating territories quickly.
I can't understand why are you calling Romania a coward. First we have to remember that a rocket fall killed two in Poland and nothing happened. Most probably these incidents are caused by debris or changed trajectories due to the Ukrainian air defence. The Romanians from the neighboring region feel the war more than some Ukrainians now, hearing sirens and alarms on the other side of the Danube all day. Romania is very active in securing the transport corridor for Ukrainian goods, and in other directions that the government doesn't want to say. This policy of our government of not saying anything is understood by very little people (although the important people for sure understand and no one is complaining). We need internal stability and security. Romania doesn't have a big and well equipped army and now we buy (yes, buy) F16s. For our defence we rely on NATO and we must do what NATO says. Last but not least, Romania is not in the position of Austria or Belgium, it is on the edge of the war. And it is bordered by not-so-friendly neighbours to the West.
I don't think Ukraine wants that. And I understand the people, they are under continuous pressure and see the love-ones dying. And yes, they are brave. Unfortunately, the war continues and this kind of incidents could happen again. It does not mean that NATO is attacked indeed, to call Article 5. But Romania should protest vehemently to these attacks on the Danube. And should summon the Russisn Ambassador or something. This is true. Probably we will do it.
D'you really mean that Serbia will invade Romania and NATO will ignore the Article 5?
I meant that if Russia attacks us we would receive help only via Bulgaria or Ukraine.
O my....
Romania is a NATO member (Article 5!) with at least 6 combat-ready brigades itself.
Where do you think Russia get a landing force to invade against 6 ready brigades, having NATO fleets on their only approach and supply route?
You're not defending your officials really, but just intensifying an impression of a comprehensive cowardice.
What is the use of NATO if its members "are not so friendly" to each other? It reminds me of the Russian proverb: "Having such friends you do not need to have enemies". Russia understands only when it is beaten. As to Poland its anti-Ukrainian propaganda of the events dating 80 years or more and the losses of income caused by dying transit to Russia bothers much more than Russian missiles.
Serbia is not in NATO and Hungary is...Hungary. Why do you think they forbid military help passing through their territory and they oppose to any EU decision regarding Ukraine? It's history again. Sometimes i think they want Putin to win this war. Poland looks pretty much pro-Ukrainian. But our neighbour is Ukraine to the North.
In 1990, Transnistria was the first frozen conflict, because nobody was thinking back then that Ukraine will become West-oriented some day, but Russia was afraid of the unification of Moldova with Romania. In 1991 the Moldovan parliament voted for independence, but the other option was unification. Even now, half of the Moldovan population wants unification. Putin accuses Romania of wanting to attack Moldova (while he considers it part of the Russian empire). Moldova is not in NATO and practically has no army, so it's the most vulnerable for spilling the conflict (as assessed by CIA), and they count on Romania for help. It's a quite delicate topic in fact. In any case, this is one reason more for you to understand that Romania is willing to help Ukraine winning the war, even if you won't see the officials bragging about it.
That was an Ukrainian anti air missile. Not really comparable.
Of course not, guys. Thanks a lot for your appreciation. At least now it is clear what you think. Not that I expected more...
I suspect that the "technical problems" mentioned are just lack of maintenance
Any thoughts on the Gripen buzz though? Some entertain the idea that Sweden is waiting to officially join Nato to give the green light, but seems hard to believe Ukraine could receive any meaningful numbers in the short or mid term. Would even 10 of them make a difference?
AFAIK there are not many of Gripens available.
Some of us think some of the ones Sweden use for their own air defense today can easily become available once Sweden finally officially get to join NATO.
As we say - "Your words - and in God's ears".
Many think of course they should be made available and I’ve seen Grippen as vital since day 1. It’s the obvious answer, and so easy to keep current with its electronic suite.
There are very few of them available. According to open sources - there are 24 in storage waiting for utilisation, and <200 in service globally.
Unfortunately it is not a viable option, as Ukraine cannot afford to learn and operate more then one model of aircraft while fighting a major war.
I remember hearing the spokesperson of the Ukrainian Airforce say ideally they'd like 1 western multirole jet but max 2 because of logistics and training related issues. So I think this was leaving the door for Sweden or France to provide the second fighter. A squadron or 2 of Gripens wouldn't be bad at all. If Sweden can give up 2 squadrons(24) I dont think that would put a dent on their defence(They have about 70 in service and about 24 in storage). But listening to former airforce marshalls it could help Ukraine with what they call CAP missions. Other experts such as Jason Bronk even suggest the Gripen is actually built specifically to counter Russian airforce since it also employs meteor missiles(which is the longest range publicly known AA missile in NATO) on top of being able to operate efficiently from road runways. So Gripens with Meteor missiles could cause some serious trouble for Russian jets operating on the frontlines. 24 should do the trick.
The Gripen with Meteor completely outclasses the Su-34 on paper, where by "paper" I mean, in simulations in "Command: Modern Operations."
Are all F-16 that have been pledged of the same type? I recall reading that another A2A missile was to be provided with a range around 150km, but I don’t remember the 5 or 6 letter abbreviation.
Yes. The same that's valid for Belgian F-16s, is valid for Danish and Dutch F-16s. They're all 30-40-years-old.
The greedy one pays twice.
In the real life those who did not stop Hitler paid dearly.
😐😐
Thanks for your analysis Tom. Thinking about air war, there are no current planes more capable than the F-16 for Ukraine? Thinking in a low penetration one, like Tornados or F-111. Or Mirage 2000s. If the USA don't wan't yo compromise an F-15E.
Today evidence came up about a Challenger tank destroyed. US Army have lots of stocks of Abrams in the desert. What about M-106s?
Isn't the key the attrition of the Russians? If the Ukrainians are inflicting enough casualties, then the Russians don't have troops to defend all the hedge rows, right?
That's the hope.
Unless supply of weapons is slower then ruzzian ability to get meat to the grinder.
Oh God... The Russians have over 40 mln of military trained personnel. It's more then entire Ukrainian population. Yes, the quality of this military training is bad, comparing to NATO profy, yet Ukrainian reservists have the same training, NATO provide for Ukrainian troops even shorter (and yet outdated) training only, and no one is ready to send their troops in Ukraine. So, please, try to think before asking new questions.
There is an honest prospect for attrition, yet it's about combat vehicles and heavy weapons, not troops.
"Oh God... The Russians have over 40 mln of military trained personnel"
The complete mobilization potential is about 31 mln. Trained personal is much more less.
The last mobilization showed that Russia can mobilize and train about 100K-120K each month. Which means that yearly maximum is about 1.5 mln. So it would be needed about 20 years to mobilize and train 30 mln.
But the bottle neck is not the personal but equipment. Russia already started to use 60 years old tanks.
Add then the occupied territories (Donbass, Ukrainian S-E), Osetia and Abkhasia - and you'll got 40 mln. Well, maybe now military trained group is less intersecting with combat ready group, comparing to the data I have in memory, yet even 31 mln is more then entire avialable Ukrainian population.
So, yep, as I've mentioned too, attrition prospects are about eqipment. Tanks and other armoured vehicles, combat aircraft, artillery. Losses and wearout. Sectoral sanctions to disrupt the industry (though I have little hope it can be effective).
Attrition isn't about killing 40 million people. It's about the people having the will to fight and die in an idiotic war. This isn't WWII where the Russians are fighting to exist. It's more like Afghanistan or the Winter War.
The people in question have no will to fight and die for anything at all - that's the exact reason why they are still fighting when being mobilized. They have to fight against Ukrainians or against their own police, Rosgwardia and so on; no option not to fight, and they are opting the easier way, not the honest one. The absolute majority of them are the same as those who already died in this fight, so the fight will continue without personnel attrition.
If the Russians are nothing but robots, and with so many more people, why fight at all then? The only reason to fight with any hope of victory is that the Russians will eventually give up. Sure, the Russians are fatalistic, but are they really THAT fatalistic that they would endlessly accept mass death for nothing. If that's the only possibility, why did so many flee the country? Why are their people fire bombing recruiting stations? Ukranians should be emphasizing Russian casualties and playing divide and conquer with the states of the Russian Federation who have to die for Petersburg and Moscow elites.
Intersting analysis. They have no choice but to fight. I guess yo are right, because the flight option is probably gone now. And you would need to run before they come to take you. If you havent done it, as you say it is either fightnig the Police or joining the military. Of course it is easier to Join the military. Realistisk but depressing.
Attrition is not about men only, but also about the "stuff", like artillery, ATMGS, APCs, IFVs, ... That's why ZSU need better support from the West to make fast attrition of the Russian "stuff" while having enough own "stuff". When Russia would be able to refill it's "stuff" from own sources or other sources (Iran, North Korea, ...), then it would lead to stalemate (because they have enough men) - and that's what Putin hopes now.
Thanks Tom, it was a great idea to do a bit of a Q&A instead of a typical report.
1. The West not providing enough... We can all agree to that, so no point in discussing it further. However, what is happening with the top command of the ZSU, meaning Zaluzhny and the Corps/Operational Commands. They knew what they had, they knew what was in front of them, they had all the information. Yet, they still decided to launch the offensive in the South. It is really difficult to see any overarching strategy in how they are prosecuting this war anymore. What are they actually trying to achieve and how? (specifics please, not "liberate territory" or "defeat Russia").
2. My impression is that there is pretty much a consensus among former/active military officers, that the F16s are basically a direct replacement for the current PSU fleet which is simply running out of aircraft. I don't think anyone is arguing, that there will be some sort of a major change in the way they conduct the air war.
I don't think this should be taken as saying the offensive was a mistake.
Sure, whether it's a mistake or not will be a topic of debate for years, if not decades to come. It is not an assessment that can be made today. However, it is still mightily interesting as to how they arrived at these plans and decisions. I don't understand what they are hoping to achieve by fighting a war at marching pace.
If the objective is to kill Russians, then that seems the best thing they can do. Going completely passive will be fatal. If you give Russia unlimited time to build up, Ukraine can't win. It's attack and go for the win, or default lose.
Things are probably as bad as they are because they gave up the offensive after the Russian draft last year.
While I get this argument, I find it unconvincing. If killing Russians is their goal, than that is a poor way of doing it. Ukraine have no means of affecting any Russian build up. What is limiting Russia, are the economic sanctions and their own useless economy. Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition, all it can do is to hope the Western economic isolation of Russia collapses its economy and state.
I don't know how you can say they haven't been inflicting massive casualties. The Russians have sent many hundreds of thousands into this war. Give Russia time without killing them as they come in, and eventually they will have overwhelming forces. They can win a war of attrition of the ratio of casualties is right, and so far, I would estimate the Russian casualties must be vastly beyond any official numbers. Just consider how many troops the Russians have had in this war, and yet they can't cover the southern front. That implies mind boggling casualties.
The best defense is offense.
This is the concept of strategic initiative.
True, though it's only best defence if you succeed and strategic initiative only matters if you know what to do with it. Would you make the same assessment of the VSRF farcical winter offensive? The two are offensives are starting to look more and more similar with each passing month.
No way, VSRF bled profusely throughout the winter campaign. Its not comparable with AFU losses now
I honestly don't know. I don't count Wagner zeks. That may not be fair as they were still bodies, but this is how I am treating them now.
Cherry picking, not convincing.
You mean the with regards to the zeks? Yes, you are right. It is cherry picking and maybe it is not fair. However, whether we like it or not, prisoners are a different pool of manpower from the general population and so it is equally unfair to treat them alike. I can be swayed though.
No. It is the best defense in 99% of cases. Full stop.
Because the option to sit and wait where the enemy will strike is the recipe for certain defeat.
Ok, how did that work for the VSRF?
VSRF managed to deny Ukraine ability to choose the place of battles - taking Soledar when it was defended by a piecemeal collection of units (check Tom's articles at the time), then attacking Bakhmut - so they came very close to breaking through.
They bled - and they won time and territory.
Why would you think experienced brigades, like 93rd or 53rd are still fighting using soviet time equipment, while new un-bloodied brigades got all the best equipment?
Because ruzzia denied Ukraine ability to rotate out, rearm, and use those units for the offensive.
Ruzzia forced those brigades back to the front line.
The result is that new unexperienced units were attacking and receiving significant casualties and degradation of capabilities.
There is a common misconception that one can build a strong defense and let enemy bleed on it.
It never worked, unless you are protected by a large defensive barrier - like English Channel, major river, or high mountains. And even that were breached.
Overall, i can accept this argument. However, as always there are caveats. Bakhmut is the most misunderstood battle of this war. Whoever you ask, will have a different opinion on why it was really fought and in the way it was. It will be interesting to see books released in the years after the war (maybe Tom will write them?) That will show, based on contemporary documents, what was really happening there.
If the main objective for the offensive was to pin the VSRF in place and disrupt their build up, then I fail to understand why it was launched in the one sector of the front where it was simultenously the most obvious and the most heavily fortified.
The main goal of the current operation is to cut the railway road going from Volnovakha to Melitopol. With this railway road cut, the logistics of Russian forces in the south would collapse
Yes, to cut the corridor the ZSU "only" needs to advance about 40km. Then everything will be within the range of the tube artillery. They are far far away from achieving that unfortunately.
For those who successfully attacked Pskov at a distance of 700 km 40 km is a trifle.
For centuries the military doctrine of the West was to seek battle, and that of the East - to elude and to deceive.
? Haha, you lost me there Elena 🤔
Napoleon's campaign in Russia for instance.
They fought battles with Napoleon as well as Charles XII of Sweden. So not only avoid.
First: you can not avoid all the time, you have to fight at last, but the situation may change favorably; second: Sun Tse said that the art of war is at its best when you win the war without the battle. Remember Russian campaign after Moscow was burned.
Morale my man , if you are attacking then you have a hope of winning, population and military have justification for efforts and sacrifices, if you are being hammered and pushed back all the time population and most certainly the military will break at some point , reality will re-assert itself as the cumulative effect of the costant hammering would break the most committed troops when they realize nothing they do works and something is clearly very wrong.
The VSRF wasted its reserves and mechanized forces trying to maintain their cult of offensive and failed miserably and nnow everybody there knows there is no going forward and can barely ( with all of thier might )slow the Ukrainian advance as is.
Their only hope is to make the ZSU advance too costly and force them to give up , meanwhile the ZSU has fresh forces to season.and thoughen up and have neither the mechanized forces nor the fire power (and certainly the logistics to feul both) to collapse the front in go and simultaneously coordinate multiple thursts all over the front line.
So the GenstabU launched a multi-staged operation , advancing piecemeal in a serial fashion, preparing staging grounds for future thrust while degrading the Russian forces and defencives expending their reserves (and preventing build up of any major counter offensives).
This operation has just completed its preliminary stage and have not even entered its middle stages which may take momths and might not even see the final stage for a year or two.
People tend to focus on Crimea and big name cities when there much nearer operational targets (I know two for sure) that would cause a catastrophic disruption in the Russian defences and strategem and the defence of the aforementioned Crimea and big cities untenable and the Russian command know that and thats why theu actually have know where to go and have to stand their ground , this about the viability of the entire endeavour in the south not just some attrition strategy.
ZSU does not have a decisive advantage in numbers or fire or logistic let alone the fact without air cover (actually its an astonishing achievement they managed to advance anywhere at all with all mentioned disadvantages).
And so they have be extremely efficient and creative with what they got along with the determination to see this thing through and most importantly they need time, time to advance carefully and avoid unnecessary casualties, time to build up and season their forces and time to inflict a cumulative death by thousand cuts all they the whilr preventing their enemy from having the time to do the same, GenstabU does not have the privilege to be stupid or do some monumental mistake at the peril of losing the war immediately, the Russian can and they lose long term.
What an excellent response. I hope the guy you're replying to learnt something because I did. Even for those things I did know you reinforced them even better.
We're back to the magical morale I see. For all intents and purposes, morale is irrelevant. You don't believe me, then go to one of Tom's old reports where he states the same. It only ever matters when the enemy is given a choice of surrendering. Attrition warfare acts exactly against it. In fact, I don't know if you could devise a more counter productive strategy than "I have more blood to bleed than you".
Define efficient. The ZSU has just introduced the X Corps and largely rotated the IX Corps out. More than 20 brigades from the strategic reserve have been thrown in the South so far. Yes, the casualties seem to be lower than for a typical offensive operation. However, to call it "extremely efficient" is a manipulation.
The bottom line is that the ZSU got 12 challenger 2s, 1 was destroyed, 0 replacements will be provided, so now have 11 left. The VSRF can lose 10 tanks and within 6 months, they will have 10 tanks back. This is a recipe for failure.
LOL!
VSRF are not losing ten tanks in six months but almost daily, their replacements are 99% ancient Soviet models.
When Ukraine loses a tank it is replaced with a relatively modern Western tank.
Ukraine's Tank Numbers Now Equal Russia's – Analysis, I like to quote sources for credibility
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/07/06/ukraines-tank-numbers-now-equal-russias-analysis-a81759
I did not state they lose 10 tanks in a month. Nor does the ZSU lose 1. Please calm down, take a breath and read with comprehension.
I am fully aware of the state of the Russian army and economy. There are no more vehicles in NATO to provide. They may find a dozen here or a dozen there somewhere, maybe. However, there is no guaranteed transfer that can be factored in, during the logistical planning. Tom stated many times how the deliveries have been insufficient in quantity and delayed in time. At least the VSRF can expect to get a certain number of vehicles regularly, whatever that number is. I am dismayed by the fact that the West clearly isn't planning to create a large scale production of geavy equipment specifically for Ukraine. This is an extremely precarious situation.
Au contraire
Rheinmetall will open an armored vehicle plant in Ukraine within the next 12 weeks
“There is an agreement with Sweden on the production of CV90 in our country. ,” Zelenskyy
The US has over 6,000 Abrams in store
The US has over 6,000 Bradleys in store
Europe has over 2,000 Leopard 2s that are slowly being replaced with more modern tanks.
The NATO Defence Production Action Plan has been approved
Until I see it, I won't factor it into my analysis. The US has many things and it doesn't mean anything. There are no 2000 leo2s that can be handed over. No country will simply disarm for Ukraine. Leo2s will be serving for the next 20 years. I hope everything is provided but the US are only about to send 10 old m1a1s. From 10 to 6000 is a long way.
A significant part of the Ukrainian tanks are captured Russian tanks. The appearance of old tank models on the battlefield was predicted months ago and is now evident.
Well if morale is magical one must wonder why the Russian military collapsed and evacuated northern Ukraine ,Kherson and Eastern Kharkiv ? Why do they wasted so much fire power terrorizing civilians, leveling cities and plowing empty fields ?
The entire Russian game from day one was for the Ukrainians to lose faith in thier ability to resist a seemingly endless military juggernaut that has enough fire power (including Atomic) to reduce their country to ashes and surrender without a fight and the Russian military could reenact the swift subjugation of Crimea on a massive scale that would cause a domino effect that would force the rest of East European countries to rethink their position to a now neighbouring Russia that could just march on their capitals the next day and repeat the exercise.
What magical factor made the Ukrainians go batshit crazy and think hey +one year from now will be running excursions into Russian proper and target Moscow itself repeatedly not to mention even considering the best method to retrieve Crimea itself ?
What magical factor that prevented the mighty Soviet Union from reenacting opetration Danube in Afghanistan and what magical factor made Afghans somehow able to last military occupation of two superpowers ?
So morale is always a decisive factor in winning or losing a war otherwise people should give up and surrender when ever the odds leans heavily against them.
Regarding how efficient the Ukrainians are ? Well they are advancing against a numerically superior dug in enemy willing to fight for every inch who's entire plan is to "bleed them dry" and has the resources to win a battle of attrition yet they are keeping on advancing?
and according to you
"Attrition warfare acts exactly against it. In fact, I don't know if you could devise a more counter productive strategy than "I have more blood to bleed than you".
ZSU is managing to advance against superior defensive enemy who has the means and resources to outlast them in pure attritional battle , what do you call that but superb efficiency and magical will factor?
Yesterday there was no X-corp nor a XI corp nor any Challengers who knows what tommorow brings ? Who could've imagined last year that Ukrainians would be riding challengers while Russians roll in 50s relics like T-62s
It collapsed because it suffered unsustainable losses and so there was no other choice than either lose them all or retain at least their remnants. Morale had little to do with it.
I do not know why Russians love bombing civilians, I do not have the mind of a psychopath and a genocidal murderer. Countless examples from history prove that the last thing that bombing cities does, is discourage them from fighting.
Morale is always a factor but you are overexaggerating it. It is very easy to make people fight for their homes. It is equally easy to simply force people to fight, otherwise no war of aggression would ever start. Even in 2014, Ukraine fought back, incompetently, chaotically, but they fought and did not surrender. I will not understand Russians who thought Ukraine would just fold, after preparing for 8 years for exactly that eventuality.
10 km after 3 months really isn't much of advancing. There seems to be some interesting development between Velyka Novosilka and Vulhedar. Let's hope for the best.
Yep I am sure the Russian took all the casualties in the invasion of the north and the Ukrainian had easy and suffered no casualties at all certainly not more casualties than the VSRF who were fully prepared for the invasion and released literal artillery and missile storms of millions of shells and thousands of missile to the degree they are not able to replicate so far.
It must have been fun in Mariupol , Lyman , Severodonetsk , Kharkiv , Chernihiv and the rest , and I am sure morale was overblown out of proportion, it was simple to convince/coerce someone to pick an AT missile and stand alone against an entire tank column or set under a TOS-1 barrage that must of been pleasant experience because of course people would fight for homes against impossible odds , everyone knew it was a turkey shoot and spend weeks safari camping hunting Tanks that did not shoot back.
And clearly leveling cities and gassing civilians did not work in Syria and Chechnya one must wonder why stupid Russian military thought it might work in Ukraine because it never worked in history before.
Morale is irrelevant and It not like Bakhmut caused the Wagner to march or Moscow or the Kremlin being casualty shy withdraw their forces from Kherson not being stupid to allow their forced soldier to turn kherson into another Mariupol.
It amusing to witness thr VSRF racing the wind with their tail behind their back instead of proving their point and fight to the last , because of course forced and opportunistic soldiers do not shy away from last stands against impossible odds.
This is complete balderdash, so incoherent it's difficult to even consider seriously. Yes, it's easy to make people fight for their homes, it's been done every single day for hundreds of thousands of years. Telling people to stand and fight is literally the entire point of armies. Where are those mythical Russian deserters that surely must exist, given the terrible morale in the VSRF? Organised withdrawal is not a question of morale but a decision by the command.
Yes, bombing civilians far away from the front is the definition of idiotic and counter productive. You are questioning something that is commonly known and proven in every single conflict ever fought, including the one in front of you. Btw, where do you get your information that the Syrian war has ended, as you claim bombing cities worked so well? Nonetheless, there are dumber things to believe in, so if it makes you feel better thinking that morale will win the day, then all power to you.
Test Subject - please, please can you let us all know what you think ZSU should have done with the resources at their disposal? Please understand that I won't be considering any of your posts to have an overwhelming amount of weight until you do!
I don't know. It is not my job to know and I do not have access to the information that would be needed to know. I don't have to be a professional football player to judge how well a team performs.
I would like to see is some sort of a general long-term strategy. Maybe it is being implemented and we are at a messy phase, so things will be clear later. However, today I do not understand how and why decisions are made at the top. I do not understand what they are trying to achieve. Also, I do not understand why so many find it controversial to ask such questions. Do you prefer not to know and hope for the best?
Thankyou for your detailed response. Well, as we all know, their goal is to take back all their territory, and I believe that the strategy is to threaten Russia's hold on Crimea as soon and as powerfully as possible given that ZSU needs to preserve its forces. I think that the current approach (pressure everywhere) is about the best approach possible given the circumstances.
I have no doubt that the Ukrainian government's objective is to liberate territory. However, the primary objective of every military during war, is the destruction of the enemy forces. Once you destroy them, you can take whatever you want.
At the moment, it is not clear to me how the current actions contribute to shortening the war. Russia's pathetic economy produces/refurbishes a few dozens of armoured vehicles a month (give or take). Yet, it is still more than 0, that Ukraine produces. It is still more than 0 that NATO produces for Ukraine. Therefore, at the moment, only one of the sides has the capability to replace at least a fraction of its equipment losses.
I will repeat myself but I have no doubt that eventually, the ZSU will cut the land corridor and isolate Crimea. However, i also have no doubt, that with current strategy, the VSRF will retain most of its combat power during the widthdrawal, as they did in Kherson. Sieging Crimea in this fashion will take years.
Ok thanks for the additional thoughts. If the Kerch bridge were kept at say max 25% capacity, and Ukraine held the neck connecting to the mainland, and maintained a campaign of harassing military targets on the peninsula, wouldn't it be a matter of months before Russia would have to give it up or let Ukraine roll in?
That depends on their determination, which frankly nobody can assess accurately. The red army defended just Sevastopol for 8 months. Leningrad for 3 years? Sieges can take an incredible amount of time. The main problem with sieging Crimea is that you can destroy the Kerch bridge, you can isolate it from the mainland but Ukraine has no capability of setting up a naval blockade. That means that some logistical capacity by sea will always remain.
You make some good points but out of context statements like " it is still more than 0, that Ukraine produces" ruins your credibility. Russia has targeted many Ukraine factories that had produced military vehicles. Consequently several enterprises have moved production out of Ukraine
Malyshev factory's main focus became supplying new and rehabilitated tanks to the Ukrainian Army.
The war introduced serious changes to the capabilities of the military-industrial complex. However, Ukrainian Armor has maintained its ability to produce the Novator armored vehicle.
I have not seen any evidence that Ukraine can produce, either at all or in any meaningful numbers, any of the following:
Tanks, IFVs, SPGs, radars, SAM systems, aircraft, secure comms equipment, EW systems, infantry heavy weapons (at scale), manpads, trucks, light off road vehicles, heavy engineering equipment... and the list goes on.
It would be quicker to list what we know they do produce, mostly certain types of drones, some stugna, some soviet calibre ammunition + maintenance/repair of the soviet era equipment. Sure, I deliberately used 0 as a hyperbole to clearly contrast the capabilities of the two countries, but it really isn't far from the truth. The moment the flow of help from NATO stops, that's the end of the ZSU.
"At the moment, it is not clear to me how the current actions contribute to shortening the war. Russia's pathetic economy produces/refurbishes a few dozens of armoured vehicles a month (give or take). Yet, it is still more than 0, that Ukraine produces. It is still more than 0 that NATO produces for Ukraine. Therefore, at the moment, only one of the sides has the capability to replace at least a fraction of its equipment losses."
Ukraine starts the war with soviet era equipment. After 1.5 years of war Ukraine has the best and most modern SAMs in the world, modern MBTs, modern IFVs, etc. Meanwhile Russia started to restore 60 years old tank that was obsolete even during late soviet era.
Sounds like a paradox to me.
" Sieging Crimea in this fashion will take years."
As soon as, land corridor to Crimea is cut and the Kerch bridge is destroyed, Crimea is a trap for VSRF
1. Largely true, but if you consider pure numbers, then equipment wise, Ukraine has less than they had on day 1. All heavy equipment from the West is pretty much a direct 1 to 1 replacement. Any SAM systems they gained, they lost through simply running out of soviet missiles. They have received some new capabilities though, especially in mlrs, spgs and SAMs. However, there is simply no more equipment in NATO to give unless the US opens the floodgates to their storages.
2. Yes, Crimea will be undefendable. That does not mean it will not be defended. Mariupol was undefendable, yet the ZSU didn't just gice it up. Sieging Crimea is likely to take years, though it doesn't have to. It's unpredictable.
Thanks for the report Tom, I found the first part interesting and encouraging but it looks to me there will be no big break thru and racing for the coast, and I'm afraid you pretty much right about the F16s.
Yeah, everybody seems to be waiting for a big breakthrough like last year. Not going to happen. Russia learned from its mistake last year and is doing everything to prevent it from happening again.
Meanwhile all these “western military experts” are complaining about Ukraine’s rate of advance while not supplying adequate equipment. It seems they want Ukraine to hurry up and lose so that they can continue with their careers, retire, and then rake in the bucks working for defense contractors. Ukraine continuing to fight somehow interferes with their plans.
F16 maybe old,US probably unwilling to provide best weapons for them etc etc. But one major reason for this delivery exist. Current fleet will worn out sooner then later and even existing capabilities will no longer be there
Yup. That with the wear of the current fleet is my major worry, too.
I just do not find that 40-years-old F-16s are a solution: solution would be something newer - and if it's 20-30-years-old F-16Cs. Just the old junk is no solution.
After delivery of these 40-years-old F-16s the World will see .... nothing important has changed. So, the Western politics would be talking, debating etc. and next year they deliver ... oh wait you expected F-16C? No no, that would be too bold. 40 years old Mirage 2000C.
On other hand, is there anything better in sufficient availability on the table?
How many Grippens can be delivered in the spring of 2024.
Thank you. Sobering indeed. As for replacement of planes - it might be not replacement - but addition. Ukraine has very few Su24 left.
BTW - we have not seen long range air strikes for quite some time. Would have any information why?