History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Apparently Russia is lowering the age of conscription for the equivalent of their National Guard in already occupied areas

On the surface it doesn't sound like much, but I wonder if they are having to do that because they are funneling people to Ukraine.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I agree with you. When I say everyone negotiates in bad faith, I mean that countries don't actually stick to their agreements and everyone negotiating it knows this. They might stick to them for a while or they might not. There is little means for enforcement of geopolitical agreements and treaties, so everyone knows that as soon as this agreement isn't tenable its out the window.

There is still obvious value in it. Especially as a means to avoid war, but I can't stand the narrative that only our enemies "negotiate in bad faith.' We all do it and it's just a calculated part of the process.

As you said, we have to structure an agreement favorable for both parties for the foreseeable future to have a relatively long lasting agreement.

You even see it in our laws, how many laws do we have on the books that aren't enforced? And our allies, how many NATO members stay above the military spending threshold. All agreements are "of the time" and soon to pass.

Explosions at the airport in HJvardiis'ke, occupied Crimea and in Belgorod, Russia.

Ukraine claims they will soon have attack drones capable of 3,000 kilometers of flight distance. Considering the earlier attack on that radar plane in Belarus and the rash of mysterious explosions in Russia, I wouldn't doubt it if they have had them for some time now and feel it's better for morale to "admit" to it now.

AP News interviewed Zelenskyy recently. He believes Putin won't use nukes, and that the real reason to move nukes into Belarus was to cover for the fact Xi still refuses to publically back Russia's invasion.

Ukraine plans to launch a counter-offensive in April-May. Likely timed for when more Western tech comes online.

Opti said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

Politically speaking China is in a good position with this war, and the US is in a terrible one.

What? The war has kickstarted the US/EU out of a state of complacency, hastened the transition from a GWOT focus to a peer conflict focus, and has given the US a massive shot of credibility should it warn in the future that a Taiwan invasion is imminent (and reduced the EU's own tendency to assume war can be averted through just diplomacying hard enough). While the US was already pivoting to the Pacific and other Pacific countries were increasingly concerned about the Chinese threat, it seems likely that the war has expedited planning and cooperation. Notably we've seen the US/Philippines basing announcement and an announcement from Japan that they're expanding their basing in their southern islands. Not clear that either of those would have happened yet absent the Russian invasion as a clarifying action.

Anyway: meme

Almost forgot:

The 4 Nordic countries have decided to organize their roughly 250 fighter jets into one combined fleet.

Twitter thread showing that the capture and torture of anti-Russian peoples from Ukraine and "Possible leaders" was planned.

Russia uses "Spectrum" for intelligence like this.

Yeah, things have been randomly blowing up in Russia and Crimea for a while.  So, in whatever way, the Russians are getting at least a bit of payback (but nothing that targets civilians, mostly pipelines and ammo dumps etc).  The Ukrainians are clearly stepping up their drone game.  Not sure where these drones are from, but they are getting pretty adventurous (note proximity to Moscow):

It will be interesting to see what the Ukrainians (with a good amount of US help I imagine) come up with.  Because of the maintenance / logistics nightmare their new army is (LOTS of different types of vehicles) I would hope it can be done quickly.

Just on opinion of course: 

Ukraine has very good chances for a successful counteroffensive - Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin

In his opinion, Ukraine could see the exhaustion of the Russian army to launch a successful counter-offensive this spring.

During a hearing before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, he added that currently Ukraine already has a significant advantage over the Russian army.

“Therefore, we will see an increase in hostilities in the spring as conditions for maneuver improve, and also based on what we have already done and continue to do. I think that Ukraine will have a very good chance of success,” the head of the Pentagon summed up.

aircooled said:

It will be interesting to see what the Ukrainians (with a good amount of US help I imagine) come up with.  Because of the maintenance / logistics nightmare their new army is (LOTS of different types of vehicles) I would hope it can be done quickly.

Just on opinion of course: 

Ukraine has very good chances for a successful counteroffensive - Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin

In his opinion, Ukraine could see the exhaustion of the Russian army to launch a successful counter-offensive this spring.

During a hearing before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, he added that currently Ukraine already has a significant advantage over the Russian army.

“Therefore, we will see an increase in hostilities in the spring as conditions for maneuver improve, and also based on what we have already done and continue to do. I think that Ukraine will have a very good chance of success,” the head of the Pentagon summed up.

"based on what we have already done and continue to do."  sounds like an unfortunate use of pronouns by the head of the Pentagon.

So I'm having trouble visualizing how much of a game-changer the Leopards and any other donated tanks that Ukraine can scare up are going to be. What are the numbers? Low, yes? It seems to me that no matter how superior the Leopards may be, they can still be taken out by a sh-t-load of conventional artillery - which Russia still has. Also mines, RPGs, et cetera. One doesn't have to destroy a tank to make it useless. A blown-off tread will do that. 

Given time to prepare, and doing the job correctly, defense can be a force multiplier. Will Ukraine have what it takes to successfully make the switch? I dunno.  How are their logistics and co-ordination? Can they avoid some of the same traps that the other guys fell into?

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

The artillery will actually have to hit something (or get really close) to be effective.  The Ukrainians have shown a better understanding of combined arms throughout the war, and having way better equipment than what they currently have should really help.  The western tanks are way better at firing on the move than the Soviet-era stuff the Russian army is equipped with, and have far superior optics in general, to the point where they should be able to get off multiple accurate shots before they are even seen by Russian armor.  Russian ATGMs could be an issue, though. 

My uneducated guess, whenever the offensive starts, they'll hit multiple parts of the front, at night, when their better optics multiply their advantage even more.  I am concerned that with the shear number the Russians seem to be calling up, though, they will need to cause a rout quickly.  I also wouldn't be surprised if they bypass some occupied areas, and just surround and wait out the under-equipped and demoralized troops.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

I'll ask people who run tanks so I can give you first-hand account, but essentially (in no particular order):

1. Built to a far higher standard. Modern tanks with modern engines are far faster, Old Soviet/USSR stock all largely still use the same engines that were never updated from the 1950s.
2. Physical improvements in armor. Modern stuff lacks shell traps.
3. Improvements in reactive armor. ERA at the end of the day, is an attached supplement.
4. C3 capacity. Ukrainians will be able to see through drone cameras or other video feeds from the tank, allowing for positional data of the battlefield.
5. Improved optics and thus, night fighting. The old infared systems from the USSR- the "red eye" looking things- Are easy spotted nowadays since they're an 80s technology; Ukraine has basically owned the night for some time, and now that'll just increase.
6. Modern stealth.
7. Increased accuracy of modern tank weapons have increased ranges and capabilities compared to older guns against T-80/62/ect. Modern smoothbore stuff is very accurate.
8. Increased safety and crew surrvival. Abrams and most NATO tanks have CASE which Russia doesn't, along with fire extinguishers.

I'll find more, there's quite a list.

Another thought - in the places Russia has a second line to shoot at anyone retreating, I wonder if the Ukrainian counteroffensive could focus more on that than the front, or are the two lines too close together?  If they could cut off the front line cannon fodder, I suspect they'd be pretty fast to surrender when they are less likely to get a bullet in the back.

Yes, that is the sort of creative thinking I am thinking is possible.

As noted the Leopards are not going to be nearly as vulnerable to artillery as the Russian tanks have been.  Both because there is almost no reason to stop moving and the Russian artillery is far less accurate.  I also suspect the modern tanks will stay a bit back in general an snipe from a distance where possible, if nothing else, to stay as clear as possible from anti tank rockets, which the Russians should have plenty of.  Also possible they use the older tanks as spotters or point men to draw fire and have the modern tanks take out targets as they reveal themselves.

I generally expect, if it is possible, an at least partially combined arms attack (air power, tanks, APC, infantry, artillery, drones etc) attack, sort of similar to a blitzkrieg attack.  I would also expect some sort of misdirection (as much as is possible when you have a huge assembled force) and creative attacks, such as noted above.

I am also curious how much "media" they will use to their advantage.  The Ukrainians seem to be rather good in this area and I wonder if there is potential here.  Paranoia might be a powerful tool here.

The one question, and this may be where the "surprise" comes in, is how much air power, and how effective of air power can the Ukrainians field.  In a US attack, they would certainly use airpower to take out air defense then artillery positions ect., but the US military is far better positioned (stealth, stand off weapons etc) to avoid and take out Russian air defenses.  Perhaps the US can share some "secret" as to how to disable or greatly hinder the Russian air defenses (perhaps some help from those creating all those explosions behind the lines?), and least temporarily....

In reply to aircooled :

I would guess that air power, beyond drones, won't play a huge role.  Maybe in a few spots to either soften up a target for an assault, or to quickly deliver troops to a position.  The Russian air defense is probably some of their least degraded force (excepting the expired S300 missiles they've been using as long range artillery) right now, is able to sit back from the front, and some of it is based on Russian soil, so HIMARSing it, or firing HARMs at it is probably a no go.  Of course, the Ukrainian air defense isn't exactly a slouch, either. 

Looks like the Russians wants another one of their people out of prison:

--------

Wall Street Journal reporter arrested in Russia on spying charges

https://news.yahoo.com/wall-street-journal-reporter-arrested-131421544.html

-----------

In a completely unrelated story, that author just wrote a story of how bad the Russian economy is doing.  What a strange coincidence!!!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-economy-is-starting-to-come-undone-431a2878

BTW SUPER surprised any American is traveling around in Russia.

(text is behind paywall, but  here is the start)

The opening months of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year drove an increase in oil and natural-gas prices that brought a windfall for Moscow. Those days are over.

As the war continues into its second year and Western sanctions bite harder, Russia’s government revenue is being squeezed and its economy has shifted to a lower-growth trajectory, likely for the long term.....

GIRTHQUAKE said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

I'll ask people who run tanks so I can give you first-hand account, but essentially (in no particular order):

1. Built to a far higher standard. Modern tanks with modern engines are far faster, Old Soviet/USSR stock all largely still use the same engines that were never updated from the 1950s.
2. Physical improvements in armor. Modern stuff lacks shell traps.
3. Improvements in reactive armor. ERA at the end of the day, is an attached supplement.
4. C3 capacity. Ukrainians will be able to see through drone cameras or other video feeds from the tank, allowing for positional data of the battlefield.
5. Improved optics and thus, night fighting. The old infared systems from the USSR- the "red eye" looking things- Are easy spotted nowadays since they're an 80s technology; Ukraine has basically owned the night for some time, and now that'll just increase.
6. Modern stealth.
7. Increased accuracy of modern tank weapons have increased ranges and capabilities compared to older guns against T-80/62/ect. Modern smoothbore stuff is very accurate.
8. Increased safety and crew surrvival. Abrams and most NATO tanks have CASE which Russia doesn't, along with fire extinguishers.

I'll find more, there's quite a list.

Real question, because I support sending tanks, but what advantage does a tank have for Ukraine over a Howitzer?

In reply to tuna55 :

Simply put - mobility.  With a tank it is much faster to shoot and move.  And with many modern tanks, shoot while moving - something a howitzer can't do. 

Howitzer are of course FAR more vulnerable to any sort of attack and counter attack (counter fire).  One of the reasons for Self Propelled Howitzer (basically a lightly armored tank with a howitzer gun) is to provide the ability to get out of the way when counter fire comes back and of course redeploy quickly.

Tanks are also FAR more useful / effective for closer range attack and defense.  In a more static battle (kind of like now) a howitzer will generally be more useful, in a dynamic battle (things moving around etc) a tank will be more useful.

Non self propelled howitzers are of course cheap to make.  WAY cheaper than a tank.

Howitzers are primarily indirect fire weapons; they fire over a high, arcing trajectory to strike targets beyond visual range, usually miles away. Their projectiles are primarily high explosive, useful against soft targets, though precision-guided versions can be used to attack hard targets as well, benefiting from the high impact angle against (usually) lighter armor.

Tanks are direct fire weapons; they fire their main guns on low, nearly linear trajectories at visually-acquired targets. Their projectiles are designed to penetrate armor; while they usually carry some form of high explosive/fragmentation shells for use against soft targets, these are less effective in part due to the high velocity of the gun, and in part due to the angle of impact.

SP howitzers are designed to keep up with an armored spearhead in order to provide continuous support, but they are very lightly armored and would not survive in direct contact. Tanks are the pointy end of the spear, and are intended to move to contact, eliminate visual targets, and continue the advance under threat of direct fire.

You want scary, think about the cannister round they carry.  Essentially a shotgun shell, almost 5 inches in diameter!

As 02 noted though, if an infantryman drops into a trench or hole, it will have almost no effect.

I like how the wading cup travels faster than the shot. Too bad they didn't paint the shot fluorescent orange.

OK, here is an interesting question.  Why would he say this? (essentially saying when the attack is)  Trying to appease western powers "things are happening".  Intimidate the Russians?  Mislead the Russians (looking for the reaction)?

Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov stated on March 27 that Ukrainian forces may be planning to launch a counteroffensive in April or May depending on weather conditions. In an interview with Estonian news outlet ERR, Reznikov stated that the Ukrainian General Staff might decide to use recently received Leopard 2 tanks in a possible spring counterattack.[19] Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 tanks arrived in Ukraine on March 27, and US officials announced the acceleration of the deployment of Abrams tanks and Patriot missile systems to Ukraine on March 21.[20] The arrival of equipment in Ukraine likely sets conditions for a Ukrainian counteroffensive, although a delay is likely between the arrival of new equipment and Ukraine’s ability to use it in a counteroffensive.

In reply to aircooled :

The nicest assumption would be counterintelligence.

I think you might be right though, essentially Russia knows its coming already so no point in complete secrecy but maybe we can rally the troops and the west behind something.

The worst assumption is hes a dumbass

This will not improve Putlers mood:

Turkey ratifies Finland’s NATO membership

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/03/turkey-ratifies-finlands-nato-membership

(one wonders what they had to guarantee Turkey for this)