Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2
Discussion
London424 said:
... As keeps getting pointed out Russia can’t keep losing the numbers they are much longer before they’re going to start getting pushed back again.
..
Of course they can. They just need to change the scope of their missions and their tactics to be more defensive than offensive...
stitched said:
Just installed telegram.
Most of the 'threads' I'd like to read are in cyrillic, is there a way to translate them in telegraph
Yes: Settings->Languages->Show Translate ButtonMost of the 'threads' I'd like to read are in cyrillic, is there a way to translate them in telegraph
Once that's enabled every message menu has a translate button.
A bit clunky but reasonably effective.
EddieSteadyGo said:
London424 said:
... As keeps getting pointed out Russia can’t keep losing the numbers they are much longer before they’re going to start getting pushed back again.
..
Of course they can. They just need to change the scope of their missions and their tactics to be more defensive than offensive...
As per the U.K. military update Russia have lost a third of their entire ground invasion force. In what 10 weeks?!
Polly Grigora said:
Does anyone know how many troops Russia has, it's not the sort of information that countries go public about
You could write an essay about that but an oversimplified summary:190k available to the theatre. Less losses, plus volunteers.
1 million if they mobilize.
They have very good reasons not to mobilize.
They could change the law to allow partial mobilization.
London424 said:
And Ukraine will just keep hitting their supply lines. They’ll bombard them with longer range artillery and loitering drones at night. Their special forces will keep hitting them. All the while they keep getting better and better kit while Russia are digging out even worse crap than they started with.
As per the U.K. military update Russia have lost a third of their entire ground invasion force. In what 10 weeks?!
The problem with that argument, much as I would like it be true, is if you look at the most of the occupied territory, the supply lines are relevantly short as they are fairly close to Russia/Crimea. So I don't think you will see the same kind of situation as happened when they were going for Kyiv.As per the U.K. military update Russia have lost a third of their entire ground invasion force. In what 10 weeks?!
And the Russians suffered their biggest losses in the first stages of the war when they were advancing. Defending is likely to consume fewer resources than attacking. And I don't think it is beyond possibility that the MOD figures are slightly exaggerated. Plus a proportion of those depleted resources will be injured and so in theory could still be active again after a period of recovery. And Russia still have the option to upgrade from a "Special Military Operation" to a war, which enables a large increase in resources. All this means that I don't think you can usefully extrapolate the MOD figures to get an insight into the Russia capability in 10 weeks time.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Polly Grigora said:
Does anyone know how many troops Russia has, it's not the sort of information that countries go public about
You could write an essay about that but an oversimplified summary:190k available to the theatre. Less losses, plus volunteers.
1 million if they mobilize.
They have very good reasons not to mobilize.
They could change the law to allow partial mobilization.
captain_cynic said:
When Russia was thought to be strong, they wouldn't dare think of joining NATO. Now Russia has been shown to be weak, they can't join fast enough.
I think it's more the case that in the past Finland was aware that joining NATO would upset a delicate balance, one that has been largely kept intact since 1945, and that if that balance was maintained Russia was unlikely to act against them, and more so since the fall of the USSR. Now that the Russians have gone full bat-s
t Tontomental, that balance has evaporated and the Finns have acted accordingly.Driller said:
The guy on the radio is as cool as a cucumber!EddieSteadyGo said:
London424 said:
And Ukraine will just keep hitting their supply lines. They’ll bombard them with longer range artillery and loitering drones at night. Their special forces will keep hitting them. All the while they keep getting better and better kit while Russia are digging out even worse crap than they started with.
As per the U.K. military update Russia have lost a third of their entire ground invasion force. In what 10 weeks?!
The problem with that argument, much as I would like it be true, is if you look at the most of the occupied territory, the supply lines are relevantly short as they are fairly close to Russia/Crimea. So I don't think you will see the same kind of situation as happened when they were going for Kyiv.As per the U.K. military update Russia have lost a third of their entire ground invasion force. In what 10 weeks?!
And the Russians suffered their biggest losses in the first stages of the war when they were advancing. Defending is likely to consume fewer resources than attacking. And I don't think it is beyond possibility that the MOD figures are slightly exaggerated. Plus a proportion of those depleted resources will be injured and so in theory could still be active again after a period of recovery. And Russia still have the option to upgrade from a "Special Military Operation" to a war, which enables a large increase in resources. All this means that I don't think you can usefully extrapolate the MOD figures to get an insight into the Russia capability in 10 weeks time.
Even if they do upgrade the status you don’t train an army in a few weeks. What are you equipping them with? It takes months and months to properly train an army. If not the best part of a year (unless someone can correct me understanding on the timeline).
They’ve been fairly consistent in their attrition losses, and yes they can probably stem it if they completely stop trying to attack, but then for how long can they hold any ground?
London424 said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
London424 said:
And Ukraine will just keep hitting their supply lines. They’ll bombard them with longer range artillery and loitering drones at night. Their special forces will keep hitting them. All the while they keep getting better and better kit while Russia are digging out even worse crap than they started with.
As per the U.K. military update Russia have lost a third of their entire ground invasion force. In what 10 weeks?!
The problem with that argument, much as I would like it be true, is if you look at the most of the occupied territory, the supply lines are relevantly short as they are fairly close to Russia/Crimea. So I don't think you will see the same kind of situation as happened when they were going for Kyiv.As per the U.K. military update Russia have lost a third of their entire ground invasion force. In what 10 weeks?!
And the Russians suffered their biggest losses in the first stages of the war when they were advancing. Defending is likely to consume fewer resources than attacking. And I don't think it is beyond possibility that the MOD figures are slightly exaggerated. Plus a proportion of those depleted resources will be injured and so in theory could still be active again after a period of recovery. And Russia still have the option to upgrade from a "Special Military Operation" to a war, which enables a large increase in resources. All this means that I don't think you can usefully extrapolate the MOD figures to get an insight into the Russia capability in 10 weeks time.
Even if they do upgrade the status you don’t train an army in a few weeks. What are you equipping them with? It takes months and months to properly train an army. If not the best part of a year (unless someone can correct me understanding on the timeline).
They’ve been fairly consistent in their attrition losses, and yes they can probably stem it if they completely stop trying to attack, but then for how long can they hold any ground?
Ukraine is getting new kit from NATO countries which is more accurate and has a longer range than Russian artillery. This includes loitering drones which can cause havoc for the Russians. The Ukrainian army has proved already that it is far better at using it's old artillery than Russia.... what is going to happen when Ukraine gets it's hands on the latest stuff?
If the lines are static then I suspect it'll be Russia who continues to sustain the highest losses, which cannot be maintained indefinitely.
FiF said:
Phosphorous bombs on Azovstal works.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1525768...
Is it actually phosphorous or thermite or some other incendiary?
Regardless this is simply a drawn out execution of the forces still present.
I don't mean to be one of those guys, but these are actually 9M22S incendiary rounds from a GRAD rocket. They don't elicit the same reaction because people aren't as familiar, but in many ways they are much worse than WP. Each rocket carries 180 hexagonal pieces of Magnesium alloy stuffed with pyro materials. https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1525768...
Is it actually phosphorous or thermite or some other incendiary?
Regardless this is simply a drawn out execution of the forces still present.
Solovyov has Italian residence cancelled and is banned for life from entry:
https://twitter.com/mbk_center/status/152588202875...
https://twitter.com/mbk_center/status/152588202875...
London424 said:
They’ve been fairly consistent in their attrition losses, and yes they can probably stem it if they completely stop trying to attack, but then for how long can they hold any ground?
Russia seems to be taking losses and plodding onwards for now, a classic Russian "strategy". Historically Russia has been willing to take huge losses. You are talking about an army in which they shoot their own wounded, they have no regard for human life.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff