[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: The 7th Thread Itch; scratch it here!

[red_elk]

It looks like the "superior NATO way" only worked so far against technologically backward adversaries and start to fail when the enemy has enough battlefield awareness to thwart all attempts of surprise attack. At least that's what Ukraine's current fall back to positional warfare seems to indicate.

 

[Akka]

Seems that NATO doctrine has failed so much that Russia has been forced to send nearly all its army, draft conscripts as the army was unsufficient, lost so much material it's reduced to bringing 50's tanks to the frontline and is being on the defensive, all against a foe which has one third of its population and had one tenth of its artillery and airpower. Definitely the epithome of failure.

 

[Verbose]

It looks like the "superior NATO way" only worked so far against technologically backward adversaries and start to fail when the enemy has enough battlefield awareness to thwart all attempts of surprise attack. At least that's what Ukraine's current fall back to positional warfare seems to indicate.

Might be a good idea to remove the beam from the Russian eye before making a fuss over a possible (but not proven, since NATO still isn't fighting anyone here) splinter from NATO's.

You still don't think these exercises of Russian contempt for... most things, really... have proven themselves counterproductive?

 

[Gedemon]

It looks like the "superior NATO way" only worked so far against technologically backward adversaries and start to fail when the enemy has enough battlefield awareness to thwart all attempts of surprise attack. At least that's what Ukraine's current fall back to positional warfare seems to indicate.

Give Ukraine all of NATO airforces, and we'll have an idea.

 

[Lexicus]

It looks like the "superior NATO way" only worked so far against technologically backward adversaries and start to fail when the enemy has enough battlefield awareness to thwart all attempts of surprise attack. At least that's what Ukraine's current fall back to positional warfare seems to indicate.

There's some truth to that. Like I said, maneuever warfare doesn't guarantee success. But I've already noted that Ukraine's army was and is only partially equipped and trained up to the standards required for proper mobile operations, and as @Verbose correctly noted it lacks the air forces required to establish air superiority, generally a necessity for successful mobile operations.

At any event, the Red Army made mobile operations work pretty well against the German army. Its greatest victories were won by adopting those principles, notably in Operations Uranus and Bagration. On the other hand, Kursk is an example of what can happen when the attacker fails to achieve surprise and/or is unable to maneuever around the defender's well-manned, prepared positions.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

It looks like the "superior NATO way" only worked so far against technologically backward adversaries and start to fail when the enemy has enough battlefield awareness to thwart all attempts of surprise attack. At least that's what Ukraine's current fall back to positional warfare seems to indicate.

Don't have any evidence of Russia's great 'battlefield awareness '(lol), I suppose most Russian there know they are in Ukraine but I am not sure either.

About the 'NATO way', yes it is supposed to destroy backwards enemies such like Russia, using much better trained proffesional troops, superior technology and precision weapons, using missiles launched from subs, ships and aircraft plus total air superiority. If anything Russia has proved in this conflict is it would be the perfect target for the 'NATO way'.

Ukraine has little of that yet. It continues being mostly a backwards army, in transition to become a western army, but still using a 80% of old Soviet equipment. Of course apart of a good bunch of javelins, it has received a tiny part of NATO arsenal, mostly obsolete, a few dozens of tanks, a couple of acceptably advanced AA defense systems, some HIMARS and storm shadow plus some quick basic training and intel, but even that tiny part has shown to be crucial enough, even lacking a proper air force, or a navy...

In fact Ukraine's poor man NATO way, has shown to be vastly superior to the mighty 'Russian way', which consists lying in TV while launching mountains of human meat to the grinder and loads of tank turrets to the sky till the enemy runs out of ammo. In fact with an army many times smaller, Ukraine has stopped the whole Russian army on the place, confronting it in the open, face to face, has massacred its tanks, troops and everything Russia has thrown to them to levels unseen since 1941, to finally make it run and hide in holes like rabbits.

To achieve that Ukraine has needed only a tiny tiny part of NATO budget. Keep in mind USA has expended 66 billions helping Ukraine, which makes about a 4% of USA's yearly military budget. Most European countries, specially the big ones, even less. So stop a moment to think how ridiculous your triumphant rant really sounds at this side and think on what a 100% of the 'NATO way' could do to Russia.

 

[red_elk]

Might be a good idea to remove the beam from the Russian eye before making a fuss over a possible (but not proven, since NATO still isn't fighting anyone here) splinter from NATO's.

You still don't think these exercises of Russian contempt for... most things, really... have proven themselves counterproductive?

There is quite a bit of contempt from NATO apologists here, about Ukrainians allegedly unable to use their oh so effective strategy, not from Russians.
Fact seems to be that the strategy itself is failing, facing equally technologically advanced opponent, instead of rifle-armed Islamic insurgents.

 

[Lexicus]

Don't have any evidence of Russia's great 'battlefield awareness '(lol)

This was mentioned by @Akka earlier, there were a few examples of Ukrainian columns getting pretty badly shot up by Russian artillery.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

There are a miriad of examples of Russian columns, tanks or even indiviudual soldiers getting pretty badly shot up by Ukrinian artillery though. That is relatively easy today, you only need a dron with a camera.

 

[Lexicus]

There is quite a bit of contempt from NATO apologists here, about Ukrainians allegedly unable to use their oh so effective strategy, not from Russians.
Fact seems to be that the strategy itself is failing, facing equally technologically advanced opponent, instead of rifle-armed Islamic insurgents.

The post you quoted here is quite admiring of the Ukrainians, actually.

There are a miriad of examples of Russian columns, tanks or even indiviudual soldiers getting pretty badly shot up by Ukrinian artillery though. That is relatively easy today, you only need a dron with a camera.

Yes, that was the point. Tactical surprise is generally considered key to proper manuever warfare and it is harder to achieve given the amount of cheaply available surveillance/sensor technology out there today.

 

[Verbose]

This was mentioned by @Akka earlier, there were a few examples of Ukrainian columns getting pretty badly shot up by Russian artillery.

Both sides have sufficiently detailed local situational awareness to make tactical surprise impossible like things stand right now.

The Ukranians seem better furnished with detailed information in depth, coupled with certain assets with better precision. The Russian side still has larger volumes of fire available.

The Russians do complain that they have to husband and protect their drones that provide the crucial info, while they can see the Ukranians push theirs further and accept their loss with relative equanimity. And in preparation for the summer's offensive operations Ukraine reported also bought 50 000 to 70 000 drones, of all kinds, for this purpose.

 

[Lexicus]

There is quite a bit of contempt from NATO apologists here, about Ukrainians allegedly unable to use their oh so effective strategy, not from Russians.

I actually want to zero in on this attitude particularly because I think it's quite revealing and it is one of the big reasons why Russia has not performed very well and why Ukraine is fighting well above its weight. I think the Ukrainian military understands perfectly well that it has deficiencies in the areas I've mentioned - it's been working to improve itself for the last decade, ever since 2014 and that work goes on.

In Russia on the other hand...the first step to fix problems is to recognize them, but recognizing problems with the Russian Army in public in Russia will land people in prison. Our Russian friend here had another post that was really illuminating in this regard as well:

Hostility from non-Russian posters hasn't changed my opinion in the slightest either. The only thing it affected, is it destroyed any hope of constructive discussion and made me stop criticizing Russian government or army altogether, even for the things they deserve to be criticized for.

How can you ever hope to fix any problems with your government or army if you can't criticize it?

Both sides have sufficiently detailed local situational awareness to make tactical surprise impossible like things stand right now.

Indeed, and another aspect of this is that Russia has fortified a defense in some depth along basically the entire length of the fighting front. This is going to present problems for achieving tactical surprise even absent any drones.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Russia has also mined absolutely everything. And it's hard to de-mine an area while under artillery fire.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It looks like the "superior NATO way" only worked so far against technologically backward adversaries and start to fail when the enemy has enough battlefield awareness to thwart all attempts of surprise attack. At least that's what Ukraine's current fall back to positional warfare seems to indicate.

Country who had to flee from a surprise attack on Kiev says what?

 

[Zardnaar]

Right, the strategy which authoritarian regimes can't afford to implement. Also the one successfully used by Nazi Germany against France.

Obviously, NATO-trained Ukrainian army, much superior to Wagner clowns, should have no problem reaching Moscow then.

Nazi Germany didn't really politicize the army as such atbleast not to the extent Stalin did.

It's kind of the exception in authoritarian regime with its junior offices vs Stalin/China/Russia/Iraq/North Korea etc.

A Geman general could disagree with Hitler and argue with him. Maybe get fired and pensioner off then reinstated later. Hell a few git into yelling matches with him.

 

[red_elk]

Our Russian friend here had another post that was really illuminating in this regard as well:

Our dear American friend apparently doesn't see the difference between criticizing something in general and on CFC forum.

 

[Gorbles]

Our dear American friend apparently doesn't see the difference between criticizing something in general and on CFC forum.

You've already said you don't criticise things generally either. Entirely your choice, but let's not misrepresent other posters.

 

[EvaDK]

There's a rumor going that the Zagorsk Optical-Mechanical Plant that blew up a few days ago, was producing 152mm artillery shells by the hands of immigrant workers. That would explain the magnitude of the blast. The owner/director has apparently been detained.

 

[saamohod]

That would explain the magnitude of the blast.

That would also explain empty 152mm shells seen at the site of the explosion.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Some Ruski called Putin a Gopnick and now is facing up to 10 year in prison
Id imagine our Russian friend still believes he has many freedoms, and he can critise the Russian government without crossing the line, it just seems to be random to outsiders