Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,627
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It really depends on what the upper end is on the economy of precision/range/tech vs how much "cheap shit" can be thrown.All my knowledge of modern warfare comes from playing "Advance Wars" on Nintendo emulators. In those games flooding the enemy with cheap-ass infantry units is often a winning strategy, though not optimal.Monday (emphasis added):
Saturday:Ukraine is still not winning the war. They've had a couple of weeks of good fortune. Following half a year of bad fortune.
Time is on Russias side. Since Russia has ten times of everything they will win a war of attrition.
The west is extremely pro-Ukraine. So our press is filled with hopeful underdog stories. We like to cheer when it goes well for Ukraine. So that's the kind of spin the stories we see have.
I think the situation for Ukraine is a lot worse than what Western press is willing to admit. This may very well end with Ukraine accepting the loss of occupied land
At this point I think Russia is doomed. Time is on Ukraine's side. Momentum is growing for NATO countries to start donating advanced weapon systems to Ukraine. The Russian advance has already stalled. Russia has only grabbed one major city (Kherson). Cities is the hardest thing to take, and easiest to defend. Rocket systems are extremely good at hitting things not in a city.
Early in the war Russia overwhelmed Ukraine with more artillery. If Ukraine gets better artillery than Russia then Russia has nothing to counter it.
Pretty fast change of opinion.
Yes. The benefits of reading up on stuff.
The donation of military equipment is increasing. Ukraine is getting increasingly advanced military systems. The HIMAR's seem to be a game changer. When they arrived Russian advances stopped and then reversed. Russia is still advancing in the south. But at a snails pace. Now USA is talking about donating aircraft. Reading up on how Russia is basically blind and how Ukraine has full knowledge of all of Russia's movements was very enlightening. The territory Ukraine grabbed recently was a result of them managing to build up troops in an area without Russia learning about it.
If things stay the same Russia will win through attrition. If Ukraine gets more fancy weapons Russia will lose simply because because they're not doing any damage on Ukriane, while Russia keeps losing troops.
It looks like things won't stay the same.
It's not sure the new Russian recruits will be much use for Russia. The last bunch joined voluntarily and they were shit. What are the chances that draftees will be more impressive?
Like, anyone who has ever designed to play stupid videogames, one learns quickly that if "expensive but effective" takes on "fast and junky", even the slightest bit of skill or momentum in "expensive but effective" will lead to it's supremecy.
This is in fact the entire basis behind "zombie hoard defense", "tower defense" and a large variety of other games.
Russia still has some advantages: They are (mostly) on the defense, and it's easier than attacking. They have more people to draw from, despite lack of motivation. They have more artillery and armor for now, though Ukraine has been able to constrain the logistics somewhat. And their entire economy is now geared for war production, whereas Ukraine has to survive on donations.
Ukraine's advantages are higher precision weapons and better intelligence.
Eventually, you end up running out of warm bodies.
Russian defense lives at the intersection of scorched earth and logistics surrounding movement of ground forces, and perhaps air defense emplacements.
It doesn't matter if an economy is geared towards war production though when those gears are made of nothing but rust.
The problem is that the west is not going to let Ukraine collapse, mostly because it does not serve to let a bully be a bully.