Russian Invasion of Ukraine - tactics and logistics

[Keith&Co.]

I suspect a lot of younger people think of the Hellfire as being used to target terrorists, but it was originally built to kill Russian tanks.

Well, that's part of the justification page for any weapon development for the last 60 years. Our military's profession was "Waiting for the tanks to cross the border and swarm Europe."

Desert Storm was guys flying or driving the equipment our stuff was built to engage, operated by men that we thought were not as well-trained as the Russians were were trained to fight against. Thus a war where our casualties closely resembled the numbers you get in a desert wargame.

It would appear that the actual Russian operators aren't that much better trained, not as well as we'd expected. I suspect if we actually engaged, we'd be surprised by our own success. Leaving Putin to either abandoning ever expanding, or to push the shiny button.

This has always been the assessment for naval conflicts. They'll have a short, exciting life if the balloon goes up. The army has always talked up their capabilities, i assume to increase the budgets for our own tanks.

 

[bilby]

It would appear that the actual Russian operators aren't that much better trained, not as well as we'd expected.

I imagine that their Soviet fathers and grandfathers were; But the cost of maintaining a large, well trained and well equipped military was too much for the USSR, and the economy of Russia since 1991 simply cannot afford to emulate it.

Most of the equipment was high quality and built to last. They have the tanks, and even the aircraft. But the people who knew how to drive, fly, or even maintain them retired long ago, and the current generation of Russian military personnel are making a very effective demonstration of the adage "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".

 

[steve_bank]

Shoulder fired anti tank weapons go back to WWII.

It appears the Russian military is simply inept and poorly trained. Conscripts who have no clue what they are fighting for. They extended a supply line to Kiev with unprotected exposed flanks. No coordinated air and land power. The US and NATO has that down to a science.

It all looks like random uncoordinated actions.

Add to that Russians lack the western expertise in logistics.

Russia went from the Soviets who suppressed personal initiative and creativity to a dictatorship that does much of the same. Culture matters.

But WWII shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons were short ranged, both in terms of the rocket booster and since they didn't have seekers you couldn't fire from very far away and expect to hit. Firing them put you at great risk from the supporting infantry.

In the 80s I worked on an anti tank weapon called SADARM sense and destroy armor. Delivered by artillery, MLRS, or dropped in a canister. It was autonomous, it identified a tank, discriminated against a burningg tank, and shoot down as it descends. It floated down on parachute shooting through the top of a tank. It was designed to counter Russian reactive armor that detonated a shaped charge as a projectile started to hit reducing the effectiveness of shoulder fired weapons.

I don't know what the current weapons are, but I expect any tank formation would be destroyed without having to see them in a NATO confrontation. NATO would have a flying command and control platform that could ID tanks at a distance and call for a strike.

I am a csual reader of military history, but the fact that Russians sent in a long convoy blindly was a ridiculous blunder. It was reported that the convoy walked right into ambushes. The Ukrainians were doing simple things like changing road signs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Shoulder fired anti tank weapons go back to WWII.

It appears the Russian military is simply inept and poorly trained. Conscripts who have no clue what they are fighting for. They extended a supply line to Kiev with unprotected exposed flanks. No coordinated air and land power. The US and NATO has that down to a science.

It all looks like random uncoordinated actions.

Add to that Russians lack the western expertise in logistics.

Russia went from the Soviets who suppressed personal initiative and creativity to a dictatorship that does much of the same. Culture matters.

But WWII shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons were short ranged, both in terms of the rocket booster and since they didn't have seekers you couldn't fire from very far away and expect to hit. Firing them put you at great risk from the supporting infantry.

In the 80s I worked on an anti tank weapon called SADARM sense and destroy armor. Delivered by artillery, MLRS, or dropped in a canister. It was autonomous, it identified a tank, discriminated against a burningg tank, and shoot down as it descends. It floated down on parachute shooting through the top of a tank. It was designed to counter Russian reactive armor that detonated a shaped charge as a projectile started to hit reducing the effectiveness of shoulder fired weapons.

I don't know what the current weapons are, but I expect any tank formation would be destroyed without having to see them in a NATO confrontation. NATO would have a flying command and control platform that could ID tanks at a distance and call for a strike.

I am a csual reader of military history, but the fact that Russians sent in a long convoy blindly was a ridiculous blunder. It was reported that the convoy walked right into ambushes. The Ukrainians were doing simple things like changing road signs.

I didn't know it could be fired from MLRS. As an artillery weapon that means you're close enough they might be able to counterbattery your guns and artillery isn't one bit stealthy. Apache/Kiowa/Hellfire stays hidden.

 

[steve_bank]

Shoulder fired anti tank weapons go back to WWII.

It appears the Russian military is simply inept and poorly trained. Conscripts who have no clue what they are fighting for. They extended a supply line to Kiev with unprotected exposed flanks. No coordinated air and land power. The US and NATO has that down to a science.

It all looks like random uncoordinated actions.

Add to that Russians lack the western expertise in logistics.

Russia went from the Soviets who suppressed personal initiative and creativity to a dictatorship that does much of the same. Culture matters.

But WWII shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons were short ranged, both in terms of the rocket booster and since they didn't have seekers you couldn't fire from very far away and expect to hit. Firing them put you at great risk from the supporting infantry.

In the 80s I worked on an anti tank weapon called SADARM sense and destroy armor. Delivered by artillery, MLRS, or dropped in a canister. It was autonomous, it identified a tank, discriminated against a burningg tank, and shoot down as it descends. It floated down on parachute shooting through the top of a tank. It was designed to counter Russian reactive armor that detonated a shaped charge as a projectile started to hit reducing the effectiveness of shoulder fired weapons.

I don't know what the current weapons are, but I expect any tank formation would be destroyed without having to see them in a NATO confrontation. NATO would have a flying command and control platform that could ID tanks at a distance and call for a strike.

I am a csual reader of military history, but the fact that Russians sent in a long convoy blindly was a ridiculous blunder. It was reported that the convoy walked right into ambushes. The Ukrainians were doing simple things like changing road signs.

I didn't know it could be fired from MLRS. As an artillery weapon that means you're close enough they might be able to counterbattery your guns and They

They were about the size of a large coffee can. How it was packagfor a projectile I do not know. We had to do rail gun testing to make sure it could be fired from a rocket or artillery. We built the IR sensor, Honeywell was the prime contractor.

It descended on a parachute coctd off center so it rotated. The sink rate and rotation provided vertical and horizontal scanning. I thonk details are in the public domain but I don't remember what is classified and what is not so tha's all I cn say..

SADARM - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

XM898 SADARM (Sense and Destroy Armor)

man.fas.org

A competing system also designed to shoot down at a tank. Sensor Fused Weapn was a bog hocky puck rotating with wings to glide. War seems to bring out the best in creativity.

CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, artillery is father away then a few hundred yards away, think positive Lauren.

Jaynes should list the current weapons by nation. Looks like they have running analysis on Russian weapons.

Janes | The trusted source for defence and security intelligence

Janes | The trusted source for defence intelligence - Unrivalled defence and security analysis - Military platforms - Threat intelligence - Industry awareness and advisory services

www.janes.com

Some current analysis.

Janes Analysis Ukraine Conflict

The latest open-source intelligence on the Russian build up on the Ukrainian border from Janes

www.janes.com

 

[Elixir]

The retreating Russian army (taking its cues from Donald Trump?) is raping and pillaging its way out of the Kyiv area, leaving the naked bodies of women in the streets along with those of civilians with their hands tied and bullets through the head.+
So of course the EU is politely accusing them of doing what they're doing, while the rest of the West frets about it.

Looks to me like a new era, where any thug with a nuke can go on an unopposed rampage of conquest, using a nuclear threat as a shield. Nobody gonna do shit about it, because - nukes, y'know.

IMHO there is little chance of coming out of this without calling Pootey's bluff, and if he isn't bluffing then the outcome will serve as a warning for survivors, if any.

Since I see this confrontation as inevitable, given the template that any Russian success at using nuclear blackmail would provide for other rogue States.
If it IS inevitable, then the sooner the better.
If nuclear blackmail is NOT confronted, then we should lay down arms, surrender to the Russian pig and let him run roughshod over every democratic country in the world... and we won't do shit about it, because - nukes, y'know.

I was going to give this its own thread, but we have enough Ukraine threads already.
Still, I think this deserves its own discussion. Is there ANY behavior on the part of Russia that could possibly move the West to draw a hard line and hold it? I could easily see Pootey setting off just one little mini-nuke to test the resolve. And I could see the West collectively recoiling in horror and giving that fucking Russian weasel whatever he demands.

 

[bigfield]

IMHO there is little chance of coming out of this without calling Pootey's bluff...

...I see this confrontation as inevitable...

What is this based on?

There are at least a couple of ways that this war may end without direct fighting between Russia and NATO.

1. Putin sues for peace after consolidating his hold on some eastern Ukrainian territories. The West maintains sanctions until Russia returns those territories to Ukraine.
2. Russia removes Putin before (or after) its economy collapses entirely.

Both of these are more likely outcomes than direct fighting between NATO and Russia, or a nuclear exchange.

If anything, the current path of this war shows that, even if you are the king of a former superpower with enough nukes to annihilate your enemies in minutes, your opponents can still make you pay dearly.

 

[steve_bank]

It is as direct as it can get without NATO actually taking a combat role. I think the NATO response and positioning resources on the border sttes likely deterred any idea Putin had of going further. Certainly the aid plus the training NATO had provided was a decisive factor.

Putin and future Russian leaders will think twice about challenging NATO.

Putin is bottled up. There are few places he can go in the world outside the Russian Federation, like maybe Cuba. He can not enjoy his wealth.

I believe Ukraine will go down in history as fighting an historic battle. If it survives it will be a strong culture. and an example.

It is also a demonstration of why we need a strong military, the future is unpredictable.

 

[Elixir]

IMHO there is little chance of coming out of this without calling Pootey's bluff...

...I see this confrontation as inevitable...

What is this based on?

Putin's pattern of behavior.

There are at least a couple of ways that this war may end without direct fighting between Russia and NATO.

1. Putin sues for peace after consolidating his hold on some eastern Ukrainian territories. The West maintains sanctions until Russia returns those territories to Ukraine.
2. Russia removes Putin before (or after) its economy collapses entirely.

#1 leads to more of the same, unless all territory (incl Crimea) is returned and Russia is forced to pay reparations and more. Unlikely IMHO.
#2 is also unlikely, but possible I suppose.
The template of threatening nuclear retaliation to prevent repercussions for unprovoked aggression/conquest, will still remain under that scenario.

Both of these are more likely outcomes than direct fighting between NATO and Russia, or a nuclear exchange.

Yes, and that is what I am complaining about. Even a nuclear exchange might be preferable to allowing Pootey to continue with his genocide and nuclear blackmail.

If anything, the current path of this war shows that, even if you are the king of a former superpower with enough nukes to annihilate your enemies in minutes, your opponents can still make you pay dearly.

... but you can still get away with it, as long as you can threaten nuclear retaliation against anyone interfering with your bloody campaign of conquest.

In Pootey's case, there remains considerable doubt as to whether he even knows he is "paying dearly". Plus, Russian leaders have long considered their soldiers to be expendable/replaceable commodities. The Russian gestalt is accepting of that concept; they've lived with it for centuries.
Right now, Ukraine may be regarded as a training exercise, and NATO countries may be next. In fact, it is reported that Russian State media are already pimping the idea of taking Poland, Romania, the Baltics...
That's not going to happen under current circumstances of course. But circumstances are changing. What will NATO do when Pootey decides to start with a little tiny corridor between Poland and Lithuania (land access to Kaliningrad), threatening nuclear retaliation if anyone tries to stop him? More complaining, I expect. Certainly not worth risking global nuclear holocaust over a 60 x 10 mile wide strip of territory, right?
At some point that answer has to change to WRONG!

 

[Harry Bosch]

It is as direct as it can get without NATO actually taking a combat role. I think the NATO response and positioning resources on the border sttes likely deterred any idea Putin had of going further. Certainly the aid plus the training NATO had provided was a decisive factor.

Putin and future Russian leaders will think twice about challenging NATO.

Putin is bottled up. There are few places he can go in the world outside the Russian Federation, like maybe Cuba. He can not enjoy his wealth.

I believe Ukraine will go down in history as fighting an historic battle. If it survives it will be a strong culture. and an example.

It is also a demonstration of why we need a strong military, the future is unpredictable.

I think that you're absolutely correct here. Putin thought that his invasion would split Nato in two and cause non-Nato countries to move closer to Russia. It couldn't have been more wrong. A strongly united NATO and of course a Ukraine that won't fold (lion's credit goes to Ukraine) probably will stop Russian imperialism in the future. However, also agree with you that we need to ramp up military spending. Germany is stepping up. But we (NATO) must beef up considerably the development of defensive weapons (Javelins, stingers, drones, and etc.); and them deployed all along the Russian borders in order stop Russia the next time it gets an itch. We should also beef up sanctions. If a country violates international law and attacks another country for no good reason, they should be bankrupted if possible.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think that raising the US military budget will have any effect other than to increase the massive amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that already happens with the military budget. We can increase the money we spend on the military more effectively by redoubling efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Unfortunately, injecting that bloated budget with even more borrowed money is the politically easiest route to take.

 

[ZiprHead]

Russia Will End Cooperation on International Space Station Citing Sanctions

The head of Russia's space agency slammed western sanctions against his country imposed over the invasion of Ukraine.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Elixir]

I disagree with increasing the “defense” budget. It is incredibly bloated as it is. We have more than enough already budgeted to kick Pootey’s ass if we had the will, and all the “defense” money in the world isn’t going to change that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I disagree with increasing the “defense” budget. It is incredibly bloated as it is. We have more than enough already budgeted to kick Pootey’s ass if we had the will, and all the “defense” money in the world isn’t going to change that.

Well, I'm far from an expert on the military budget. But I know this, the ongoing Russian invasion is costing the US deeply (and everyone else). I'd assume that once the war is over, that the cost of oil will drop dramatically. And, IMO, Russia is not going to stop until their military runs out of tanks and artillery. And I keep hearing that Ukraine dosn't have enough. We need to ship them more and more stingers and javelins. It will be far more expensive in the future if Russia isn't stopped now. If there is a way to better support Ukraine and not increase the military budget (get more lean), I'm all ears!

 

[steve_bank]

I thought that Russia had already planned to stop participation with the ISS. Are they going to take their muddle back? Europe and the US began getting off of dependence on Russian rocket engines at least as far back s Obama.

There was something about NASA having been developing work arounds for Russian systems..

Nauka (ISS module) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Upgrade (MLM-U; Russian: Многоцелевой лабораторный модуль, усоверше́нствованный, or МЛМ-У) or simply Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM), is a module of the International Space Station (ISS). The MLM-U is funded by Roscosmos. In the original ISS plans, Nauka was to use the location of the Docking and Storage Module (DSM). Later, the DSM was replaced by the Rassvet module and Nauka was moved from Zarya's nadir port to Zvezda's nadir port.[1][2][3][4]

The launch of Nauka, initially planned for 2007, was repeatedly delayed. By May 2020, Nauka was reported to be planned for launch in the second quarter of 2021,[5] after which the manufacturer's warranties of some of Nauka's components, such as engines, would have expired. Nauka was finally launched on 21 July 2021, 14:58 UTC, along with the European Robotic Arm, and successfully docked on 29 July 2021, 13:29 UTC, to Zvezda's nadir port, making it the first major expansion of the Russian ISS segment in over 20 years. After Nauka docked, it began firing its engine thrusters in error, causing the entire space station to make one and a half full rotations before the thrusters ran out of fuel, enabling ground controllers to stop the rotation and the crew to get it back to its original position an hour later.[6][7] According to NASA, the ISS crew was never in danger.[8][9][6][10]

Russian Orbital Segment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Russian Orbital Segment (ROS) is the name given to the components of the International Space Station (ISS) constructed in Russia and operated by the Russian Roscosmos. The ROS handles Guidance, Navigation, and Control for the entire Station.[1]

 

[Elixir]

Ukraine dosn't have enough. We need to ship them more and more stingers and javelins. It will be far more expensive in the future if Russia isn't stopped now.

I agree with all of that. And I think it’s important. We should probably dedicate 5-10 percent of a single year’s “defense budget” to that cause - or, in other words, 3-5 times what we actually ARE spending on it. I don’t care what other programs are cut; most of them are for anticipated rather than extant contingencies anyhow. After seeing the atrocities and war crimes Pootey’s boys are leaving in their wake, I feel that we should be MUCH more forceful in delivering those needed supplies. Including attacking any emplacements or aircraft that try to impede such delivery. I admit to knowing little to nothing about managing wars. But I know for a fact that any effort to pump up support for Ukraine will move Republicans to increase the “defense” (aka Republican donors) budget.

 

[steve_bank]

It is as direct as it can get without NATO actually taking a combat role. I think the NATO response and positioning resources on the border sttes likely deterred any idea Putin had of going further. Certainly the aid plus the training NATO had provided was a decisive factor.

Putin and future Russian leaders will think twice about challenging NATO.

Putin is bottled up. There are few places he can go in the world outside the Russian Federation, like maybe Cuba. He can not enjoy his wealth.

I believe Ukraine will go down in history as fighting an historic battle. If it survives it will be a strong culture. and an example.

It is also a demonstration of why we need a strong military, the future is unpredictable.

I think that you're absolutely correct here. Putin thought that his invasion would split Nato in two and cause non-Nato countries to move closer to Russia. It couldn't have been more wrong. A strongly united NATO and of course a Ukraine that won't fold (lion's credit goes to Ukraine) probably will stop Russian imperialism in the future. However, also agree with you that we need to ramp up military spending. Germany is stepping up. But we (NATO) must beef up considerably the development of defensive weapons (Javelins, stingers, drones, and etc.); and them deployed all along the Russian borders in order stop Russia the next time it gets an itch. We should also beef up sanctions. If a country violates international law and attacks another country for no good reason, they should be bankrupted if possible.

We know Russia has been working against the Europeans, the Europeans know it too. From early reporting oliharch moneyhad something to with it, especially in London.

The Russians complain we are to kill their economy, well yea we are. Putin may be in a dull battered state of mind. He has no way out. Trapped like a rat as the saying goes.

CNN has OP eds comaing Putin's failure to Hitler. He along with Goebels kept up the radio propoagnda right until they commited suicide

The expressions on Putin's face is looking like Trump.

I'd like to a cartoon where Putin's head is between Ukraine and a gun with a sign Russian Army. Of course shooting himself in the head trying to shoot Ukraine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They were about the size of a large coffee can. How it was packagfor a projectile I do not know. We had to do rail gun testing to make sure it could be fired from a rocket or artillery. We built the IR sensor, Honeywell was the prime contractor.

It descended on a parachute coctd off center so it rotated. The sink rate and rotation provided vertical and horizontal scanning. I thonk details are in the public domain but I don't remember what is classified and what is not so tha's all I cn say..

Yeah, that's what I remember reading about it (open source, I've never dealt with anything classified). I just wasn't aware of MLRS deployment, but it would be logical it could be done.

Well, artillery is father away then a few hundred yards away, think positive Lauren.

It's just their guns shoot as far as yours.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree with increasing the “defense” budget. It is incredibly bloated as it is. We have more than enough already budgeted to kick Pootey’s ass if we had the will, and all the “defense” money in the world isn’t going to change that.

Well, I'm far from an expert on the military budget. But I know this, the ongoing Russian invasion is costing the US deeply (and everyone else). I'd assume that once the war is over, that the cost of oil will drop dramatically. And, IMO, Russia is not going to stop until their military runs out of tanks and artillery. And I keep hearing that Ukraine dosn't have enough. We need to ship them more and more stingers and javelins. It will be far more expensive in the future if Russia isn't stopped now. If there is a way to better support Ukraine and not increase the military budget (get more lean), I'm all ears!

Yeah. Winning a war is expensive. Losing is even more expensive, though.

What I think we need to do is up our stockpiles of defensive weapons--the sort of stuff we have been shipping to Ukraine, short range drones and the like. Specifically plan it to be shipped to the next target of Russian aggression. Pre-position a decent chunk of it in Europe. That way Moscow knows if they try a stunt like this again they'll be facing the weapons much sooner.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The United States will work with its allies to transfer Russian-built tanks to Ukraine

I emailed Sherrod Brown a few days back about Zelenskyy not having to publicly beg for more. I don't know if that had anything to do with it but I'm glad it's happening. Sweet that they will be using up old Soviet made tanks on Russia. Up your ass, Putin.