Russian Invasion of Ukraine - tactics and logistics

[ZiprHead]

Institute for the Study of War

Russian forces are continuing to deploy outdated military equipment to Ukraine to replace losses. The Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported on June 9 that Russian forces are mining Kherson Oblast with mines from the 1950s to defend

www.understandingwar.org

Russian forces are continuing to deploy outdated military equipment to Ukraine to replace losses. The Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported on June 9 that Russian forces are mining Kherson Oblast with mines from the 1950s to defend against recent Ukrainian counterattacks in northwestern Kherson Oblast.[1] The GUR stated that Russian forces moved these mines from Russia’s Rostov Oblast to the Kherson area despite the fact the mines were meant to be destroyed. The GUR claimed that some of the mines detonated during the transportation processes and killed Russian sappers from the 49th Combined Arms Army. The GUR’s report is consistent with previous statements that Russian forces are moving old and obsolete equipment to Ukraine to make up for equipment losses, including deploying T-62 tanks to the Melitopol area and pulling MLRS and 152mm howitzers from storage in Irkutsk, Siberia.[2]

Russian military command continues to face pervasive issues with force generation. The Ukrainian Resistance Center reported that Russian officials in Luhansk Oblast have had to reduce their mobilization efforts due to widespread protests against aggressive mobilization efforts that have taken a toll on the labor market in Luhansk.[3] Attacks on Russian military recruitment offices are additionally continuing.[4] An unidentified assailant threw a Molotov cocktail at the military commissariat in Vladivostok, which is the eighteenth such reported attack on Russian territory since the beginning of the war. As Russian officials escalate mobilization efforts over the background of continued losses in Ukraine, they will continue to run the risk of instigating public dissent and pushback against such recruitment practices.

 

[Jayjay]

Institute for the Study of War

Russian forces are continuing to deploy outdated military equipment to Ukraine to replace losses. The Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported on June 9 that Russian forces are mining Kherson Oblast with mines from the 1950s to defend

www.understandingwar.org

Russian forces are continuing to deploy outdated military equipment to Ukraine to replace losses. The Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported on June 9 that Russian forces are mining Kherson Oblast with mines from the 1950s to defend against recent Ukrainian counterattacks in northwestern Kherson Oblast.[1] The GUR stated that Russian forces moved these mines from Russia’s Rostov Oblast to the Kherson area despite the fact the mines were meant to be destroyed. The GUR claimed that some of the mines detonated during the transportation processes and killed Russian sappers from the 49th Combined Arms Army. The GUR’s report is consistent with previous statements that Russian forces are moving old and obsolete equipment to Ukraine to make up for equipment losses, including deploying T-62 tanks to the Melitopol area and pulling MLRS and 152mm howitzers from storage in Irkutsk, Siberia.[2]

Russian military command continues to face pervasive issues with force generation. The Ukrainian Resistance Center reported that Russian officials in Luhansk Oblast have had to reduce their mobilization efforts due to widespread protests against aggressive mobilization efforts that have taken a toll on the labor market in Luhansk.[3] Attacks on Russian military recruitment offices are additionally continuing.[4] An unidentified assailant threw a Molotov cocktail at the military commissariat in Vladivostok, which is the eighteenth such reported attack on Russian territory since the beginning of the war. As Russian officials escalate mobilization efforts over the background of continued losses in Ukraine, they will continue to run the risk of instigating public dissent and pushback against such recruitment practices.

Yet, Russia keeps inching forward. I think ISW is a bit too optimistic in its outlook.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This war has turned into a massive artillery duel. Unfortunately on that front, the Russians have the advantage. Ukraine is reporting massive artillery shortages and significantly less guns. We need to give them as much artillery as possible and as fast as possible.

But Ukraine is able to counter-battery, Russia seems incapable of it. So long as they can keep feeding the guns the advantage is to them.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Reminder to all participants:
Address the argument, not the person.
This is a place for discussion and debate, not insults, flaming and bullying.
Recall that for every person you reply to, there are 20 more reading what you wrote. You’re in public.

No name-calling, no personal attacks, no accusations of lying or trolling.

• If you think someone is violating the TOU, use the report function, do not start peppering your posts with accusations.
• If you think someone is ill-informed, then inform them, don’t sling insults and disdain.

This is a place for discussion and debate - if your post is not doing that, don’t post it.

 

[Jayjay]

This war has turned into a massive artillery duel. Unfortunately on that front, the Russians have the advantage. Ukraine is reporting massive artillery shortages and significantly less guns. We need to give them as much artillery as possible and as fast as possible.

But Ukraine is able to counter-battery, Russia seems incapable of it. So long as they can keep feeding the guns the advantage is to them.

What an odd statement. Obviously Russia is just as capable of doing counter-battery as Ukraine. Even more so, given they have more hardware, especially drones. And Ukraine is having trouble feeding the guns, or having their destroyed guns replenished.

I think by end of June, Russia will have cut off the supply lines to Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, causing Ukrainian defense there to collapse, and directly shell Slovyansk and Kramatorsk. Despite what ISW is saying about Russian "combat power" allegedly diminishing, to me it seems like they've gotten over the slump.

Some western weapons may help, due to increased range and accuracy. But lack of drones to scout the targets and correct them might be a problem. Ukraine needs to inflict as much casualties on Russian side as possible, while avoiding their own.

 

[Elixir]

lack of drones to scout the targets and correct them might be a problem

Does Russia have the ability to detect whether targeting information is being provided by the US?
How could they know?
What does target information necessarily consist of, anyhow?
Is "there's a bunch of enemy artillery set up inside your eastern border" targeting information?
Or does it have to include GPS coordinates, altitude, target visual profile, weather, terrain factors etc?
Pootey will claim US involvement every time he gets smacked in the face anyhow, so what's there to lose?

 

[Jayjay]

lack of drones to scout the targets and correct them might be a problem

Does Russia have the ability to detect whether targeting information is being provided by the US?
How could they know?
What does target information necessarily consist of, anyhow?
Is "there's a bunch of enemy artillery set up inside your eastern border" targeting information?
Or does it have to include GPS coordinates, altitude, target visual profile, weather, terrain factors etc?
Pootey will claim US involvement every time he gets smacked in the face anyhow, so what's there to lose?

I don't think satellite data is that omnipotent.

Modern artillery is not static. They are constantly maneuvering and firing from different positions. So even if a US spy satellite sees a flash or notices Russian artillery in some location, the delay caused by the fact that US would first have to give Ukraine the information, and Ukraine would need to plan to react, maybe move their own artillery in place to shoot, the targets would be long gone by then.

Counter-artillery radar systems on the ground are probably more useful. They would give Ukraine instant information where to hit back, which is absolutely crucial. But there is then the matter of more fine tuned targeting. Usually old style artillery isn't that accurate, and it has to be corrected after the first strike. Drones are extremely useful for this purpose, and that's why Russia has thousands of them. Accuracy can also be improved by having active GPS or cameras on the missiles themselves, which is what makes some of these western weapons superior, but GPS signals can be jammed and these shells cost more than dumb ones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This war has turned into a massive artillery duel. Unfortunately on that front, the Russians have the advantage. Ukraine is reporting massive artillery shortages and significantly less guns. We need to give them as much artillery as possible and as fast as possible.

But Ukraine is able to counter-battery, Russia seems incapable of it. So long as they can keep feeding the guns the advantage is to them.

What an odd statement. Obviously Russia is just as capable of doing counter-battery as Ukraine. Even more so, given they have more hardware, especially drones. And Ukraine is having trouble feeding the guns, or having their destroyed guns replenished.

They should be able to but it appears to be a flexibility issue. Ukraine has dispersed their guns, no Ukrainian artillery batteries exist and for whatever reason individual guns aren't drawing counterbattery fire.

I do agree they are having problems feeding them--artillery is a major logistics hog.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

lack of drones to scout the targets and correct them might be a problem

Does Russia have the ability to detect whether targeting information is being provided by the US?
How could they know?
What does target information necessarily consist of, anyhow?
Is "there's a bunch of enemy artillery set up inside your eastern border" targeting information?
Or does it have to include GPS coordinates, altitude, target visual profile, weather, terrain factors etc?
Pootey will claim US involvement every time he gets smacked in the face anyhow, so what's there to lose?

It needs accurate coordinates in some form, you can't fire on "inside your eastern border". Artillery won't care about visual profile (that's for target identification) or weather, and only very rarely about terrain. You can get elevation from latitude/longitude + a topo map. Thus, almost always it's simply lat/lon, nothing more is needed. I doubt we are even providing actual targeting data anyway--our birds would know something is there but at that point you figure out what, you don't fire on a blip on the radar.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Finland just announced that it won't join NATO unless Sweden is allowed in. This is pretty cool, since Finland has always been a pretty reluctant partner of Sweden. Since Russia took Finland from Sweden (1809) Sweden has always been super nice to Finland while Finland has not been nice to Sweden. Finland has a bit of a complicated relationship to Sweden since they have a large Swedish minority.

As far as I know, this is the first time Finland ever acknowledges that we're brother nations sticking together. We were before this. But Finland has kept pretending that we're not. Now they have stopped pretending. Nothing brings people together as something external that's big and scary. It's kind of beautiful.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This war has turned into a massive artillery duel. Unfortunately on that front, the Russians have the advantage. Ukraine is reporting massive artillery shortages and significantly less guns. We need to give them as much artillery as possible and as fast as possible.

But Ukraine is able to counter-battery, Russia seems incapable of it. So long as they can keep feeding the guns the advantage is to them.

What an odd statement. Obviously Russia is just as capable of doing counter-battery as Ukraine. Even more so, given they have more hardware, especially drones. And Ukraine is having trouble feeding the guns, or having their destroyed guns replenished.

I think by end of June, Russia will have cut off the supply lines to Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, causing Ukrainian defense there to collapse, and directly shell Slovyansk and Kramatorsk. Despite what ISW is saying about Russian "combat power" allegedly diminishing, to me it seems like they've gotten over the slump.

Some western weapons may help, due to increased range and accuracy. But lack of drones to scout the targets and correct them might be a problem. Ukraine needs to inflict as much casualties on Russian side as possible, while avoiding their own.

It's important to acknowledge that the Ukrainian successes have been impressive. But only impressive considering that everybody thought Russia would instantly crush them like a bug. They weren't instantly crushed. But they're still being crushed. Russia is a hell of a lot more powerful than Ukraine and, over time, will grind Ukraine to dust. If the west wants to change that, they need to get actively involved. Sending weapons will only prolong the inevitable.

 

[Jayjay]

Finland just announced that it won't join NATO unless Sweden is allowed in. This is pretty cool, since Finland has always been a pretty reluctant partner of Sweden. Since Russia took Finland from Sweden (1809) Sweden has always been super nice to Finland while Finland has not been nice to Sweden. Finland has a bit of a complicated relationship to Sweden since they have a large Swedish minority.

As far as I know, this is the first time Finland ever acknowledges that we're brother nations sticking together. We were before this. But Finland has kept pretending that we're not. Now they have stopped pretending. Nothing brings people together as something external that's big and scary. It's kind of beautiful.

It's also bollocks. This patronizing depiction of Finnish-Swedish relations, that is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Finland just announced that it won't join NATO unless Sweden is allowed in. This is pretty cool, since Finland has always been a pretty reluctant partner of Sweden. Since Russia took Finland from Sweden (1809) Sweden has always been super nice to Finland while Finland has not been nice to Sweden. Finland has a bit of a complicated relationship to Sweden since they have a large Swedish minority.

As far as I know, this is the first time Finland ever acknowledges that we're brother nations sticking together. We were before this. But Finland has kept pretending that we're not. Now they have stopped pretending. Nothing brings people together as something external that's big and scary. It's kind of beautiful.

It's also bollocks. This patronizing depiction of Finnish-Swedish relations, that is.

What? In what way is it patronizing?

Do you want to see a picture of the monument in Stockholm of all the Swedes who have died defending Finland from Russia?

Most Swedes wouldn't hesitate to defend Finland today.

For historical reasons Swedish patriotism extends to protecting Finland. It's clearly important to a lot of Swedes. I don't see what is patronizing about that?

 

[Jayjay]

Finland just announced that it won't join NATO unless Sweden is allowed in. This is pretty cool, since Finland has always been a pretty reluctant partner of Sweden. Since Russia took Finland from Sweden (1809) Sweden has always been super nice to Finland while Finland has not been nice to Sweden. Finland has a bit of a complicated relationship to Sweden since they have a large Swedish minority.

As far as I know, this is the first time Finland ever acknowledges that we're brother nations sticking together. We were before this. But Finland has kept pretending that we're not. Now they have stopped pretending. Nothing brings people together as something external that's big and scary. It's kind of beautiful.

It's also bollocks. This patronizing depiction of Finnish-Swedish relations, that is.

What? In what way is it patronizing?

Do you want to see a picture of the monument in Stockholm of all the Swedes who have died defending Finland from Russia?

Most Swedes wouldn't hesitate to defend Finland today.

For historical reasons Swedish patriotism extends to protecting Finland. It's clearly important to a lot of Swedes. I don't see what is patronizing about that?

The patronizing, and somewhat ignorant part was assuming that Finland doesn't recognize the help we got from Sweden, or has been a "reluctant partner". If you read the news, you'll know that what our president said yesterday was a direct reference to what Sweden said in 1939.

Also Finland doesn't have a "complicated relationship" with the Swedish-speaking minority. They're Finns, who happen to speak Swedish, albeit in an accent that real Swedes probably consider funny. And Swedish language has been a mandatory subject in our schools since forever, we absolutely respect the historical bond and friendship.

In any case, the situation now is not so much about leaving either country behind in NATO talks. It's to call out Turkey's bluff. I think Erdogan made a backroom deal with Putin that he'll delay the applications on some pretext, and driving a wedge between Finland and Sweden in an attempt to get either side to give some impossible concessions maybe part of that. Erdogan knows damn well that neither country is going to start extraditing Kurdish activists to Turkey just to get to NATO.

 

[ZiprHead]

To Replenish Its Army In Ukraine, Russia Plans To Strip Its Training Units. It Can Only Do This Once.

Russia can replenish its army in Ukraine, restoring it roughly to the numerical strength—if not the technological sophistication—it possessed on day one of the wider war. But it can only replenish the army once.

www.forbes.com

As the wider war in Ukraine enters its fourth month, the Kremlin is beginning the painful process of forming potentially dozens of BTGs to replace an equal number of battalions the Ukrainians have destroyed. The deadline reportedly is in June.

But those BTGs will ride in obsolete vehicles. And they will leave behind them the empty shells of brigades and regiments that no longer will have much, or any, training base.

Trainers are an army’s regenerative tissue—the means by which it sustains itself after wartime damage. When you deploy the trainers, you lose the ability to regenerate. What that means is: Russia can replenish its army in Ukraine, restoring it roughly to the numerical strength—if not the technological sophistication—it possessed on day one of the wider war.

But it can only replenish the army once. If Ukraine destroys those extra Russian BTGs, there might not be any more battalions to take their place.

 

[barbos]

From the German invasion of Czechlosavakia to the surrender of Germany took about five years. Pootie's idea that Ukraine would quickly collapes like France did when Germany attacked failed. Russia, short term, has already failed. Ukraine is now getting weapons from the West, while Russia is now having to use 50 year old T-60 tanks. Time may not be on Russia's side. If Russia decides to win it must use long range weapons to utterly destroy all of Ukraine,leaving it a smoking crater, when will NATO decide that is unacceptable?

Well there's the rub. Russia doesn't "win" if they leave Ukraine a smoking crater.

This is a war over resources after all. Oil, natural gas, and the infrastructure to deliver those commodities to market. It's not a coincidence that Putin wants the eastern part of Ukraine, and it's not because a lot of ethnic Russians live there. It's about what's underneath their feet.

He almost had it all. A pro-Russian government in Kyiv, some pipelines running to the rest of Europe, and a chance to corner the market (holy shit look at all this natural gas!) Then all that went south...or more accurately...west. He had to step in and set up a government that wasn't looking to the west rather than Moscow, and he figured it would be an easy lift. Whoops. Now he's in a bind. He can't turn Ukraine into a smoking crater. He can't take the whole thing because he's mightily pissed off the Ukrainian people, and he might be able to hold on to gains in the east, but a European market that's turning away from whatever product he's able to extract from that region might not be as profitable as he thought.

Wow, a new theory!

 

[Patooka]

Wow, a new theory!

New to you, maybe. It's been the popular consensus for some time. This youtube clip is over 3 months old.

 

[barbos]

Sure, the guy with a beard and southern accent said so.
I feel so stupid now.

 

[Jayjay]

To Replenish Its Army In Ukraine, Russia Plans To Strip Its Training Units. It Can Only Do This Once.

Russia can replenish its army in Ukraine, restoring it roughly to the numerical strength—if not the technological sophistication—it possessed on day one of the wider war. But it can only replenish the army once.

www.forbes.com

As the wider war in Ukraine enters its fourth month, the Kremlin is beginning the painful process of forming potentially dozens of BTGs to replace an equal number of battalions the Ukrainians have destroyed. The deadline reportedly is in June.

But those BTGs will ride in obsolete vehicles. And they will leave behind them the empty shells of brigades and regiments that no longer will have much, or any, training base.

Trainers are an army’s regenerative tissue—the means by which it sustains itself after wartime damage. When you deploy the trainers, you lose the ability to regenerate. What that means is: Russia can replenish its army in Ukraine, restoring it roughly to the numerical strength—if not the technological sophistication—it possessed on day one of the wider war.

But it can only replenish the army once. If Ukraine destroys those extra Russian BTGs, there might not be any more battalions to take their place.

Let's not forget that Ukraine is also running out of its stock of weapons. This guy had to use material from the 70s:

 

[barbos]

Let's not forget that Ukraine

Ukraine is running out of everything war related - ammunition, fuel, soldiers.
Russian army has 40x advantage in artillery units and 60x in ammunition for them.
There are countless videos of ukrainian units quitting because they have no support with only AK-74 against artillery. These stupid mercenaries are quitting too, they say "We wanted to kill some people but instead we are being constantly being bombed with no chance to even see these russians"
The only reason Ukraine is still kinda "standing" is because Russia does not want Ukraine to be utterly destroyed, after all, large parts of it will be Russia again.