Ukraine - Russia Conflict

randomradio said:
The military would normally check inventory before mobilisation happens. I don't buy this story of underequipped troops.
Click to expand...
Yes, but because of corruption the inventory is wrong: winter equipment is in the inventory but cannot be found, tanks in reserve are no longer usable because expensive equipment has been taken away, hardware has rotted in abandonment, bullet-proof vests are not up to military standards and are in a terrible state, and the mobilized troops have to buy their equipment if they do not want to be deprived in battle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD
1666044742681.png

Picdelamirand-oil said:
Yes, but because of corruption the inventory is wrong: winter equipment is in the inventory but cannot be found, tanks in reserve are no longer usable because expensive equipment has been taken away, hardware has rotted in abandonment, bullet-proof vests are not up to military standards and are in a terrible state, and the mobilized troops have to buy their equipment if they do not want to be deprived in battle.
Click to expand...
With any luck they'll have drank the fuel in their liquid propelled ICBMs too.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1582122354830110720
The death toll rose to four after a plane crashed on a nine-story building in Yeysk

Six people were missing, 25 people were injured.

The Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Kuban announced the elimination of open burning in the Yeysk high-rise building

t.me

Интерфакс

⚡️До четырех выросло число погибших после падения самолета на девятиэтажку в Ейске Шесть человек пропали без вести, пострадали 25 человек. МЧС Кубани заявило о ликвидации открытого горения в многоэтажке Ейска @interfaxonline
t.me t.me
 
randomradio said:
Small packages to combat units, that's normal. It happens in stages. The first set of troops act as reserves to replace frontline troops. Then slowly new units are trained and raised. 300 tanks and some 100-150 IFVs are needed to form an armoured division worth of units to launch an offensive. That's effectively 10 tank BTGs, with around 7000 troops. Another 10 IFV BTGs will be necessary to protect the flanks, so that's another 7000 men. So about 15000 men with 450 tanks and IFVs each are necessary to launch an offensive out of the 200,000 mobilised troops. So these units can be separately trained over the next 2-3 months over the winter before renewing their offensive next year while the rest hold the line.

A similar sized unit can be raised for a different front as well. So 30000 men, another 10000 in reserve, 40 BTGs, you get 2 strike corps, effectively.
Click to expand...
Your two attack corps will be equipped with 900 tanks and 900 IFVs, but on the front line you also have to replace the material losses, it is not enough to replace the men. Oryx has updated its list of losses to 1393 lost tanks and more than 2500 infantry vehicles, so in total more than 2293 tanks and 3400 IFV are needed.
 
BMD said:
Nope, the Taliban is actually a collection of warring tribes who band together for common goals.
Click to expand...
🤣 your selective amensia on west's role in fostering these jihadi's is pretty amusing. west & their jihadi chums fight each other and they want some useful idiots to help them fix it? thats your so called ally pakistan.

PS: thats a great tag line.
 
randomradio said:
For example, the Feb operation in Kiev was inadequate in terms of the number of units used to take the city by force, which is why it failed. The Russians didn't expect they had a fight on their hands. Kool-Aid much. They are unlikely to repeat that mistake.
Click to expand...
According to some unconfirmed sources doing rounds is that when russia laid siege to kiev , ukraine came forward to hold talks based on condition russia lift the siege for any talks to be held. Russians agreed as their dis-organized siege was not doing great on the ground due to ineffective co-ordination with miles long queue. They more or less thought they had the joker on the table and pulled back troops to organize themselves. Meanwhile joker jumped of the table as his western backers dint want any negotiations.
 
jetray said:
🤣 your selective amensia on west's role in fostering these jihadi's is pretty amusing. west & their jihadi chums fight each other and they want some useful idiots to help them fix it? thats your so called ally pakistan.

PS: thats a great tag line.
Click to expand...
No, I just have a full understanding of Afghanistan that doesn't begin with the Soviet Afghan War, which was actually the result of an earlier Soviet-backed coup. Remember this, India and the USSR were very quick to recognise the new government, just two days after the coup started.

en.wikipedia.org

1973 Afghan coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The 1973 Afghan coup d'état was led by Army General and prince Mohammed Daoud Khan against his cousin, King Mohammed Zahir Shah, on 17 July 1973...The Soviet Union and India diplomatically recognized the new government on July 19.[11]
Click to expand...
 
A Person said:
You are very mistaken here. Russian army is extremely dependent on manpower.

While Western armies have pursued heavy automation and optimization because they have shrunk and professionalized, the Russian army remains a conscript army. There were reforms to professionalize and imitate the West, but they were never finished. The Russian army remains largely conscript-based. (That's why there were these sham annexations referenda. A way for Putin to give himself the right to send conscripts outside of Russia, something that is not supposed to happen outside of a formal state of war. Legally, this is still "a special military operation"...)

A simple example is ammunition logistics. With small armies (at least compared to their Cold War size), the West couldn't afford to throw the same kinds of volume of ordnance as they could during WW1 and WW2. Hence the focus on precision: instead of launching a hundred shells and hoping one of them will hit the target, let's throw just one, but one that's guaranteed to hit. It's much more expensive -- maybe a hundred times more expensive, even -- but you get the same effect and it's just one hundredth of the logistics weight, you therefore need less ammunition, less canons, and less personnel. Likewise, logistics were improved to go faster. Palettization was a big thing, allowing to expedite tremendously any sort of transfer from boat to train to airplane to truck -- just a lot faster with less work and less workers. Russians? No such thing happened. Everything is done manually. Transferring ammo boxes from a train to a truck takes hours as each box must be moved by hand individually.

Russia didn't push for the same level of automation because they've got conscripts, so who cares? Workforce is abundant. The entire structure of the Russian armed forces is built around the idea that they have a ton of cheap human labor. Conscripts account for 30% of each BTG, that's the official proportion, without the conscripts a BTG is only at 70% strength, it's how the whole thing has been designed.
Click to expand...

Western armies have more infantry, which is why the armies are big. The Russians are replacing their infantry with heavy weapons. Like the newest one is the BMPT Terminator, which is meant to replace a BMP-2 and its 7 troops. The BMPT needs a crew of 5, whereas a BMP-2 is packed with 10, so they cut down their manpower requirements by half with slightly higher initial costs.

The manpower required for logistics isn't a lot. A lot of the increase in efficiency has more to do with transportation than manpower.

An Abrams BCT has 90 tanks, 150 Bradleys and 45 M113s. A Bradley carries 6 troops and the M113 carries, say, 12. So the infantry support is about 1500. Otoh, 3 tank BTGs are needed for 90 tanks, and they are supported by a total of just 30 IFVs carrying 7 troops each, that's 210 troops. A ratio of well over 7:1. This is where the Russians separate themselves from Western armies.

It's the Russians that are aiming for more automation on the ground than anyone else, 'cause of their population problems. Future Russian units could become even smaller with the addition of new weapons like the BMPT.

In any case, precision weapons are mainly carried by artillery. Compared to an Abrams unit, the 3 BTGs would have just 2x the amount of artillery. So, at worst, the Russian unit will just need an extra guy for each gun or the crews will have to work a little bit harder. If you work fast enough, 3 guys can load a howitzer with some 40 shells in a matter of minutes. So you are exaggerating the problem.

A Person said:
The Armata is a joke, like the Felon. Neither will ever enter mass production.

Click to expand...

As of today, the jury's still out. We will know only once they start mass production. They plan on building 100 Felons a year. So that speaks volumes about their confidence in it. They plan on starting off with 24 a year initially. No clue about the Armata yet, let's see what they decide in a year or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom