Then,should we not consider Dzinghis khan conqest ,too?
Becouse he conqered in Asia and Europa, and had no problems with genociding populations if he decide to do so.
Sometching which in modern times do not happened till Vandee.
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
Becouse he conqered in Asia and Europa, and had no problems with genociding populations if he decide to do so.
Sometching which in modern times do not happened till Vandee.
The Mongol Horde stretched across Asia, Asia Minor/the Middle-East, and into Europe, but that was only really three continents -- it didn't expand into Africa proper, either Americas, the high seas, or Australasia.
Yes, the loss of life was horrific across the collective expansion of the Horde, and it had conflicts and wars across many areas, but it still couldn't be considered a "World War" or even a "Proto-World War" because it was fighting many different, scattered polities across these areas than several major players and their allies/smaller countries (such as the British Empire, the French, the Spanish Empire, et cetera) which owned territory across different continents.
Pan-continental, yes, but "world"? No.
Again, using the British Empire as an example, the wars fought against certain states and their allies encompassed multiple theatres across different continents. The British fought the French in North America, South America, Central America (?), the Caribbean, the seas/oceans, Africa, Europe, and even IIRC Asia as part of the same conflict. That's the distinction.
Once the REAL numbers come out, ill wager we will see that Russias real losses are far less, and Ukraines real losses are far far more. In fact, in terms of casualties, ill bet this will be one of the most lopsided wars ever fought between 2 industrialised powers.
Russia's on the offense, their wars are traditionally casulity heavy, there are numerous reports from Russian troops about corruption and logistic problems so around 100,000 or so sound about right, comparing it to past industrialized wars namely the world wars this is actually light for russia.
But its still a way worse performance then any one realistically expected like most experts expected russia to roll the country in two weeks and the fact that you have trench warfare in prime tank country shows things are going really bad for russia.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
My god you still dont get it do you?
The old paradigm of mass mechanised big arrow war between heavily industrialised nations is DEAD.
The transparent battlefield, ATGMs, drones, precision guided munitions, rockets and scatterable mines makes this fucking suicide. If you mass your armour, you'll be spotted and hit with drones and rockets and glide bombs. Once you get going, you'll be hit with drones, precision guided artillery and impeded with scatterable mines.
Everyone assumed certain things, and everyone was wrong because no one understood how these factors would change things. Ukraine is the graveyard of assumptions.
The Russians found this out at the start of the war. The Ukraine found out in this 'counteroffensive' where they tried a mechanised blitz in the start and got curbstomped. The Leopards and Bradleys fared no better than t-72s. And if the USA were to get involved they would find out too. especially because...get this...THE USA HAS NO EXPERIENCE IN BREACHING HEAVY ECHELONED DEFENSES.
This is a war of infantry assaults, guns and drones. And in this war, Russia has an immense advantage in long range bang bangs.
The big arrows will come at the end, once one side is exhausted.
I agree with this except for the end part -- Russia doesn't have an "immense advantage", at least not any more. If anything, they're suffering and are on the defence in the artillery game.
They're buying already half-degraded shells from shitholes like China and North Korea to try to maintain some sort of operational capacity. They're losing scores of valuable artillery pieces (especially rocket and missile-based ones), supplies, counter-battery vehicles e.g. radars, and command vehicles which they cannot replace to Ukraine's own artillery fire, drone strikes, and surgical strikes from partisan units.
Frankly put? The Ukrainian stuff, given to them by the West, is a hell of a lot better than what the Russians are using, and it's taking its toll.
Hell, a few months ago there were intercepted transmissions from Russians in the field saying they couldn't even poke their heads out of their trenches without being spotted by a drone and having accurate artillery fire rained down on them.
Russia's in deep shit. The only "immense advantage" they have is in wrecks and body-bags.
I think that this year is going to be like 1942 for the US and allies; the year of painful lessons.
The learning curve for Ukraine is going to be steep, simply because Russian's value their own people so little and have enough hardware to make Syrian-style armored VBIEDs en masse (the real threat to Ukrainian defensive positions outside arty). Just jam the tracks forward in a tank or BMP filled with arty shells or mines or simply anfo and bail.
An unpiloted armored bomb cannot be deterred, only stopped by hitting the track or blowing it completely.
However, the gear in the pipeline for Ukraine is meant to become the core of NATO standard force for Ukraine after the war, not just fill the gap in the next year. The protected status for UA refugees has been extened till sometime in 2025, which means that the immigration bureacracy people are expecting the war to last at least that long.
The naval war means more right now than the land war; if UA can sink or just put out of action multiple RU ships, and eventually the Kerch, it can put the pressure needed to finally break the Russian hold on Crimea.
F-16s next year mean UA can dominate the Black Sea theater, and sink/damage RU ships at more favorable rates into the future.
The real prizes to sink would be the 3 Black Sea Fleet Kilo's; those have been a part of the missile barrage launcher fleet. And unlike the surface fleet, the Kilo's are generally simple enough to maintain and well enough designed the few competent saliors left in the Russian fleet can keep them from sinking from disrepair and in action.
As others have said, Russia's logistics situation is pretty much borked.
Getting stuff from China that's not so much a sign of weakness but having to get shells from freaking north korea and importing drones from Iran...that's just sad.
They might still win this but the cost of blood is going to get higher and higher with all of the training and Tech Ukraine is getting. A long war really isn't going to do anything good for russia.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Does it matter where they get supplies from?
The USA is begging all kinds of third world countries for equipment to give to Africa because they cant manufacture enough. The only country on earth right now with an end to end logistics system in China. If the USA was to go to war right now, they would be dependant on many other countries for supplies.
It matters because it shows that Russia is basically scraping the bottom of the barrel. Do you really think they'd be buying drones from Iran or half-assed shells from North Korea if they had the choice?
Picking and choosing where to eat is very different from "anything I can get, even if it's moldy bread".
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
again, who cares? Shells are shells, drones are drones.
Russia attempted tank VBIEDs.
It failed because it is so slow
Because it shows how badly Russia's supply chain has degraded and their desperation in, using my previous analogy, being forced to eat moldy bread instead of anything else? Meanwhile Ukraine is basically being given gourmet food by the truckload for a family of two.
If you're having to buy shitty, half-squibbed shells from North Korea just to maintain some sort of operational capacity, that does not support the "Russia has an overwhelming artillery advantage" supposition.
When we have Russians in the field saying they can't even poke their heads out of their trenches for fear of having Ukrainian rockets, missiles, and shells landing directly on their heads, and when we see irreplaceable Russian support vehicles (such as counter-battery) literally being blown to pieces on camera on a regular basis, that does not speak of, again, an "overwhelming artillery advantage".
paulobrito
Well-known member
While Russia is getting NK shells, Ukraine is getting NATO, and after that Israel and SK ones.
Right now, nobody knows what side is going to be exhausted first.
Remember, both sides are lying a lot - like in all other wars, duh.
What we know for sure is that NATO failed in several assessments of the size of the Russian depots.
Right now, nobody knows what side is going to be exhausted first.
Remember, both sides are lying a lot - like in all other wars, duh.
What we know for sure is that NATO failed in several assessments of the size of the Russian depots.
There's a reason we aren't hearing much of those yet. Unlike flying drones, an infantryman with a decent anti tank weapon can absolutely stop those (as far as ways to detonate explosives are concerned, the plasma jet of a shaped charge is a pretty damn effective one), and Ukraine has received plenty of that. Consider what their territorial defense did to Russia's best tanks operated by thinking crews...
The flying drones are a far bigger problem, because they can come from any direction, are relatively hard to detect, and the most effective ways to take them down require very expensive ammo, or at least very expensive equipment like radars, IR, guidance systems and a plugged in computer controlled autocannon located in the right place (which could be anywhere, so you need a lot). So, we are talking using missiles that cost at least a quarter million dollars a piece to take down a $20k Shahed or $5k converted civilian drone, or something like this:
German Air Force To Permanently Cede MANTIS Air Defense Systems To Slovakia - MilitaryLeak.COM
The Federal Republic of Germany will provide Slovakia with two sets of the modern MANTIS air defense system, which will strengthen the protection of the
militaryleak.com
Much bigger problem than arranging a dude with NLAW or a TOW team on the frontline, might want those there anyway.
Last edited:
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
We're watching live as a third-rate power, formerly thought to be first-rate, fights against another third-rate power, formerly thought to be fourth rate, and using outside support to try to move up to second-rate.
You're missing a number of key factors in your analysis here.
1. Neither side has aerospace supremacy. The Russians certainly have more air power than the Ukrainians, but they have completely failed to suppress Ukrainian air defenses, and regularly lose airframes when they try to push into Ukrainian territory.
2. This is Russia's first time fighting with a nation large enough to stand even a shadow of a chance since literally World War II. The level of incompetence and corruption they've displayed at every level is truly staggering, and has been absolutely defining to the war. They've gone from 'completely disastrous performance' to 'mediocre performance' by giving up on trying to mimic advanced NATO tactics, and using extremely simplistic tactics instead.
3. The US has been using drones, complete air superiority, and advanced data networks since the 90's. The big deal about the Ukrainian war, is that drones are cheap enough now that everybody can do it, and small/cheap enough third-rate powers can afford to use them as simple suicide munitions. This is not some huge change or revolutionary, what is a change of pace, is both sides in a conflict being able to do it to each other.
Three here is hard to over-emphasize. Since the First Gulf War, the world has been so accustomed to American military power so utterly and completely curbstomping any enemy which its politicians allow it to engage, that a lot of people didn't bother paying attention to the particular details of how it does that. The tools we're seeing in Ukraine are not new, what's new is seeing other people use them, and use them reciprocally.
The reason that this war is bogged down is not because of broad use of new technology never seen before. Every bit of this technology has been used and seen before. It's bogged down because the Russians thought they were hot shit enough to pull of NATO tactics, and got their faces kicked in for their trouble. Even with that being true, the Ukrainian military started out a fraction of the Russian military's size, and even as they've rapidly mobilized, they don't have anywhere near the amount of heavy metal needed to match the Russians hardware capabilities.
And again, neither side can use air power effectively.
If the US/NATO were involved in a conflict like this, you would see sustained, devastating SEAD operations using fifth generation aircraft, and very expensive stealthed air-to-ground missiles specifically designed to take out enemy SAM batteries. Nobody knows absolutely for certain that it would be 100% effective, but we do know that it would be a hell of a lot more effective than what the Russians have managed, and than what the Ukrainians even remotely had the capacity to try.
Once the enemy doesn't have a single battery capable of high-altitude interception, their own aircraft are either shot out of the sky or forced to retreat to airbases hundreds of miles behind their borders, then you try for a major combined arms offensive.
The Russians were too incompetent to do this, the Ukrainians lacked the manpower and hardware to do this, and it is core doctrine for the US/NATO to establish these conditions before you try for a major advance.
Plus, when you can coordinate your service arms effectively like this, it prevents the enemy from having weeks and months to entrench heavily.
What we're seeing now is not some major evolution in the form of modern warfare, it's seeing what happens when neither side has the ability to fight a modern war. There are certainly lessons to be learned, important things to note from the proliferation of drones, but unless your quote is referring to how World War 2 style tank advances are dead, no, using mechanized forces to push thrusts into enemy territory very much is not dead.
Not as effective as it used to be, sure, but until you can come up with a better option for a rapid drive than mechanized warfare, it isn't and won't be dead.
Then use old 23mm guns on trucks,and it would be mobile.No radar,only classical optics and maybe thermal.There's a reason we aren't hearing much of those yet. Unlike flying drones, an infantryman with a decent anti tank weapon can absolutely stop those (as far as ways to detonate explosives are concerned, the plasma jet of a shaped charge is a pretty damn effective one), and Ukraine has received plenty of that. Consider what their territorial defense did to Russia's best tanks operated by thinking crews...
The flying drones are a far bigger problem, because they can come from any direction, are relatively hard to detect, and the most effective ways to take them down require very expensive ammo, or at least very expensive equipment like radars, IR, guidance systems and a plugged in computer controlled autocannon located in the right place (which could be anywhere, so you need a lot). So, we are talking using missiles that cost at least a quarter million dollars a piece to take down a $20k Shahed or $5k converted civilian drone, or something like this:
That can take down drones cheaply, but has a few km range and costs as much as a cheap fighter jet.German Air Force To Permanently Cede MANTIS Air Defense Systems To Slovakia - MilitaryLeak.COM
The Federal Republic of Germany will provide Slovakia with two sets of the modern MANTIS air defense system, which will strengthen the protection of the
Much bigger problem than arranging a dude with NLAW or a TOW team on the frontline, might want those there anyway.
Everybody and his dog could made it.
With classical optics, you will need way more trucks, guns and people, simply because that's WW2 flak pretty much, and you know how much shooting it took those to hit far larger WW2 planes. Also forget spotting the drone at night or in poor weather.
With good thermals, you go up a lot in effectiveness, but also in price, we're talking 6 figures $. Though good long range targeting thermals may not be appropriate for scanning the sky for drones, so you need wider thermals, add cost...
Czechs actually did make and send to Ukraine a system like this, as cheap as possible.
Specifically designed to hit Shaheds with their medium size, no dodging, and fairly predictable behavior.
90m CZK is about 4 million dollars, for 15, so quarter million dollar per. And that figure may be lower than it should be totally new if they are using old guns because i doubt they are making new ZPU-2's.
You also need to train and pay about 10 people to use each one in shifts, all to cover around 2km radius, against some of cheapest long range drones, though at least its fairly mobile.
And those costs go up again if they build a higher flying Shahed that needs a bigger gun to reach and better optics, nevermind stabilization, to spot and hit.
23mm version would probably need a bigger truck and some stabilization, price would go up, and so would range, but not by much.
And then you need shifts of trained people to actually keep scanning the sky. Also you may want a nice stabilized mount to actually be able to hit the drones at longer ranges or hit small ones, more cost.
If you add all these nice things, it turns out you may aswell get the computer controlled AA gun and have lots of people spared for other duties. The computer never gets tired, distracted or sleepy.
Compare to the mentioned MANTIS. 2 systems are 16 guns, plus radars and command centers, which are a bonus. ~100 million dollars means 6.25 million per gun. But they are fully stabilized, can also hit fast aircraft, small drones and even missiles, and they are in 35mm caliber, giving them 4-6km range depending on target altitude and flight profile, so they cover more airspace, so even though Viktor is still cheaper per linear area covered, once you add quality things like also shooting down cruise missiles, even the very new thingy from Germany is not that crazy expensive.
Last edited:
I mean, the US and its allies will not run out first.
Because it is already higher quality then that of the NK stuff
And more om VBIED, they are relatively easy to take out in a combat zone.
Those were most effective against badly underequipped in AT weapons forces in Syria, not a common scenario against proper armies.
In guerilla warfare it is great.
In a LSCO fight? Ha... that's a joke