Russian special military operation in Ukraine #36

Reminds me of the "nuclear proliferation threat" of the 90´s. All western MSM talked about poor russian scientists leaving for
Iran or NK or selling them a nuclear bomb. Then Pakistan build the bomb and sourced all needed parts from western countries. Laughing

... while both Iran and North Korea came out with solutions based on the ones that the Ukraina had at it's disposal. A whole NK SLBM program is a direct evolvement of Juzhnoye work, and both Iran and NK cruise missiles are development of Ch-55 ...
But nobody would waste such a good opportunity to put some shit on Russkie anyway.

The Informationen are compress that the Ukraine runs out of several new fronts. See also concrete obstacles in Kyiv, to Belarus etc.

The Informationen are also compress that this time Russia could make serious and sustainably with sufficient material and troops to end it with various thrusts.

In my opinion, the question is no longer whether but only when?

@Garry: a response to ISW's claim that Russia is out of ammo again... but I want to ask why he mentioned New Zealand ? Did anything happened in NZ that I failed to follow ?

Whoever wrote that Russia will run out of a 152mm or 122mm - of which they have stockpile rounds of this - is fishing for followers

It's ridiculous when Russia is not having ammunition depots and factories blown up, to imagine them running out of a stockpiled and produced calibre

why he mentioned New Zealand ? 

NZ is a small country with a small population. Not a lot of industry.


Salyukov is in Belarus

The much vaunted transfer of Leopard to Ukraine was denied by Germany, even prohibiting Poland from passing them on.
The Germans fear the loss of reputation of their equipment (I think it was already lost with the performance in Syria).
Because they will only do it with the condition that the US provides Abrams.
Anyway, the Yankees are gathering 50 countries to massively support Ukraine. Let's wait for the outcome.

I mean Leopard won't do that well in Ukraine for the specific reason that it's working on a combat environment it wasn't meant for, it wasn't designed to operate with Russian gear which is what Ukraine is mostly using it's designed to operate within NATO and NATO logistics l.

As a tank the leopard is very good remember during the chenchen war the t80 performed like ass that wasn't because it was a bad tank no it was a decent tank it was because of the crews where inexperienced.

So makes sense not to transfer them double so because Ukraine wouldn't even get the numbers they need, sending 10 or even 30 wouldn't amount to shit

As a tank the leopard is very good remember during the chenchen war the t80 performed like ass that wasn't because it was a bad tank no it was a decent tank it was because of the crews where inexperienced.

I don't agree that Leopard is a good tank. Alias is an overrated piece of equipment. Just look at the images on the internet of them in Syria. They were torn apart. And it was not an isolated case. It is estimated at 10 vehicles lost and others seriously damaged. The Turks were very disappointed because they had them as a reference.
And look, they don't face regular army. There is also no excuse for the terrain, since they operated on solid ground.

Ukraine Battle Map
@ukraine_map
Estimated Number of Current Ukrainian Battle Tanks

Ukrainian Tanks without Losses
1,250 T-64
750 T-72
300 T-80
Other 70

Current Ukrainian Tanks (Losses)
680 T-64 (570)
560 T-72 (190)
220 T-80 (80)
Other 50 (20)

Total Tanks Without Losses 2,370
Estimated Remaining Tanks 1,460

Seig wrote:it's designed to operate within NATO and NATO logistics

Precisely. This can be said about any heavy equipment that requires logistics support. NATO or no NATO.

I honestly don't understand NATO now. So they will let Ukraine bleed out completely then? What's the point of doing all the talk that ends up being big nothing? Very bad news for Ukraine.

If Ukraine had that amount of tanks still operational, they wouldn't be begging and riding around in pickup trucks....

The Turks sent them in, without aps or armor packages which they had.

They where used wrong, that doesn't make them bad just the morons who sent them into agtm lines, no tank on earth would fare any different in that situation

Some pro-Americans use the recent death of two Maidan soldiers to justify the brutal mistreatment of Maidan regime against Russian POWs.

These pro-Americans claimed that because "Russian soldiers killed all the two Maidan soldiers just because one of them showed resistance" (the old one refused to handed over the gun) therefore "it is OK for the Maidan soldiers killed all the group of Russian POWs just because one Russian refused to surrender".

Remember the incident when the Maidan soldiers executed a whole group of Russian POWs just because one Russian soldier in the group refused to surrender and resisted ?

The Turks sent them in, without aps or armor packages which they had.
They where used wrong, that doesn't make them bad just the morons who sent them into agtm lines, no tank on earth would fare any different in that situation

You are taking one variable from the quotation and trying to advocate for it.
Sure that bad training of the 1994/1995 Russian conscript can be a factor for T-80 performance, but you are missing all the other variables.

First, it was a conflict carried on an equal technical level. Chechen insurgents not only had a weapon on pair with the Russian army, but what is more important, the forces constituted a waste number of soldiers who had much, much better training in the Soviet army.

Being trained in a Soviet army and Soviet times meant a very good knowledge of AT warfare. Each Soviet trooper knew how to operate a waste array of AT weapons, the weak spots of the targets, etc.

Last but not least, it was the technical features of the T-80 that made it vulnerable to urban conflict, and the well-trained and armed Chechen AT teams used that advantage - operating from the basements, they attacked the sides of the tanks where the ammo carousel was located.
That combined already TWO technical issues of T-80, one being restriction in lowering the gun, which makes it problematic to target basements, and the second, of the carousel construction, making it a target twice the size of T-72s ones.

So only a combination of all of that finally made the T-80 perform worse (still it can be disputed) than T-72, but it was effectively used in a conflict anyway.
The second Chechen campaign proved that with all bells&whistles, as only some 20 tanks were irrevocably lost.

Quite the same for Leopard 2.
It clashed for the very first time with an opponent relatively well-armed in ATGMs, and de facto all the L2s losses there were due to ATGMs.

Yet, and that is the funny part, a technological gap was still much in favor for the L2 if we combine its performance with T-80s in 1994-1996 Chechen campaign. The saturation of AT weapon was not even close to the Chechen theatre, the technological gap was bigger, and the missiles were of much lower quality.
If Leopard will face a battlefield full of Konkurs, Kornets, Stugnas, tandem warhead 7PGMs, RPG28&30&32s, it will fly high.

ludovicense wrote:Estimated Remaining Tanks 1,460

Regular wrote:Precisely. This can be said about any heavy equipment that requires logistics support. NATO or no NATO.

I honestly don't understand NATO now. So they will let Ukraine bleed out completely then? What's the point of doing all the talk that ends up being big nothing? Very bad news for Ukraine.

Ukraine doesn't give a shit, it's just a consumable that is running out

I don't think they will send much more material east of the Dniepr, it has taken the NATO masterminds three months to see that Surovikin withdrew to lure NATO forces into the meat grinder in Donbass

The interesting thing is to know what NATO is up to on the other front, in Belarus and Kaliningrad.

The change in command of the SMO indicates that they are going to go from Military Operations on a single front to two or more fronts and that is because NATO is up to something.

It must be taken into account that Gerasimov is one of the three people who have the nuclear launch keys, which gives a key to the importance of the moment in which we are going to enter in a few weeks.

"First, it was a conflict carried on an equal technical level. Chechen insurgents not only had a weapon on pair with the Russian army, but what is more important, the forces constituted a waste number of soldiers who had much, much better training in the Soviet army."

The tank crews literally drove the t80 right up to buildings and got RPG'd from top down, how bad Russians performed during the war is well known because of the utterly horrible state the Russian Federation was in at that time, There was no major technical fault that made the tans performed bad, simply bad tactics and decisions, did the Chechens have better training, yeah no doubt. Did the tank have short comings? sure all tanks generally do and yes a clever foe will take advantage of that, but it takes a poorly trained foe to let them.

On of the first things you learn about operating a tank is simple "Do not drive it near buildings"

But that doesn't change the reality at all you can hear the stories from Russian soldiers who served in that war how bad their command was, all the dump shit that went on.

"Yet, and that is the funny part, a technological gap was still much in favor for the L2 if we combine its performance with T-80s in 1994-1996 Chechen campaign. The saturation of AT weapon was not even close to the Chechen theatre, the technological gap was bigger, and the missiles were of much lower quality.
If Leopard will face a battlefield full of Konkurs, Kornets, Stugnas, tandem warhead 7PGMs, RPG28&30&32s, it will fly high."

So would T72s, 80s, 90s, Armata etc, no tank on earth can go into such an high ATGM environment without APS or armor packages and survive, so what's your point?

Again as for the Leopard in Syria, the turks had the means to protect it from ATGM's however the dumb fucks didn't equip their tanks with it resulting in free kills, No tank would change that situation without APS or armor packages

btw the russians lost more than 20 tanks in the second war, I know what figure you quoting and it's been proven false get your information up to date

On of the first things you learn about operating a tank is simple "Do not drive it near buildings"

Tried to tell that to the Syrians and Israelis? They deserve a good laugh.

Expanding on Dr Snufflebug's post above, I wrote this on another site.

But first you need to understand that Surovikin was not replaced, quite the reverse, as the latest photos show him no longer as a Colonel General (3* to us) but as an full Army General with one large star (a 4*)

The reason for these personnel changes seems to be the Russians are moving to a new phase of the war and are upgrading the management structure to suit. They look to have done it by stripping responsibilities in current roles that are not important to the new roles to facilitate concentration on those that are.

In charge is CGS Marshall Gerasimov who takes over the position was created for AG Surovikin as Joint Forces Commander or JFC. It seems likely that another AG will assume his other responsibilities, perhaps as part of a succession plan as CGS Gerasimov is heading for retirement. The following officers report to him.

AG Surovikin stays in his main role so nothing really changes for him as, although he was notionally JFC, it is likely that most of his time is spent on the Donbas front anyway.

The big change is two more areas have been created needing high rank control. This implies that the operation is to be widened creating the need for two additional commanders General of the Army Salyukov and Colonel General Kim that will likely take on new fronts i.e. some form of escalation in terms of forces committed, say North, East, South. Otherwise there seems little point in making the changes.

Today GA Salyukov has been photographed with a CG in Belarus so we can probably assume that is where he will operate. There is a great deal of interest as to where CG Kim will surface.

"Tried to tell that to the Syrians and Israelis? They deserve a good laugh."

and the syrians stopped doing that after getting popped, so did the isrealis.

Because they realized just how dumb it was

Alamo wrote:"First, it was a conflict carried on an equal technical level. Chechen insurgents not only had a weapon on pair with the Russian army, but what is more important, the forces constituted a waste number of soldiers who had much, much better training in the Soviet army."

What does the word "insurgent" mean?
Adjective. That rises in opposition to the authority, especially if it participates in an armed movement against a government or the execution of its laws. Synonyms: raised, rebellious

The "Chechens" were terrorists and their leader, Dudaev, a former general of the Soviet Armed Forces, was a traitor.

Of course, as in any civil war, there would be people who really believed that they were fighting for something, but the truth is that everything was a farce sponsored by the usual ones, like the Afghanistan War (1978-1992) from which by the way they came many of those terrorists in the Caucasus actually had training and helped by Western "instructors"

And here we have the Chechen "freedom fighters" with their Western sponsors

got the qoute wrong there man, that was alamo's statement not mine

Two observations :

( 1 ) If changing the Generals positions information is correct , then this means that command is less top heavy . If this trend continues , then decisions will increasingly be made by lower ranks ( rank is a word derived from Persian word of '" rang " or colours , in the old Persian Army , to distinguish fighting groups ) . A good thing , I think , where every soldier is a General and vice versa . More efficient , less Brass and more Lead .

( 2 ) What does Salt react with to produce chemicals that erode steel ? But that produces no harmful gas for humans in the Salt - mines ? If such reaction takes place , then all weapons and Ammo rust . No need to send troops down to clear .

and the syrians stopped doing that after getting popped, so did the isrealis.

Because they realized just how dumb it was

No, they have not.
What's more, tanks were used in this role for all the wars we witnessed in the last 70+ years.
In WW2, Korea, Vietnam, 1991, 1994, 1999, 2003, 2008, 2012, 2014, and ... now.
Go&share your wisdom with them all, they will be sure impressed

The mighty leopard 2 against a russian atgm. The discussion is closed.



Abrams a bit more survivable...



...But ends the same way. Discussion closed too.

Kim could take over the Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov area with 100k men

Salyukov going for Kiev, Rivne, Zhytomir with 50k

And Surovikin managing from Kherson to Lughansk
With current numbers maybe 150k in total here

Once the left bank is taken, the demilitarization would be completed

With exception of Odessa and Nikolayev, but that can wait if western arms are blocked

An attack in the west would make sense, thinking about it, most of the banderites come from there

They wouldn't go to donbass or even Northeast, they would go defend their own land

And denazification there would be easier than in donbass