Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Fisherking]

Also regarding the ongoing discussion, isn't everyone attributing too much military might to Russia. Last I heard their army was a shadow of its former self and far worse equipped when compared with the US. If it comes to a fight, they will have the advantage of fighting on their home turf, but that can only take you so far.

The US Army has the best reflective pt belts in the world. DoD gives our service members the most expensive equipment in the world. Some of it might even work.

They are very well educated in what ever this weeks social engineering project as dictated by the executive branch.

I am sure the announcements of pay and benefit cuts and force reductions have had the hoped for effect on troop morale.

I think we have exactly the military capabilities our president has been looking for.

[Kadagar_AV]

Certainly not, but nobody would expect you to face a tank battalion in the open field. In cities though things are different.
Here's an example of an overwhelming tank force being whipped by ragtag rebels.

Tanks are rocks and mech is scissors. Cities are paper.

So yes, mech wins defending cities.

With that said: In a combat operation on the scale Ukraine would be, if it escalated, I for one would SURE bring a few rocks. It is, contrary to popular opinion, not all about the cities. There are several strategical objectives a tank force excels at taking.

Like, anything not surrounded by a city.

EDIT: Even in cities you will want tank support. The tanks ALSO in turn have to be supported of course... But I honestly think few soldiers have ever thought "Waoh, I wish we didn't have any friendly tanks around!"

[The Lurker Below]

Eh. I say America lets it happen. Let the EU defend its own territorial integrity, preferably with stuff they bought from us.

I'm all for America stepping down from world policing, and going back to profiting from European conflict as a nuetral.

closet libertarian?

[rvg]

Tanks are rocks and mech is scissors. Cities are paper.

So yes, mech wins defending cities.

With that said: In a combat operation on the scale Ukraine would be, if it escalated, I for one would SURE bring a few rocks. It is, contrary to popular opinion, not all about the cities. There are several strategical objectives a tank force excels at taking.

Like, anything not surrounded by a city.

Ukraine mostly open plains. That kind of terrain is awesome for tanks. It's even more awesome for anti-tank aircraft.
The world has changed. Warfare has changed. Tanks today are like knights in the 16th century: not irrelevant, but facing rapidly changing methods of warfare.
The days of driving over trenches and busting machine gun nests are mostly over.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ukraine mostly open plains. That kind of terrain is awesome for tanks. It's even more awesome for anti-tank aircraft.
The world has changed. Warfare has changed. Tanks today are like knights in the 16th century: not irrelevant, but facing rapidly changing methods of warfare.
The days of driving over trenches and busting machine gun nests are mostly over.

You are pretty much wrong.

Aircraft need dominance in the air to attack tanks. Before they have air supremacy, they don't even field anti-tank weapons.

A campaign like this would mean that "The West", APART from the whole logistical nightmare of sending an adequate airforce, would STILL need a few weeks to control the air, and that is the best case scenario. Odds are they won't ever get full air dominance.

This means tank / mech / infantry battalions can push relatively unhindered for at least a few weeks. How long do you think it would take the 150.000 Russian prepared soldiers to fulfill their objectives?

If you start to ship an invasion force over, Russia will surely attack. They will also have plenty of time to set up defensive positions. Western forces then have to attack an entrenched Russian military might with all of its capabilities.

Two thumbs up?

[rvg]

You are pretty much wrong.

Aircraft need dominance in the air to attack tanks. Before they have air supremacy, they don't even field anti-tank weapons.

Of course it is. Nothing happens before air supremacy is achieved. And if air supremacy is not achieved then the campaign might as well be abandoned.

A campaign like this would mean that "The West", APART from the whole logistical nightmare of sending an adequate airforce, would STILL need a few weeks to control the air, and that is the best case scenario. Odds are they won't ever get full air dominance.

No air supremacy --> no ground campaign. Heck, when was the last time we attacked without air supremacy? WWI I think.

This means tank / mech / infantry battalions can push relatively unhindered for at least a few weeks. How long do you think it would take the 150.000 Russian prepared soldiers to fulfill their objectives?

Let them fulfill their objectives. Once the air belongs to us we will fulfill ours.

If you start to ship an invasion force over, Russia will surely attack. They will also have plenty of time to set up defensive positions. Western forces then have to attack an entrenched Russian military might with all of its capabilities.

Entrenched where exactly?

[Kadagar_AV]

Entrenched where exactly?

My guess is that they would be entrenched at the most strategical positions. You have a better guess?

Oh,and the Russians will be first to the party to bring AA (and hide it, and put up dummies) you know... That's kind of a force multiplier, no?

The rest of your arguments I give even less for.

[rvg]

My guess is that they would be entrenched at the most strategical positions.

Such as?

[Fisherking]

Ukraine mostly open plains. That kind of terrain is awesome for tanks. It's even more awesome for anti-tank aircraft.
The world has changed. Warfare has changed. Tanks today are like knights in the 16th century: not irrelevant, but facing rapidly changing methods of warfare.
The days of driving over trenches and busting machine gun nests are mostly over.

They have been heralding the end of the tank since the first anti-tank gun.

The day might come but I wouldn’t recommend holding my breath.

The best anti-tank aircraft ever built was the A-10A. It is being removed from service, still the A model.

It beats all the helicopters or fixed wing munitions packages to date.

It is not being replaced. Other fixed wings have proven pretty ineffective, mostly due to speed.

It was commissioned by the army and was a plane the Air Force never wanted. It was moved to the Air National Guard until desert storm and scheduled to be taken out of service then.

We see what normal fixed wing craft did in Serbia. I wouldn’t bet my bottom dollar on jets sweeping the field of armored vehicles either.

[Kadagar_AV]

Such as?

I'm sure Russian generals have an idea or two.

I am also sure it would beat both yours and mine best idea.

[rvg]

The best anti-tank aircraft ever built was the A-10A. It is being removed from service, still the A model.

It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?

Seriously though, is there a better terrain than open plains for popping tanks from the air?

I'm sure Russian generals have an idea or two.

I am also sure it would beat both yours and mine best idea.

Maybe. Maybe not. Can't be cities though, because then we're back to the rock/paper/scissors scenario that does not bode well for tanks.

[Brenus]

Allahu Akbar!!! *pulls the pin on the suicide vest*: Not efficient at the end, as defensive or offensive tactic. The Kamikazes were more numerous than every suicide bombers together and achieved absolutely nothing. Slow down a little bit the US, but nothing. The problem with suicide attacks is at one moment you are running out of combatants.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?

Seriously though, is there a better terrain than open plains for popping tanks from the air?

1. You need to control the air first.
2. You need to control the air first.
3. You need to control the air first.

My point is that you wont be able to control the air anytime soon. And definitely not before Russia has turned Ukraine into a very unfriendly territory to fly over.

[Myth]

You are pretty much wrong.

Aircraft need dominance in the air to attack tanks. Before they have air supremacy, they don't even field anti-tank weapons.

A campaign like this would mean that "The West", APART from the whole logistical nightmare of sending an adequate airforce, would STILL need a few weeks to control the air, and that is the best case scenario. Odds are they won't ever get full air dominance.

This means tank / mech / infantry battalions can push relatively unhindered for at least a few weeks. How long do you think it would take the 150.000 Russian prepared soldiers to fulfill their objectives?

If you start to ship an invasion force over, Russia will surely attack. They will also have plenty of time to set up defensive positions. Western forces then have to attack an entrenched Russian military might with all of its capabilities.

Two thumbs up?

12 aircraft carriers and military bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Commence dropping half a million bombs on said entrenched positions for the next 6 months.

And somewhere someone would be going: "Boy, I sure am glad I own a corporation which happens to manufacture bombs!"

[Fisherking]

It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?

Seriously though, is there a better terrain than open plains for popping tanks from the air?

It is not being replaced by anything. Just taken out of service and the pilots will move to fighters and given a multi mission role.

Sure, open ground is good for seeing what ever moves. If it can be seen, it can be hit and if it can be hit it can be killed.

Also opens up a great opportunity for friendly fire incidents. The air forces of the world excel at that.

[rvg]

1. You need to control the air first.
2. You need to control the air first.
3. You need to control the air first.

Did I ever say otherwise? Of course you need to control the air first, and we will do that before we do anything else.

My point is that you wont be able to control the air anytime soon. And definitely not before Russia has turned Ukraine into a very unfriendly territory to fly over.

So what you saying is that air superiority is unachievable. Why? We have air bases all over Europe today.

[Husar]

No air supremacy --> no ground campaign. Heck, when was the last time we attacked without air supremacy? WWI I think.

I think in Korea and Vietnam you had supremacy of sorts but the skies weren't all yours. The German air force also wasn't fully beaten until the end of the war. The difference being that none of these conflicts infolved modern ground-based missile systems like the ones Russia has.

In Vietnam some early ECM and some luck were enough to avoid most S-75s which were not only guided by badly-trained troops but also had relatively primitive guidance systems. I do not think the S-300/S-400 and similar systems will make it that easy nowadays.

[rvg]

I think in Korea and Vietnam you had supremacy of sorts but the skies weren't all yours. The German air force also wasn't fully beaten until the end of the war. The difference being that none of these conflicts infolved modern ground-based missile systems like the ones Russia has.

In Vietnam some early ECM and some luck were enough to avoid most S-75s which were not only guided by badly-trained troops but also had relatively primitive guidance systems. I do not think the S-300/S-400 and similar systems will make it that easy nowadays.

My point is that our military tactics revolve around air superiority. this of course is a weakness if air superiority cannot be achieved. If however it is achieved, then I pity da foo on the receiving end.

[Kagemusha]

It's being replaced by something shinier, is it not?

Seriously though, is there a better terrain than open plains for popping tanks from the air?




Maybe. Maybe not. Can't be cities though, because then we're back to the rock/paper/scissors scenario that does not bode well for tanks.

My bet would be that once in their goal. The Russian forces would spread out. Column of armored vehicles great target, single one not so great. Also they would build decoys to waste ammo into. They would spread AA evenly all around to become a nuisance and as the the attacking US air crafts would have to spread out. They would counter attack with their fighters creating local aerial superiority situations, thus causing losses. Once Western ground forces would appear they would hug you more tight then your own women after long absence, thus rendering air superiority more or less waste. Once they had hugged your forces to death, because of their superior firepower at ground, they would spread again.

This might give them some time of success, but in the long run, once the Western economy would have been geared for war. It would be only matter of time they would loose via attrition.

Just one speculation.

[Kadagar_AV]

So what you saying is that air superiority is unachievable. Why? We have air bases all over Europe today.

Even with those air bases, it would take the US quite some time to get ready for operations. Look at Serbia, how long it took there. Then factor in that Russia have, like what? A hundred times better AA than Serbia?

Also, Russia will be supported by their own jets, that actually is on a comparable scale to what the The west would be able to muster anytime soon.


Don't get me wrong, I very well think "The West" would win a prolonged conflict. But if it gets to a prolonged conflict, we might as well bring out the nukes for all the damage it would cause the world.


So simply: The West don't have the ability to intervene here, short of starting WWIII. And I don't think many western nations are ready to do that over Ukraine.

[rvg]

So simply: The West don't have the ability to intervene here, short of starting WWIII. And I don't think many western nations are ready to do that over Ukraine.

Well that's a given. That of course nullifies all of the discussion about conventional warfare anyway. Fortunately the situation can be handled without ever firing a shot: Russian regime can function without popular support, it can function without freedom, but it cannot function without money. It is pretty much entirely dependent on the EU for its gas exports. Change that and Putin will feel the pain. More importantly the entire kleptocratic establishment under him will feel the pain. And if he cannot alleviate their pain they will find someone who can.

[Beskar]

The EU forces are more worried by balance of sexual minorities and tax cuts, so they have absolutely NOTHING to send.

This is not the case at all, and the more you mention it, the more I think you are deluding yourself.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is not the case at all, and the more you mention it, the more I think you are deluding yourself.

I was of course exaggerating.

However, Ukraine has SURE been a hell of a wake up call as to what really matters.

[The Lurker Below]

Sure, open ground is good for seeing what ever moves. If it can be seen, it can be hit and if it can be hit it can be killed.

Suddenly open ground feels safer and much less open than being in the air, anywhere.

[Husar]

I was of course exaggerating.

However, Ukraine has SURE been a hell of a wake up call as to what really matters.

Less antagonism towards a huge northern nation that sees itself more and more isolated by nations that do not want to let go of old prejudices? What happens when you force a bear into a corner?

[Kadagar_AV]

Less antagonism towards a huge northern nation that sees itself more and more isolated by nations that do not want to let go of old prejudices? What happens when you force a bear into a corner?

I don't disagree,

[rvg]

Less antagonism towards a huge northern nation that sees itself more and more isolated by nations that do not want to let go of old prejudices? What happens when you force a bear into a corner?

What corner? Bear is angry because he has no friends. he has no friends because he's so damn angry all the time.

[Kagemusha]

What corner? Bear is angry because he has no friends. he has no friends because he's so damn angry all the time.

My take would be that Bear has been hibernating for a while and now that it has awaken. It witnesses that the Eagle and its friends have taken most of its territory and it just cant tolerate them taking any more. My bet is that now that the Bear has knowledge of how alone it is. It will start making better friends with Panda and Elephant..

[rvg]

My take would be that Bear has been hibernating for a while and now that it has awaken. It witnesses that the Eagle and its friends have taken most of its territory and it just cant tolerate them taking any more. My bet is that now that the Bear has knowledge of how alone it is. It will start making better friends with Panda and Elephant..

Eagle is cool, Eagle can fly, Eagle is in debt up to his eyeballs to Panda: there is no way Panda will go against Eagle. Elephant hates Panda, but does a lot of business with Eagle. If Bear wants to be friends with Panda and Elephant, that's quite alright, but they will not stop being friends with Eagle.

[Brenus]

“12 aircraft carriers and military bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Commence dropping half a million bombs on said entrenched positions for the next 6 months” How much time for the Russians to take Bulgaria, Rumania and Bulgaria? Last time they did it in around 1 month against a skillful and well equipped enemy. As dropping half a million bombs, err, we don’t have enough, sorry…

Then why do you suppose the Russian Air Force (or missile) won’t answer? How many hit on Bucharest, Budapest and Sofia before the countries ban any attacks from their territory? How many missiles on St Francisco before the US stop to do the same (or grenades on Anchorage)?

Ok: With complete air superiority (350 planes vs 16). NATO (480 attacks a day) destroyed the impressive quantity of 14 Serbian tanks. All right, NATO destroyed a lot of stoves and plastic silhouettes of tanks and an awful number of decoys. The most successful air attack was done by the Serbian Air force on Tuzla in a sky owned by the AWACS. So, forget about movies and we speak of war against a modern army. What saved NATO was the total impossibility of Serbia to answer (remember when they took two US soldier prisoners in Macedonia, what an outrage… They were off-limits!).
So leave behind the Air superiority and other flying tanks killers because, well it didn’t work.
However, still a lot of fun to read books and reports written after…