"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (4 Viewers)

Belgorod is right there for crying out loud!

Nice article.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Given the parlous state of their reserves, that might be useful to Putin for controlling the domestic narrative, but in terms of combat capability -- T-62s and raw recruits on the battlefield?

Click to expand...

Moscow, and St. Petersburg before it have never cared about the size of the butcher's bill for any of their military adventures.

The MLRS is in the pipeline for Ukraine, both from the US and from at least one other NATO country. I believe the controversy, and Biden's remark, are due to the idea of supplying the ATACMS part of the MLRS system - which is not in the pipeline. I think the reporters (or whoever) figured that the ATACMS is to be supplied - this is not the case.

MLRS tactical missile ranges are between 28-43 miles. The ATACMS has a range of upto ~180 miles.

Admiral Beez said:

Moscow, and St. Petersburg before it have never cared about the size of the butcher's bill for any of their military adventures.

Click to expand...

Right, but the point is that their utility will be limited in any scope other than simple numbers, and calling up reserves that will be sending bodybags back home may not be safe for a regime that is already relying on draconian measures to stifle dissent.

GTX said:

Russia's wins in the east reveal an important trend in the Ukraine war

The Russian military's successes in the east of Ukraine illuminate an important trend in this war: the Russians are starting to learn from their earlier failures, writes Mick Ryan.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

The last paragraph:

And despite recent Russian gains, the overall strategic balance still appears to favour Ukraine. They have significant reserves of personnel available. The Ukrainians have also demonstrated better tactical leadership, morale and strategic planning than the Russians.

The Ukrainians still don't seem have have deployed much of their tank park. Are they saving it for a bigger counteroffensive, do they not have enough troops to man them, or are they leery of a big, pitched battle?

I'm guessing they have the tanks. It's the large scale organized infantry, artillery and air support for a proper combined arms operation that go with it. Russia invaded 24 Feb. How long for assets to be trained, put in place and supported? I came up with about 118 M-777s, a dozen Cesar 155s, 40 122mm SPGs and 20 M-109s (from Ed Nash's Military Matters channel) enroute. I didn't count a lot of other stuff like a buttload of M-113s and towed howitzers. Does Soviet artillery have compatible trailer hitches for M-113s?
I'm kind of hoping for a few squadrons of F-16s as well!

First of all (and most importantly), take what Biden says with a grain of salt.

The MLRS deal apoears to be going through, but the news outlets that are stating he won't are parroting Reuters (like Al Jazeera, The Guardian, et al).

As has been mentioned before, the political "speak" is like a disclaimer. Currently, American hardware has been effectively used to kill Russians. If Washington was truly "worried" about hurting Russia's feelings, they would have not provided lethal aid to Ukraine.

One of the missiles the MLRS shoots (it can shoot several different types) has a range of 500 km. I think Biden is leery of feeding arms into an exchange of missiles that will be targeting cities far behind the front. I'm not sure I agree with that rationale, if that is indeed what's going on behind the scenes. Bringing the war home to Russia might change public opinion there ... or might generate domestic support for any wider Russian mobilization. But Ukraine ought to be hitting what logistical nodes they can anywhere in Russia they can hit, imo.

SaparotRob , I seem to remember a couple of hundred M113s being donated no too long ago. Perhaps they haven't made it over yet? At any rate, I'm not sure the Ukrainians can pull off a true combined-arms offensive given the weak state of their air force.

The Ukrainian military has had the ability to strike targets in Russia and Belarus this entire time.

Yet, they haven't.

They are not interested in anything but repelling the invaders off their land and that has been their primary focus since day one and I cannot see any reason why they'd change their focus.

GrauGeist said:

The Ukrainian military has had the ability to strike targets in Russia and Belarus this entire time.

Yet, they haven't.

They are not interested in anything but repelling the invaders off their land and that has been their primary focus since day one and I cannot see any reason why they'd change their focus.

Click to expand...

Like I said, if that is indeed the rationale, I'm not sure I agree with it. Just pointing out one possible reason Biden seems to be dithering at what I think we all agree is a critical time.

Interesting UK assessment on Russian morale

If, besides low morale, we add T-62 tanks, and (so far unsubstantiated) reports that Russia is almost depleted of iskander missiles, maybe those optimists that claim that tides may turn in summer are actually right.

A small number of the M113 are in the theater already (I do not know if any are currently deploying to the battlefield or if they are still being used to train at friendly country assembly points). The rest are in transit or still being brought up to operational status.

The 365 mile (500 km) range missile for the MLRS is not yet in service (I think).

There are logistics/training issues and there are transport/deployment issues, some systems being sent to Ukraine have issues in both categories.

One example is the US 155mm gun systems and the MLRS.

The shortest distance from a friendly (usable) entry point to the combat zone is ~200 miles from Romania to the Kherson area, along a fairly narrow route near the Black Sea coast. If the entry point is through Poland - or the north of Romania - the distance to the Kharkiv area is over 400 miles.

The M777 towed platform is small and relatively light. As such it can be towed by any reasonable size motor vehicle. This means it can be deployed via any road or reasonably solid terrain. Ammunition can also be transported in any reasonable size motor vehicle.

The M109 self propelled platform is large and heavy - plus it is problematic to deploy over large distances by road unless you have tank transporter tractor-trailer platforms. The only other way to transport them without potential maintenance and repair nightmares is by train. Both the tractor-trailer and train platforms limit the number of routes available for transport to the battlefront, thereby increasing the vulnerability to interdiction on the way. Ammunition can be transported in any reasonable size motor vehicle. The M109 also requires a more comprehensive training and logistics train.

The US high command understands this, and it is the reason they sent the M777 first, while the first US M109s are just now arriving in the neighboring countries. It takes time to train up and deploy (effectively) systems like these.

This reasoning is also part (most?) of the reason why M270 MLRS have not yet been sent. The M270 MLRS will have the same logistics/training and transport/deployment issues as the M109. Plus the problem of ammunition resupply is greater than for the M777 and M109 as the individual missiles are long/bulky and cannot be transported in anything smaller than ~2.5 ton trucks, although it may be possible to tow the missile packs on flatbed trailers using large pick-ups or utility vehicles.

In some circumstances the offensive capabilities of the M270 MLRS are a magnitude greater than for the M777 or M109. As such they will become prime targets for the Russian aircraft, drone, and missile platforms - and the Russians will try to destroy the MLRS platforms before they can reach the battlefield. I suspect they will come in 2nd in importance for destruction only after the destruction of the Ukrainian command structure (and maybe after the remaining Ukrainian air force, but I would not bet on it).

Incidentally, Denmark is also sending Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Ukraine.

RogerdeLluria said:

Interesting UK assessment on Russian morale

If, besides low morale, we add T-62 tanks, and (so far unsubstantiated) reports that Russia is almost depleted of iskander missiles, maybe those optimists that claim that tides may turn in summer are actually right.

View attachment 671596

Click to expand...

In all this war of statistics, one still needs to keep in mind as to what the "real" losses might be.

There are the Ukraine MoD stats and those of the UK assessment group - both more or less involved or committed towards propaganda (which off course is of utmost importance in view of keeping the Ukrainian moral up high)
Then there are stats provided by Western think-tanks (TT) e.g. CSIS/RAND etc. - many of them highly professional with direct info-ties to NATO, governments and intel agencies.

As of 28.05.2022
The Ukraine MoD reports ca. 31,000 Russian KIA
The TT's assess at average 12-15,000 Russian KIA

Needless to point out that conclusions deriving from such stats are bound to lead to wrong assessments of the RF's actual situation or Putin's assumed reactions.

Here are interesting news from Kherson region - russians have moved here forces with T-62 tanks - probably moving more modern equipment to reinforce their Donbas offensive. As easy to expect Ukrainians correctly identified opportunity and their on the move - advancing. I wish them luck!

Thumpalumpacus said:

Like I said, if that is indeed the rationale, I'm not sure I agree with it. Just pointing out one possible reason Biden seems to be dithering at what I think we all agree is a critical time.

Click to expand...

Is Biden dithering though? What's the source that long range capable weapons are being refused? We might be being trolled by the outrage machines.

Dimlee said:

About the helicopter supply of Mariupol.
"Flying two at a time and once four at a time, Ukrainian Mi-8 Hip helicopter crews braved dense Russian air defense and enemy aircraft concentrated in and around Mariupol to deliver desperately needed supplies and fresh troops to the defenders of the besieged Azovstal steel plant" .
"Of the 16 total helicopters involved, two were destroyed... Another helicopter was destroyed coming to the rescue of one of the downed Hips"

Inside Ukraine's Daring Helicopter Missions Into Russian-Occupied Mariupol

With Ukrainian troops besieged in a massive steel plant and under constant fire from Russian forces, helicopter crews sprung into action.

www.thedrive.com

Click to expand...

Probably, the first public video of one of those missions.

Dimlee said:

Probably, the first public video of one of those missions.

Click to expand...

this is what i'm calling "freaking low flying".....