"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Russia and the soviets always do that. Countless times they get intercepted. I think they are just stiring the outhouse pot.
Let us know the can put up aircraft.
And thus a thread.
 
There is even no need to read about all of the previous achievements of these 'Russian World' heroes, just look at their faces would be enough:

 
There is even no need to read about all of the previous achievements of these 'Russian World' heroes, just look at their faces would be enough:

Well whaddaya' know. There is a war on crime.
 
There's something really insidious going on with Russian conscription/recruiting in this war. It probably deserves someone more insightful to do an analysis, but here's my take.

Putin and/or the higher ups in the Russian MoD are using the war as a meatgrinder for minorities (cultural, ethnic, religious and social), as well as a way to get rid of political enemies and 'undesirables' - which are defined as any individual belonging to a group or organisation that is determined to be harmful to Russian security & defense, or constitutional and social order.

In doing so, Russia is emptying its prisons. The US and the Ukrainians estimated in early December that at least 40,000 Russian prisoners have been sent to the front lines as active combat troops. That's about 10% of Russia's prison population. Estimates by NGOs range from 30,000 to more than 70,000.

That includes political dissidents serving jail time. More than 15,000 anti-war protestors have been arrested, detained or sentenced in the last 12 months. They are now being conscripted to fight in the very war they were opposing.

The net effect is that while Putin is weakening Russia overall with this war, he's strengthening his overall political safety by eliminating opposition to his rule within Russia. And, he's also eliminating the most likely core of future political discontent that a weakened Russia will produce, while minimising casualties in the areas where support is most important.
 
There's something really insidious going on with Russian conscription/recruiting in this war. It probably deserves someone more insightful to do an analysis, but here's my take.

Putin and/or the higher ups in the Russian MoD are using the war as a meatgrinder for minorities (cultural, ethnic, religious and social), as well as a way to get rid of political enemies and 'undesirables' - which are defined as any individual belonging to a group or organisation that is determined to be harmful to Russian security & defense, or constitutional and social order.

In doing so, Russia is emptying its prisons. The US and the Ukrainians estimated in early December that at least 40,000 Russian prisoners have been sent to the front lines as active combat troops. That's about 10% of Russia's prison population. Estimates by NGOs range from 30,000 to more than 70,000.

That includes political dissidents serving jail time. More than 15,000 anti-war protestors have been arrested, detained or sentenced in the last 12 months. They are now being conscripted to fight in the very war they were opposing.

The net effect is that while Putin is weakening Russia overall with this war, he's strengthening his overall political safety by eliminating opposition to his rule within Russia. And, he's also eliminating the most likely core of future political discontent that a weakened Russia will produce, while minimising casualties in the areas where support is most important.
Agreed 100%. There's a certain cynical, appalling logic behind Putin's actions - actively weakening the internal opposition, reducing the numbers of 'undesirable' elements, insulating the 2 'critical' populations centres (Moscow and St. Petersburg) from the harsh realities of the war ....... I am still hoping it all comes crashing down ASAP
 
Agreed 100%. There's a certain cynical, appalling logic behind Putin's actions - actively weakening the internal opposition, reducing the numbers of 'undesirable' elements, insulating the 2 'critical' populations centres (Moscow and St. Petersburg) from the harsh realities of the war ....... I am still hoping it all comes crashing down ASAP
Russia's version of the "Final Solution"?
 
NATO never planned on expending thousands of shells per day, since their artillery offensives would have been accompanied by overwhelming air superiority. If we want Ukraine to use its artillery sparingly then they need the missing advanced tech air force component.
 
Last edited:
NATO never planned on expending thousands of shells per day, since their artillery offensives would have been accompanied by overwhelming air superiority.

NATO did plan on expending thousands of shells per day, potentially tens of thousands or more. Depends on the time period though.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was plenty of artillery and ammunition in the European theater thanks to all the stuff that was built for the Korean War. In comparison during the mid 1970s, the US was earmarking 30% of its stocks for use by allies and was worried that it wouldn't have enough artillery ammuntion for 20 days combat, while some European allies were expected to run out of shells in as little as 5 days.

In the 1980s, with the ramp back up of conventional forces in Europe, huge amounts of ammunition were added into Europe. In 1981, the US procured just under 600,000 rounds of artillery ammunition. By 1985, that was up to 990,000 rounds. At the same time, the number of NATO artillery pieces in Europe rose from 4100 to 6200.

In 1992, after post Cold War drawdowns had started, there were still 2.5 million tons of US ammunition stockpiled in Europe, the largest proportion of which was artillery ammunition.

Something I found that really surprised me: During the Vietnam war (not what I thought of as an artillery conflict) the US Army was at some points expending more than 1 million artillery shells a month (around late 1968 and at some points in 1969 and 1970). That's 105mm, 155mm, 175mm and 203mm only, not counting mortars and rockets.
 

We're hearing from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace again now, who is in Brussels for today's Nato meeting on how the military alliance can further help Ukraine.

He begins by discussing Moscow's offensive strategy, saying that Russia has not been able to amass a single force "to punch through" Ukraine's defences. Rather, "we've just seen an effort to advance".

He tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "That has come at a huge cost to the Russian army. We now estimate 97% of the Russian army, the whole Russian army, is in Ukraine."
 
To follow up - I found a US GAO report that the US Army had 20.8 million rounds of 105mm, 155mm and 8 inch ammunition in storage in 1995. The Marine Corps had a further 4 million artillery rounds.

Nearly all of the pre-positioned ammunition in Europe was gone by 1995 - just 46,000 shells were left in Italy. 300,000 tons of artillery projectiles were shipped back to the US, South Korea or Japan during 1992 and a further 660,000 tons were disbursed in 1993. The rest was shipped in 1994, used up in training, sold off to allies or blown up.
 
Last edited:
NATO did plan on expending thousands of shells per day, potentially tens of thousands or more. Depends on the time period though.
Well yes, to clarify I meant NATO plans in this century - in this era when +4 and 5th generation fighter/strike aircraft along with modern MBTs and IFVs would work alongside mobile artillery and MLRS, using technological superiority to overwhelm a Russian invasion of Europe. Up to now we've been asking the Ukrainians to do the above but without the complete NATO capability package - just artillery and MLRS. They need F-16s or similar NATO fighter/strike aircraft to to support the soon to arrive modern MBTs.

I assumed much of the inventory of NATO artillery shells from the 20th century has expired. Of what remains of the 20th century stock, much of the oldest has likely already been shipped to Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Why would all the dissident conscripts not just surrender when they get to the front?
Because the UAF quickly exchange them for Ukrainian POWs, whereupon the Russians may be murdered by their own side.

 
NATO never planned on expending thousands of shells per day, since their artillery offensives would have been accompanied by overwhelming air superiority. If we want Ukraine to use its artillery sparingly then they need the missing advanced tech air force component.
Also, NATO artillery pieces were not designed for extensive usage as this war demonstrated.
According to the recent article about the Snake Island bombardments, French Caesar SPG experienced hydraulic malfunction after 20 shots in one day... In the same mission, Ukrainian Bohdana SPG (prototype) burned gaskets after 3. Yet Bohdana could be repaired in the field with spare parts from the tractor.
Allegedly, many issues with PzH 2000, etc.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back