MiTasol
Major
The Chinese are very flexible with the truth to put it very mildly.
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (33 Viewers)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
The Chinese are very flexible with the truth to put it very mildly.
MiTasol
Major
So maybe Ukraine should repossess all of Russia.
That was done. Also, most of the troops left barracks for the "exercises".
Aircraft, SAMs, mobile radars, boats, etc. Mockups were left in some places. There were many movements. The whole picture will be revealed after the war.
Admiral Beez
Major
They need artillery and shells. They're not short in manpower.
Where is all the heavy weaponry the West promised?
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I suspect many are already in UKR, but that training the arty corps while it is so busily engaged is proving difficult.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I've been following events and perhaps too many YouTube vids. President Zelynskyy has said Ukraine has been suffering about a hundred casualties a day. We're past the hundred day mark. I've watched vids pointing out Russian formations are seriously undermanned or under crewed and certainly undertrained. This had seriously degraded the Russian Army. Ukrainian forces have been fighting fiercely in the Sievierdonetsk, Popasna, Kharkiv and other regions I can't spell. Just how tired are these guys? At the start of the war, I think I heard UAF had about 280,000 troops. What percentage of that number were combat arms? Are their casualties being replaced with trained troops or (shudder) conscripts? There has been a lot of artillery battles and the Good Guys must have taken losses.
I too wonder with frustration: WHERE ARE THE DAMN WEAPONS?
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
Take an example of the Heavy Weapons promised and Think about it.
As an example, use the ~300x M113 tracked vehicles promised by the US. Each M113 weighs in the range of ~12 tons. The vehicles have to be inspected, followed by whatever maintenance is required, have whatever equipment is needed added to bring it up to operational standard, loaded on railcars (probably) and sent to a port with the required ship loading facilities, if they are being sent by ship (my understanding is that the large majority are being sent by ship). Deck cargo is easier to load than hold cargo, but usually more limited in numbers per ship. If they are sent as deck cargo they will have additional preparation for shipment (ie some protection needs to be provided against the ocean-weather elements). They could ship them by Navy RO-RO ships or LHA/LHDs - but there are only so many of these ships - and how many are available?
They could be sent by C17 heavy lift cargo aircraft. They still need to be transported (probably by rail, maybe by tractor/trailer transport over road, probably some could be driven if nearby) to the point of departure airfields. And you are talking a minimum of ~100 flights for the 300x M113, or more if there are associated loads of spares and consumables (which there are). Like the RO-RO ships, the number of heavy lift aircraft is limited - and how many are available or are they being used for other high priority cargos?
Then when they arrive in European ports (if sent by ship) they have to be offloaded, and transported to Poland or Romania (probably by rail?) to training and assembly points. How long does the training/familiarization take? I know that a fair amount (most?) of the training is already taking place in Europe using YPRs and other types of related M113 chassis already in Europe.
etc, etc
Some of the the US supplied M777 155mm towed guns (<5 tons) were sent by heavy lift cargo aircraft, some were supplied from US equipment already deployed in Europe. But the M109A6/A7 weighs in at 28 tons. The C17 can carry 2x per flight. All of the other problems exist as for the M113, with the addition of problems associated with a larger, heavier, more complex vehicle, which requires significantly more training.
As an example, use the ~300x M113 tracked vehicles promised by the US. Each M113 weighs in the range of ~12 tons. The vehicles have to be inspected, followed by whatever maintenance is required, have whatever equipment is needed added to bring it up to operational standard, loaded on railcars (probably) and sent to a port with the required ship loading facilities, if they are being sent by ship (my understanding is that the large majority are being sent by ship). Deck cargo is easier to load than hold cargo, but usually more limited in numbers per ship. If they are sent as deck cargo they will have additional preparation for shipment (ie some protection needs to be provided against the ocean-weather elements). They could ship them by Navy RO-RO ships or LHA/LHDs - but there are only so many of these ships - and how many are available?
They could be sent by C17 heavy lift cargo aircraft. They still need to be transported (probably by rail, maybe by tractor/trailer transport over road, probably some could be driven if nearby) to the point of departure airfields. And you are talking a minimum of ~100 flights for the 300x M113, or more if there are associated loads of spares and consumables (which there are). Like the RO-RO ships, the number of heavy lift aircraft is limited - and how many are available or are they being used for other high priority cargos?
Then when they arrive in European ports (if sent by ship) they have to be offloaded, and transported to Poland or Romania (probably by rail?) to training and assembly points. How long does the training/familiarization take? I know that a fair amount (most?) of the training is already taking place in Europe using YPRs and other types of related M113 chassis already in Europe.
etc, etc
Some of the the US supplied M777 155mm towed guns (<5 tons) were sent by heavy lift cargo aircraft, some were supplied from US equipment already deployed in Europe. But the M109A6/A7 weighs in at 28 tons. The C17 can carry 2x per flight. All of the other problems exist as for the M113, with the addition of problems associated with a larger, heavier, more complex vehicle, which requires significantly more training.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In addition to the above, the equipment shipped via cargo ship needs to be offloaded in a country with a port that borders Ukraine (that is not situated in the Black Sea), and that would be Poland.
From there, the equipment is offloaded and either arranged for transit to the Ukraine's border or delivered to a base for training.
One simply cannot snap their fingers and transport the material through time and space - there is a considerable amount of logistics involved.
From there, the equipment is offloaded and either arranged for transit to the Ukraine's border or delivered to a base for training.
One simply cannot snap their fingers and transport the material through time and space - there is a considerable amount of logistics involved.
Logistics 101…
I remember when we deployed to Iraq from Germany (a lot closer than the US). It was a huge process that took about two months. All the ground vehicles and equipment had to be loaded on rail cars and shipped to the port. There everything had to be unloaded. Then everything had to be loaded onto a ship.
The helicopters were flown to a depot where they were prepared for sea going travel (blades folded, engines preserved, and the entire airframe wrapped). They were then put on barges and transferred to the port. There they were offloaded and then loaded onto a ship.
Once the ships were full they sailed to Kuwait City. We then arrived in port and met all our equipment and aircraft which were being offloaded. Once it was offloaded we had reassemble and prepare it for combat before it could move across the border.
This is a different scenario than the promised Ukraine equipment, but the point remains the same. Logistics is not magic. You don't snap your fingers or wiggle your nose and it magically disappears and reappears somewhere else. Until someone develops a Star Trek transporter it takes time.
I remember when we deployed to Iraq from Germany (a lot closer than the US). It was a huge process that took about two months. All the ground vehicles and equipment had to be loaded on rail cars and shipped to the port. There everything had to be unloaded. Then everything had to be loaded onto a ship.
The helicopters were flown to a depot where they were prepared for sea going travel (blades folded, engines preserved, and the entire airframe wrapped). They were then put on barges and transferred to the port. There they were offloaded and then loaded onto a ship.
Once the ships were full they sailed to Kuwait City. We then arrived in port and met all our equipment and aircraft which were being offloaded. Once it was offloaded we had reassemble and prepare it for combat before it could move across the border.
This is a different scenario than the promised Ukraine equipment, but the point remains the same. Logistics is not magic. You don't snap your fingers or wiggle your nose and it magically disappears and reappears somewhere else. Until someone develops a Star Trek transporter it takes time.
Of the top off my head, training before the deployment in May-June: M777 1-2 weeks, M109 and CAESAR 2-3 weeks, Panzerhaubitze 2000 - 6 weeks at least.
I wonder how long was Harpoon training. Denmark announced the transfer on 24th May. First launchers operational in Odesa region not later 09th June.
About the reasons and the background.
And for deeper understanding I cannot recommend highly enough Timothy Snyder.
Admiral Beez
Major
Given the necessity and limits of logistics, it would seem that any MRLS, SPGs and AFVs promised to Ukraine today won't be in the UAF's frontline hands until at least 90 days. In that sense, the dithering of the US and West may be fatal for the Ukranians. The time to send mobile artillery, counterbattery weapons, etc. was in March, so they arrived now. Instead, we have the US, for example, agreeing only on May 31st to send MRLS to Ukraine - more than three months after the Russian invasion began. Those Gepard mobile air defence vehicles promised by the Germans won't be armed and their crews trained and deployed to the front until likely August.
Why is the US sending the MRLS now and not earlier? And really, is there any point in sending them now if they won't be in UAF frontline hands until early Sept? By then this war will be decided. For the most part, logistics cannot be expedited, there's no Genie, as you say, but the beginning of the train can and should have been executed earlier.
Why send them now and not earlier?
1. Hindsight is 20/20
2. You can't simply snap your fingers and send equipment. It's not like renting a movie from Blockbuster. Everything has to be approved. The US's military needs have to be evaluated and it has to be determined that it will not deter or undermine the US's capabilities and operational needs.
What makes you think the US, Germany, anyone can just send stuff at a whim whenever they like? There is a process to everything. It takes massive coordination and funding.
War is fluid, and constantly evolving. Operational needs change, and its impossible to send everything and anything at one time and at anytime you want.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
This war will drag out through the year. It will end when Putin is dead or overthrown.
And remember, Ukraine does not have to destroy Russia's military to win. It just has to outlast the Russian's. That's another good reason we have to keep sending equipment as we can. This is pretty much a war of attrition. If we can resupply Ukraine faster and replace their equipment faster than Russia (which I think we are doing), Ukraine can outlast Putler. His day's are numbered.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Regarding the deployment of the donated artillery:
BERLIN, June 14 (Reuters) - The training of Ukrainian troops on German howitzers will soon be completed, paving the way for the use of the weapons in the war in Ukraine, German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht said on Tuesday.
Ukraine has pleaded for the West to send more and better artillery as the country runs out of ammunition for its existing Soviet-era arsenal, which is dwarfed by Russia's.
Western countries have promised NATO-standard weapons but deploying them is taking time.
"The training on the Panzerhaubitze 2000 will soon be completed so that it can be used in battle in Ukraine," Lambrecht told reporters during a visit to a military base in the western German town of Rheinbach.
www.reuters.com
That's 12 pieces there (7 German, 5 Dutch[?]). I can't see the MLRS being a simpler training program, but I'm not up on the ins and outs.
BERLIN, June 14 (Reuters) - The training of Ukrainian troops on German howitzers will soon be completed, paving the way for the use of the weapons in the war in Ukraine, German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht said on Tuesday.
Ukraine has pleaded for the West to send more and better artillery as the country runs out of ammunition for its existing Soviet-era arsenal, which is dwarfed by Russia's.
Western countries have promised NATO-standard weapons but deploying them is taking time.
"The training on the Panzerhaubitze 2000 will soon be completed so that it can be used in battle in Ukraine," Lambrecht told reporters during a visit to a military base in the western German town of Rheinbach.
Howitzers soon to be ready for use in Ukraine, Germany's defense minister says
The training of Ukrainian troops on German howitzers will soon be completed, paving the way for the use of the weapons in the war in Ukraine, German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht said on Tuesday.
That's 12 pieces there (7 German, 5 Dutch[?]). I can't see the MLRS being a simpler training program, but I'm not up on the ins and outs.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Exactly. I wrote it far upthread near the beginning of this invasion that Ukraine doesn't need to win, they need to not lose. And they're in a position to do that right now.
Even if the Russians succeed in seizing all of the Donbas, they'll be worn -- so worn that reconstitution under the sanctions regime will be very difficult and, more importantly, slow. And as we've seen with the French quickly walking back their urging to not "humiliate" Russia in the face of vocal criticism, the idea of urging Ukraine to make concessions in order to find peace is unpopular.
If the forgoing holds true going forward, it follows that through the fall (rasputsitsa in full spate), both sides will be in a race to reconstitute their forces in preparation for an offensive after the solid freeze sets in. I suspect the Ukrainians, with all the aid coming in, will be in a solid position to deliver a solid counteroffensive, perhaps with the aim of splitting the land corridor to Crimea?
Just to add to this. I suspect that the US and West expected this to be a quick war. That Russia would quickly roll through Ukraine (everyone thought more of the "feared" Russian juggernaut). You don't send all your equipment just to have it destroyed or captured. As the war drug out, and it was discovered that the Russian's were not as good and powerful as we thought, and that Ukraine has a chance to actually win this war, you become more optimistic and you are more likely to send equipment. Plus as the war evolves and drags on, the types of weapons needed become more apparent.
