U.S. is sending depleted uranium tank rounds with its Abrams tanks. Russian reactive armor has been defending their tanks fairly well against tungsten-based tank rounds. They won't work very well against depleted uranium. Armed with depleted-uranium ammo, Ukraine's tank gunners could punch through tough Russian armor and set tanks on fire
Just have your surrender speech and your crow-eating speech ready for when the time comes. That's what you should be working on these days.
While we can only estimate the true scope of Russian casualties, we do know the Russians are actively trying to hide their losses from their own people. Some of the techniques we know to a certainty they are using is not counting the missing (even when presumed dead, such as the losses from Russia's catastrophic defeat at Antonov Airport last year), not counting those who have later died of their injuries, not counting those conscripted from prisons, not counting those killed by their own forces (accidentally or willfully), and in some cases just straight up lying. In some of our wars, we have been deliberately vague with how some of our KIAs met their end in order to not give the enemy insight as to which of their methods are most effective. I'm also aware of some cases where personnel "died in training" as to not to immediately reveal the clandestine nature of what they were really doing. But on the whole we have been open and honest about the scope of our casualties in war. That Putin feels such a strong need to deceive his own people should tell us a great deal about how the war, which is ostensibly for national survival, is really going for him.
What are your thoughts on Ukraine telegraphing the overall strategy of the counteroffensive in trying to cut off the Russian land bridge and focusing on Mariupol? Could possibly be a decoy, but it doesn’t seem likely so far. The problem is the Russians would still be heavily fortified on both sides and reclaiming Mariupol doesn’t give Ukraine much hand to negotiate or even a strategic advantage. I was hoping for a decoy and a push into Crimea, as the Russians are less dug in, believing Crimea to be off limits. You have an element of surprise and if Ukraine can somehow take Crimea, it flips the war on its head as now Russia has a lot less to blackmail Ukraine with at the negotiating table. Crimea also very important to NATO aspirations. I suppose that can come later, but I am concerned Ukraine may be telegraphing too much of what they plan to do with the counteroffensive, which will end up being more costly to them. I would like to see something more meaningful take place in the war, as I would like to see the war over with. Right now it’s just a very slow slog that isn’t yielding much fruitage except more dead bodies. I understand you think that is vital to the overall success, but even if Crimea were to fall, Putin would still hang on to power in Moscow.
Have to do another war geek correction here. Apologies. Explosive reactive armor (ERA) is designed to defeat anti-tank missiles, such as TOWs, by essentially exploding outward and defeating the shape charge on the missile before it can deploy properly. Obviously, it's much more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. ERA, however, has no real effect on penetrating sabot rounds, such as what you're describing. Given a hit, only the slope, strength, and thickness of the armor play a role in defeating the round. Depleted uranium is more dense than tungsten, which gives it more penetrating power as a sabot. We started replacing the rounds in the 90s due the fact that, while depleted in terms of radiation, uranium is still a very toxic heavy metal that pollutes the battlefield long after the war has ended. Strategically, I think the decision makers probably would have told you after DESERT STORM that the days of tank-on-tank battles (much like battleship-on-battleship) were behind us, and we could accept long-term risk in transitioning to tungsten. Of course, I am not a tanker and could have some of my details wrong. The guy replacing me in battalion command this month used to be a tanker before he became a Blackhawk pilot, so I'll ask him if I have my information mostly correct. Edit: he confirms that the above assessment is correct.
Ok so defensive lines typically only face one direction. Where they are attacking if you look at the maps actually has the thinnest lines of defense. I encourage you to go check out those maps. Quick Explainer: Russia Might be Screwed if Ukraine Advances Another 10 Miles this post has some good pictures explaining what they might be trying. If they break through here they can roll up behind Russian defensive lines threatening to surround people. It could cause a total collapse of the Russian army in west Ukraine. If they can pull it off. If.
Yeah, I'm not going to rely upon information in a Ukrainian propaganda article under the pretense that Russia might be "screwed" if Ukraine advances another 10 miles. If it was as easy as advancing 10 miles, Ukraine would have ended this a long time ago. 1. anybody who believes that is a damned fool 2. even if somebody truly believed that, they kill all credibility with a headline like that 3. assuming anything based on the premise that Ukraine advancing 10 miles ends the war is dumb 4. assuming the "total collapse of the Russian army in the west" is a perfect example of why we don't assume anything in a war 5. Russia has had 6 months to heavily fortify and supply their positions "in the west of Ukraine" 6. Ukraine would still have to contend with the Russians on the east, so there's no free lunch if Ukraine cuts off the land bridge. 7. Russians may want to make sure Ukraine attacks in this area, as evidenced by the dam destruction. 8. stop relying on western propaganda like Ukraine advancing 10 miles would end the Russian aggression in Ukraine. 9. the question was directed at someone who doesn't perpetually post Ukrainian propaganda as their source of argument
I have no insight as to Ukraine's operational design (i.e. the actual land objectives) for this offensive, but it would surprise me if it was as bold as cutting the land bridge to Crimea. My thin slice is that is too deep of an objective for the pace of this war on the ground, and Ukraine's ability to logistically sustain a push that far without air superiority simply isn't there. My assumption could be wrong, but I assume that they know that. Now that said, I believe their strategy is related to but not centered on physically recapturing terrain. As I have stated before, Ukraine cannot win with tactical victories alone as long as Russia is willing and able to keep fighting. Even in the astronomically improbable event that Ukraine could physically push to the 2014 borders, that in and of itself does not end the war, and protecting those borders under Russian pressure is not sustainable indefinitely. They have to win the war by defeating Russia morally (meaning in terms of morale, not ethics) and politically, and that means maximizing casualties. And the fact that Russia is deliberately hiding its casualties from its people, as described above, suggests that it has real fears about that strategy) If Russia is willing to take the offense, then Ukraine has to sell space dearly as it did in Bakhmut; if Russia gets complacent and just tries to hold the line, then Ukraine has to strike at the enemy where he is weak as is happening now. At the end of the day, that strategy may or may not work, but it is the best chance for victory (short of bringing NATO directly into the war, of course) given Ukraine's massive disadvantages in terms of manpower and resources. As far as telegraphing its intentions as part of a deception plan and how wise that it, who knows? We will see whether it works and whether it was worth it no later than November, probably sooner if it succeeds or fails in spectacular manner. Such things are like fake punts: if it works, then you're a genius; if it fails, then you're an idiot who should have known better.
Dailykos has been sharing useful verifiable information on the war, both good and bad, since the beginning. The piece I shared was an opinion piece but those pictures they are based on current publicly available intel on the ground. Beyond that I’m not going to bother responding to the rest of your out of touch rant. Chill out. You asked what their broader strategy might be - all I pointed out is that they are attacking the weakest part of the defensive line and the rest after that is all guessing by everyone. jeez Louise.
I am quite terrified of the propagandists who say things like "Russia might be screwed if Ukraine advances 10 miles." All the mind contortions with the maps and arrows don't change how dangerously catastrophic that assessment is.
the picture you wanted is in there. They’re attacking the weakest part of the line. What their goals are at this point aren’t knowable obviously this person who wrote this was yet fantasizing. Still breaking through the weakest point of the defensive line to get behind their fortifications seems pretty straight forward.
It's extremely doubtful Ukraine has already figured out the weak link in Russia's defensive line and if they have, they're not telling anyone where that is. And if it's so blatantly obvious that you only need a satellite picture to confirm it, well then, it's safe to assume Russia set it up that way intentionally. But alas, Ukraine doesn't know yet. They are most likely probing and trying to figure that out as we speak.
All we can do is discuss what is publicly available. I’ve shared that with you. We have no idea what Ukraine does or does not know. As they have yet to fully commit their full force I assume they are still looking for a vulnerable spot.
DU are for APFSDS rounds, ERA is meant to defeat HEAT rounds, ATGMs, and RPGs. Given how rare tank-on-tank battle has been in this war, it seems unlikely that they'll do much. The Abrams we're giving to Ukraine, if they have DU armor then could be helpful. Still, the vast majority of the tank losses in this war are from artillery and mines, and DU armor isn't gonna help much against them. The truth is that there is no one thing we can give to Ukraine to help them win the war. The only thing that'd help is a lot more of everything. If we can't do that then it's as @uftaipan alluded to, it's a war of morale attrition. Whose morale is gonna break first? Russia's or the West's?
Mostly likely the West, because it'll be very difficult to justify the current level of involvement beyond November 2024. For an election that could go either way within a 1 or 2 point margin, every vote counts.
Someone says that something might happen, and you get terrified? Why is an assessment "dangerously catastrophic"? Are you not allowed to read newspapers? Sometimes they have assessments. When you called the assessment dangerously catastrophic, you were, in fact, making an assessment . . . What if your assessment was . . . dangerously catastrophic?
Putin claims that Russia is likely headed for a "strategic defeat". That's why he is putting nukes in Belarus--to prevent the strategic defeat. Aren't you glad that he cleared that up? Apparently, Russians are too stupid (or inebriated) to know how to operate their nuclear weapons, so they may have to rely on Belarus to do it for them. Makes sense to me. In a warning to the West, Putin says Russian tactical nukes are being put in Belarus to stop a 'strategic defeat'
Several ammo dumps (in the Kherson area) go up in flames (and explosions). Ukrainian partisans are suspected. When you name the town "Party-Zany", things like this are bound to happen. Explosions rip through Russian ammo dump in Kherson Oblast, detonations captured on video
