View Poll Results: Whom do you support and to what extent?

Voters
148. You may not vote on this poll
  • I support Ukraine fully.

    103 69.59%
  • I support Russia fully.

    15 10.14%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea.

    4 2.70%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea and Donbass (Luhansk and Donetsk regions).

    11 7.43%
  • Not sure.

    7 4.73%
  • I don't care.

    8 5.41%

Thread: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

  1. #8761
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    Air force is not playing important role due to density of SAMs on battlefield. HARM is a missile specifically designed to home on radars and thus blind the SAMs and punch a hole in the enemy defense that could be exploited. The usual US MO is to follow up with medium to high altitude precision bombing using JDAM equipped bombs and other precision munitions, to stay out of range of flak and MANPADS. No side is currently capable of such actions, but if Ukraine gets fully equipped F-16s...things will change. Of course, it won't be a one-sided beatdown like Iraq in 2003, but they'll make a big impact on the battlefield.
    The Russian airforce does not have equivalents to a 40 year old missile?

  2. #8762
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    The Russian airforce does not have equivalents to a 40 year old missile?
    Given the nominal number of aircraft thay have. The answer is no at least not an effective one (and effectively trained pilots and doctrine) or they would be asserting air superiority of Ukraine right now. The reality is Russia does not train and SEAD and DEAD one reason why they have so much invest in ground AAA and Artillery

    Also you are ignoring the point I was trying to cite F-16 let Ukraine use the HARM to top of abilities not at just minimum.
    Last edited by conon394; May 30, 2023 at 08:01 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #8763

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    The Russian airforce does not have equivalents to a 40 year old missile?
    Theoretically, they do. In practice, the war had shown how deficient Russia is in this regard. This was a big surprise of the early phase of the war. Everyone expected Russia to roll over Ukrainian air force and air defense in US style. But it turned out that Russian air force has neither equipment nor know-how to perform effective SEAD missions, and their own precision weaponry is turning out to be a similar farce, forcing Russia to perform low level bombing missions, which turned out to be quite dangerous and resulted in some heavy losses. And thus the air force didn't play as significant role as expected.

  4. #8764
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    @conon394 & @Sar1n
    And we are going to give Ukraine more than Russia has? More aircraft? More pilots? How?

    The question I raise is not whether Ukraine can use HARM missiles to "the top of abilities" which I doubt is possible with or without F16s, simply because their pilots will not be adequately trained to use those planes. Instead I'm asking if the difference those can make can possibly be qualitatively important in the first place. And I am contrasting it with the performance of the Russian airforce so far which hasn't been able to overcome the shortcomings this war theater presents.

  5. #8765

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Alastor, do you think they're training Ukrainian plumbers on these F-16s?
    The Armenian Issue

  6. #8766
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Alastor, do you think they're training Ukrainian plumbers on these F-16s?
    Maybe they should. They'll be easier to replace.

  7. #8767
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    That's not what happened. Britain/France needed time to prepare their armies for the war they knew was coming. It's why they did absolutely nothing when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland before any wars.
    And yet the Hitler nearly ordered to withdraw from the Rhineland when he learned that France had massed troops near the border, however was persuaded not to and assured that the French would not cross the border. Had the French not chosen appeasement and entered, the Germans would have relented. Even Guderian admitted as such.
    Deescalation only led to further escalation, further death, further suffering. If not for appeasement, the Holocaust would not have happened.
    Then again, Germany wasn't a nuclear power either.
    Yes, Russia has nukes. Clearly this means we must capitulate to their every demand.
    Not that it matters, since no one seriously expects the US public to be into world war. Which is why they'd do well to put a lease on morons like senator Graham.
    Why, lol? how are these 2 sentances connected?

  8. #8768

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    @conon394 & @Sar1n
    And we are going to give Ukraine more than Russia has? More aircraft? More pilots? How?

    The question I raise is not whether Ukraine can use HARM missiles to "the top of abilities" which I doubt is possible with or without F16s, simply because their pilots will not be adequately trained to use those planes. Instead I'm asking if the difference those can make can possibly be qualitatively important in the first place. And I am contrasting it with the performance of the Russian airforce so far which hasn't been able to overcome the shortcomings this war theater presents.
    I wouldn't be so pessimistic about that. Ukrainian pilots have been evaluated for training in US already, and they've come to conclusion that they can be trained faster than anticipated.

    The interesting part is that the quality difference between NATO standard training and equipment, and Russian ones, is showing to be greater than expected. In this war, with thousands of artillery pieces of all types on each side, some twenty or so HIMARS made huge difference, and that's without their best missiles. So don't be surprised that the F-16 could make much bigger difference than could be expected purely from the numbers.

  9. #8769
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    I wouldn't be so pessimistic about that. Ukrainian pilots have been evaluated for training in US already, and they've come to conclusion that they can be trained faster than anticipated.

    The interesting part is that the quality difference between NATO standard training and equipment, and Russian ones, is showing to be greater than expected. In this war, with thousands of artillery pieces of all types on each side, some twenty or so HIMARS made huge difference, and that's without their best missiles. So don't be surprised that the F-16 could make much bigger difference than could be expected purely from the numbers.
    Did they really make that much of a difference those HIMARS? I've heard it talked about, but I'm rather unconvinced. What I believe has made a qualitative difference has been superior intelligence and planning assistance, as well as better tactical leadership, acquired in no small part via training received from NATO in the years before the invasion. Rather than any kind of actual firepower superiority.

    Just look at the battle of Vuhledar. Russia squandered a massive equipment advantage sending their armour straight into a killbox. Ukraine didn't manage to inflict those losses because they had the better firepower, far from it, it was intelligence and leadership. But those aren't enough to enable combined air attacks. Especially when the pilots have a couple of months of training to rely on instead of the years necessary.

    Do note, that I can see a rationale here if the plan is to really go all in. Give Ukraine F35s and plenty of them somewhere down the line, instead of just a handful of F16s. If the plan is to do that, along with giving them all the necessary additional equipment needed for those planes to operate properly, then this plan perhaps makes sense. But is NATO really willing to go that far? And what would Russia's response be then?
    Last edited by Alastor; May 30, 2023 at 03:19 PM.

  10. #8770
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    Did they really make that much of a difference those HIMARS? I've heard it talked about, but I'm rather unconvinced.
    Ask Antonivka bridge. HIMARS led directly to the liberation of Kherson.

  11. #8771
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    Ask Antonivka bridge. HIMARS led directly to the liberation of Kherson.
    The bridge the Russians blew up during their withdrawal from Kherson you mean? I mean I could try asking but it's at the bottom of the Dnipro river currently and voice doesn't travel as well underwater.

  12. #8772
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    I mean the fact that Ukraine regularly bombed it with HIMARS to make it unuseable, causing the fascists logistical nightmares, eventually leading them to withdraw.

  13. #8773
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I mean the fact that Ukraine regularly bombed it with HIMARS to make it unuseable, causing the fascists logistical nightmares, eventually leading them to withdraw.
    It didn't seem that unusable when the Russians were using it to withdraw. Before they destroyed it that is. Besides any army can build pontoon bridges to cross rivers given some time. Russia could not hold Kherson because they were already overextended at the time and the city lacked good natural defenses, like a big river, to barricade behind. HIMARS may have been used to bomb the bridge, but aside from offering it some good publicity (which can and will increase its sales) I don't see how it was specifically that weapons system that made the qualitative difference here.

  14. #8774
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    https://time.com/6244479/himars-rockets-ukraine-russia/

    HIMARS rockets have been particularly effective in fighting Russia’s offensive in Donbas by allowing Ukraine to attack Russian supply and ammunition depots.

    They were also crucial in forcing Russia to withdraw from Kherson. “That was only possible because the Ukrainians had this extended strike capability to degrade those bridges. Without the HIMARS, I don’t think the Ukrainians would have liberated Kherson,” Barros says.

    Until the New Year’s Day attack, HIMARS rockets had mostly been used to target Russian infrastructure. “What’s different about the recent strike is that they hit an area where there happened to be a lot of Russian military personnel, so there was a very high casualty count,” Williams says. “What we’ve seen until now is HIMARS being used to target Russian logistics and weapon and artillery stockpiles.”
    https://rusi.org/explore-our-researc...ty-battlefield

    The M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) provided to Ukraine have disrupted this trend and decisively shaped the battlefield by engaging Russia’s logistics, command and control (C2) nodes, and troop concentrations through much of the Russian Armed Force’s (RuAF) operational depth. This has prevented the RuAF from concentrating and massing artillery fire in a way that the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) could not match, disrupted RuAF attempts to concentrate forces for offensives, and made command of Russian units a risky endeavour. Without the above effects, the AFU would have suffered significantly greater casualties and setbacks. The value of HIMARS and MLRS is best understood through a combination of software, hardware and tactics.
    The effectiveness of HIMARs and other long-range MRLS are evident.

  15. #8775
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    On the other hand and specifically for Kherson: https://www.businessinsider.com/figh...-himars-2023-1
    But when Ukraine used HIMARS in its counteroffensive against the city of Kherson on the Black Sea in southern Ukraine in late August, the outcome was different.

    "It took Ukraine more than two months to retake the entire right bank of Kherson after beginning its offensive," Michael Kofman, director of the Russia Studies Program at CNA, and Rob Lee, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute's Eurasia Program, wrote in late December.

    "Kherson reveals that the overall effect of HIMARS may be overstated, and its impact leveled off after the first two months of use on the battlefield," Kofman and Lee wrote.

    Russian forces were able to sustain artillery fire and ultimately withdraw from Kherson with most of their equipment despite the threat from Ukraine's precision weapons, like HIMARS and specially designed artillery shells.
    The article makes a few other interesting points, including that HIMARS is getting credit for successes that where caused more by Russian doctrinal deficiencies and the surprise of having to deal with such long range artillery in general, which is not limited to HIMARS. Shortcomings that are being overcome, further corroborating my belief that the effectiveness of HIMARS, perhaps excluding the initial shock, is overstated. Specifically:
    All of which raises a question: Was HIMARS so good or was Russia so bad? For example, the Russian army relies on a highly centralized logistic network that depends on a few railroad lines rather than on a more flexible truck transport to get supplies to the troops.

    At the same time, Russia doctrine calls for massive artillery barrages. This led to huge ammunition dumps being positioned close to the front for convenience. It also meant that those huge stocks of artillery shells were within range of HIMARS rockets that — guided by GPS coordinates supplied by drones or satellites — could hit pinpoint targets 50 miles away.

    "The requirements of high volume of fire were incompatible with adaptation to long-range precision strike," Kofman told Insider.

  16. #8776
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    On the other hand and specifically for Kherson: https://www.businessinsider.com/figh...-himars-2023-1

    The article makes a few other interesting points, including that HIMARS is getting credit for successes that where caused more by Russian doctrinal deficiencies and the surprise of having to deal with such long range artillery in general, which is not limited to HIMARS. Shortcomings that are being overcome, further corroborating my belief that the effectiveness of HIMARS, perhaps excluding the initial shock, is overstated. Specifically:
    From your own source:

    But was HIMARS was really that effective? It was initially devastating, but Russian forces eventually learned how to cope with it, according to two US defense experts.

    When HIMARS made its debut in Ukraine during the summer, it was hailed as a wonder weapon. GPS-guided rockets fired from the truck-mounted mobile launcher destroyed Russian headquarters and especially ammunition dumps, which helped curtail Russian artillery fire.

    HIMARS paved the way for a stunningly successful Ukrainian counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region that began in early September and turned the balance of the war against Russia. It became evident that HIMARS was also harming Russian morale when Russian media ran dubious stories claiming the rockets had secret capabilities, such as changing their trajectory.
    The Russians have tried to cope with it.

    The adaptations Russia made in response to HIMARS "included displacing logistics hubs out of range, hardening command posts, and introducing decoys to make targeting more difficult," Kofman and Lee wrote.
    Russians having to harden command posts, introduce decoys, and set logistics hubs further behind their lines shows the HIMARs were very effective and the Russians had to adapt to this. Forcing their supply lines to stretch because of the HIMARs range alone is effecting Russian military performance.

    Are the HIMARs miracle weapons? No. Were they game changing weapons when first introduced? Yes. Are they still effective weapons? Well if the Russians are still trying to cope with them I'd say so.

  17. #8777
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    From your own source:

    The Russians have tried to cope with it.

    Russians having to harden command posts, introduce decoys, and set logistics hubs further behind their lines shows the HIMARs were very effective and the Russians had to adapt to this. Forcing their supply lines to stretch because of the HIMARs range alone is effecting Russian military performance.

    Are the HIMARs miracle weapons? No. Were they game changing weapons when first introduced? Yes. Are they still effective weapons? Well if the Russians are still trying to cope with them I'd say so.
    I did mention an initial shock. As you quoted, it was in fact hailed as a wonder weapon, which, by your own admission, it is not. So from my own source, yes, the effectiveness of HIMARS has been overstated. Much to the delight of the companies selling it I should add.

    As for the effect that HIMARS had on the Russians in the end, well I suppose it forced them to improve their doctrine and become better at waging war. Not sure if that's sth to celebrate. But it would, at least in part, explain why Ukraine's spring offensive is nowhere to be seen.
    Last edited by Alastor; May 30, 2023 at 06:11 PM.

  18. #8778
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    I did mention an initial shock. As you quoted, it was in fact hailed as a wonder weapon, which, by your own admission, it is not. So from my own source, yes, the effectiveness of HIMARS has been overstated.
    I said it wasn't a miracle weapon. You left out where I did say it was a game-changing weapon. Your own article points out it was effective and still is very effective if the Russians are having to cope with it.

    Also I'll post this again since you didn't address any of it.

    https://time.com/6244479/himars-rockets-ukraine-russia/

    They were also crucial in forcing Russia to withdraw from Kherson. “That was only possible because the Ukrainians had this extended strike capability to degrade those bridges. Without the HIMARS, I don’t think the Ukrainians would have liberated Kherson,” Barros says.
    As for the effect that HIMARS had on the Russians in the end, well I suppose it forced them to improve their doctrine and become better at waging war. Not sure if that's sth to celebrate. But it would, at least in part, explain why Ukraine's spring offensive is nowhere to be seen.
    If the Russians are forcing their logistics further out that means they have stretched supply lines. So yes definitely something to celebrate. It again shows the HIMARs and other MRLS are very effective .

    Still harping about that delayed offensive?

  19. #8779
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    I said it wasn't a miracle weapon. You left out where I did say it was a game-changing weapon. Your own article points out it was effective and still is very effective if the Russians are having to cope with it.
    Actually no, if they are coping with it, then it means it is not that effective. That's the whole point of... coping with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Also I'll post this again since you didn't address any of it.

    https://time.com/6244479/himars-rockets-ukraine-russia/
    I didn't address it directly, because the article I shared does. And the article I shared, unlike the one you keep linking to, does not read like a Lockheed Martin ad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    If the Russians are forcing their logistics further out that means they have stretched supply lines. So yes definitely something to celebrate. It again shows the HIMARs and other MRLS are very effective .

    Still harping about that delayed offensive?
    They were already stretched thin before the HIMARS came into play because of their ill-advised rush to blitz Ukraine. Because of bad intelligence, because of bad planning. I will repeat what I said from the beginning. I don't believe that the HIMARS system specifically made that much of a difference. I did not say that it did not make any difference, but that it was not the deciding factor for Ukraine's successes, that it was not what gave them a qualitative edge. I have sufficiently argued why and presented a reasonable source that corroborates my opinion.

  20. #8780
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    Actually no, if they are coping with it, then it means it is not that effective. That's the whole point of... coping with it.
    Like cope cages stop javelins? Again if your enemy if forcing you to stretch your supply lines then there weapon is highly effective. In fact my second article you failed to address mentions this.
    There is a further element that the AFU has little control over, and that is the way in which Russian forces have conducted operations. The RuAF has employed a rigid logistics structure that is reliant upon critical installations such as train lines and has a limited ability to operate away from railheads. This is combined with large ammunition dumps that are difficult to move quickly and command posts that are moved infrequently. This has allowed conservative HIMARS or MLRS strikes to have a disproportionate effect, removing tonnes of ammunition from Russian artillery batteries that are overwhelming AFU forces, or removing what senior leadership there is for Russian units at the frontline.
    The M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) provided to Ukraine have disrupted this trend and decisively shaped the battlefield by engaging Russia’s logistics, command and control (C2) nodes, and troop concentrations through much of the Russian Armed Force’s (RuAF) operational depth. This has prevented the RuAF from concentrating and massing artillery fire in a way that the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) could not match, disrupted RuAF attempts to concentrate forces for offensives, and made command of Russian units a risky endeavour
    I didn't address it directly, because the article I shared does. And the article I shared, unlike the one you keep linking to, does not read like a Lockheed Martin ad.
    Not once in your source does it ever address HIMARs and their use in attacking bridges in Kherson. In fact your article claims HIMARs were not effective because it took the Ukrainians two months to take the city. That's make no sense and they don't elaborate at all why the HIMARs were not effective.
    They were already stretched thin before the HIMARS came into play because of their ill-advised rush to blitz Ukraine. Because of bad intelligence, because of bad planning. I will repeat what I said from the beginning.
    Does that "probably" have a citation? Otherwise it sounds like you just made an unfounded claim.
    I don't believe that the HIMARS system specifically made that much of a difference. I did not say that it did not make any difference, but that it was not the deciding factor for Ukraine's successes, that it was not what gave them a qualitative edge. I have sufficiently argued why and presented a reasonable source that corroborates my opinion.
    Your own article says the HIMARs were the deciding factor in Ukraine's success during the Kharkiv offensive and changing the balance in the war.
    HIMARS paved the way for a stunningly successful Ukrainian counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region that began in early September and turned the balance of the war against Russia.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •