Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Alastor]

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.

I have read the article I shared to the end. You should try that too before you start picking and choosing.

I will not point out the specific parts that cast doubt on the general effectivity of HIMARS, instead pointing the finger to specific deficiencies these types of weapon could initially exploit (the shock), because I did so earlier and you ignored it, so I have no reason to believe that if I do so again, you will not just ignore it again. It seems you enjoy wasting my time for some bizarre reason, but I have other things to do too.

[Vanoi]

I have read the article I shared to the end. You should try that too before you start picking and choosing.

I'm not the one who missed that quote am I?

I will not point out the specific parts that cast doubt on the general effectivity of HIMARS, instead pointing the finger to specific deficiencies these types of weapon could initially exploit (the shock), because I did so earlier and you ignored it, so I have no reason to believe that if I do so again, you will not just ignore it again. It seems you enjoy wasting my time for some bizarre reason, but I have other things to do too.

Because there isn't. I've shown how your own source supports my points, and quoting numerous passages of my own articles (which again you didn't bother at all to address) that show how effective the HIMARS and other MRLS are in Ukraine. I've shown how the weapon continue to be effective in stretching Russian supply lines to stopping mass concentrations of Russian troops, supplies, and artillery.

And of course when I ask for a citation for a claim, you bow out. I didn't expect much anyways.

[Alastor]

I'm not the one who missed that quote am I?

You mean this quote?

Russia failed to take precautions and was slow to adapt to long-range Western rockets and artillery supplied to Ukraine. Nonetheless, Russia eventually did adapt.

Or maybe this one?

This raises another question: If much of HIMARS' success was due to Russian mistakes, how effective will these rockets against other adversaries in other potential conflicts, such as a Chinese invading of Taiwan?

Or perhaps this one?

For example, Ukrainian gunners enjoyed targeting data from US satellites that Russia couldn't attack for fear of escalating the war. Ukraine had access to US intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance "that played an important role, but due to political parameters was untouchable by Russia," Kofman said. "This is why you can't port findings easily into a war with direct US involvement."

Now let's see how you ignore this again and continue harping about what you have "shown".

And of course when I ask for a citation for a claim, you bow out. I didn't expect much anyways.

Is that so? You didn't expect much? By all means then feel free to ignore my posts from now on. I'll miss this low level trolling of course. Oh wait... no I won't.

[Cyclops]

I think its clear ukrainian capability is much greater than in the last round of land grabs in 2014, and the HIMARs seem to be a big part of it.

Of course the MIC is using this war to shop their wares around, so maybe this is limelight hogging from a supplier. However the few defence people I still know do mention the importance of the Javelins (and such) and the HIMARs (and they aren't artillery boys so they are not thirsting for ranged action).

[Alastor]

I think its clear ukrainian capability is much greater than in the last round of land grabs in 2014, and the HIMARs seem to be a big part of it.

Of course the MIC is using this war to shop their wares around, so maybe this is limelight hogging from a supplier. However the few defence people I still know do mention the importance of the Javelins (and such) and the HIMARs (and they aren't artillery boys so they are not thirsting for ranged action).

Indeed Ukrainian capability is much greater than in 2014. They have openly admitted that the Minsk agreements were a ploy to gain time in order to prepare. So that they never planned to actually honour them anyway. That time they did use well it seems.

Yes the MIC is doing exactly that. Very successfully from what I gather in the case of HIMARS. The Baltic countries for instance all bought a bunch of those in the last 6-7 months. Considering the Russians can now jam them, it does put in question if those millions were millions well spent.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/05/p...ine/index.html

[Vanoi]

You mean this quote?

Adapting like this?

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.

Is that the adaptation you're talking about there? Risking commanders lives? Not being able to concentrate artillery fire or mass troops for offensive? That's adaptation?

Or maybe this one?

It's easy to blame it on Russian mistakes but my article above shows that's simply not true. Funny it doesn't once elaborate why the Chinese wouldn't have the same problems the Russians did noe mentions any Chinese capability to actually target and destroy HIMARS.

Or perhaps this one?

The HIMARS isn't effective because Russia can't target US Satellites? Yes weapons that use GPS wouldn't last long if the satellites are targeted. Yet this isn't a war between the US and Russia. So your point is entirely irrelevant in this case.

Now let's see how you ignore this again and continue harping about what you have "shown".
Is that so? You didn't expect much? By all means then feel free to ignore my posts from now on. I'll miss this low level trolling of course. Oh wait... no I won't.

I addressed each quote. Fairly easily since your own source is a business insider article. Not actually a top notch source but better than nothing I guess.

[Alastor]

Is that the adaptation you're talking about there? Risking commanders lives? Not being able to concentrate artillery fire or mass troops for offensive? That's adaptation?

You have already quoted the adaptations listed in the article I shared earlier. So why are you playing this game? That adaptation was shown further by the orderly retreat from Kherson, despite being under HIMARS bombardment. Furthermore, now that the Russians are actively jamming those systems, they have adapted even further.

The HIMARS isn't effective because Russia can't target US Satellites? Yes weapons that use GPS wouldn't last long if the satellites are targeted. Yet this isn't a war between the US and Russia. So your point is entirely irrelevant in this case.

No, it was effective because Russia can't target US satellites. Now what was it again that I said actually was a qualitative difference and significant advantage that NATO has provided Ukraine. Intelligence and planning assistance. What are those satellites? Intelligence gathering sources. What do they allow for? Better planning. To quote myself:

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.

I addressed each quote. Fairly easily since your own source is a business insider article. Not actually a top notch source but better than nothing I guess.

Well, my source may be a business insider article, but at least it's not a Lockheed Martin ad. So I guess to each his own.

[Vanoi]

You have already quoted the adaptations listed in the article I shared earlier. So why are you playing this game? That adaptation was shown further by the orderly retreat from Kherson, despite being under HIMARS bombardment. Furthermore, now that the Russians are actively jamming those systems, they have adapted even further.

The adaptation a from your article such as pulling logistics back or hardening command posts hasn't stopped HIMARS from working. Russian commanders still due due to senior officers having to lead on the front. That's Russian military doctrine. No bunkers to hide in. And remind me, what Russian offensive is currently ongoing? Oh wait, there isn't a Russian offensive. There hasn't been one.

The last time the Russian used mass artillery was in Eastern Ukraine before the introduction of HIMARS. These "adaptations" aren't full proof and have failed to solve the problem HIMARS pose to the RuAF.

Russia can't effectively conduct offensives because of the HIMARS but the HIMARS isn't effective? That's some crazy doublethink.

No, it was effective because Russia can't target US satellites. Now what was it again that I said actually was a qualitative difference and significant advantage that NATO has provided Ukraine. Intelligence and planning assistance. What are those satellites? Intelligence gathering sources. What do they allow for? Better planning. To quote myself:

It's irrelevant though. It be like me mentioning the numerous advantages the Russian has and continue to have by operating from Belorussian territory. The entire war would be much worse if Russia couldn't attack and operate from Belarus. And yet it's irrelevant.

This discussion is about whenever HIMARS are an effective in Ukraine beyond initial introduction. Ukraine have intelligence assistance is irrelevant. Any country that currently possess HIMARS has access to intelligence or the capability to operate them either on their own or with assistance from allies.

Russia targeting GPS satellites would risk GLONASS being targeted in turn rendering their own abilities ineffective. Worse yet you create enough space debris to endanger the satellites of numerous countries like India and China or the European Union. Shoot yourself in the foot if you please.

Well, my source may be a business insider article, but at least it's not a Lockheed Martin ad. So I guess to each his own.

Lol you said that about my first source and now the second one too? I can't help your basic source doesn't bother to go in depth like my second source does. Its obvious you haven't bothered to read it but like I said. I don't expect much.

[Alastor]

This discussion is about whenever HIMARS are an effective in Ukraine beyond initial introduction. Ukraine have intelligence assistance is irrelevant. Any country that currently possess HIMARS has access to intelligence or the capability to operate them either on their own or with assistance from allies.

Actually the discussion was about whether HIMARS in itself was that much of a big deal. I had already discussed in the same post I raised this point, intelligence as a contrasting and separate point. Which I believe was a more important contributing factor to Ukraine's success than any one weapons system. That you believe that intelligence is irrelevant is hardly my problem.

Lol you said that about my first source and now the second one too? I can't help your basic source doesn't bother to go in depth like my second source does. Its obvious you haven't bothered to read it but like I said. I don't expect much.

Of course you didn't. But then again, this time, neither did I.

[Vanoi]

Actually the discussion was about whether HIMARS in itself was that much of a big deal. I had already discussed in the same post I raised this point, intelligence as a contrasting and separate point. Which I believe was a more important contributing factor to Ukraine's success than any one weapons system. That you believe that intelligence is irrelevant is hardly my problem.

Stopping offensives seems like a pretty big deal. Killing commanders and disrupting artillery that has prevented numerous Ukrainians deaths and setbacks is a big deal.

All weapons require intelligence to work. So yes it's irrelevant.

[Alastor]

Stopping offensives seems like a pretty big deal. Killing commanders and disrupting artillery that has prevented numerous Ukrainians deaths and setbacks is a big deal.

All weapons require intelligence to work. So yes it's irrelevant.

And how exactly did they do that? You are grossly exaggerating the impact the presence of HIMARS have here. If anything mass artillery attacks are very inefficient. Russia could simply be waking up to that. It's not like they can keep wasting ammunition forever. In the long run, it's a bad strategy, with or without HIMARS.

As for intelligence, you can only call it irrelevant because we provide it. If we didn't provide it, it would be very, very relevant. That intelligence, the planning assistance etc, doesn't just allow Ukraine to operate their HIMARS, but nearly everything else. Without the HIMARS, Ukraine still would be able to inflict damage to Russia, to effectively resist. Without our intelligence/planning/training Ukraine would have probably fallen during the initial blitz, even if they had 100 HIMARS.

[Cyclops]

Indeed Ukrainian capability is much greater than in 2014. They have openly admitted that the Minsk agreements were a ploy to gain time in order to prepare. So that they never planned to actually honour them anyway. That time they did use well it seems.

I mean, it's just as likely Ukraine planned on the assumption that Russia would break them (they did immediately) and prepared for another wave of Putinist lies and aggression. It's a fair interpretation.

I'm not suggesting Ukraine is some virgin in distress, they were and likely remain a post-Soviet eastern European state with some corruption and nationalism problems. However the fact remains they didn't start either war. Its quite reasonable they resist: its not sneaky or dishonest to plan not to become a Russian province.

Yes the MIC is doing exactly that. Very successfully from what I gather in the case of HIMARS. The Baltic countries for instance all bought a bunch of those in the last 6-7 months. Considering the Russians can now jam them, it does put in question if those millions were millions well spent.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/05/p...ine/index.html

Nothing like live fire testing in the field. Its a shame Ukraine has to buy help by marketing itself in this way but medium size states have to sell themselves somehow if they are going to get their hands on weapons to resist conquest by a wealthier opponent. Zelensky has played this pretty well so far and luckily their survival suits the USA. So does visits from Hunter so its not all roses.

There's a discussion to be had about the value of peace bought by conquest, but thats one for the other sub board I guess.

[Alastor]

I mean, it's just as likely Ukraine planned on the assumption that Russia would break them (they did immediately) and prepared for another wave of Putinist lies and aggression. It's a fair interpretation.

Not a particularly fair interpretation, considering Ukraine never really intended to respect the Donbas ceasefire. Of course, our completely unbiased western media only(or mainly) blamed the Russians for breaking said ceasefire, but again truth is the first casualty of war.

I'm not suggesting Ukraine is some virgin in distress, they were and likely remain a post-Soviet eastern European state with some corruption and nationalism problems. However the fact remains they didn't start either war. Its quite reasonable they resist: its not sneaky or dishonest to plan not to become a Russian province.

Well you are one of the few in the west that don't suggest that then. Still, what you are saying sounds like the ends justify the means and I wonder if that's an attitude we should applaud either. I do believe that the options Ukraine had weren't simply war or Russian province, but we did end up down that path following the Maidan.

[Vanoi]

And how exactly did they do that? You are grossly exaggerating the impact the presence of HIMARS have here. If anything mass artillery attacks are very inefficient.

How can you conduct offensives if you can't mass troops within range of HIMARS? Mass artillery and it's effectiveness worked in Eastern Ukraine for the Russians before the introduction of HIMARS.

Russia could simply be waking up to that. It's not like they can keep wasting ammunition forever. In the long run, it's a bad strategy, with or without HIMARS.

I don't disagree but that's Russian military doctrine. HIMARS just happen to be effective in countering it.

As for intelligence, you can only call it irrelevant because we provide it. If we didn't provide it, it would be very, very relevant.

Artillery, aircraft, and pretty much any indirect weapon requires recon or intelligence. Yes Ukraine needs the US's intelligence to use the HIMARS effectively. That does not make it any less effective as a weapon.

That intelligence, the planning assistance etc, doesn't just allow Ukraine to operate their HIMARS, but nearly everything else. Without the HIMARS, Ukraine still would be able to inflict damage to Russia, to effectively resist. Without our intelligence/planning/training Ukraine would have probably fallen during the initial blitz, even if they had 100 HIMARS.

Not a single person denies this. But again it's irrelevant.

[Alastor]

Not a single person denies this.

Good, then you agree. You could have said so from the beginning.

[Vanoi]

Good, then you agree. You could have said so from the beginning.

That HIMARS require intelligence to work? Funny enough that wasn't at all what you said originally or what we have been discussing. Glad you agree the HIMARS is an effective weapon in Ukraine.

[Alastor]

That HIMARS require intelligence to work? Funny enough that wasn't at all what you said originally or what we have been discussing. Glad you agree the HIMARS is an effective weapon in Ukraine.

Lets quote yet again what I initially said about intelligence:

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.

HIMARS and any one weapon system is not the point. This is.

And I'm glad you can be glad imagining you won yet another internet. Who am I to deny you your delusions?

[Vanoi]

Lets quote yet again what I initially said about intelligence:HIMARS and any one weapon system is not the point. This is.

And I'm glad you can be glad imagining you won yet another internet. Who am I to deny you your delusions?

This was your post in reply to mine.

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:

That's post 8775. You can stop lying now Alastor.

[Alastor]

That's post 8775. You can stop lying now Alastor.

I need to start lying first. But thanks for quoting that very accurate statement of mine. I do think it deserves some more attention.

[Vanoi]

I need to start lying first. But thanks for quoting that very accurate statement of mine. I do think it deserves some more attention.

Where you don't even say the word intelligence and claim the effectiveness of the HIMARS is overstated? Yes I saw that Alastor.