Thread: Russia launches Ukraine invasion

So does the counteroffensive start tomorrow?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So does the counteroffensive start tomorrow?

It will start when General Zaluzhny feels they are ready. Are you insinuating that it will not happen? Go back to smoking your joint.

Ohh now there is a Summit in Moldova and Zelensky is presented. Just curious if Putin will get mad because of this Summit with many important representatives from different countries. Hope he won't attack Moldova as well.

It started a few weeks ago.

They started hitting russian ammo depos and infrastructure.

By the book

I did post it, remember ?

Straight from the mouth of Podolyak, it was

Originally Posted by bsnub

Are you insinuating that it will not happen?

Don't worry; it's happening

Kiev needs a major success.

Feud Between Russian Warlords Exposes Cracks in Kremlin’s War Machine


Attacks on Wagner founder Yevgeny Prigozhin come after his stinging criticism of the Russian defense ministry


A growing feud between two of Russia’s most powerful warlords has broken out into the open following the withdrawal of the paramilitary Wagner group from eastern Ukrainian flashpoint city Bakhmut, exposing the rifts in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war machine ahead of an expected Ukrainian offensive.


The rivalry between Wagner founder Yevgeny Prigozhin and Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov highlights some of the first public criticism aimed at Prigozhin, who has become one of the biggest thorns in the Kremlin’s side. His star rose in recent months as his troops slowly captured the eastern city of Bakhmut for Moscow, but in doing so Prigozhin spent months accusing the Russian defense ministry of failing to provide his troops with proper ammunition.


Earlier this week, as his troops were pulling out of the front-line city—to be replaced by Kadyrov’s forces, Prigozhin poured cold water on the ability of the Chechen forces to take the whole of Ukraine’s Donetsk province. Russia claims the entirety of the province, which it refers to as the Donetsk People’s Republic, or DNR, as its own but still lacks complete control of the territory.


“Regarding the liberation of various towns and villages, I think they have the forces for it, but it’s not worth it for them to free all of DNR,” said Prigozhin in a statement on his Telegram channel. “They will occupy certain areas.”

The comments started a firestorm among Kadyrov’s loyalists, including his longtime ally Adam Delimkhanov, who threatened Prigozhin to meet in person to clear up any misunderstandings about their capabilities.

Of course, Yevgeny, you don’t understand this, and you needn’t understand,” Delimkhanov said in a video posted to Telegram. “You can get in touch anytime and name the place where we can meet to explain whatever it is you don’t get.”


Another Kadyrov loyalist, Magomed Daudov, said Prigozhin was sowing panic among the population through his complaints about the defense ministry.

The deployment of Kadyrov’s troops, which are officially a part of the national guard but answer directly to him, could undermine Prigozhin’s position both on the battlefield and more broadly in Russian society, where he has gained a following for his public, and often expletive-laden, rants against what he called a corrupt and inefficient Russian military.


The use of Kadyrov’s forces to relieve the Wagner troops could also be a ploy by the Kremlin to escalate the rivalry between the two warlords, who joined forces last year to criticize the Russian defense ministry after regular forces repeatedly failed to strengthen the front lines and allow Ukrainian troops to make significant gains.


“The Kremlin may also be attempting to sever Kadyrov’s relationship with Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin and re-emphasize federal authority over Chechen forces,” the Institute for the Study of War wrote earlier this week.

Kadyrov, who became leader of Chechnya in 2007, depends wholly on the support of Putin. The public feud gives him a chance to reclaim his place as the president’s loyal foot soldier, a term he uses regularly to describe himself.


While Kadyrov and many of his allies fought against Moscow for an independent Chechnya following the fall of the Soviet Union, his father and he changed sides in a later conflict that Moscow won, returning federal control over the mountainous, mostly Muslim region and installing the Kadyrov family as its leaders.


Wagner commander Dmitry Utkin, who fought against Kadyrov in the first Chechen War, referred to the conflict in his own response to the Chechen leader’s supporters.


“We are always ready to meet man-to-man as we’re already acquainted from the first and second Chechen wars,” he wrote in a statement carried on Telegram.


The feud has erupted as Ukraine is expected to launch a major offensive aimed at reclaiming swaths of Russian-occupied territory in the country’s south and east.


The arrival of Kadyrov’s forces will be the first time in nearly a year that they will be operating on the front line.


Feud Between Russian Warlords Exposes Cracks in Kremlin’s War Machine - WSJ

Originally Posted by bsnub

It will start when General Zaluzhny feels they are ready. Are you insinuating that it will not happen? Go back to smoking your joint.

You've been telling us it will happen since the mud froze. Then it didn't or something.

It's the west's fault.

Why Ukraine'''s spring offensive still hasn'''t begun — with summer just weeks away | AP News.

LONG RANGE STRIKE: UKR has carried out a 400 KM drone attack on one of Russia’s largest oil refineries at Krasnodar Krai. The strike precisely targeted the plant’s oil distillation facility, which is the most critical unit in the refinery.

https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/sta...521729/photo/1

There seems to be an effort to move some of Russia's finite air defences like the s300s and s400s further back into Russia to protect incountry sites thus leaving some Ukranian areas currently controlled by Russia more vulnerable. I could, as always, be wrong...

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

I could, as always, be wrong...

You are not wrong. The Ukrainians have also destroyed a lot of ruzzian air defenses with HARM missiles and drones.

Russian forces in Ukraine have lost around five tanks, on average, every day for more than 460 days since Russia widened its war on the country.

That’s a lot of tanks. The analysts at Oryx, a collective that tallies wartime equipment losses by scrutinizing photos and videos on social media, have counted no fewer than 2,003 destroyed, damaged and captured Russian tanks. And since some tank losses leave no photographic evidence, Oryx’s count almost definitely is an undercount.

Russia has written off probably around two-thirds of the roughly 3,500 tanks it had in active service before the wider war. Russia’s two main tank plants meanwhile are struggling to build more than a couple dozen new tanks a month, owing in part to a shortage of high-tech components that’s exacerbated by foreign sanctions.

High losses and low production help to explain why most of Russia’s replacement tanks are old tanks that technicians pulled out of open storage, lightly refurbished and sent to the front with few or no major upgrades. A survey of reequipped Russian regiments is like a tour of a tank museum. There are 1978-vintage T-80s, T-62s from the mid-1960s and even T-55s from the late 1950s.

The latest Russian museum tank to roll into combat is the T-72 Ural, the original model of the tank type that has been standard across the Russian and allied armies for five decades. The Uralvagonzavod factory in central Russia manufactured Urals for just a few years before switching to improved T-72 models in the late 1970s.

A 1974-vintage T-72 Ural might look a lot like a T-72B3 from 2023. But on the inside, it’s a totally different—and much cruder—vehicle. One that’s only marginally better than a T-55, and actually inferior to many T-62 models.

It’s unclear how many Urals Uralvagonzavod produced, how many are in storage and how many of those are recoverable. There might be a thousand old Urals lying around, but it’s possible just a few hundred are intact after five decades of hot-cold, wet-dry cycles.

Three-person, 46-ton T-72 Urals started showing up in Ukraine no later than February, around the first anniversary of Russia’s wider invasion. A Ural isn’t hard to spot if you know what to look for. Its biggest giveaways also are its biggest weaknesses. Both are related to the tank’s fire-controls.

Look for two things: a pair of large infrared spotlights on the right side of the turret and a small aperture for an optical rangefinder, also on the turret’s right. The infrared spotlights are how the commander and gunner spot targets at night for their tank’s auto-loaded 125-millimeter main gun.

Infrared spotlights became obsolete in the 1970s as passive methods of night vision—infrared and light-amplification—replaced active night vision. The problem with spotlit night vision is that anyone with infrared sights, including the enemy, can see the beam of an infrared spotlight and where it originates. With passive night vision, a tank crew can see at night without giving away its presence.

That a T-72 Ural crew must broadcast its location in order to fight at night basically means it can’t fight at night. It would be suicide on a battlefield teeming with Ukrainian tanks and fighting vehicles whose crews see through the latest infrared sights.

Daylight solves the Ural’s spotlight problem, but doesn’t mitigate the tank’s other major fire-control flaw: its optical rangefinder.

Such rangefinders have been around for at least a century. They work like binoculars—or even human eyes when a person is good at guessing distances. The viewer has a left and right image and knows how far away the separate images should overlap.

Optical rangefinders are inaccurate compared to modern laser rangefinders, which shoot a laser at a target and calculate the range by counting how long the laser takes to bounce back. Where an optical rangefinder requires a certain amount of guesswork and labor, a laser rangefinder is automatic, highly accurate and nearly instantaneous.

A Ural crew in a long-range fight with a Ukrainian tank, fighting vehicle or missile crew is at a disadvantage. It might still be calculating the range to target when the first Ukrainian shell or missile impacts.

Direct fights involving tanks are rare in Ukraine, of course. Most tank losses result from drone, artillery and mine strikes. But the Ural with its mostly steel armor is highly vulnerable to those attacks, too. At its toughest spots, a Ural’s armor offers protection equivalent to just 400 millimeters of steel. That’s half the maximum protection that a Ukrainian Leopard 2A4 enjoys.

Lightly protected, blind at night and slow to calculate range, a T-72 Ural is next to useless in a serious fight on a modern battlefield. It might be a better tank than a 70-year-old T-55. But it’s not better than a T-62MV that went through a deep upgrade program in the 1980s. And we know how the T-62 has fared in Ukraine. (Spoiler: badly.)

Oryx so far has identified two knocked-out Urals. Expect more of the aged tanks to show up in tallies of vehicle losses as Ukrainian forces slowly shift from defense to offense—and bring more Russian tanks into their crosshairs.

As Tank Losses Top 2,000, Russia Is Deploying T-72s From 1974

Interesting watch about the challenges of operating the US M1A1 Abrams tank.

I think what Harry is referring to is that the ukrainian offensive is in danger of being just that, words and little else and is in danger of losing credibility with the western public that see millions of their tax dollars spent by their respective govts being expended for what appears to many as little result at the moment. The Ukrainians cannot just deliver empty promises and need their supporters to see there are results for the tremendous amount of taxpayer funded military aid. There is already some disquiet in parts of the western media and govts regardless of their rhetoric, need public support.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

The Ukrainians cannot just deliver empty promises

Ofcourse not, but they need troops now, after Bakmut where they lost many due to lack of heavy artillery and ammunition.

I saw ukranian soldiers interviewed on danish TV, who expressed great dissatisfaction with seeing their buddies being sacrifized for "nothing" and with the ukrainian command in general.

They would keep on fighting though.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

I think what Harry is referring to is that the ukrainian offensive is in danger of being just that, words and little else and is in danger of losing credibility with the western public that see millions of their tax dollars spent by their respective govts being expended for what appears to many as little result at the moment. The Ukrainians cannot just deliver empty promises and need their supporters to see there are results for the tremendous amount of taxpayer funded military aid. There is already some disquiet in parts of the western media and govts regardless of their rhetoric, need public support.

Indeed, but the offensive must be successful or Ukraine will need to have peace on Russian terms rather than their own. This waiting period must be hard on the Russoans though, having to be on full alert for weeks on end. Never good for morale.
Ukraine are kepping their losses a secret but they musy also have suffeted heavily and 8-12 full brigades isn't enough to make any significant gain unless the Russians are routed.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Of course, it has military value, the Ukrainians now know that the ruzzian air defense network has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese. The real value is the psychological one, the ruzzian telegram talking heads are in full meltdown mode over this and the blowback internally will be substantial. It was another brilliant strategic attack by the Ukrainians.

Did I mention that you come across as someone who served in the ranks rather than as an officer? Nothing against that, just the difference in attitude comes across that way.

Anyway, this is more in line with my view than yours...

Originally Posted by Troy

Indeed, but the offensive must be successful or Ukraine will need to have peace on Russian terms rather than their own.

I disagree, both of you are assuming an offensive is crucial at this juncture. So far only one party has a lack of backing in terms of equipment or manpower

Originally Posted by malmomike77

So far only one party has a lack of backing in terms of equipment or manpower

More specific ?

Originally Posted by Troy

Did I mention that you come across as someone who served in the ranks rather than as an officer?

Well, I did serve in the ranks. So you are not wrong.

Originally Posted by Troy

Anyway, this is more in line with my view than yours...

I have tremendous respect for Professor Clarke and have put up clips of him in the past, however I will have to disagree with him here. I think that these attacks are already having a profound psychological effect inside ruzzia, as well as a strategic one, by that I am referring to the fact that ruzzia is moving air defense equipment away from the front to protect the country internally.

Originally Posted by helge

Ofcourse not, but they need troops now, after Bakmut where they lost many due to lack of heavy artillery and ammunition.

I saw ukranian soldiers interviewed on danish TV, who expressed great dissatisfaction with seeing their buddies being sacrifized for "nothing" and with the ukrainian command in general.

They would keep on fighting though.

A good point. The exact ukrainian losses to hold Bakmut are possibly quite understated and these losses may be holding up the expected offensive. Especially as many of the losses included experienced troops with knowledge gained in urban warfare. Experience that will be invaluable when cities have to be taken. I personally never saw the point when the Ukrainians could've retreated to a far better defensive position.

Originally Posted by Troy

Did I mention that you come across as someone who served in the ranks rather than as an officer? Nothing against that, just the difference in attitude comes across that way.

Anyway, this is more in line with my view than yours...

Definitelly a chap that needs to be reminded not to lift the the port decanter from the table while passing the port. A practice that will no doubt carry a rebuke from the PMC.

Originally Posted by helge

Ofcourse not, but they need troops now

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

The exact ukrainian losses to hold Bakmut are possibly quite understated and these losses may be holding up the expected offensive. Especially as many of the losses included experienced troops with knowledge gained in urban warfare.

The Ukrainians have plenty of troops for the offensive. Tens of thousands of them have been training constantly in the UK and the EU. Those troops upon return to Ukraine did not go to fight in Bakmut, they stayed in the rear and continued to train in combined arms operations.

Ukraine has 45–50 brigades in the rear that are training and preparing for this coming offensive. Many of them have been out of the country for training, also you should take note that none of the equipment that the west has supplied aside from some apc's has shown up in combat. That is, for a reason, it is in the rear with all these brigades. See here...

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1649552442961321990