Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-06-2024

(01-06-2024, 01:33 PM)M T Wrote:  How about a different take?  

If the training of the pilots hasn't progressed to the point of their being effective (which I believe Goose has suggested), what would happen if Ukraine had the aircraft now?  They'd be under strong internal pressure to put them in the air, even if the pilots aren't ready.  If Russia picked off those 6 aircraft in short time, the effect on morale, as well as the combat effect, would be bad for Ukraine.

So, maybe, an external delay on the delivery of the aircraft may be what the top military people in Ukraine want.  Have the aircraft and the better trained pilots when the mud dries and Ukraine again tries to regain ground.

Totally possible. It could be Ukraine's air force, or maybe even the pilots themselves, want training to continue without the pressure to "do something". It could also be that the members of the "F-16 Coalition" decided that independent of Ukraine. Having the aircraft when the weather improves is indeed the goal. The problem is that Ukraine is going to need some time to absorb these planes into their ground infrastructure. That needs to start well before they fly in combat. What is important is that they Ukraine doesn't have to wait until summer to get airplanes.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-06-2024

Would be great for the US to send F16s, but Biden doesn't have any more money allocated from congress, and F16s would be a very big ticket item.

I think it's unlikely congress would sign a generous enough bill for it to make sense for us to use the money on F16s as opposed to missiles, ammo, and other cheaper and more necessary items.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-06-2024

(01-06-2024, 02:25 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Would be great for the US to send F16s, but Biden doesn't have any more money allocated from congress, and F16s would be a very big ticket item.

I think it's unlikely congress would sign a generous enough bill for it to make sense for us to use the money on F16s as opposed to missiles, ammo, and other cheaper and more necessary items.

I agree they are "big ticket" items on paper, but many are heading to Davis-Monthan anyway. Others will go directly to scrap as there are already lots of F-16s in the "boneyard". Congress knows this. Lots of those airframes have some useful life left, but not enough to justify keeping them "just in case". I would expect this could be made to "fly" without much trouble :-). It doesn't add one dime to the national debt.

UPDATE: There are a total of 336(!) F-16s at Davis-Monthan, of which 130 are F-16C and 21 are F-16D. Lots of these aircraft will end up as target drones, but we have PLENTY. The F-16s being retired in the immediate future don't need to go to the boneyard. Send them to Ukraine.

I do think you are correct that the missiles, ammo and more necessary items that actually need to be replaced in US inventory are the ones congress has to worry about. However, replacing the F-16s in US inventory is already budgeted and happening. It is merely the "leftovers" and the timing that is at issue here :-).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-06-2024

Sure, they may be destined soon for the boneyard, but all the other old stuff we've sent to Ukraine still gets billed at something like list price against the money allocated for aid to Ukraine.

If it's between F16s (100million+?) and Patriots (few million a piece), it will require a very large amount of support to make sending the jets worth it, the prospects for which look dim at the moment.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-06-2024

(01-06-2024, 02:59 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Sure, they may be destined soon for the boneyard, but all the other old stuff we've sent to Ukraine still gets billed at something like list price against the money allocated for aid to Ukraine.

If it's between F16s (100million+?) and Patriots (few million a piece), it will require a very large amount of support to make sending the jets worth it, the prospects for which look dim at the moment.

I understand your point. The difference is that in many cases the other "old stuff" (like ATACMS missiles) are still currently first-line defense articles and need to be replaced. The M777 howitzers were a different case and were at that time considered "surplus to requirements". While for bookkeeping purposes they may have been carried at "list price" or "replacement cost" we (at that time, maybe not today) had no intention of replacing them. The congress and the administration liked the "good publicity" of the big numbers while fully realizing the actual cost wasn't near that much. I would hope congress could be made to understand the same about F-16s that we are replacing with F-35s. It is not a "real" cash outlay. 

You could be correct that it isn't possible and that congress would balk. I perhaps am asking too much. However, we do give away ships that are (were when acquired) listed at multi-millions of dollars but are surplus to requirements. We are talking about giving away LCS that the USN paid over 500 million each. Nobody in congress worries about that much. It can be done if "explained" correctly.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-11-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-fortifies-occupied-territories-zaporizhzhya-134300894.html

Ukraine is letting it happen again. Perhaps they really can't do much about it, but no matter how one looks at it allowing Russia to build new lines of fortification is really bad news. Ukraine allegedly broke through 2 lines of Russian heavy fortifications but then ran out of time and troops. Allowing Russia to fortify the next set of objectives isn't real encouraging. Hopefully these fortifications are in fact "fortress" style fortifications around cities/villages. These can be bypassed without too much trouble. Near the end of WW II the Germans did this a lot because they didn't have the resources to fortify a continuous line of defense. It didn't work because these locations could simply be contained and bypassed. Eventually the Russians didn't even have to contain them because the defenders had very little offensive capability and could basically be ignored.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 01-11-2024

Thank you for keeping us informed, even when the news is not good.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 01-11-2024

(01-11-2024, 01:45 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  Thank you for keeping us informed, even when the news is not good.

I recently read an article which concluded that Russia was on the verge of becoming a failed state. It stated that despite Russian media releases, it is losing tanks at a faster rate than it can replace them or build new ones, Graft rears it ugly head.  By their count, Russia and Ukraine are close to even in terms of tanks but Ukraine's biggest problem is its lack of air power. Russia can build fortified lines since it has not real airborne attack risk.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 01-11-2024

If/when Ukraine gets the ability to fly the promised aircraft, will they be able to make mincemeat of these fortifications?  That is, can they launch and place the bombs to open a path pretty much where ever Ukraine wants?  (Obviously they will be trying to keep from being shot down.)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 01-11-2024

(01-11-2024, 02:29 PM)GK3 Wrote:  

(01-11-2024, 01:45 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  Thank you for keeping us informed, even when the news is not good.

I recently read an article which concluded that Russia was on the verge of becoming a failed state. It stated that despite Russian media releases, it is losing tanks at a faster rate than it can replace them or build new ones, Graft rears it ugly head.  By their count, Russia and Ukraine are close to even in terms of tanks but Ukraine's biggest problem is its lack of air power. Russia can build fortified lines since it has not real airborne attack risk.

There's more than a few of those articles. I don't know that they're going to improve much any time soon, thanks to the recent mismanagement (on top of decades and even centuries of mismanagement).

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/05/03/russia-has-failed-as-a-state/
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/10/russia-risks-becoming-a-failed-state-in-next-10-years-analysts-say.html
https://www.politico.eu/article/opinion-russia-benefits-disintegration/
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3661061-russia-is-a-failed-state/
https://fortune.com/europe/2023/01/10/russia-putin-failed-state-economic-collapse-ukraine-war-atlantic-council/
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/russian-politics-the-paradox-weak-state
https://globalcomment.com/russia-is-a-failed-state/
https://www.ft.com/content/6ceb6331-07a0-4b1f-b777-3034b288a3be
https://www.thinkchina.sg/russia-could-decline-failed-state
https://neweasterneurope.eu/2023/04/29/how-putin-turned-russia-into-a-failed-state/
https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2022/11/18/russia-risks-becoming-ungovernable-and-descending-into-chaos

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-11-2024

(01-11-2024, 02:29 PM)GK3 Wrote:  I recently read an article which concluded that Russia was on the verge of becoming a failed state. It stated that despite Russian media releases, it is losing tanks at a faster rate than it can replace them or build new ones, Graft rears it ugly head. 

I have read several similar such things. I take them all, on both sides, with many grains of salt. Russia for sure has lots of problems, many of which are serious. It could be something so simple as the unavailability of eggs that catalyzes  the inexorable fall of the Russian Federation. Stranger things have happened.  It isn't wise to count on these prospective articles IMO, because even if they are unbiased it is very difficult to predict what will happen even in relatively open countries, let alone one as closed as Russia has become. The "fall" of the Soviet Union is a good example of the general failure to forecast the political future.

Quote:By their count, Russia and Ukraine are close to even in terms of tanks but Ukraine's biggest problem is its lack of air power. Russia can build fortified lines since it has not real airborne attack risk.

Exactly correct IMO. If Ukraine can generate even local air superiority over fortified spots, they can break through them with "reasonable" casualties. When that happens, Russia has a problem. Those "fortress" troops aren't very mobile. They can't "heal the breach" themselves. It requires a mobile reserve, and in the south Russia no longer has that. Obviously, even if some troops were dispatched to stop the Ukrainians they would be very vulnerable when moving.

The question is can Ukraine cobble together enough of an air force with the F-16s they will be getting to be effective and remain effective? It is a heavy lift. That is why IMO the US needs to make it clear to Ukraine that we will provide as many F-16s as they need as long as we can train the pilots to the minimal extent (at least) the we feel is necessary. Ukraine is going to lose aircraft. They need to lose aircraft. If you fly so safe that you don't get hit occasionally, you can't do your job. However, if you only have 40 or so airplanes (and no replacements available), your loss tolerance is almost nil.

The Russian air force has basically operated in "safe" mode for this whole war. How they get away with that I really don't understand. Stand-off weapons are great, but sometimes you do have to go "downtown". Perhaps during the initial phases of the war they convinced themselves it was "too dangerous". IMO all along the Russian air force has decided they don't want to die in Ukraine. If Ukraine generates local air superiority in critical battles, the Russian air force may have to rethink their approach. Let's hope we get to see it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-12-2024

Extremely cool video of two Ukrainian Bradleys taking out a Russian T-90M tank, their most modern operational type. It's a bit long and confusing, definitely helps to watch on a large screen, but very rare to see a tank on tank or especially tank on IFV duel on video.

https://twitter.com/moklasen/status/1745932015210213682

It looks like the first Bradley engages the tank at very close range with 25mm chain gun fire going from the left to right at the bottom of the screen. The tank fires several times with its 125mm main gun but misses. The first Bradley then retreats to the bottom right, and another comes to engage the tank again with the 25mm cannon. It don't think that either Bradley tried to use its TOW missiles, ostensibly a more powerful anti tank weapon, but perhaps I missed it. At some point I think the T90M activates it's APS protection system, which is what the big explosions/flares/smoke are, so maybe there was a TOW or other missile fired or targeted at the tank.

In any case, the Bradleys, especially the second one, hit the tank with a LOT of 25mm fire in apparently vulnerable enough positions to send the turret spinning uncontrollably and the tank crashing into a tree, functionally destroyed.

You can see other Bradley 25mm fire in the background as well directed probably at Russian troops or fortifications in the distant treeline. It's been a very potent weapon for Ukraine. Just another example of 40 year old western equipment taking down Russia's "best".

Also, likely very important to the outcome for Ukraine to have this overhead view of the engagement. The Bradleys moved with purpose likely because they knew what was happening. The Russian tank didn't seem to really know what to do.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Hurlburt88 - 01-13-2024

THanks for posting!  let's get this "compromise" done in Washington & keep supporting these efforts!

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-13-2024

(01-12-2024, 08:18 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Extremely cool video of two Ukrainian Bradleys taking out a Russian T-90M tank, their most modern operational type. It's a bit long and confusing, definitely helps to watch on a large screen, but very rare to see a tank on tank or especially tank on IFV duel on video.

https://twitter.com/moklasen/status/1745932015210213682

It looks like the first Bradley engages the tank at very close range with 25mm chain gun fire going from the left to right at the bottom of the screen. The tank fires several times with its 125mm main gun but misses. The first Bradley then retreats to the bottom right, and another comes to engage the tank again with the 25mm cannon. It don't think that either Bradley tried to use its TOW missiles, ostensibly a more powerful anti tank weapon, but perhaps I missed it. At some point I think the T90M activates it's APS protection system, which is what the big explosions/flares/smoke are, so maybe there was a TOW or other missile fired or targeted at the tank.

In any case, the Bradleys, especially the second one, hit the tank with a LOT of 25mm fire in apparently vulnerable enough positions to send the turret spinning uncontrollably and the tank crashing into a tree, functionally destroyed.

You can see other Bradley 25mm fire in the background as well directed probably at Russian troops or fortifications in the distant treeline. It's been a very potent weapon for Ukraine. Just another example of 40 year old western equipment taking down Russia's "best".

Also, likely very important to the outcome for Ukraine to have this overhead view of the engagement. The Bradleys moved with purpose likely because they knew what was happening. The Russian tank didn't seem to really know what to do.

It is difficult to know what was going on in that "engagement". First of all, if you are a Bradley engaging any MBT with your 25 mm gun, something has gone horribly wrong. Engaging a MBT with a TOW missile from a Bradley that isn't in defilade or at least cover is also frowned upon. You do it only if you have no choice or if you are pretty sure you have the element of surprise. In any case, going "head to head" with a MBT should result in the Bradley losing the fight very quickly very early on.

That said, the Russian tank crew was obviously incompetent. If the Bradley was hitting them with their 25 mm, the T-90 has no excuse for not destroying the Bradley with their 125 mm main gun. They shouldn't miss once, let alone multiple times. They are relatively "safe", at least for several minutes. It shouldn't be a panic situation. Their state of training is very suspect, or possibly their tank's electronics are not working and they are shooting in a very degraded mode.

The APS of the tank is normally "activated" whenever it is engaged in combat. There are many different kinds, but in most cases it includes ERA bricks. It doesn't all go off at once in response to an incoming projectile. What we see in the video is quite possibly a malfunction caused by multiple 25 mm hits. ERA bricks are also not supposed to go off by sympathetic detonation, but in this case it appears they did. The Arena-M system (which T-90s supposedly have) launches small missiles. No way can it produce such a wide-area effect effect in normal operation and it can't fire all it's missiles at once either. It is possible that 25 mm fire hit the system controller which then blew up, detonating it's ammunition supply.

The uncontrollably spinning turret may indicate some battle damage, but it also could indicate somebody's body is pressing on the control. The 25 mm fire may have "scraped off" all the viewing systems so the tank was blind. Normally the response to that should be jump out and run :-). Didn't see that either. The explosion on top of the turret may have damaged the hatches and they couldn't get out. The tank may also be filling with smoke.

The extent to which the drone picture helped the Bradleys isn't knowable, but it is very improbable they could see the video picture themselves. They don't have the comms gear to do that, at least not "as built". They might have received info via radio messages, but in a tank battle the participants are usually pretty busy and such inputs are of limited utility. My question would be why the drone info wasn't used to keep the Bradleys out of harms way to begin with and the T-90 engaged by Ukrainian MBTs or infantry with Javelins. Its great that in this battle Ukraine prevailed, but by all rights they should not have.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-13-2024

Ukrainian troops themselves have commented about the effective coordination of Bradleys, reconnaissance drones and FPV attack drones in this area.

It's uncertain from the footage if the first Bradley was waiting in ambush for the tank or was surprised by it. But the second Bradley was hunting the tank, and knew exactly where it was.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-13-2024

(01-13-2024, 02:43 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Ukrainian troops themselves have commented about the effective coordination of Bradleys, reconnaissance drones and FPV attack drones in this area.

It's uncertain from the footage if the first Bradley was waiting in ambush for the tank or was surprised by it. But the second Bradley was hunting the tank, and knew exactly where it was.

Probably true. One Bradley could have told the other, even if the drone operator didn't. The problem is Bradleys shouldn't be hunting tanks, ever. That's absolutely not what they are designed to do. The 25 mm gun can't kill a tank fast enough to prevent the tank from killing the Bradley unless the tank crew panics or their tank is "sick". The fact it appears to work in this case relies on the assumption the Russians are incompetent. Here is another article using the same video.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-us-bradley-fighting-vehicles-173427308.html
Note that the article states

Quote:The Russian tank fires first at the fighting vehicles, and misses.

Conventional wisdom (backed by experience) is that in an armor battle, he who fires first wins. In this case, that didn't happen because the Russians didn't hit the Bradley. It was a relatively easy shot. They just missed it. Perhaps the Ukrainians have enough insight to "know" the Russians will miss, but IMHO that is a foolish assumption.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-13-2024

Whether or not the Ukrainian's "should" have won, they did. Could be russian crew incompetence, could be Russian equipment is not as good as advertised, could be the Ukrainians knew all that and acted aggressively. I don't think they just got lucky.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 01-13-2024

(01-13-2024, 03:49 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Whether or not the Ukrainian's "should" have won, they did. Could be russian crew incompetence, could be Russian equipment is not as good as advertised, could be the Ukrainians knew all that and acted aggressively. I don't think they just got lucky.

When this war started, no one gave Ukraine a chance, they were dead meat.  Lots of people assumed the Russian forces were at least competent and that their equipment was roughly equal to NATO's. Now it seems that the only reason they haven't lost is that Ukraine has no air force. They could still pull the rabbit out of the hat if the get the F16's soon enough and in enough quantity. Ukraine has had lots of chances to observe Russian gear, tactics and leadership and may well figure it is a fight they can win with the Bradley's versus a T-90 crewed by a bunch of guys who perhaps have little training, having come to the tank from the Russian Navy.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-13-2024

(01-13-2024, 05:01 PM)GK3 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024, 03:49 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Whether or not the Ukrainian's "should" have won, they did. Could be russian crew incompetence, could be Russian equipment is not as good as advertised, could be the Ukrainians knew all that and acted aggressively. I don't think they just got lucky.

When this war started, no one gave Ukraine a chance, they were dead meat.  Lots of people assumed the Russian forces were at least competent and that their equipment was roughly equal to NATO's. Now it seems that the only reason they haven't lost is that Ukraine has no air force. They could still pull the rabbit out of the hat if the get the F16's soon enough and in enough quantity.

I think it fair to say that nobody has been a bigger or earlier advocate of Ukraine getting F-16s than I. However, the idea that the only reasons the Russians haven't lost is because Ukraine has no air force goes a bit too far. At the very least it is a fact not yet in evidence. To be fair, Ukraine has done a lot of things "right" in this war. They have also demonstrated and continue to demonstrate serious strategic limitations. They are still a force that relies heavily on basically immobile infantry. It is hard to win a war that way, even with a good air force. Twice during the war Ukraine has tried to develop mobile striking forces. Both times, they came up short, first in front of Kherson and later in Zaporizhzhia. The first time it was probable they didn't have the troops or equipment to do the job. The second time, it is being said it was lack of air power. That is IMO a big factor, but not the only factor in that shortfall.

Ukraine has yet to demonstrate they can conduct mobile combined arms operations against Russian prepared defenses. Having no air cover and no way to suppress Russian defenses was a very large contributing factor but so too was the inability of Ukraine to coordinate the "moving parts" of the operation. The timing was off. Ukraine blames a lot of that on late arrival of promised equipment, but until we see "good execution" from Ukraine, it is not a given. FWIW coordinating air support with ground operations is yet another thing Ukraine will have to learn in order to use it's F-16 to good effect. This is a skill that is hard to learn, as many nations, including the US, have proven.

Russia has demonstrated that they too lack the ability to strike heavy blows with mobile ground forces. Part of the problem for both sides is that much of the ground is open and therefore difficult to achieve any force concentration in secret. The problem for Ukraine is they need to show the ability to drive the Russians back. They haven't done that yet. Ukraine's one big advance happened because the Russian's did something really stupid. You can't rely on the other sides mistakes to win. Ukraine has a path to victory, but it is a narrow one.

Quote:Ukraine has had lots of chances to observe Russian gear, tactics and leadership and may well figure it is a fight they can win with the Bradley's versus a T-90 crewed by a bunch of guys who perhaps have little training, having come to the tank from the Russian Navy.

If they figure that, they are wrong. We have already seen, and the Ukraine has stated many times that the Russians learn and adapt. Bad tactics are bad tactics, even when they work. They will eventually get Ukrainians killed and vehicles destroyed that are hard to replace. There is a "right way" and a well trained competent force always does it the "right way". It may not matter all the time, but when it does matter it can be war losing. Talk to the Russian commander who decided he didn't need defense in depth around Kupiansk because the Ukrainians won't attack.

Right now, Ukraine has a very serious problem in that Russian EW has rendered their GPS guided weapons inaccurate along the entire line of contact.  This is a "big deal" as F-16s dropping JDAMS that miss aren't very useful. This is an example of Russia learning. Ukraine hasn't yet countered this situation, which mystifies me. They have the expertise to do so and have not. This doesn't require anything more than the drones Ukraine already has.

The point is that Ukraine with the F-16s is going to have to fight well and fight smart to win. They have to drive the Russians out. All the Russians have to do is hold their ground and keep fighting. Ukraine will run out of troops before Russia does in a static war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 01-13-2024

Postscript-

The tank gets finished off with an FPV drone. Looks like the 3 crew all survived.

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1746368794476290110?s=20

---