[Goose]

Especially considering this is a highly pro-Ukrainian source, this is a negative sounding update:  https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...nt-june-10.  I get the distinct impression that Ukraine thinks it's going to lose control of the whole Donbas region.  The tone here may be overly negative so as to motivate the West to provide more MLRS, artillery, and ammunition ASAP, but I don't see how we can interpret this update as anything other than bad.

I agree that the updates are bad, but not surprising. I had previously estimated that the Ukraine was probably operating at a 5:1 disadvantage in artillery. The 10-15 they are citing probably is a) a bit overstated, and b) caused by running out of Soviet-era ammunition. Running out of this ammunition was completely predictable, but it has undoubtedly occurred much faster than anticipated because the fighting has degenerated into an artillery duel. The West needs to move fast to be sure Ukraine has ammunition for the weapons we have supplied them and will probably need to supply more weapons. It is also probable that we will need to supply 81 mm mortar ammunition. The Soviet era M-37 can use that directly. Ukraine, having fewer firing platforms, should never be allowed to run low on ammunition. That is one way to level the playing field a bit. Of course, the West also has to be able to supply such usage. Not clear we can for very long. We have a lot of 155 mm DPICM available, but I think there is concern about using it.

All along, Ukraine needed to inflict considerable attrition on the Russian artillery to reduce the imbalance. That is difficult to do with counter battery when you are heavily outnumbered. The geometry forces you to operate your artillery much further forward than you would like in order to reach most of the Russian artillery. That of course puts your guns well in range of lots of Russian guns. That is why the longer range MLRS systems are so necessary, because they can engage the Russian guns from greater depth that the Russian guns can't reach. We delayed and delayed, so here we are. It also may be that Ukraine hasn't done enough to kill Russian artillery, but if that is the case, we should have pushed them on that. The good thing about destroying enemy artillery is that it takes time to replace it, even if they have the pieces available. During that time, you have a window of opportunity where you can attack without fearing steel rain.

[Goose]

Especially considering this is a highly pro-Ukrainian source, this is a negative sounding update:  https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...nt-june-10.  I get the distinct impression that Ukraine thinks it's going to lose control of the whole Donbas region.  The tone here may be overly negative so as to motivate the West to provide more MLRS, artillery, and ammunition ASAP, but I don't see how we can interpret this update as anything other than bad.

I agree that the updates are bad, but not surprising. I had previously estimated that the Ukraine was probably operating at a 5:1 disadvantage in artillery. The 10-15 they are citing probably is a) a bit overstated, and b) caused by running out of Soviet-era ammunition. Running out of this ammunition was completely predictable, but it has undoubtedly occurred much faster than anticipated because the fighting has degenerated into an artillery duel. The West needs to move fast to be sure Ukraine has ammunition for the weapons we have supplied them and will probably need to supply more weapons. It is also probable that we will need to supply 81 mm mortar ammunition. The Soviet era M-37 can use that directly. Ukraine, having fewer firing platforms, should never be allowed to run low on ammunition. That is one way to level the playing field a bit. Of course, the West also has to be able to supply such usage. Not clear we can for very long. We have a lot of 155 mm DPICM available, but I think there is concern about using it.

All along, Ukraine needed to inflict considerable attrition on the Russian artillery to reduce the imbalance. That is difficult to do with counter battery when you are heavily outnumbered. The geometry forces you to operate your artillery much further forward than you would like in order to reach most of the Russian artillery. That of course puts your guns well in range of lots of Russian guns. That is why the longer range MLRS systems are so necessary, because they can engage the Russian guns from greater depth that the Russian guns can't reach. We delayed and delayed, so here we are. It also may be that Ukraine hasn't done enough to kill Russian artillery, but if that is the case, we should have pushed them on that. The good thing about destroying enemy artillery is that it takes time to replace it, even if they have the pieces available. During that time, you have a window of opportunity where you can attack without fearing steel rain.