Folks, I wanted to make this article free, but alas I’ve wedged myself into a new working schedule of at least two paid articles per month, one for each half, so this one’s got to fill the slot.
Simplicius if it helps, attach a copy of this report to your next article as an "appendix" for context. Honestly, I've no clue what Substack allows for length or word count. Whatever works.
Your work is a benefit. The more it is available the better. As a subscriber, helping you do that is my goal. We still get the first look :)
Anyway, you're knocking it out of the park, or hitting the upper 90 every time (pick your metaphor). Thank you.
Thank you and I agree. I actually considered either that option (well, attaching the most pertinent parts), or the even more elegant option of simply unlocking the article as fully free/public after a certain time, i.e. a week or two, which is what I'm leaning toward.
I partially disagree that there is a behind the scenes knowledge of reality. While some have been saying the truth, overwhelming political power was held with the neocon factions.
I think what we are seeing is this: the generation of leaders who were young during ww2 and who understood the real capacity and capability of Russia (or USSR), knew well enough that you simply cannot fight them. You may have tactical victories but will endure a massive defeat - eventually. And so they avoided a fight with them at all costs. Those leaders all retired and died. The new generation is undergoing the most epic example of FAFO that I have ever seen. And a whole generation of Ukrainian men are paying with their lives as a result
You may be right about the western political leaders, who seem to be a deluded / insane and very stupid group of people, who would try to attack Russia with powerful long range missiles without hesitation and /or considering the consequences.
However I think that at the moment the realists, who understands that Putin is not bluffing, may have the upper hand.
Take France. It seems obvious that a carefully controlled leaking campaign is underway by French military leaders, to undermine Macron's idiotic idea of deploying NATO troops to Ukraine.
Take Germany. The leak of intercepts of those German generals seems to have nixed any further German involvement in escalation and in particular sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
It's a fluid situation, I think, in which neocon psychos gain the upper hand one day but are undermined by realists the next. Overall and right now, I think the realists may be winning the day, which if true is great news.
I have no doubt there are significant factions who are absolutely itching to send detachments into Ukraine who's sole purpose is to get killed, simply to galvanise support and gain political staying power in the war against Russia
Now we need some actual patriots, if there are any left in the Pentagon, to start leaking U.S. military assessments of Ukraine's capabilities.
I think they're genuinely afraid of Democrats punishing the U.S. military if they leak info in the hopes of preventing NATO from entering the war.
Or the Biden admin has simply encouraged the military to ship anyone who doubts the genius of the neoliberals and neocons to far-flung bases where they won't get a chance to see the operational intelligence reports that the brass gets to see.
The "problem" is US CI is *very* good, and the FBI has an insane amount of capacity, tools, and regulatory permissions to find out who the leaker is. It's tantamount to throwing your life away. The only way to leak and survive is to get permission to do so (i.e. like the 'CIA in Ukraine' article).
Fighting Russia was always possible, however, it requires attention to logistics - damaging the Russian logistics while preserving/increasing your own. The two weaknesses of Russia, ultimately are its decreasing population and its industrial base which is centered on the Ural heartland since WWII. To win against Russia, one must be prepared to hit that industrial heartland and attrit away Russian forces at a faster rate than they can be replenished. The West could do these things, but would require mobilization for total war, which is not and won't be forthcoming in the near term.
And, of course, there is a strong risk of nuclear retaliation. If the Russians feel they are losing, their normal unwillingness to use their WMDs might be overcome.
Hitler lacked the power to hit that heartland effectively, and couldn't attrit the SU fast enough to win on that angle. The Ukraine also lacks the power to do either of these things. The failure of most in the West to take into account the real logistical issues of this war has laid bare to me that it's all propaganda. People know this. I'm not the only one. It is politically inconvenient to tell the truth here.
Are you looking at 1975 data or facts? Russia's population has turned around (immigration) though yes they continue to focus on the family and its growth to remedy that. However you are way off on the industrial base comment. Have you not been following the stats?-- new world class bridge, engineering marvels here and there, tons of new infrastructure. Not sure what the heck you are talking about servant of the DoD. Delusional doesn't even begin to describe your post.
Being resistant to reality - the shrinking Russian population and the vulnerable factories - doesn't change it. Hasn't the last two years of Western delusion meant anything? So now you're going to throw your own propaganda in my face? Fat chance. You're wrong, period.
For that matter the US is just as vulnerable, it's just that the military production is a bit more spread out and the offensive force required to engage in such a campaign is less in evidence elsewhere than in the US. Not that I think bombing or cruise missile campaigns against Russia have much hope with the current force structure.
Worked for the Mongols just fine less than a thousand years ago. The original creation of the state was via a Viking invasion, more or less.
The point is that saying that conquering Russia is impossible is incorrect. No one has been able to combine the resources, technology and logistics to win since the Mongols. Using a crystal ball to say it's never going happen in the future is a lot shortsighted. The "Red Dawn" scenario was never going to happen to the US, but that doesn't mean it's unconquerable, either.
If you have trouble with uncomfortable thoughts, perhaps you should stick to the MSM.
The only way to “conquer” Russia is by collapsing its political system by subverting from within. That happened in the Wallstreet sponsored Bolshewik Revolution. Militarily the place is just too friggin’ huge and much bigger than at the time of the mongols, who came out of nowhere from the East.
There is also something the Mark Blyth has pointed out : After the Reagan/Thatcher years anyone who wanted to make a difference to the world went in to finance rather than politics.
Meaning politicians who have come to power in the West since those years are by definition second rate.
It seems the Anti-Russian faction of the USA Deep State played their hand and suffered failure. Now the Anti-China hawks are ascendant. However, the Anti-Iran faction of the USA Deep State has two more cards- Donald Trump, and Israeli war in southern Gaza against Hamas, leading to conflict with Hezbolla, designed to draw the USA into the conflict. However, the USA is determined to move to a war footing to cover its economic woes.
The neocons reflect their sponsor class - a narcissistic oligarchy that can't manage to get their reset ducks in a row; they're seen by the global majority as hypocrites parasites who bring nothing to the table. Now this Ukraine project along with their other projects enters terminal failure and a banking crisis is ready to erupt. It won't just be ammo that's in short supply, and hopefully the EU still manufactures toilet paper otherwise good luck.
Thank you Simplicius for being one of a small group of people capable of communicating the scope of the madness ensuing in the Ukraine.
We live in a postmodern world where the belief thrives that there is no truth. In the last 3-4 years history has served us up with 2 global events that show us the consequences of believing such folly. People are all too slowly waking up. How much destruction must ensue before enough people wake up to stop the powermongers bringing about the destruction of civilization?
As a kid I often wondered what it must have been like living in the global conflict of WW2. It seems that I might have to stop wondering soon and begin directly experiencing. Perhaps a meteorite can save us, but I am not counting on it.
The concept of "post-truth world" goes hand in hand with Fukuyama's idea of "the end of history", where both are based on the false assumption of the eternal dominance and hegemony of the "western world" which was supposed to rule the entire planet for all eternity.
In essence, it is a blatant admission that the "exceptional masters of the universe" are ready and willing to lie through their teeth in order to keep their own Potemkin narrative floating for as long as possible, both externally and (of much larger signifficance) internally.
Otherwise you can surely imagine what would ensue once the fleeced and constantly lied to "western" population finds out the truth is 180 degrees different from what they've been spoonfed ad nauseam all these years and decades...
" When the TV finally goes off the air, half of the population will immediately go insane. The other half will just sit and stare at their blank TVs, waiting for them to come back on"
I think civilization will survive, but the current Western world, aka GAE/Empire of Lies is due for a serious reckoning. As the Greeks taught us, hubris is punished by the gods, and what could be more hubristic than believing you can conquer the world and alter reality at will? Soon, the bill will come due for all the debt, inflation, lies, gaslighting, subversion and exploitation, and it'll be a fun ride.
Maybe I am more optimistic by nature, but my impression is that Moscow has the Kiev/NATO psychos by the cojones.
Why do I think that? Mainly because I think that contrary to what many believe, the western powers have been deterred by Putin.
As a result, they have concluded that their options vis-a-vis attacks on Russian territory are limited. My take us that they've concluded that it's worth taking the risk of trying UAV/ drone swarm attacks and also PR exercises (theatric cross corset incursions).
However, they won't go further than that (eg by using Taurus/long range missiles against Russia).
The problem is that everything they're trying is failing. For example, their UAV/drone strategy is failing miserably. Over the last 3 days there has been a significant escalation of attacks by UAVs on Russian territory. We are taking hundreds of drone attacks. However almost nothing appears to be getting through. This is different from what was happening in 2023, when we would regularly hear of drones getting through (even hitting Moscow).
- their PR exercises are also failing, in disastrous fashion. Compare and contrast the most recent pathetic cross-border 'attack/ PR exercise' into Russia, which was annihilated very quickly, with similar exercises in 2023 (which also failed but were at least useful from a PR perspective).
I can't help but wonder if the Russians are using capabilities that are new or haven't been used before (esp EW & laser). Take the UAVs/drones. Sure, these days the Russians are more experienced and effective at taking these attacks out. But like I said we are talking about hundreds of drone attacks 24/7, with virtually none at all getting through. To me that is unusual and suggests that Russia may have developed ways to suppress/destroy drone swarms, which would be a huge breakthrough.
Which brings us to terrorism in Russia. How far will the Kiev/NATO psychos push this button? The West needs to be extremely careful here, in my view. If they are exposed as having a hand in massive terror attacks in Russia, well, all bets are off. It wouldn't surprise me to see some nasty incidents in the coming days/weeks. However and again, to date it seems the Russians have full control of the situation.
A last point. I think that leaked call of German officers has spooked the entire NATO establishment. Just my 10 cents but I took it as a warning by The Kremlin that they have totally infiltrated NATO's comms system - they already know everything that's being planned, including terrorist attacks.
Anyway, I may be wrong but my take is that a deterred West / Kiev finds itself stuck. It won't escalate against Russian territory beyond Putin's red lines - as this risks Russian retaliation - but it can't operate within them either. Meanwhile the Russians are advancing across the entire front in Ukraine.
The drones hit an oil refinery and are targeting civilians in St. Petersburg, and SouthFront says some drone swarms are coming out of Baltic NATO states. They always wanted a terrorist, insurrection war on Russia like they lost in Afghanistan. Drones are the perfect terrorist weapon.
Upvoted, because you're basically right and I agree that a shocked West / Kiev finds itself stuck. To paraphrase Nuland, this isn't the Russia they wanted.
But.. "Moscow has the Kiev/NATO psychos by the cojones" is not at all the prevailing feeling in Moscow or Russia. I live in Russia, speak fluent Russian, and I've been watching Putin's series of major appearances and speeches in the last few days. I've been struck by the very somber tone of his words and delivery. It's not triumphant but somber, despite the commendations to the many people in the fight and the quiet determination and very strong assurance that Russia will prevail.
Russia now has much experience of modern war, unlike the French, so Russians know to the marrow of their bones that even winning big does not come without pain and losses, great difficulty, and risk of serious reversals.
They also know that modern war has changed, and there are no magic wands to protect against things like drone swarm attacks. No matter how good Russia gets at air defense (and they're getting pretty good), some drones will get through, and some are getting through.
When I heard the news about drone strikes on oil refineries in cities far from the front I was surprised to hear of the strike on Kstovo, near Nizhny Novgorod, which is very far from the front, hundreds of miles to the east of Moscow. I remarked to a friend who I know is from that area that it must have come as a surprise. He said that no, it was no surprise at all since they intercept three or four drones a week headed towards that oil refinery and have been for months. It's just that this one got through.
There's also awareness that what is left of Kiev's army is still capable of massive and dangerous attacks, and that a cornered regime that has nothing to lose could be willing to use the forces it has in ultimately pointless attacks which all the same could cause serious damage and kill hundreds, or even thousands, of Russians. Russians also expect that one way or another the US and EU will find a way to send more money, tens of billions at least, and weapons to Kiev in the next few months. That, too, will keep the danger level high.
I think that explains the somber, serious tone of the leadership: Russia is certain of eventual victory but it knows there is still a very long and difficult slog ahead that will, for sure, include painful encounters with a mortally wounded, but still very dangerous enemy, as well as very high risk that a delusional West may resort to extremely dangerous escalations.
Thank you. I agree with you that there is no triumphalism, like at all. Sure, that's partly Russian spirit and experience (i.e. life always stabs you some way), but also they know how quickly things can turn if NATO or U.S. do something crazy. It's also sad, because they aren't even killing foreigners. More grim than anything else.
Just to clarify - I was not trying to say that Russia was being triumphalist, rather I was just using a turn of phrase to describe what I see as a trapped West.
I do not live in Russia but have visited your magnificent country and was so impressed by the somber way Russians go about life and their values.
You're right about the collective understanding Russians have about the horrors of war. In the West we lack that understanding - our 'leaders' have no concept of it at all - which of course makes it more likely than not that they will make reckless decisions.
As to drone attacks near Moscow. I suspect that some if not all of the attacks are launched from within Russia itself. It would be relatively easy to launch a small/medium sized drone/UAV from a protected area (eg a forest) near a target.
Anyway if I'm right we will not see major escalation (hitting Russia with Taurus style missiles) however we will see UAV/drone attacks and perhaps more of these suicidal PR cross border incursions.
We may also see a 'trial' incident - eg a bomb in a Russian city - but again the West really needs to be extremely careful. If their hubristic fingerprints are on it in any way, I think Putin is dead serious and we will see a major Russian response.
Basically all these methods amount to one thing - terrorism. That is all the West can risk. They can't defeat Russia ina stand up fight on the battlefield and so they will debase themselves with low level/medium level terrorism - the indiscriminate targeting of soft targets (civilians etc).
Of course, none of it will work. It's not going to achieve any durable objectives. It isn't sustainable. All it does is make the Russian payback (when it comes, which it will) far worse than its already going to be, once the Ukraine war is over.
Russia IS going to win this one. The pinprick attacks of the dead-enders in Kiev strike me as analogous to the V-weapons program and purported Werwolf resistance by the Nazis in WWII. More effort than they are worth.
I'd use the tokkō (kamikaze) analogy, but it'd be insulting to the very brave Japanese pilots.
It does come back to numbers and losses, and we now appear to be getting closer to the truth of the matter. Sloppy language and definitions don't assist the amateur analyst here, and certainly this topic has been the cause of much lively discussion, confusion and also deliberate misinformation.
My personal take is that Ukraine have enlisted over 1.2M men since the start of the war - regulars, reservists, volunteers and concripts. Casualties have been around 700,000 or c 1,000 per day - probably the real number is closer to 800 on average but more recently. Of these maybe 0.5M have been permanent - KIA, POW, MIA or WIA and unable to return to duty. Of the remaining 200,000 men, 100,000 are still in hospital and 100,000 have returned to duty. This leaves the UAF at 700,000 strong with 100,000 of those in hospital. These figures could easily be out by 100,000 or more but tie in with various recent reports and statements from different sources.
With c 100 combat brigades or equivalent There should be around 250,000 men in combat teeth arms. The remainder of troops are in supply and rear area duties. The actual number of combat troops now will be around half of 250,000 or c 120,000. At 30,000 losses a month (now) this army will burn through its combat troops every 4 months. Taking into account replacements (and many will be returning wounded) this figure goes to 8 months. This handily equals the third army theory and we are now seeing the 4th army being demolished. This army is short of everything whilst the Russian military grows relatively stronger and more capable. However this analysis explains how Ukraine can still have a large military and a reducing and IMO soon to become "marginal" ability to influence events on the battlefield.
As the author writes, those of us who have written about the relative capabilities of Ukraine/NATO versus Russia and have tried to do so objectively - well it appears that this French report anyway vindicates our views and judgements. And once again most western "experts" appear to have founded their views on prejudice and misinformation if not outright propaganda. However pointing out the truth can be a dangerous game these days, and those who wield the levers of power seem to prefer to sustain a narrative rather than allow critical thinking and analysis to enter into their decision making processes. If so, a delusional and dangerous approach.
The warmongers shouldn't be sad with the election of Trump as Pretzel. The war against Russia will be replaced by the war against China. Still lots of money for everyone. And everyone knows Chinese stuff breaks all the time unlike Soviet stuff. This war against China will be easy. White Man's prestige will be restored.
David Glantz is my favourite WW2 historian. He focuses on the Eastern Front, and it was thanks to reading his books that I understood that the Nazis were never going to win that war, it was a war they were in fact losing from 1941.
Maybe if they don’t divert the panzers into Ukraine and keep driving on Moscow, there is a chance. As it was Moscow almost fell, plans were being made to flee to Siberia, which would have likely permanently ruined the credibility of Stalin and his government.
“Hitler’s Panzers East” is a good read on the cost of diverting to Ukraine to encircle a Kessel of about 750,000 soldiers, for the price of driving on Moscow before the season was too late.
The war went about as well as it could have for the Germans in the first few months, and still they failed to conquer the SU. It's hard to imagine a more favourable start.
The battle of Kiev was one of the biggest victories of all time, and had the Germans not cleared the flanks, and headed straight to Moscow, they would have had to deal with the issue of a massive army on their flanks to the south.
They also need to pause to allow supplies to be brought forward, it's not so simple to just drive forward into Russia with the logistical issues you face, like no roads, the fact that everything needs more fuel in the mud, the rail issues (different gauge), and just the general lack of planning for a longer war by the Germans.
Even if Moscow would be captured in this scenario, which was by no means guaranteed, I think the Soviets would have continued to fight on.
It was clear already soon after the invasion was launched that the Soviets were putting up heroic defences and striking hard at the German army, causing huge casualties and loss of materiel. You should really read books by Glantz or Ericson By the time of the drive on Moscow, I think the armoured forces were down by about 1/2 due to losses and wear-and-tear. At the same time, the Soviets raised enormous armies, and outrproduced the Germans in terms of weapons like tanks, airplanes etc.
In fact the Soviets should have smashed the Germans, had they been adequately prepared. They had far superior tanks, in quality and quantity, as well as a better tank doctrine. Unfortunately Stalin threw away a lot of his valuable officers in 1937, leaving the rest paralysed with fear, and ignored warnings of the German invasion, was AFK for the first days of the war ... But still the Soviets won an overwhelming victory in the end.
I think all this becomes clear when you study books by David Glantz and John Erickson, which cover the war in detail.
You make a very good argument. I’ve read a lot of the literature on Barbarossa, (and played several hundred hours of Hearts of Iron), and actually knocking Russia out of the war was always a long shot.
Arguments in favor of the drive on Moscow also incorporate the loss of prestige if it fell, and the fact that the rail lines all went through Moscow and its capture would have made large scale troop movement much more challenging.
Then we get to the “should they have split the army and tried to take both Stalingrad and the Caucasus, as Hitler ordered, or just driven on Stalingrad with the whole southern army group?” question…
Again, the idea of taking the oil fields of Baku and the Cacuasus, when you look on a map, was a highly fanciful notion. It was a tremendously long advance and huge territory they would have had to hold onto. I think something like 2000km of advancing, and an area larger than France once they got there. Then on top of that, Hitler said "Oh yeah take Stalingrad on the way ..." splitting his forces.
Maybe if Hitler hadn't launched a genocidal war, then they might have won, but that was never really on the cards ...
The Caucasus was always a pipe dream given the logistical challenges.
It was an example of the weaknesses created by Hitler refusing to tell his generals what the plan was. When they protested against splitting forces, Hitler replied that they had no idea what the strategy was and that the Caucasus was the main goal all along.
The expansion of the army pre WWII meant very few high level commanders with the background and experience to command large formations, much less dispute their deployment with a Fuhrer who held all the cards close to his chest at all times.
Yes and they once again achieved surprise and great initial success, but it was just too much, IDK Hitler probably thought he could emulate Alexander the Great or something..
The Caucasus was doable assuming you had Turkish help, which was not forthcoming. There was a certain expectation that if the Germans demonstrated they were doing it, the Turks would come in for their pound of flesh, Batum and the balance of the lands south of the mountain crest. That did not happen. You can wargame it out yourself, it makes sense in that context. The criticisms of the German intent fail to consider that.
Actually IMHO Glantz is great but dissembles Soviet pre-war prearations and plans in his book "Stumbling Collossus". I read his analysis - in conjunction with others - and see a different picture. But like the present day, one person can see the same thing and draw an entirely different conclusion. And hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I think I read that ... I think something like Stalin and Soviets can rightfully be blamed for some very bad mistakes they made, prior to the war and in the early phases. But the DID industrialise the country, they DID make mass tanks which were quite advanced and they had quite a brilliant tank doctrine in the 1930's which was ahead of its day.
That gave them the ingredients to win the war in the end.
Hitler in a taped discussion with Mannerheim confessed that they completely underestimated the size and sturdiness of the Red Army...
As for Russian tanks - ie T-34 - the early version was a worse combat vehicle due to 2-man turret and lack of radio, which enabled Germans to knock them out in large numbers. Once with a 3-man turret and radio it became the still-good-today-ish T-34/85 !
Hitler and the nazis thought it was all just going to collapse. They had conquered Poland, France, Norway etc with such, almost ridiculous ease. They probably thought it would be like that, but it was always an extremely ambitious plan. The Soviet Union put up really fierce resistance from the get-go. I know the T-34 had issues, but it still had pretty great armour, mobility and decent firepower. It was good enough, and they were indeed able to churn them out, even though the Germans destroyed huge amounts of them.
"As it was Moscow almost fell," lol no. The whole myth of the Nazi Germans being stopped just short by Russian winter is just that, a myth. By the time they were on Moscow's doorstep, they were exhausted from the constant attrition of battling a Red Army that regenerated itself like the hydra. Their supply lines were stretched and they were at something like 50% strength, and in no condition to capture or hold Moscow. Of course, mud season and winter contributed to this (then as now), but environmental factors tend to obscure the central point, which is the invasion getting bogged down by their inability to put away the Red Army.
Also, as the other commenter said, they had no choice but to wheel around to Kiev because they couldn't leave an army on their flanks.
Attacking Moscow was the only remaining option that gave them a chance to survive. They couldn’t retreat at that point. Taking the city and making Stalin flee and controlling the rail infrastructure was their best gamble at that point at had a non-zero chance of success.
They _could have_ retreated, and ultimately did. The realization was that if they didn't get a knockout blow on Russia, the mobilization of new troops would crush them. The capture of Moscow was rightly suspected to be critical in terms of disrupting the Soviet rail system, which centered on it. Logistically, this would have spelled doom to the whole northern half of the front and probably resulted in a German victory ultimately.
Halder (German OKH Chief of Staff) knew the risks of not taking Moscow during the initial offensive - his diaries have references to the large number of formations the Soviets were putting into the field, and there was no reason to expect otherwise in 1942.
There were very sane reasons to pursue Moscow in 1941. The fact it failed is the only reason why it is painted as overreach or 'Hitler's folly'. A bunch of Germans trying to avoid culpability for the simple fact that they hadn't adequately logistically prepared for an offensive into the Soviet Union. Accepting that truth would imply they were unprofessional and hadn't learned the lessons of Charles XII and Napoleon.
Napoleon stocked depots in key locations like Minsk and Smolensk, against his normal practice of living off the land, and otherwise prepared a very significant logistical apparatus which almost assuredly saved the remnants of his army when they retreated. His preparations were inadequate due to it being the early 19th century and the idea of invading Russia being just unrealistic on that basis. No railroads, for one.
In comparison, the Germans failed to winter equip their soldiers and had a Goebbels-run huge national clothing drive to hand over civilian winter gear to the soldiers on the Eastern Front, who were probably looking pretty motley after that.
With you until we get to the final throw in front of Moscow. The weather _did_ impact operations at that point. The counteroffensive found German forces unable to start vehicles or move artillery. Large numbers of European horses perished, which was 80% of the transport of the German forces. Clothing was insufficient on the German side. Unlike the myths about Napoleon's army, cold weather did impact the Nazis at certain times and places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow - much better coverage available elsewhere, but it's a decent summary of the conditions at the final moments before the counteroffensive hit.
Of course mud season & winter had an impact, I never denied that. All that is true, but my point is that environment wasn't the main or only factor in the Nazi Germans stopping short of capturing Moscow. It had significance, but there were larger issues afoot.
Simplicius, thanks again for a very informative article.
Concerning the silencers, I have seen numerous videos where RF infantry look to have silencers on their weapons. I am not well versed, perhaps another reader can provide additional color, but a standard AK compared with what currently seems to be carried indicate to me that, more often then not, that silencers are prevalent.
The "new" rifles that are showing up (VSS Vintorez) have a barrel that incorporates suppression. That is, the gasses that (mostly) follow the projectile as it exits the barrel are allowed to escape through holes in the barrel down its length. Those gasses are "baffled" in an expansion chamber around the barrel, much like a car muffler. The expansion chamber is bigger in diameter than the barrel. Because much of the propelling gas escapes, the round needs more propellant ("smokeless" powder), which is why the case is twice as long as a parabellum round. Concerning a suppressor's ability to dampen the sound: if you fire a supersonic round through it, the suppressor cannot "suppress" the shock wave of the round "breaking the sound barrier." The shot makes a "crack" sound. Full (kinda) suppression of sound can only be achieved by keeping the speed of the bullet lower than the speed of sound. In all, adding a suppressor to a subsonic round results in the quietest weapon available.
Yes, but there is a boatload of videos showing Russians with normal AK-47/74s with suppressors on the rifle. Tons and tons of videos. I really doubt the French report is referring to the VSS rifles (which are still very rare) but rather the increasingly ubiquitous silencers on normal infantry rifles.
Did you watch the (short) video? That was a VSS. Yes, uncommon. But getting less uncommon. Use a standard suppressor on a rifle, and after a little while you will be given away by your IR signature ;-)
Yes, watched the videos. Yes, the VSS is getting somewhat more common. The simple fact is that the ammo for it is probably not common, and not super useful outside of niche roles; the ballistics on it are not great - like lobbing a softball vs a baseball fastball of the AK family. Further, the VSS is only going to be issued to specialist units that won't be in many places and far less likely to be mentioned in a general intel report like that of the French. I can guarantee you the French report is referring to Russian line infantry (especially assault groups) being equipped entirely with suppressed AKs.
I saw a random pic today, which is something I had not seen (noticed?) before, some random soldiers with suppressed AKs. I have to agree with you, they are more common than any set of VSSs would be, and the terminal suppressor still allows a good strong volley downfield. BTW, the cans were pretty damn big, probably because a "normal" can really cannot handle the number of rounds expended in battle. Still, those things probably get really hot!
Suppressing AKs is very easy. As I said in a comment up this thread, a basic machine shop can create suppressors for the regular AK-12 and AK-74 infantry rifles issued to Russia's line units.
It's a high-value, low-cost component that adds a lot of capability. Soldiers can communicate more effectively, it's more difficult to pinpoint their position, they experience less hearing loss, etc.
Main issue with using subsonics is that they're very limited by physics. A subsonic round that's effective against armored targets is rare. If you're going to use a subsonic round against humans, you need to go with a larger caliber because the only way to add punching power to a subsonic round is to put more weight behind it.
Ex: In the U.S. no one uses subsonic 5.56 because its performance is anemic due to the low bullet weight. That's why 300 blackout was developed. You can put a 220g bullet downrange rather than the max 77g bullet a 5.56 can handle.
Basic baffle-stack suppressors are extremely simple to manufacture. The most complicated part of the machining is the thread pitch, and that's not saying much. Any small machine shop with a basic CNC mill and semi-competent welders could churn out suppressors for Russian rifles.
The AK-12 for sure comes with a threaded barrel that could easily accept a suppressor. I'm less familiar with the AK-74, but threading a barrel is, once again, something that even a basic machine shop can accomplish.
I agree. I have also seem numerous videos of Russian soldiers using suppressed AK-74 and AK-12 rifles. This also speaks to Russia's manufacturing capability to produce them and supply them to their soldiers.
I’ve been thinking about the decline of the western democracies and our decent into what to many people see as insane and dangerous.
The question I have asked about this conflict is why our high tech superior equipment is so inadequate.
There is another thinker on Substack who Aurelian who tries to explain how our dumbing down of our society will eventually lead to multiple failures.
Now let’s go back to 1917 and beyond in Russia.
The capital base and resources meant at the end of WW2 the Soviet Union was I think second in gdp. Less thank 40 years later they were a basket case and smaller than then west Germany. Why? The communists fully embraced DEI and the real drivers of expertise and knowledge were sidelined as we see today with the dumbing down of the Western world.
Now let’s fast forward to 2022.
The young recruits who in the past had to go a rigorous training program had to be tough are no longer the standard.
In addition the DEI and wokeness generally have weakened all our institutions.
When the Soviet Union collapsed all that was left was the remnants of a country the vied to always be 2nd. By the end less GDP the a small European economy.
Here we are today. We have 75% become Soviet like. Our education teaches ideology not inquiry, our graduates of today are overgrown children. I wonder if they even know how thier smart devise works, how much energy cast data centers use.
I think my conclusion of a very long comment is that things have gone 180 degrees. It was the soviets who had second rate armies and equipment. This was the result of 20-30 years of DEI. We are now emulating the soviets and destroying our own societies and ability. It is the West that is now the new Soviet in terms of self destruction. We are maybe 29 years into our own experiment and already failing fast.
I would be interested to see some more commentary on our own dumbing down and resultant failures.
DEI posits that diversity is an end in itself and will automatically result in greater productivity because of all the different perspectives that will be brought to the table.
In other words, it’s a nonsense fantasy used to justify racially discriminatory hiring practices.
WWII the Germans faced some very tough people used to the elements and working long hours outside. The Soviet Red Army was okay with living rough for months on end. Something the average Wehmacht conscript hadn't done for a hundred years.
I have a hard time blaming the decline of the SU on its social policies. Lots of economic issues that demonstrate the inability to compete long term with capitalist societies in terms of efficiency. Also, the late SU armies were not ineffective, and neither was their equipment, as much of it is still in use.
This is the problem with, amongst other things, Roman Empire analogies. The application of modern US political issues to historical situations never maps cleanly. For just one example, would anyone characterize Soviet women as being in any way similar to US Karens? Was there ever a situation in the SU where ethnic minorities were preferred over Great Russians? I could go on.
"Was there ever a situation in the SU where ethnic minorities were preferred over Great Russians?" Yes, actually there were many such situations: it was the policy under Stalin.
Lenin wanted to emphasize the "many nationalities" part of the Russian empire to make the USSR appear not to be a single Bolshevik state but a confederation of many willing countries, somewhat like the US's many allies. Stalin made that almost a state religion, where he deliberately prompted local ethnic groups over Great Russians.
What ended up happening was that all of the 'Stans, like Uzbekistan, had local ethnics who were the nominal leaders, but they all had Russians second in command who did the actual work. It was the USSR's version of affirmative action, pushing ahead local ethnicities and applying far lower standards for them to get into universities or positions of authority.
I think it did, but I wouldn't phrase it that way. Surprisingly, some of what the Bolsheviks did was motivated by a genuine desire to build what they sincerely thought would be a better society. Leveling the playing ground by eliminating ethnic chauvinism was one such desire they had, and, in truth, they actually managed to achieve that. Russia today is a remarkably multi-ethnic, multinational society.
I think that for all their talk about leveling the playing ground there still was prejudice in the higher ranks of government and preference for Great Russians, but it wasn't a "domination" thing. Stalin himself, for example, was Georgian and the Politburo was top-heavy with non-Russian ethnicities. Beria was also Georgian, and so on. Stalin himself spoke Russian with such a thick Georgian accent that some Russians had a hard time understanding him. So that was pretty effective at signaling no "domination" by Great Russians.
Out in the 'stans and even in the constituent republics within, say, the Russian SSR, local ethnicities would often be a local "mafia" of players who had real power. I think that intensified towards the end of the USSR and was one of the centrifugal factors that lead to the dissolution of the USSR and the chaos of the '90s. I don't think it was a racial thing, just a matter of people finding convenient alliances in the free for all to seize and wield local power as a way of becoming rich.
I guess the bottom line that the usual Western stereotype of a USSR dominated by Great Russians is way overblown, and that the myriad of other ethnicities in the USSR did indeed have real power and influence. I think there was some bad to that, but also lots of good, and that the splitting off of more rabid nationalists into independent 'stans drew the poison out of the phenomenon and left the good parts, the feeling of unity despite different ethnicities, religions, languages, and such, that you have today within the Russian Federation.
Thank you, i'll take this into account in the future when thinking about such things. I presumed the assertion of the multiethnic Soviet society was more talk than walk.
"why our high tech superior equipment is so inadequate." I think that is a result of having infinite money without being held responsible by reality checks in the form of wars with a peer adversary.
The US homeland has not been threatened by a peer adversary for over 200 years. It never was at risk from either Germany or Japan in WW2, and with the coming of detente it wasn't at risk from the USSR in terms of conventional weapons. The US could spend trillions of dollars on overpriced, impractical weapons systems like Abrams and nothing that a bunch of tribesman in the desert could do would cause a come to Darwin moment of acknowledging that the Abrams couldn't cut it in a real war with a genuine peer.
What's so impractical about the Abrams? It requires far too much maintenance for a real war. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US could build bases that were small cities to do the maintenance, but that's not possible in a war against a peer adversary, and a tank that requires that much maintenance to stay in combat for many months or a year is impractical.
Russian systems tend to be more practical because of the horrific damage done to Russia in WW2. That was within living memory when their current design and production traditions were created, so they tend to design for real war. They also don't have infinite money like the US, so they cannot treat themselves to insanely elaborate and unrealistic indulgences.
Another example is the most expensive weapons system in history, the F35: it's a flying pig with absolutely horrific ability for air combat. Point that out and the reply is always "stealth". But Russia's higher end radar systems can light up F35's like they were flying oil tankers. That doesn't matter in a US where infinite money can be thrown at something with no reality checks ever holding anybody accountable to telling the truth. Admitting that "stealth" was always bogus as a strategy against the USSR or later Russia would have emptied the feeding trough of far too much of the cash that feeds the political and military-industrial class.
Thanks John your comments have been so beneficial and informative, also glad to hear such positive comments re Bolshevik actions and the fact leaders were not all actually Russians which is not so widely known. Thought Stalin was not so beneficial and the mind boggles to understand how different it would have been if Trotsky could have become leader instead.
I am not very convinced by the tank weight/stuck in mud thing. You get 2 tonner trucks stuck in that mud. You're telling me a 40 ton Russian tanks would cruise through that mud somehow? I can't argue authoritatively but I kinda think not. They drove into that on purpose.
That terrain is horrible for anything heavier than a light tank.
Tanks can go across more mud or ice than trucks that weigh a fraction of what they do due to the surface area of the treads distributing the Kilogram per centimeter ground pressure.
A light tank has most of the benefits of low KG/cm ground pressure that tanks have, but weighs 20-30 tons less than a main battle tank.
When I was in Alaska, we had this German-made vehicle called a SUSV (Small Unit Support Vehicle). It was twin-cabbed and each cab had these massively wide rubber tracks. It was slow as hell but it could drive over or through any kind of mud, snow, quicksand, and it was all because the wide tracks and light weight of the vehicle had such low ground pressure that it could drive across ice that a walking human would fall through.
Thanks for that. I am aware of all that having seen it in the countryside here and there. I brought it up in a past a few times in discussion threads for the benefit of city folk who seem to have no idea at all.
The qualities of mud can vary enormously can't they, just that alone. Clay mud, black soil mud, loam mud... Then depth and terrain...
I pointed out in those posts back there that I can find caterpillar tractor tracks and walk across them and leave a deeper impression than the tractor track. Because the weight and impact of my heel was greater than that of the track. Not the cleat. The track.
It is all a matter of degree as things in the world so often are.
Tanks, farm machinery, caterpillar tractors, earthmoving equipment: they are made to handle muddy terrain aren't they?
This doesn't make them masters of everything does it?
Put any heavy vehicle in the mud wallow we saw there and it'll go down and won't come out unless it reaches a solid floor down there which apparently didn't exist.
Drive across ice a human would fall through is pretty impressive. :)
Did it have a Mercedes engine? The ones we drove had it and it was a surprisingly reliable vehicle. Most of our vehicles in Alaska weren’t fans of the cold.
I can answer authoritatively, having lived that life for over 20 years. No tank commander (TC), or even a 6 month recruit driver, would have entered that situation. It is approached exactly how the 2nd tank did it. Of course this knowledge is based on the military of the 80's 90's so I can't verify its validity today.
so it makes you wonder, doesn't it? what was the purpose of driving into there? there's just so much trickery and sham and playing to the gallery in this thing it finishes up as being entirely perplexing. to me. :)
Great article and great news. I really hope we can avoid a deeper WWIII by sensible people leaking the obvious truth. It was pretty devastating comment from those French military leaks.
Simplicius if it helps, attach a copy of this report to your next article as an "appendix" for context. Honestly, I've no clue what Substack allows for length or word count. Whatever works.
Your work is a benefit. The more it is available the better. As a subscriber, helping you do that is my goal. We still get the first look :)
Anyway, you're knocking it out of the park, or hitting the upper 90 every time (pick your metaphor). Thank you.
Thank you and I agree. I actually considered either that option (well, attaching the most pertinent parts), or the even more elegant option of simply unlocking the article as fully free/public after a certain time, i.e. a week or two, which is what I'm leaning toward.
https://archive.is/lvJML is a cached link to the article in Marianne (which uses a paywall). The full report was not disclosed publicly.
Thank you. This is quite considerate and helpful!
As for my friend Jacques Hogard, this would be one of his shorter recent videos (in French of course): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QudaT3bWMxw
I partially disagree that there is a behind the scenes knowledge of reality. While some have been saying the truth, overwhelming political power was held with the neocon factions.
I think what we are seeing is this: the generation of leaders who were young during ww2 and who understood the real capacity and capability of Russia (or USSR), knew well enough that you simply cannot fight them. You may have tactical victories but will endure a massive defeat - eventually. And so they avoided a fight with them at all costs. Those leaders all retired and died. The new generation is undergoing the most epic example of FAFO that I have ever seen. And a whole generation of Ukrainian men are paying with their lives as a result
You may be right about the western political leaders, who seem to be a deluded / insane and very stupid group of people, who would try to attack Russia with powerful long range missiles without hesitation and /or considering the consequences.
However I think that at the moment the realists, who understands that Putin is not bluffing, may have the upper hand.
Take France. It seems obvious that a carefully controlled leaking campaign is underway by French military leaders, to undermine Macron's idiotic idea of deploying NATO troops to Ukraine.
Take Germany. The leak of intercepts of those German generals seems to have nixed any further German involvement in escalation and in particular sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
It's a fluid situation, I think, in which neocon psychos gain the upper hand one day but are undermined by realists the next. Overall and right now, I think the realists may be winning the day, which if true is great news.
I have no doubt there are significant factions who are absolutely itching to send detachments into Ukraine who's sole purpose is to get killed, simply to galvanise support and gain political staying power in the war against Russia
Now we need some actual patriots, if there are any left in the Pentagon, to start leaking U.S. military assessments of Ukraine's capabilities.
I think they're genuinely afraid of Democrats punishing the U.S. military if they leak info in the hopes of preventing NATO from entering the war.
Or the Biden admin has simply encouraged the military to ship anyone who doubts the genius of the neoliberals and neocons to far-flung bases where they won't get a chance to see the operational intelligence reports that the brass gets to see.
https://time.com/6837530/teixeira-discord-leak-guilty-plea/
This didn't happen/get publicized now by accident.
Apparently you have to be a Biden or Clinton to not be prosecuted for leaking secrets.
The "problem" is US CI is *very* good, and the FBI has an insane amount of capacity, tools, and regulatory permissions to find out who the leaker is. It's tantamount to throwing your life away. The only way to leak and survive is to get permission to do so (i.e. like the 'CIA in Ukraine' article).
Fighting Russia was always possible, however, it requires attention to logistics - damaging the Russian logistics while preserving/increasing your own. The two weaknesses of Russia, ultimately are its decreasing population and its industrial base which is centered on the Ural heartland since WWII. To win against Russia, one must be prepared to hit that industrial heartland and attrit away Russian forces at a faster rate than they can be replenished. The West could do these things, but would require mobilization for total war, which is not and won't be forthcoming in the near term.
And, of course, there is a strong risk of nuclear retaliation. If the Russians feel they are losing, their normal unwillingness to use their WMDs might be overcome.
Hitler lacked the power to hit that heartland effectively, and couldn't attrit the SU fast enough to win on that angle. The Ukraine also lacks the power to do either of these things. The failure of most in the West to take into account the real logistical issues of this war has laid bare to me that it's all propaganda. People know this. I'm not the only one. It is politically inconvenient to tell the truth here.
Are you looking at 1975 data or facts? Russia's population has turned around (immigration) though yes they continue to focus on the family and its growth to remedy that. However you are way off on the industrial base comment. Have you not been following the stats?-- new world class bridge, engineering marvels here and there, tons of new infrastructure. Not sure what the heck you are talking about servant of the DoD. Delusional doesn't even begin to describe your post.
Being resistant to reality - the shrinking Russian population and the vulnerable factories - doesn't change it. Hasn't the last two years of Western delusion meant anything? So now you're going to throw your own propaganda in my face? Fat chance. You're wrong, period.
For that matter the US is just as vulnerable, it's just that the military production is a bit more spread out and the offensive force required to engage in such a campaign is less in evidence elsewhere than in the US. Not that I think bombing or cruise missile campaigns against Russia have much hope with the current force structure.
Forget it it’s been tried again and again for over a 1000 years? And what the fuckin’ purpose of this anyway?
Worked for the Mongols just fine less than a thousand years ago. The original creation of the state was via a Viking invasion, more or less.
The point is that saying that conquering Russia is impossible is incorrect. No one has been able to combine the resources, technology and logistics to win since the Mongols. Using a crystal ball to say it's never going happen in the future is a lot shortsighted. The "Red Dawn" scenario was never going to happen to the US, but that doesn't mean it's unconquerable, either.
If you have trouble with uncomfortable thoughts, perhaps you should stick to the MSM.
The only way to “conquer” Russia is by collapsing its political system by subverting from within. That happened in the Wallstreet sponsored Bolshewik Revolution. Militarily the place is just too friggin’ huge and much bigger than at the time of the mongols, who came out of nowhere from the East.
There is also something the Mark Blyth has pointed out : After the Reagan/Thatcher years anyone who wanted to make a difference to the world went in to finance rather than politics.
Meaning politicians who have come to power in the West since those years are by definition second rate.
Yes that was one of the factors-- SO many more. Is "making a difference to the world" mean pathological desires for $$$ greed and power?
"The new generation is undergoing the most epic example of FAFO that I have ever seen. "
LMAO!!!!
It seems the Anti-Russian faction of the USA Deep State played their hand and suffered failure. Now the Anti-China hawks are ascendant. However, the Anti-Iran faction of the USA Deep State has two more cards- Donald Trump, and Israeli war in southern Gaza against Hamas, leading to conflict with Hezbolla, designed to draw the USA into the conflict. However, the USA is determined to move to a war footing to cover its economic woes.
The neocons reflect their sponsor class - a narcissistic oligarchy that can't manage to get their reset ducks in a row; they're seen by the global majority as hypocrites parasites who bring nothing to the table. Now this Ukraine project along with their other projects enters terminal failure and a banking crisis is ready to erupt. It won't just be ammo that's in short supply, and hopefully the EU still manufactures toilet paper otherwise good luck.
I have it on good authority that Western Europeans still wipe with their hands.
Ha ha ha, you don't know how to use the 3 seashells?!!!
https://youtu.be/gdnuOa7tDco?si=w7CEiWHmaFJk5Nkv
Thank you Simplicius for being one of a small group of people capable of communicating the scope of the madness ensuing in the Ukraine.
We live in a postmodern world where the belief thrives that there is no truth. In the last 3-4 years history has served us up with 2 global events that show us the consequences of believing such folly. People are all too slowly waking up. How much destruction must ensue before enough people wake up to stop the powermongers bringing about the destruction of civilization?
As a kid I often wondered what it must have been like living in the global conflict of WW2. It seems that I might have to stop wondering soon and begin directly experiencing. Perhaps a meteorite can save us, but I am not counting on it.
The concept of "post-truth world" goes hand in hand with Fukuyama's idea of "the end of history", where both are based on the false assumption of the eternal dominance and hegemony of the "western world" which was supposed to rule the entire planet for all eternity.
In essence, it is a blatant admission that the "exceptional masters of the universe" are ready and willing to lie through their teeth in order to keep their own Potemkin narrative floating for as long as possible, both externally and (of much larger signifficance) internally.
Otherwise you can surely imagine what would ensue once the fleeced and constantly lied to "western" population finds out the truth is 180 degrees different from what they've been spoonfed ad nauseam all these years and decades...
@Lux Aeterna
" When the TV finally goes off the air, half of the population will immediately go insane. The other half will just sit and stare at their blank TVs, waiting for them to come back on"
- Charles Manson
I think civilization will survive, but the current Western world, aka GAE/Empire of Lies is due for a serious reckoning. As the Greeks taught us, hubris is punished by the gods, and what could be more hubristic than believing you can conquer the world and alter reality at will? Soon, the bill will come due for all the debt, inflation, lies, gaslighting, subversion and exploitation, and it'll be a fun ride.
Great piece and thank you again Simplicius.
Maybe I am more optimistic by nature, but my impression is that Moscow has the Kiev/NATO psychos by the cojones.
Why do I think that? Mainly because I think that contrary to what many believe, the western powers have been deterred by Putin.
As a result, they have concluded that their options vis-a-vis attacks on Russian territory are limited. My take us that they've concluded that it's worth taking the risk of trying UAV/ drone swarm attacks and also PR exercises (theatric cross corset incursions).
However, they won't go further than that (eg by using Taurus/long range missiles against Russia).
The problem is that everything they're trying is failing. For example, their UAV/drone strategy is failing miserably. Over the last 3 days there has been a significant escalation of attacks by UAVs on Russian territory. We are taking hundreds of drone attacks. However almost nothing appears to be getting through. This is different from what was happening in 2023, when we would regularly hear of drones getting through (even hitting Moscow).
- their PR exercises are also failing, in disastrous fashion. Compare and contrast the most recent pathetic cross-border 'attack/ PR exercise' into Russia, which was annihilated very quickly, with similar exercises in 2023 (which also failed but were at least useful from a PR perspective).
I can't help but wonder if the Russians are using capabilities that are new or haven't been used before (esp EW & laser). Take the UAVs/drones. Sure, these days the Russians are more experienced and effective at taking these attacks out. But like I said we are talking about hundreds of drone attacks 24/7, with virtually none at all getting through. To me that is unusual and suggests that Russia may have developed ways to suppress/destroy drone swarms, which would be a huge breakthrough.
Which brings us to terrorism in Russia. How far will the Kiev/NATO psychos push this button? The West needs to be extremely careful here, in my view. If they are exposed as having a hand in massive terror attacks in Russia, well, all bets are off. It wouldn't surprise me to see some nasty incidents in the coming days/weeks. However and again, to date it seems the Russians have full control of the situation.
A last point. I think that leaked call of German officers has spooked the entire NATO establishment. Just my 10 cents but I took it as a warning by The Kremlin that they have totally infiltrated NATO's comms system - they already know everything that's being planned, including terrorist attacks.
Anyway, I may be wrong but my take is that a deterred West / Kiev finds itself stuck. It won't escalate against Russian territory beyond Putin's red lines - as this risks Russian retaliation - but it can't operate within them either. Meanwhile the Russians are advancing across the entire front in Ukraine.
Let's see what happens.
The drones hit an oil refinery and are targeting civilians in St. Petersburg, and SouthFront says some drone swarms are coming out of Baltic NATO states. They always wanted a terrorist, insurrection war on Russia like they lost in Afghanistan. Drones are the perfect terrorist weapon.
I doubt they're coming from NATO states however the operators may well have been infiltrated into Russia from those states.
Upvoted, because you're basically right and I agree that a shocked West / Kiev finds itself stuck. To paraphrase Nuland, this isn't the Russia they wanted.
But.. "Moscow has the Kiev/NATO psychos by the cojones" is not at all the prevailing feeling in Moscow or Russia. I live in Russia, speak fluent Russian, and I've been watching Putin's series of major appearances and speeches in the last few days. I've been struck by the very somber tone of his words and delivery. It's not triumphant but somber, despite the commendations to the many people in the fight and the quiet determination and very strong assurance that Russia will prevail.
Russia now has much experience of modern war, unlike the French, so Russians know to the marrow of their bones that even winning big does not come without pain and losses, great difficulty, and risk of serious reversals.
They also know that modern war has changed, and there are no magic wands to protect against things like drone swarm attacks. No matter how good Russia gets at air defense (and they're getting pretty good), some drones will get through, and some are getting through.
When I heard the news about drone strikes on oil refineries in cities far from the front I was surprised to hear of the strike on Kstovo, near Nizhny Novgorod, which is very far from the front, hundreds of miles to the east of Moscow. I remarked to a friend who I know is from that area that it must have come as a surprise. He said that no, it was no surprise at all since they intercept three or four drones a week headed towards that oil refinery and have been for months. It's just that this one got through.
There's also awareness that what is left of Kiev's army is still capable of massive and dangerous attacks, and that a cornered regime that has nothing to lose could be willing to use the forces it has in ultimately pointless attacks which all the same could cause serious damage and kill hundreds, or even thousands, of Russians. Russians also expect that one way or another the US and EU will find a way to send more money, tens of billions at least, and weapons to Kiev in the next few months. That, too, will keep the danger level high.
I think that explains the somber, serious tone of the leadership: Russia is certain of eventual victory but it knows there is still a very long and difficult slog ahead that will, for sure, include painful encounters with a mortally wounded, but still very dangerous enemy, as well as very high risk that a delusional West may resort to extremely dangerous escalations.
Thank you. I agree with you that there is no triumphalism, like at all. Sure, that's partly Russian spirit and experience (i.e. life always stabs you some way), but also they know how quickly things can turn if NATO or U.S. do something crazy. It's also sad, because they aren't even killing foreigners. More grim than anything else.
Brilliant post and thank you for replying.
Just to clarify - I was not trying to say that Russia was being triumphalist, rather I was just using a turn of phrase to describe what I see as a trapped West.
I do not live in Russia but have visited your magnificent country and was so impressed by the somber way Russians go about life and their values.
You're right about the collective understanding Russians have about the horrors of war. In the West we lack that understanding - our 'leaders' have no concept of it at all - which of course makes it more likely than not that they will make reckless decisions.
As to drone attacks near Moscow. I suspect that some if not all of the attacks are launched from within Russia itself. It would be relatively easy to launch a small/medium sized drone/UAV from a protected area (eg a forest) near a target.
Apparently some of the drones are made of cardboard, can be installed on the spot and can carry 2-5 kgs of explosive. They are from Australia of all places, see https://www.forbes.com.au/covers/innovation/the-aussie-cardboard-drones-hitting-russia-in-massed-attacks/ )
Anyway if I'm right we will not see major escalation (hitting Russia with Taurus style missiles) however we will see UAV/drone attacks and perhaps more of these suicidal PR cross border incursions.
We may also see a 'trial' incident - eg a bomb in a Russian city - but again the West really needs to be extremely careful. If their hubristic fingerprints are on it in any way, I think Putin is dead serious and we will see a major Russian response.
Basically all these methods amount to one thing - terrorism. That is all the West can risk. They can't defeat Russia ina stand up fight on the battlefield and so they will debase themselves with low level/medium level terrorism - the indiscriminate targeting of soft targets (civilians etc).
Of course, none of it will work. It's not going to achieve any durable objectives. It isn't sustainable. All it does is make the Russian payback (when it comes, which it will) far worse than its already going to be, once the Ukraine war is over.
Thank you again for your reply.
Russia IS going to win this one. The pinprick attacks of the dead-enders in Kiev strike me as analogous to the V-weapons program and purported Werwolf resistance by the Nazis in WWII. More effort than they are worth.
I'd use the tokkō (kamikaze) analogy, but it'd be insulting to the very brave Japanese pilots.
It does come back to numbers and losses, and we now appear to be getting closer to the truth of the matter. Sloppy language and definitions don't assist the amateur analyst here, and certainly this topic has been the cause of much lively discussion, confusion and also deliberate misinformation.
My personal take is that Ukraine have enlisted over 1.2M men since the start of the war - regulars, reservists, volunteers and concripts. Casualties have been around 700,000 or c 1,000 per day - probably the real number is closer to 800 on average but more recently. Of these maybe 0.5M have been permanent - KIA, POW, MIA or WIA and unable to return to duty. Of the remaining 200,000 men, 100,000 are still in hospital and 100,000 have returned to duty. This leaves the UAF at 700,000 strong with 100,000 of those in hospital. These figures could easily be out by 100,000 or more but tie in with various recent reports and statements from different sources.
With c 100 combat brigades or equivalent There should be around 250,000 men in combat teeth arms. The remainder of troops are in supply and rear area duties. The actual number of combat troops now will be around half of 250,000 or c 120,000. At 30,000 losses a month (now) this army will burn through its combat troops every 4 months. Taking into account replacements (and many will be returning wounded) this figure goes to 8 months. This handily equals the third army theory and we are now seeing the 4th army being demolished. This army is short of everything whilst the Russian military grows relatively stronger and more capable. However this analysis explains how Ukraine can still have a large military and a reducing and IMO soon to become "marginal" ability to influence events on the battlefield.
As the author writes, those of us who have written about the relative capabilities of Ukraine/NATO versus Russia and have tried to do so objectively - well it appears that this French report anyway vindicates our views and judgements. And once again most western "experts" appear to have founded their views on prejudice and misinformation if not outright propaganda. However pointing out the truth can be a dangerous game these days, and those who wield the levers of power seem to prefer to sustain a narrative rather than allow critical thinking and analysis to enter into their decision making processes. If so, a delusional and dangerous approach.
Bravo ! Another well written and informative article. Sad truth that it is so rare when the need is so great.
Keep up the good fight -
The warmongers shouldn't be sad with the election of Trump as Pretzel. The war against Russia will be replaced by the war against China. Still lots of money for everyone. And everyone knows Chinese stuff breaks all the time unlike Soviet stuff. This war against China will be easy. White Man's prestige will be restored.
🤭🤭🤭 seriously the war against China will be easy? LOL!!
I took that as satire.
Trump will not fight China. He idolized Reagan, who talked tough but always negotiated. This is why the MIC is fully against him.
Fantastic article; its always refreshing to get to know the intricacies of Western (in this case French), paroxysm.
Looking at pompadour Van Der Leyen and Hitler, at least he shows conviction; when Ukraine collapses, I doubt VDL will go out like he did... Too bad!
When the time comes, Z will be offered a ride in the back of a limo to an unstated but quite clear final destination.
David Glantz is my favourite WW2 historian. He focuses on the Eastern Front, and it was thanks to reading his books that I understood that the Nazis were never going to win that war, it was a war they were in fact losing from 1941.
I'm just a bit disappointed about the fact that he relies on ISW for his info. But I will forgive him.
Maybe if they don’t divert the panzers into Ukraine and keep driving on Moscow, there is a chance. As it was Moscow almost fell, plans were being made to flee to Siberia, which would have likely permanently ruined the credibility of Stalin and his government.
“Hitler’s Panzers East” is a good read on the cost of diverting to Ukraine to encircle a Kessel of about 750,000 soldiers, for the price of driving on Moscow before the season was too late.
The war went about as well as it could have for the Germans in the first few months, and still they failed to conquer the SU. It's hard to imagine a more favourable start.
The battle of Kiev was one of the biggest victories of all time, and had the Germans not cleared the flanks, and headed straight to Moscow, they would have had to deal with the issue of a massive army on their flanks to the south.
They also need to pause to allow supplies to be brought forward, it's not so simple to just drive forward into Russia with the logistical issues you face, like no roads, the fact that everything needs more fuel in the mud, the rail issues (different gauge), and just the general lack of planning for a longer war by the Germans.
Even if Moscow would be captured in this scenario, which was by no means guaranteed, I think the Soviets would have continued to fight on.
It was clear already soon after the invasion was launched that the Soviets were putting up heroic defences and striking hard at the German army, causing huge casualties and loss of materiel. You should really read books by Glantz or Ericson By the time of the drive on Moscow, I think the armoured forces were down by about 1/2 due to losses and wear-and-tear. At the same time, the Soviets raised enormous armies, and outrproduced the Germans in terms of weapons like tanks, airplanes etc.
In fact the Soviets should have smashed the Germans, had they been adequately prepared. They had far superior tanks, in quality and quantity, as well as a better tank doctrine. Unfortunately Stalin threw away a lot of his valuable officers in 1937, leaving the rest paralysed with fear, and ignored warnings of the German invasion, was AFK for the first days of the war ... But still the Soviets won an overwhelming victory in the end.
I think all this becomes clear when you study books by David Glantz and John Erickson, which cover the war in detail.
You make a very good argument. I’ve read a lot of the literature on Barbarossa, (and played several hundred hours of Hearts of Iron), and actually knocking Russia out of the war was always a long shot.
Arguments in favor of the drive on Moscow also incorporate the loss of prestige if it fell, and the fact that the rail lines all went through Moscow and its capture would have made large scale troop movement much more challenging.
Then we get to the “should they have split the army and tried to take both Stalingrad and the Caucasus, as Hitler ordered, or just driven on Stalingrad with the whole southern army group?” question…
Again, the idea of taking the oil fields of Baku and the Cacuasus, when you look on a map, was a highly fanciful notion. It was a tremendously long advance and huge territory they would have had to hold onto. I think something like 2000km of advancing, and an area larger than France once they got there. Then on top of that, Hitler said "Oh yeah take Stalingrad on the way ..." splitting his forces.
Maybe if Hitler hadn't launched a genocidal war, then they might have won, but that was never really on the cards ...
The Caucasus was always a pipe dream given the logistical challenges.
It was an example of the weaknesses created by Hitler refusing to tell his generals what the plan was. When they protested against splitting forces, Hitler replied that they had no idea what the strategy was and that the Caucasus was the main goal all along.
The expansion of the army pre WWII meant very few high level commanders with the background and experience to command large formations, much less dispute their deployment with a Fuhrer who held all the cards close to his chest at all times.
Yes and they once again achieved surprise and great initial success, but it was just too much, IDK Hitler probably thought he could emulate Alexander the Great or something..
The Caucasus was doable assuming you had Turkish help, which was not forthcoming. There was a certain expectation that if the Germans demonstrated they were doing it, the Turks would come in for their pound of flesh, Batum and the balance of the lands south of the mountain crest. That did not happen. You can wargame it out yourself, it makes sense in that context. The criticisms of the German intent fail to consider that.
Actually IMHO Glantz is great but dissembles Soviet pre-war prearations and plans in his book "Stumbling Collossus". I read his analysis - in conjunction with others - and see a different picture. But like the present day, one person can see the same thing and draw an entirely different conclusion. And hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I think I read that ... I think something like Stalin and Soviets can rightfully be blamed for some very bad mistakes they made, prior to the war and in the early phases. But the DID industrialise the country, they DID make mass tanks which were quite advanced and they had quite a brilliant tank doctrine in the 1930's which was ahead of its day.
That gave them the ingredients to win the war in the end.
Hitler in a taped discussion with Mannerheim confessed that they completely underestimated the size and sturdiness of the Red Army...
As for Russian tanks - ie T-34 - the early version was a worse combat vehicle due to 2-man turret and lack of radio, which enabled Germans to knock them out in large numbers. Once with a 3-man turret and radio it became the still-good-today-ish T-34/85 !
Hitler and the nazis thought it was all just going to collapse. They had conquered Poland, France, Norway etc with such, almost ridiculous ease. They probably thought it would be like that, but it was always an extremely ambitious plan. The Soviet Union put up really fierce resistance from the get-go. I know the T-34 had issues, but it still had pretty great armour, mobility and decent firepower. It was good enough, and they were indeed able to churn them out, even though the Germans destroyed huge amounts of them.
"As it was Moscow almost fell," lol no. The whole myth of the Nazi Germans being stopped just short by Russian winter is just that, a myth. By the time they were on Moscow's doorstep, they were exhausted from the constant attrition of battling a Red Army that regenerated itself like the hydra. Their supply lines were stretched and they were at something like 50% strength, and in no condition to capture or hold Moscow. Of course, mud season and winter contributed to this (then as now), but environmental factors tend to obscure the central point, which is the invasion getting bogged down by their inability to put away the Red Army.
Also, as the other commenter said, they had no choice but to wheel around to Kiev because they couldn't leave an army on their flanks.
Attacking Moscow was the only remaining option that gave them a chance to survive. They couldn’t retreat at that point. Taking the city and making Stalin flee and controlling the rail infrastructure was their best gamble at that point at had a non-zero chance of success.
They _could have_ retreated, and ultimately did. The realization was that if they didn't get a knockout blow on Russia, the mobilization of new troops would crush them. The capture of Moscow was rightly suspected to be critical in terms of disrupting the Soviet rail system, which centered on it. Logistically, this would have spelled doom to the whole northern half of the front and probably resulted in a German victory ultimately.
Halder (German OKH Chief of Staff) knew the risks of not taking Moscow during the initial offensive - his diaries have references to the large number of formations the Soviets were putting into the field, and there was no reason to expect otherwise in 1942.
There were very sane reasons to pursue Moscow in 1941. The fact it failed is the only reason why it is painted as overreach or 'Hitler's folly'. A bunch of Germans trying to avoid culpability for the simple fact that they hadn't adequately logistically prepared for an offensive into the Soviet Union. Accepting that truth would imply they were unprofessional and hadn't learned the lessons of Charles XII and Napoleon.
Napoleon stocked depots in key locations like Minsk and Smolensk, against his normal practice of living off the land, and otherwise prepared a very significant logistical apparatus which almost assuredly saved the remnants of his army when they retreated. His preparations were inadequate due to it being the early 19th century and the idea of invading Russia being just unrealistic on that basis. No railroads, for one.
In comparison, the Germans failed to winter equip their soldiers and had a Goebbels-run huge national clothing drive to hand over civilian winter gear to the soldiers on the Eastern Front, who were probably looking pretty motley after that.
With you until we get to the final throw in front of Moscow. The weather _did_ impact operations at that point. The counteroffensive found German forces unable to start vehicles or move artillery. Large numbers of European horses perished, which was 80% of the transport of the German forces. Clothing was insufficient on the German side. Unlike the myths about Napoleon's army, cold weather did impact the Nazis at certain times and places.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Map_Soviet_1941_Winter_counteroffensive.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow - much better coverage available elsewhere, but it's a decent summary of the conditions at the final moments before the counteroffensive hit.
Of course mud season & winter had an impact, I never denied that. All that is true, but my point is that environment wasn't the main or only factor in the Nazi Germans stopping short of capturing Moscow. It had significance, but there were larger issues afoot.
Simplicius, thanks again for a very informative article.
Concerning the silencers, I have seen numerous videos where RF infantry look to have silencers on their weapons. I am not well versed, perhaps another reader can provide additional color, but a standard AK compared with what currently seems to be carried indicate to me that, more often then not, that silencers are prevalent.
The "new" rifles that are showing up (VSS Vintorez) have a barrel that incorporates suppression. That is, the gasses that (mostly) follow the projectile as it exits the barrel are allowed to escape through holes in the barrel down its length. Those gasses are "baffled" in an expansion chamber around the barrel, much like a car muffler. The expansion chamber is bigger in diameter than the barrel. Because much of the propelling gas escapes, the round needs more propellant ("smokeless" powder), which is why the case is twice as long as a parabellum round. Concerning a suppressor's ability to dampen the sound: if you fire a supersonic round through it, the suppressor cannot "suppress" the shock wave of the round "breaking the sound barrier." The shot makes a "crack" sound. Full (kinda) suppression of sound can only be achieved by keeping the speed of the bullet lower than the speed of sound. In all, adding a suppressor to a subsonic round results in the quietest weapon available.
Yes, but there is a boatload of videos showing Russians with normal AK-47/74s with suppressors on the rifle. Tons and tons of videos. I really doubt the French report is referring to the VSS rifles (which are still very rare) but rather the increasingly ubiquitous silencers on normal infantry rifles.
Did you watch the (short) video? That was a VSS. Yes, uncommon. But getting less uncommon. Use a standard suppressor on a rifle, and after a little while you will be given away by your IR signature ;-)
Yes, watched the videos. Yes, the VSS is getting somewhat more common. The simple fact is that the ammo for it is probably not common, and not super useful outside of niche roles; the ballistics on it are not great - like lobbing a softball vs a baseball fastball of the AK family. Further, the VSS is only going to be issued to specialist units that won't be in many places and far less likely to be mentioned in a general intel report like that of the French. I can guarantee you the French report is referring to Russian line infantry (especially assault groups) being equipped entirely with suppressed AKs.
I saw a random pic today, which is something I had not seen (noticed?) before, some random soldiers with suppressed AKs. I have to agree with you, they are more common than any set of VSSs would be, and the terminal suppressor still allows a good strong volley downfield. BTW, the cans were pretty damn big, probably because a "normal" can really cannot handle the number of rounds expended in battle. Still, those things probably get really hot!
Suppressing AKs is very easy. As I said in a comment up this thread, a basic machine shop can create suppressors for the regular AK-12 and AK-74 infantry rifles issued to Russia's line units.
It's a high-value, low-cost component that adds a lot of capability. Soldiers can communicate more effectively, it's more difficult to pinpoint their position, they experience less hearing loss, etc.
Main issue with using subsonics is that they're very limited by physics. A subsonic round that's effective against armored targets is rare. If you're going to use a subsonic round against humans, you need to go with a larger caliber because the only way to add punching power to a subsonic round is to put more weight behind it.
Ex: In the U.S. no one uses subsonic 5.56 because its performance is anemic due to the low bullet weight. That's why 300 blackout was developed. You can put a 220g bullet downrange rather than the max 77g bullet a 5.56 can handle.
Basic baffle-stack suppressors are extremely simple to manufacture. The most complicated part of the machining is the thread pitch, and that's not saying much. Any small machine shop with a basic CNC mill and semi-competent welders could churn out suppressors for Russian rifles.
The AK-12 for sure comes with a threaded barrel that could easily accept a suppressor. I'm less familiar with the AK-74, but threading a barrel is, once again, something that even a basic machine shop can accomplish.
Get me the right size die and some cutting oil and i'll cut threads all day. And I suck at this stuff.
I agree. I have also seem numerous videos of Russian soldiers using suppressed AK-74 and AK-12 rifles. This also speaks to Russia's manufacturing capability to produce them and supply them to their soldiers.
I’ve been thinking about the decline of the western democracies and our decent into what to many people see as insane and dangerous.
The question I have asked about this conflict is why our high tech superior equipment is so inadequate.
There is another thinker on Substack who Aurelian who tries to explain how our dumbing down of our society will eventually lead to multiple failures.
Now let’s go back to 1917 and beyond in Russia.
The capital base and resources meant at the end of WW2 the Soviet Union was I think second in gdp. Less thank 40 years later they were a basket case and smaller than then west Germany. Why? The communists fully embraced DEI and the real drivers of expertise and knowledge were sidelined as we see today with the dumbing down of the Western world.
Now let’s fast forward to 2022.
The young recruits who in the past had to go a rigorous training program had to be tough are no longer the standard.
In addition the DEI and wokeness generally have weakened all our institutions.
When the Soviet Union collapsed all that was left was the remnants of a country the vied to always be 2nd. By the end less GDP the a small European economy.
Here we are today. We have 75% become Soviet like. Our education teaches ideology not inquiry, our graduates of today are overgrown children. I wonder if they even know how thier smart devise works, how much energy cast data centers use.
I think my conclusion of a very long comment is that things have gone 180 degrees. It was the soviets who had second rate armies and equipment. This was the result of 20-30 years of DEI. We are now emulating the soviets and destroying our own societies and ability. It is the West that is now the new Soviet in terms of self destruction. We are maybe 29 years into our own experiment and already failing fast.
I would be interested to see some more commentary on our own dumbing down and resultant failures.
Thanks for your comment. What's DEI please?
Diversity, equity, inclusion
DEI posits that diversity is an end in itself and will automatically result in greater productivity because of all the different perspectives that will be brought to the table.
In other words, it’s a nonsense fantasy used to justify racially discriminatory hiring practices.
WWII the Germans faced some very tough people used to the elements and working long hours outside. The Soviet Red Army was okay with living rough for months on end. Something the average Wehmacht conscript hadn't done for a hundred years.
I have a hard time blaming the decline of the SU on its social policies. Lots of economic issues that demonstrate the inability to compete long term with capitalist societies in terms of efficiency. Also, the late SU armies were not ineffective, and neither was their equipment, as much of it is still in use.
This is the problem with, amongst other things, Roman Empire analogies. The application of modern US political issues to historical situations never maps cleanly. For just one example, would anyone characterize Soviet women as being in any way similar to US Karens? Was there ever a situation in the SU where ethnic minorities were preferred over Great Russians? I could go on.
"Was there ever a situation in the SU where ethnic minorities were preferred over Great Russians?" Yes, actually there were many such situations: it was the policy under Stalin.
Lenin wanted to emphasize the "many nationalities" part of the Russian empire to make the USSR appear not to be a single Bolshevik state but a confederation of many willing countries, somewhat like the US's many allies. Stalin made that almost a state religion, where he deliberately prompted local ethnic groups over Great Russians.
What ended up happening was that all of the 'Stans, like Uzbekistan, had local ethnics who were the nominal leaders, but they all had Russians second in command who did the actual work. It was the USSR's version of affirmative action, pushing ahead local ethnicities and applying far lower standards for them to get into universities or positions of authority.
Ok, granted, but this never impacted actual domination of the SU by Great Russians, now, did it?
I think it did, but I wouldn't phrase it that way. Surprisingly, some of what the Bolsheviks did was motivated by a genuine desire to build what they sincerely thought would be a better society. Leveling the playing ground by eliminating ethnic chauvinism was one such desire they had, and, in truth, they actually managed to achieve that. Russia today is a remarkably multi-ethnic, multinational society.
I think that for all their talk about leveling the playing ground there still was prejudice in the higher ranks of government and preference for Great Russians, but it wasn't a "domination" thing. Stalin himself, for example, was Georgian and the Politburo was top-heavy with non-Russian ethnicities. Beria was also Georgian, and so on. Stalin himself spoke Russian with such a thick Georgian accent that some Russians had a hard time understanding him. So that was pretty effective at signaling no "domination" by Great Russians.
Out in the 'stans and even in the constituent republics within, say, the Russian SSR, local ethnicities would often be a local "mafia" of players who had real power. I think that intensified towards the end of the USSR and was one of the centrifugal factors that lead to the dissolution of the USSR and the chaos of the '90s. I don't think it was a racial thing, just a matter of people finding convenient alliances in the free for all to seize and wield local power as a way of becoming rich.
I guess the bottom line that the usual Western stereotype of a USSR dominated by Great Russians is way overblown, and that the myriad of other ethnicities in the USSR did indeed have real power and influence. I think there was some bad to that, but also lots of good, and that the splitting off of more rabid nationalists into independent 'stans drew the poison out of the phenomenon and left the good parts, the feeling of unity despite different ethnicities, religions, languages, and such, that you have today within the Russian Federation.
Thank you, i'll take this into account in the future when thinking about such things. I presumed the assertion of the multiethnic Soviet society was more talk than walk.
"why our high tech superior equipment is so inadequate." I think that is a result of having infinite money without being held responsible by reality checks in the form of wars with a peer adversary.
The US homeland has not been threatened by a peer adversary for over 200 years. It never was at risk from either Germany or Japan in WW2, and with the coming of detente it wasn't at risk from the USSR in terms of conventional weapons. The US could spend trillions of dollars on overpriced, impractical weapons systems like Abrams and nothing that a bunch of tribesman in the desert could do would cause a come to Darwin moment of acknowledging that the Abrams couldn't cut it in a real war with a genuine peer.
What's so impractical about the Abrams? It requires far too much maintenance for a real war. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US could build bases that were small cities to do the maintenance, but that's not possible in a war against a peer adversary, and a tank that requires that much maintenance to stay in combat for many months or a year is impractical.
Russian systems tend to be more practical because of the horrific damage done to Russia in WW2. That was within living memory when their current design and production traditions were created, so they tend to design for real war. They also don't have infinite money like the US, so they cannot treat themselves to insanely elaborate and unrealistic indulgences.
Another example is the most expensive weapons system in history, the F35: it's a flying pig with absolutely horrific ability for air combat. Point that out and the reply is always "stealth". But Russia's higher end radar systems can light up F35's like they were flying oil tankers. That doesn't matter in a US where infinite money can be thrown at something with no reality checks ever holding anybody accountable to telling the truth. Admitting that "stealth" was always bogus as a strategy against the USSR or later Russia would have emptied the feeding trough of far too much of the cash that feeds the political and military-industrial class.
Thanks John your comments have been so beneficial and informative, also glad to hear such positive comments re Bolshevik actions and the fact leaders were not all actually Russians which is not so widely known. Thought Stalin was not so beneficial and the mind boggles to understand how different it would have been if Trotsky could have become leader instead.
I am not very convinced by the tank weight/stuck in mud thing. You get 2 tonner trucks stuck in that mud. You're telling me a 40 ton Russian tanks would cruise through that mud somehow? I can't argue authoritatively but I kinda think not. They drove into that on purpose.
That terrain is horrible for anything heavier than a light tank.
Tanks can go across more mud or ice than trucks that weigh a fraction of what they do due to the surface area of the treads distributing the Kilogram per centimeter ground pressure.
A light tank has most of the benefits of low KG/cm ground pressure that tanks have, but weighs 20-30 tons less than a main battle tank.
When I was in Alaska, we had this German-made vehicle called a SUSV (Small Unit Support Vehicle). It was twin-cabbed and each cab had these massively wide rubber tracks. It was slow as hell but it could drive over or through any kind of mud, snow, quicksand, and it was all because the wide tracks and light weight of the vehicle had such low ground pressure that it could drive across ice that a walking human would fall through.
Thanks for that. I am aware of all that having seen it in the countryside here and there. I brought it up in a past a few times in discussion threads for the benefit of city folk who seem to have no idea at all.
The qualities of mud can vary enormously can't they, just that alone. Clay mud, black soil mud, loam mud... Then depth and terrain...
I pointed out in those posts back there that I can find caterpillar tractor tracks and walk across them and leave a deeper impression than the tractor track. Because the weight and impact of my heel was greater than that of the track. Not the cleat. The track.
It is all a matter of degree as things in the world so often are.
Tanks, farm machinery, caterpillar tractors, earthmoving equipment: they are made to handle muddy terrain aren't they?
This doesn't make them masters of everything does it?
Put any heavy vehicle in the mud wallow we saw there and it'll go down and won't come out unless it reaches a solid floor down there which apparently didn't exist.
Drive across ice a human would fall through is pretty impressive. :)
You are talking about the Swedish Bandvagn 206 : my battalion had 52 of them. Very mobile - would be useful in emergencies type Katrina
Did it have a Mercedes engine? The ones we drove had it and it was a surprisingly reliable vehicle. Most of our vehicles in Alaska weren’t fans of the cold.
One version had a Mercedes, another a Ford, cannot remember exactly!
I can answer authoritatively, having lived that life for over 20 years. No tank commander (TC), or even a 6 month recruit driver, would have entered that situation. It is approached exactly how the 2nd tank did it. Of course this knowledge is based on the military of the 80's 90's so I can't verify its validity today.
so it makes you wonder, doesn't it? what was the purpose of driving into there? there's just so much trickery and sham and playing to the gallery in this thing it finishes up as being entirely perplexing. to me. :)
Great article and great news. I really hope we can avoid a deeper WWIII by sensible people leaking the obvious truth. It was pretty devastating comment from those French military leaks.