If the HIMARS has been largely defeated by Russia AD, then these projectiles will fare far worse. The volume of them will be limited for all the reasons noted. It is not a stupid idea if you want to use these as an artillery substitute since 155 MM shells are gone, but the volume of these and the lack of explosive footprint will make them pretty ineffective for the ones that get through AD. Its way too little, way too late. The West did not understand Russia's capabilities economically and militarily and were not prepared for this war. They are stupid, arrogant and ignorant. Dangerous too, mostly to their own people.
That's why Russia needs to focus on the meat and potatoes of warfare as its been waged for centuries, and leave the wundwaffen propaganda stuff to the successors of the Third Reigh.
I guess the sum of these systems is always greater than the parts
I.e. JDAM on its own is defeatable. But JDAM launched en masse from B-52's or B-2's can really ruin your day. And they are really very clever and cheap bombs. The impetus is always on the defender in this case - the attacker tosses ordinance your way and you have to stop it. I suspect the F-16 noise is directly connected to the JDAM's; I was wondering why they wanted them so badly, now it makes sense as they are a pretty good way to delivery payload. And since the ISR infrastructure is already in place, the targeting will be the same as what is being used for HIMARS. In that sense, perhaps the objective here is to get the Ukrainians to start doing "set piece" attacks where HIMARS, JDAM, and artillery are used in conjunction to overwhelm Russian defenses. It would make sense, and if they are serious about actually launching offensives against prepared positions it is a MINIMUM just to get started. Also - the nanosecond fighter jets are committed, I would immediately guess that airborne ECM systems will go hand in hand otherwise the F-16's will be shot down before they can do anything. I digress...
We have seen how difficult it is to assault positions on the Ukrainian side - despite Russia having major firepower superiority the Ukrainians are able to put up tenacious defense. I have no doubt the reverse will be true and in an order of magnitude more so
But I keep trying to play it out - where does this wind up? Its all partial, too little, too late stuff. But I don't doubt the motivation of the people behind it, so my only conclusion is that it is to set up an eventual 'fait accompli' where reality on the ground dictates that this is a full-on world war. It doesn't help that the Ukrainians are nonstop trying to instigate false flags, and these provocative strikes on Russia. I get it - it is in their interest to draw NATO in - and what with the Johnson's, Baerbocks, Stoltenbergs, and whatnot of the world, some are only too eager to be drawn in.
Russia needs to start playing the media/political game as well and work on managing Western perception.
"But JDAM launched en masse from B-52's or B-2's can really ruin your day."
Assuming that you're not talking about giving Ukraine B-52s or B-2s, and you want to hit targets that regular artillery can't, JDAM-ERs would have to be launched from high-flying aircraft well within the targeting envelope of S-400.
Just from the sheer number of countries and people that have been attacked and/or menaced by them, If Putin knocked out American bombers, he'd instantly become the most popular man on the planet.
Doctrinally that's how the US uses JDAM.. so they are trying to figure out how to adapt. And as simplicius pointed out its much more bang than himars or artillery
Do you really see the USA risking its B-52s or B-2s in the skies over Ukraine? I don't think anyone would agree that the juice would be worth the squeeze.
B-2 stealth *may* be able to evade Russian integrated air defence. Maybe. F-16s? They'll get blown out of the sky for the reasons that simplicius has outlined above in this very post.
Think about what you just said - getting B-52s involved. Firstly, the B-52s would have to release these bombs within their stated range - 150km of the target. What B-52 can survive at that range against S-400s? Simple answer - none.
Secondly, involving B-52s means unambiguous direct involvement in the war by the USA. Think now "WWIII".
Thirdly, the lack of ammunition and the effectiveness of Russian AD means that there is no chance in hell that Ukraine will ever be able to "overwhelm Russian defenses".
I did, and I agree with you. I just wanted to direct attention to the disadvantage of getting B-52s involved and the near impossibility of Ukraine ever overwhelming Russian defenses.
Russia doesn't need to manage Western perception, and it's also very hard for them to do so. They are winning the war, so they don't need to spout propaganda, like NATO, who is all bark, no bite. That is not to say they are to be underestimated, just to say they need to make up in media control what they lack in military capability.
They don't have to win the propaganda war, they only need to demonstrate, to the Western public, that Ukraine is incapable of retaking territory, which will happen as new advances become undeniable. At that point, the already tuned out westerners will just ask: what's the point of giving Ukraine billions and billions?
THIS. Who cares what the West thinks anyway? The West is the Past, a tired, once-great but now belligerent old fat man, slobbering over his beer in the bar, alternately reminiscing in his better past while bellowing incoherent babble and demands at those around him, demands that people listen to less and less. Meanwhile, others in the bar are making contacts, hooking up to get laid. Soon enough, the fat old drunk will pick on the wrong young dude and-whammo- get punched in the mouth and go nighty night. GOOD RIDDANCE.
Yes definitley if the U.S. was using them, then it would be a whole different ballgame because of course a B-2 dropping an astonishing 80 500lbs JDAMS (yes that's how many it carries) is just an insane saturation amount. Several B-2's flying together can release just ungodly numbers of JDams that would oversaturate any AD on the planet. With that said, those B-2's would still have to get within 70km of the target and that's extremely unlikely against Russian layered AD as the various amount of L-band / VHF type radars like Nebo-M which are made for spotting stealth craft would likely see the bombers coming from much farther out. But still, of courses it poses a much greater potential threat than 2-3 old migs trying to loft 4 crappy JDams at a time.
Excelent analysis but I am not buying the hu rah russian victory. Let s face it. The russian army doesn t perform that well. It just doesn t. 1 year of war and....? Yes we hear the kill ratio of 1 to 8, attrition war and all that but the AFU doesn t look like it will collapse any time soon. That means that they have a lot of soldiers to spare. Plus Ukraine doesn t have to win but just bleed Rusia dry. 7 months and still they haven t take that punny town known as Bahmut? Serious? And even there the progres has been made by Wagner. Whatever we say we have to honest, this war ain t going according to plan, not one bit. Maybe it s the Kremlin s corruption, generals incompetence, whatever, it s still looks bad. Plus the russian leadership doesn t take this war serios let s face it. Ukrainians fight like demented spartans, while the russians fear losing even a truck. That is no receipe for victory. I have no dog în this fight, but I can clearly see that Russia can t win this, no way. After Bahmut....what? How much will it take to conquer Kramatorsk? Then Dnipro? Another year at least, no way they can sustain that level of fightong for so long with 500k troops. Russia is Lucky if it frees the Donbass any time soon. But fier that they are trully stuck. And then negociations, a Minsk 3. Forget about Odessa. And them NATO will move în thebwestern part of Ukraine and there is nothing Russia can do. This is the Crimmea war all over again.
"the AFU doesn t look like it will collapse any time soon"
Theyre conscipting grandfathers and boys who haven't started shaving.
"7 months and still they haven t take that punny town known as Bahmut? Serious? "
What's the hurry? Bakhmut is close to the RU supply lines and as with Lysychansk and Severodonetsk and Soledar, Zelensky has no intention of retreating from cities, throwing away troops. One of two Russian objective is demilitarisation - why hurry when Bakhmut is a meat magnet and Russia has the meatgrinder handle?
"Plus Ukraine doesn t have to win but just bleed Rusia dry. "
Ukraine has no money and it's going through a shell and manpower shortage. Why do you think Russia will bleed dry before Ukraine does?
Let's get one thing straight: you can't say what is or isn't going to plan, we have no idea what the Russian plans are. Going faster woul mean more casualties, and territorial gains mean nothing by themselves, only if you translate that to a strategic advantage. You will otherwise just overstrech your supply routes, widen the front, so you stretch you army thinner, opening yourself up to potential counterattacks. If Russia truly thought they needed to end this thing fast, they would have mobilised much faster, and not just partially. They would have gone full wartime economy before feb. 2022 or at around April, when it became clear Ukraine won'tever negotiate.
Also, in this conflict, there are many other considerations, other than the military aspect, like foreign relations. Remember the UN vote that decried the annexation of the 4 Oblasts? By number of countries, the majority voted in favor, but by percentage of world population, the majority abstained, which basically means they are sympathetic to Russia, or at least neutral. Getting China to not be against separatists declaring independence and joining another country via a referendum, considering they have many separatist regions of their own (Taiwan, wink, wink, nudge, nudge), is pretty remarkable.
Remember, Putin is a lawyer, and he thinks like a lawyer. If he goes in guns blazing, annihilating all power plants, communication hubs, etc., it's a much harder sell. This way (Russia mostly providing only artillery support for the DLPR forces to "liberate themselves". Also, by very incrementaly increasing the military pressure, they can also avoid potential NATO involvment, as NATO can't say: "in response to this major escalation, we have to intervene", because there is no major escalation, it's a slow grind. There are many reasons why the Russians are doing what they are doing. Just because you can't think of any, doesn't mean that there aren't.
I think this kind of thinking comes from many in the West having grown up in the 90s where all they've known is the USA conducting unopposed bombing campaigns for months followed by an obliteration of an enemy surrounded on all sides, logistics cut off and army substantially weakened. They believe in the idea that the US is an irresistible force and have no living memory of the US going up against a near-peer opponent - the last time that happened was the Korean War.
Yep, and also the US only wins shock and awe style warfare against weaker opponents (Lybia, Gulf war, Yugoslavia), every drawn-out conflict the US ever fought since basically after WW2 (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) was a disaster. So probably that's where the notion that long war = losing comes from.
You make the same mistake as most western analysts - that this is a war for territory. Get it through your head that this is a war of attrition - the objective being to annihilate the enemy by all means necessary.
Western military strategy has always historically been geared primarily towards territorial gain, not attrition. If you don't gain territory, you are losing the war, and if you don't gain territory fast enough, your army sucks. Russia has always fought wars of attrition, much to the dismay of potential Western conquerors. They stand and fight, then retreat when their troops are threatened, and then destroy the enemy when they come in to fill the void. There is no need to hurry, especially if the enemy continues to come at you with all its reserves as in the case of Bakhmut - you just let them come and destroy at a distance, thus preserving your own forces - no need to take territory. Territory is taken after the enemy is destroyed.
An afterthought - Bakhmut is no "puny" town. It is an integral part of an extensive line of defense built up over 8 years by NATO and containing heavily fortified positions of reinforced concrete trenches and bunkers, underground passageways, and favourable landscapes. You have to fight for every inch. The same is true for Soledar, Ugledar, Seversk, and several others on that front. Once the enemy is destroyed or removed from there, there is nothing much left between the front and Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. After those two are taken, then nothing remains all the way to the Dneiper.
Attrition you say? So after 7 months of attrition why the battlefield is static? If the ukranians die în huge numbers by doesn t the russian army advance almost anywhere. Avdiika has been "attrited" for 1 year now and......? It still under AFU possesion? Ugledar has been bombed to Kingdom Come, and....? The russians are still stuck. I don t give a shit about western propaganda, but I m not buying russian BS also. I m impartial, but I can see with my two eyes, the RF isin t doing a good job.
Yes, seven months of sending Ukrainian soldiers to die under Russian artillery, air, and missile bombardment. Ukraine (and NATO) are fighting a war for territory. Russia is simply fighting to destroy the Ukrainian army and its NATO weaponry. Under such conditions, why move at all as long the enemy keeps feeding you troops and weaponry to destroy? Again, there is a huge difference between a war of attrition and a war for territory, and until you are able to wrap your head around that it seems futile to discuss.
You are concerned because Russia has seemingly made little territorial gains, so it looks like they are just barely holding the line, not making progress against the Ukrainians. If they were fighting a war for territory, you would be absolutely correct, but they are not, and consequently, they are in no rush to to take territory. Meanwhile, they are pushing Ukraine to the point of total collapse as a fighting unit and causing NATO to use all its available weaponry and ammo in the process. All this with comparatively minimal casualties on the Russian side.
Sorry but your analysis doesn t hold water. If the ukranians had carastrophic cassulaties it would had show on the battlefield. The fact is besides Bahmut the russians still can t progress on other fronts as well. Avdiika is a case în point. The Harkov region another. There the russian tried to break trough made little progress then they were stuck. În Kremanaia they have progresed 10km but then....nothing. So they want to progress, not just attrition war but they can t. The same în Ugledar. They wanted to take the town but they were stopped. Simple as that. Plus an attrition war goes both ways. It s not like the ukranians can t fight back with altelery, Himars way back into the rear. It s not like Wagner isin t taking loads of cassulaties. It s not like the russians don t have a boat load of dead soldiers în Ugledar. You can t win a war with a strategy of attrition. You need manuever warfare to cut the enemy and take them în a caouldrom like the soviets did at Stalingrad with the german sixth army. Think for yourself.
Please try to follow along: Why should I drive across town to pick up my take-out, wasting time and gas, when the shop will deliver the food nice and hot, directly to my house, for free? Z delivers his Ukie meat directly to Bahkmut, where the Russian War Machine promptly devours it, between 500-1000 per day. And the Russian War Machine finds the Ukie meat DELICIOUS. NOM NOM NOM. Ain't no need to go anywhere, after the Ukie meat is consumed, the Russians will move to another part of town and call for takeout from another shop. Maybe one in Kyivv.
You were VERY generous with the 90km range of the M26 rocket. The HIMARS has a range of 90km, but like with all rockets, the engines only last the initial few minutes of the travel time. After the engines shut off, the missile has to use that limited energy to hit the target.
This is also why flying high in a plane is not only dangerous because the enemy radars can spot you. The thinner atmosphere means that the drag the AD missiles have to fight is much smaller, therefore they reach the jet before losing much from their peak altitude and velocity. This also means they have a higher hit probability as well, because they have more speed that they can use to maneuver. Up there, you are a "sitting duck", because you have no hope of bleeding the missile of energy, so you pray to God that you can dodge it.
Nothing is absolute, and nothing has a Pk of 1, despite the advertising on the box. More gradual escalation and testing of weapons and doctrine. F-16s as they are plentiful and cheap enough to throw away, esp. the early generation, now that Mig29 and Su27 are getting scarce. I'm not a knuck, but I suspect that zoom climbing a B16 to 30kft with multiple JDAM under the wings will not be a dynamic manoeuvre....nor will they hang around up there to re-accelerate, it will be a toss launch. Patience. Slowly slowly catchee monkey?
I think you're mistaking the 'maximum target velocity' column for the S400 velocity. The S400's have different variants of missiles that can go from Mach 3-6 give or take. But they can hit targets/objects which are going upwards of Mach 14
Great analysis, as usual. I’m wondering if we will be sending dangerous gas stoves along with the JDAMs to finally “turn the tide.”
Now _that_ made me laugh.
Carry on, extensive information. Math is my game. Love this❤️🇷🇺💙
If the HIMARS has been largely defeated by Russia AD, then these projectiles will fare far worse. The volume of them will be limited for all the reasons noted. It is not a stupid idea if you want to use these as an artillery substitute since 155 MM shells are gone, but the volume of these and the lack of explosive footprint will make them pretty ineffective for the ones that get through AD. Its way too little, way too late. The West did not understand Russia's capabilities economically and militarily and were not prepared for this war. They are stupid, arrogant and ignorant. Dangerous too, mostly to their own people.
Excellent article, thank you.
At this point I'm waiting for NATO to send Ukraine some Jagdtigers, V-2s and Me-262s in the next batch of Wunderwaffe. It worked last time right?
Brilliant. Keep 'em coming.
That's why Russia needs to focus on the meat and potatoes of warfare as its been waged for centuries, and leave the wundwaffen propaganda stuff to the successors of the Third Reigh.
New reader, nice work.
thank u sir, hope you stick around
I guess the sum of these systems is always greater than the parts
I.e. JDAM on its own is defeatable. But JDAM launched en masse from B-52's or B-2's can really ruin your day. And they are really very clever and cheap bombs. The impetus is always on the defender in this case - the attacker tosses ordinance your way and you have to stop it. I suspect the F-16 noise is directly connected to the JDAM's; I was wondering why they wanted them so badly, now it makes sense as they are a pretty good way to delivery payload. And since the ISR infrastructure is already in place, the targeting will be the same as what is being used for HIMARS. In that sense, perhaps the objective here is to get the Ukrainians to start doing "set piece" attacks where HIMARS, JDAM, and artillery are used in conjunction to overwhelm Russian defenses. It would make sense, and if they are serious about actually launching offensives against prepared positions it is a MINIMUM just to get started. Also - the nanosecond fighter jets are committed, I would immediately guess that airborne ECM systems will go hand in hand otherwise the F-16's will be shot down before they can do anything. I digress...
We have seen how difficult it is to assault positions on the Ukrainian side - despite Russia having major firepower superiority the Ukrainians are able to put up tenacious defense. I have no doubt the reverse will be true and in an order of magnitude more so
But I keep trying to play it out - where does this wind up? Its all partial, too little, too late stuff. But I don't doubt the motivation of the people behind it, so my only conclusion is that it is to set up an eventual 'fait accompli' where reality on the ground dictates that this is a full-on world war. It doesn't help that the Ukrainians are nonstop trying to instigate false flags, and these provocative strikes on Russia. I get it - it is in their interest to draw NATO in - and what with the Johnson's, Baerbocks, Stoltenbergs, and whatnot of the world, some are only too eager to be drawn in.
Russia needs to start playing the media/political game as well and work on managing Western perception.
"But JDAM launched en masse from B-52's or B-2's can really ruin your day."
Assuming that you're not talking about giving Ukraine B-52s or B-2s, and you want to hit targets that regular artillery can't, JDAM-ERs would have to be launched from high-flying aircraft well within the targeting envelope of S-400.
Just from the sheer number of countries and people that have been attacked and/or menaced by them, If Putin knocked out American bombers, he'd instantly become the most popular man on the planet.
Doctrinally that's how the US uses JDAM.. so they are trying to figure out how to adapt. And as simplicius pointed out its much more bang than himars or artillery
"Doctrinally that's how the US uses JDAM."
Do you really see the USA risking its B-52s or B-2s in the skies over Ukraine? I don't think anyone would agree that the juice would be worth the squeeze.
Not a chance. But, F16s can do it. And honestly who knows, the escalation is getting a bit out of control.
B-2 stealth *may* be able to evade Russian integrated air defence. Maybe. F-16s? They'll get blown out of the sky for the reasons that simplicius has outlined above in this very post.
The networked air defence of Russia sees stealth - they can not hide.
The Serb radars saw NATO "stealth" bombers twenty plus years ago.
Think about what you just said - getting B-52s involved. Firstly, the B-52s would have to release these bombs within their stated range - 150km of the target. What B-52 can survive at that range against S-400s? Simple answer - none.
Secondly, involving B-52s means unambiguous direct involvement in the war by the USA. Think now "WWIII".
Thirdly, the lack of ammunition and the effectiveness of Russian AD means that there is no chance in hell that Ukraine will ever be able to "overwhelm Russian defenses".
I suspect you didnt real my full comment
I did, and I agree with you. I just wanted to direct attention to the disadvantage of getting B-52s involved and the near impossibility of Ukraine ever overwhelming Russian defenses.
All American planes are going to be chop liver within 300 KM of any Russian target.
“Russia needs to start playing the media/political game as well and work on managing Western perception.” - but the question is why?
Russia doesn't need to manage Western perception, and it's also very hard for them to do so. They are winning the war, so they don't need to spout propaganda, like NATO, who is all bark, no bite. That is not to say they are to be underestimated, just to say they need to make up in media control what they lack in military capability.
They don't have to win the propaganda war, they only need to demonstrate, to the Western public, that Ukraine is incapable of retaking territory, which will happen as new advances become undeniable. At that point, the already tuned out westerners will just ask: what's the point of giving Ukraine billions and billions?
THIS. Who cares what the West thinks anyway? The West is the Past, a tired, once-great but now belligerent old fat man, slobbering over his beer in the bar, alternately reminiscing in his better past while bellowing incoherent babble and demands at those around him, demands that people listen to less and less. Meanwhile, others in the bar are making contacts, hooking up to get laid. Soon enough, the fat old drunk will pick on the wrong young dude and-whammo- get punched in the mouth and go nighty night. GOOD RIDDANCE.
Yes definitley if the U.S. was using them, then it would be a whole different ballgame because of course a B-2 dropping an astonishing 80 500lbs JDAMS (yes that's how many it carries) is just an insane saturation amount. Several B-2's flying together can release just ungodly numbers of JDams that would oversaturate any AD on the planet. With that said, those B-2's would still have to get within 70km of the target and that's extremely unlikely against Russian layered AD as the various amount of L-band / VHF type radars like Nebo-M which are made for spotting stealth craft would likely see the bombers coming from much farther out. But still, of courses it poses a much greater potential threat than 2-3 old migs trying to loft 4 crappy JDams at a time.
Excelent analysis but I am not buying the hu rah russian victory. Let s face it. The russian army doesn t perform that well. It just doesn t. 1 year of war and....? Yes we hear the kill ratio of 1 to 8, attrition war and all that but the AFU doesn t look like it will collapse any time soon. That means that they have a lot of soldiers to spare. Plus Ukraine doesn t have to win but just bleed Rusia dry. 7 months and still they haven t take that punny town known as Bahmut? Serious? And even there the progres has been made by Wagner. Whatever we say we have to honest, this war ain t going according to plan, not one bit. Maybe it s the Kremlin s corruption, generals incompetence, whatever, it s still looks bad. Plus the russian leadership doesn t take this war serios let s face it. Ukrainians fight like demented spartans, while the russians fear losing even a truck. That is no receipe for victory. I have no dog în this fight, but I can clearly see that Russia can t win this, no way. After Bahmut....what? How much will it take to conquer Kramatorsk? Then Dnipro? Another year at least, no way they can sustain that level of fightong for so long with 500k troops. Russia is Lucky if it frees the Donbass any time soon. But fier that they are trully stuck. And then negociations, a Minsk 3. Forget about Odessa. And them NATO will move în thebwestern part of Ukraine and there is nothing Russia can do. This is the Crimmea war all over again.
"the AFU doesn t look like it will collapse any time soon"
Theyre conscipting grandfathers and boys who haven't started shaving.
"7 months and still they haven t take that punny town known as Bahmut? Serious? "
What's the hurry? Bakhmut is close to the RU supply lines and as with Lysychansk and Severodonetsk and Soledar, Zelensky has no intention of retreating from cities, throwing away troops. One of two Russian objective is demilitarisation - why hurry when Bakhmut is a meat magnet and Russia has the meatgrinder handle?
"Plus Ukraine doesn t have to win but just bleed Rusia dry. "
Ukraine has no money and it's going through a shell and manpower shortage. Why do you think Russia will bleed dry before Ukraine does?
Let's get one thing straight: you can't say what is or isn't going to plan, we have no idea what the Russian plans are. Going faster woul mean more casualties, and territorial gains mean nothing by themselves, only if you translate that to a strategic advantage. You will otherwise just overstrech your supply routes, widen the front, so you stretch you army thinner, opening yourself up to potential counterattacks. If Russia truly thought they needed to end this thing fast, they would have mobilised much faster, and not just partially. They would have gone full wartime economy before feb. 2022 or at around April, when it became clear Ukraine won'tever negotiate.
Also, in this conflict, there are many other considerations, other than the military aspect, like foreign relations. Remember the UN vote that decried the annexation of the 4 Oblasts? By number of countries, the majority voted in favor, but by percentage of world population, the majority abstained, which basically means they are sympathetic to Russia, or at least neutral. Getting China to not be against separatists declaring independence and joining another country via a referendum, considering they have many separatist regions of their own (Taiwan, wink, wink, nudge, nudge), is pretty remarkable.
Remember, Putin is a lawyer, and he thinks like a lawyer. If he goes in guns blazing, annihilating all power plants, communication hubs, etc., it's a much harder sell. This way (Russia mostly providing only artillery support for the DLPR forces to "liberate themselves". Also, by very incrementaly increasing the military pressure, they can also avoid potential NATO involvment, as NATO can't say: "in response to this major escalation, we have to intervene", because there is no major escalation, it's a slow grind. There are many reasons why the Russians are doing what they are doing. Just because you can't think of any, doesn't mean that there aren't.
I think this kind of thinking comes from many in the West having grown up in the 90s where all they've known is the USA conducting unopposed bombing campaigns for months followed by an obliteration of an enemy surrounded on all sides, logistics cut off and army substantially weakened. They believe in the idea that the US is an irresistible force and have no living memory of the US going up against a near-peer opponent - the last time that happened was the Korean War.
Yep, and also the US only wins shock and awe style warfare against weaker opponents (Lybia, Gulf war, Yugoslavia), every drawn-out conflict the US ever fought since basically after WW2 (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) was a disaster. So probably that's where the notion that long war = losing comes from.
You make the same mistake as most western analysts - that this is a war for territory. Get it through your head that this is a war of attrition - the objective being to annihilate the enemy by all means necessary.
Western military strategy has always historically been geared primarily towards territorial gain, not attrition. If you don't gain territory, you are losing the war, and if you don't gain territory fast enough, your army sucks. Russia has always fought wars of attrition, much to the dismay of potential Western conquerors. They stand and fight, then retreat when their troops are threatened, and then destroy the enemy when they come in to fill the void. There is no need to hurry, especially if the enemy continues to come at you with all its reserves as in the case of Bakhmut - you just let them come and destroy at a distance, thus preserving your own forces - no need to take territory. Territory is taken after the enemy is destroyed.
An afterthought - Bakhmut is no "puny" town. It is an integral part of an extensive line of defense built up over 8 years by NATO and containing heavily fortified positions of reinforced concrete trenches and bunkers, underground passageways, and favourable landscapes. You have to fight for every inch. The same is true for Soledar, Ugledar, Seversk, and several others on that front. Once the enemy is destroyed or removed from there, there is nothing much left between the front and Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. After those two are taken, then nothing remains all the way to the Dneiper.
Attrition you say? So after 7 months of attrition why the battlefield is static? If the ukranians die în huge numbers by doesn t the russian army advance almost anywhere. Avdiika has been "attrited" for 1 year now and......? It still under AFU possesion? Ugledar has been bombed to Kingdom Come, and....? The russians are still stuck. I don t give a shit about western propaganda, but I m not buying russian BS also. I m impartial, but I can see with my two eyes, the RF isin t doing a good job.
Yes, seven months of sending Ukrainian soldiers to die under Russian artillery, air, and missile bombardment. Ukraine (and NATO) are fighting a war for territory. Russia is simply fighting to destroy the Ukrainian army and its NATO weaponry. Under such conditions, why move at all as long the enemy keeps feeding you troops and weaponry to destroy? Again, there is a huge difference between a war of attrition and a war for territory, and until you are able to wrap your head around that it seems futile to discuss.
You are concerned because Russia has seemingly made little territorial gains, so it looks like they are just barely holding the line, not making progress against the Ukrainians. If they were fighting a war for territory, you would be absolutely correct, but they are not, and consequently, they are in no rush to to take territory. Meanwhile, they are pushing Ukraine to the point of total collapse as a fighting unit and causing NATO to use all its available weaponry and ammo in the process. All this with comparatively minimal casualties on the Russian side.
Sorry but your analysis doesn t hold water. If the ukranians had carastrophic cassulaties it would had show on the battlefield. The fact is besides Bahmut the russians still can t progress on other fronts as well. Avdiika is a case în point. The Harkov region another. There the russian tried to break trough made little progress then they were stuck. În Kremanaia they have progresed 10km but then....nothing. So they want to progress, not just attrition war but they can t. The same în Ugledar. They wanted to take the town but they were stopped. Simple as that. Plus an attrition war goes both ways. It s not like the ukranians can t fight back with altelery, Himars way back into the rear. It s not like Wagner isin t taking loads of cassulaties. It s not like the russians don t have a boat load of dead soldiers în Ugledar. You can t win a war with a strategy of attrition. You need manuever warfare to cut the enemy and take them în a caouldrom like the soviets did at Stalingrad with the german sixth army. Think for yourself.
Lon is a troll, please don't feed (engage) the troll.
Please try to follow along: Why should I drive across town to pick up my take-out, wasting time and gas, when the shop will deliver the food nice and hot, directly to my house, for free? Z delivers his Ukie meat directly to Bahkmut, where the Russian War Machine promptly devours it, between 500-1000 per day. And the Russian War Machine finds the Ukie meat DELICIOUS. NOM NOM NOM. Ain't no need to go anywhere, after the Ukie meat is consumed, the Russians will move to another part of town and call for takeout from another shop. Maybe one in Kyivv.
US spent 20 years fighting the Taliban and lost. Time spent on an objective is no indicator of success.
And now reports that Zelenskyy is considering a pullback from Bahkmut. Guess that answers a small part of this debate.
Great analysis, few points:
You were VERY generous with the 90km range of the M26 rocket. The HIMARS has a range of 90km, but like with all rockets, the engines only last the initial few minutes of the travel time. After the engines shut off, the missile has to use that limited energy to hit the target.
This is also why flying high in a plane is not only dangerous because the enemy radars can spot you. The thinner atmosphere means that the drag the AD missiles have to fight is much smaller, therefore they reach the jet before losing much from their peak altitude and velocity. This also means they have a higher hit probability as well, because they have more speed that they can use to maneuver. Up there, you are a "sitting duck", because you have no hope of bleeding the missile of energy, so you pray to God that you can dodge it.
You do great work and I enjoy it.
I've seen enough to become a paying subscriber.
thank you very much, I appreciate it. Good to have you
Nothing is absolute, and nothing has a Pk of 1, despite the advertising on the box. More gradual escalation and testing of weapons and doctrine. F-16s as they are plentiful and cheap enough to throw away, esp. the early generation, now that Mig29 and Su27 are getting scarce. I'm not a knuck, but I suspect that zoom climbing a B16 to 30kft with multiple JDAM under the wings will not be a dynamic manoeuvre....nor will they hang around up there to re-accelerate, it will be a toss launch. Patience. Slowly slowly catchee monkey?
Sounds like a rerun of the V1/V2 solution at the end of the war.
That was my thought exactly: this "new" US weapon looks like a slightly modified V1 buzz bomb of World War 2. Talk about regression...
Correction; S400 missles fly at speeds of up to Mach 13-14, not Mach 3.
I think you're mistaking the 'maximum target velocity' column for the S400 velocity. The S400's have different variants of missiles that can go from Mach 3-6 give or take. But they can hit targets/objects which are going upwards of Mach 14
Correction; S400 missles fly at speeds of up to Mach 13-14, not Mach 3.