When does Putin announce the next mobilization?
That could be the last straw that actually gets the people to revolt. Probably not though.
I think there are some misconceptions out there about Russian mobilization.
Russia has regular mobilization (twice per year I think) during peacetime. These mobilizations we hear about these days are partly just routine, but obviously partly to reinforce the ranks in combat right now.
Likely don't see mass revolt because the mobilizations are commonplace there.
I'll just comment on one thing; The sentence "this could be the final push that wins the war" (describing Ukraine's presumably upcoming assault.)
That's within the realistic realms of possibility, sure. We don't know what the reality of the Russian forces in Ukraine looks like overall. It's really hard to know what the morale is like, how serious and widespread the equipment shortages are etc.
But given that they are still a very large army on the defense with plenty of time to prepare for what's coming, they'll have to suffer a complete, history making collapse of morale and/or organization to actually lose all of the ground even this year, and even if Ukraine wins all the ground that doesn't in itself end the war. The war ends when someone in Russia takes out Putin.
There's really no historical precedent for a war like this.
I think at some point the public will tire of a war if you aren't winning anything. That has happened to the US when they get into these forever wars - every starts out gung ho but eventually people start asking why are we getting our people killed if we aren't actually accomplishing anything.
Now I don't know how that goes in Russia with their 'media' but that is at least how it played out with the US in the middle east. And they actually accomplished a decent chunk of their goals before getting stuck, while Russia got stuck about 3 weeks after they started.
I think there are some misconceptions out there about Russian mobilization.
Russia has regular mobilization (twice per year I think) during peacetime. These mobilizations we hear about these days are partly just routine, but obviously partly to reinforce the ranks in combat right now.
Likely don't see mass revolt because the mobilizations are commonplace there.
Yeah, much of the western media have trouble understanding how conscription armies work, and constantly confuse normal conscription service cycles with mobilizations in their news.
...I guess I'll explain this if isn't obvious to everyone on the forum; The significant difference is that the conscription cycles don't (under normal circumstances) increase the number of troops, as a roughly equal number of troops will finish their conscription service and become reservists when the new conscripts arrive to take their place.
The law which bans using conscripts outside of Russia is also still in place, and to some extent they are still applying this rule to the annexed Ukrainian lands (meaning: not even the Russian government really thinks they're part of Russia), but in true Russian style it's not consistent. They can use conscription units to take the place of other units within Russia, that can then be moved to Ukraine.
New draft cycles coming in is usually not called mobilization, that word usually refers to calling reservists that have already finished their service back into service, meaning the total number of active troops is increased and new units are created/activated. (I'm skipping details here which are irrelevant.)
Since Russia is already short on armored vehicles and equipment to give to their existing units, I don't see a proper large scale mobilization in the horizon. The so called "partial" mobilization very likely already called up as many men and units as their logistics can handle, and most likely the size of the current army in Ukraine is the maximum of what Russia can field at this point. Further mobilizations are most likely local and piecemeal processes, which is why there probably won't be new major announcements on the topic.
Another reason why there probably won't be new "mobilizations" is that Russia can increase the number of men drafted into service quite a lot by just fiddling with the conscription system.
In normal circumstances as much as one third of men avoid the draft one way or the other, so they can add something like 50,000 men just by cutting down on that, and if they start retroactively applying new standards, they can probably draft at least 100,000 young men by chasing down older draft avoiders. Russia is also reportedly planning some other stuff that will allow them to increase the number of troops just by fiddling with the conscription system.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The US will dramatically accelerate the time it takes to ship Abrams tanks to Ukraine by sending older M1-A1 models of America’s main battle tank instead of the more modern version of the tank, according to two US officials.
The switch will allow the tanks to arrive as early as fall of this year, one of the officials said, shaving months off the previous timeline that could have taken a year or longer.
Good news I guess but I really don't understand why it takes 6 months to ship preexisting tanks. If the US was in the war and needed the tanks they would be there in days. We're talking about 31 tanks here, surely they can be loaded on a boat?
Patriot missile defense systems are set to be deployed to Ukraine faster than originally planned and a group of 65 Ukrainian soldiers will complete their training on the systems at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in the coming days, US defense officials said on Tuesday.
The troops will then move on to Europe for additional training on the two Patriot systems – one American and one built by the Germans and Dutch – that will be deployed to Ukraine in the coming weeks, the officials told reporters at Fort Sill.
US trainers at Fort Sill, where the 65 Ukrainians have been training since January 15, were able to significantly speed up the timeline of the course because of the Ukrainians’ baseline knowledge of air defense systems, the officials said.
Good news I guess but I really don't understand why it takes 6 months to ship preexisting tanks. If the US was in the war and needed the tanks they would be there in days. We're talking about 31 tanks here, surely they can be loaded on a boat?
Reading in between the lines from the article, the US doesn't want to strip existing units of their modern tanks and there are not that many other A2s in combat ready status that can be shipped. It says the ones available need a rebuild and upgraded from the A1-A2 standard... they are basically just skipping the upgrades to get them there sooner.
So these tanks have probably been sitting in a storage depot for years since the last A1s were retired in 2019/2020. Getting that many running again probably isn't a short job. If a car's been sitting in storage for 4 years, I imagine it's going to need new hoses, oil, engine need flush, etc before it's ready to go. Tanks are a whole other level of complicated. It's partly the reason the airline industry can't keep up with demand, all those planes have been grounded for 3 years need a ton of refurb time.
Last edited by FlameOn; 03-21-2023 at 10:48 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
So these tanks have probably been sitting in a storage depot for years since the last A1s were retired in 2019/2020. Getting that many running again probably isn't a short job. If a car's been sitting in storage for 4 years, I imagine it's going to need new hoses, oil, engine need flush, etc before it's ready to go. Tanks are a whole other level of complicated. It's partly the reason the airline industry can't keep up with demand, all those planes have been grounded for 3 years need a ton of refurb time.
The military should be good at mothballing equipment to make it relatively easy to get running and useable again.
The point of "War Stocks" is a quick injection of equipment into a conflict.
But there will be work that is needed to get these things running.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Good news I guess but I really don't understand why it takes 6 months to ship preexisting tanks. If the US was in the war and needed the tanks they would be there in days. We're talking about 31 tanks here, surely they can be loaded on a boat?
The US often downgrades the equipment that they sell or export, so it's probably related to that. In the case of Abrams, they're likely removing the depleted uranium armor and replacing it with tungsten, which takes time.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Good news I guess but I really don't understand why it takes 6 months to ship preexisting tanks. If the US was in the war and needed the tanks they would be there in days. We're talking about 31 tanks here, surely they can be loaded on a boat?
The mentioned refurbishing is one thing, but the publicly announced dates also aren't necessarily accurate. European countries have been BS:ing quite a lot when it comes to the details of what exactly is being sent to Ukraine and when, for various reasons but in part because it adds a bit of extra difficulty to Russian planning.
Ya, I really can't see it taking 6 months to get tanks ready even if they are in storage. Hopefully it's just an "exceed expectations" thing and they get there much sooner. I imagine the US is already well underway with the work prior to the announcement.
The US often downgrades the equipment that they sell or export, so it's probably related to that. In the case of Abrams, they're likely removing the depleted uranium armor and replacing it with tungsten, which takes time.
You are speaking greek right now.
Abrams tanks have armor made of uranium??? Why? Why remove it???
Abrams tanks have armor made of uranium??? Why? Why remove it???
I've never heard of this.
Depleted Uranium (i.e. no longer radioactive) is used by US armor penetrators and armor for the US's most advanced tanks. The sheer density of the element (68% more dense than lead) makes it pretty much impenetrable by most standards, more so once layered with other materials/composites. Like a lot of the really good US stuff that remains highly classified i.e. the F-22, there are laws/export controls to prevent it from falling into enemy hands or being sold to other nations. The Americans don't want the exact composition to be known so others (Russians/Chinese) can figure out how to design penetrators that can defeat it. It's why all export versions of the Abrams have it removed.
Last edited by FlameOn; 03-21-2023 at 12:35 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
The military should be good at mothballing equipment to make it relatively easy to get running and useable again.
The point of "War Stocks" is a quick injection of equipment into a conflict.
But there will be work that is needed to get these things running.
Poland bought up all of the ready Abrams stock to replace their tank donations to Ukraine earlier in the war and there weren't enough Abrams to satisfy Poland's needs, so the Poles had to buy the K2 MBTs from the South Koreans. The US is not going to dig too deep into their own War Stocks that would be needed for NATO defense if the war spreads anyways.
Last edited by FlameOn; 03-21-2023 at 12:51 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
