Tank-on-tank battles are rare in the Ukr/Rus conflict. The LNR and DNR forces use their tanks in direct fire support roles to the infantry and they use them to clobber AFU bunkers and other strong points. With this in mind, there isn't much to gain (and a lot to risk) by throwing your top tanks at this role when the lesser models are equally as capable of doing the job.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
I suspect there will be some kind of escalation on August 24th targeting Ukrainian Independence celebrations. Apparently there are a lot of missiles being massed in Belarus, likely for strikes on Kyiv. There is also rumor of 10-15k Belarussian soldiers willing to invade from the North.
That's been talked about since the start of the war, it seems very unlikely that it will ever actually happen. Perun made a video about that topic.
Belarus can do almost as much by threatening to attack than by actually attacking, but with much less risk to themselves.
So they'll likely keep threatening and never do anything.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Tank-on-tank battles are rare in the Ukr/Rus conflict. The LNR and DNR forces use their tanks in direct fire support roles to the infantry and they use them to clobber AFU bunkers and other strong points. With this in mind, there isn't much to gain (and a lot to risk) by throwing your top tanks at this role when the lesser models are equally as capable of doing the job.
I wonder what the gap is here:
Either Rob missed something
Rob is showing a bias
You’re missing something
I am not connecting/understanding your response to Rob’s comments properly
Rob seems respected by verified retired generals on Twitter (including one who was a “tanker” that came up the ranks working in tanks) so I assume he knows his stuff
I wonder what the gap is here:
(1) Either Rob missed something
(2) Rob is showing a bias
(3) You’re missing something
I am not connecting/understanding your response to Rob’s comments properly
Rob seems respected by verified retired generals on Twitter (including one who was a “tanker” that came up the ranks working in tanks) so I assume he knows his stuff
My interpretation of Lee's tweet is that he believes that Russia's more advanced MBTs are better-served in Ukraine than playing in silly competitions. My response is that the modern MBTs aren't necessary given the roles assigned to the tanks. As Lee probably knows, the AFU's tank situation right now is not that great. Therefore, if the threat of the enemy's tanks isn't that great, then there isn't much of a point deploying your top-line tanks when they aren't needed.
That being said, the optics are shyte when your troops are bleeding on the battlefield while you are holding military competitions with foreign troops. In that regard, I have some common ground with Lee.
After all of that, what's your interpretation of his tweet?
I have close to 30 years in the Army; I have seen tanks in action in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Tanks were used to support the infantry in the direct fire role. They were clobbering buildings and mud huts, not engaging with other tanks. The Syrians learned the hard way on how to employ their tanks and there, too, they now support the infantry, especially in built-up areas. The T-55 is just as effective as a T-72 or T-80 in walloping fortified positions. Not much has changed in Ukraine. Why use a T-80 or T-90 if a T-64 does the job, especially if it's a captured Ukrainian T-64?
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
My interpretation of Lee's tweet is that he believes that Russia's more advanced MBTs are better-served in Ukraine than playing in silly competitions. My response is that the modern MBTs aren't necessary given the roles assigned to the tanks. As Lee probably knows, the AFU's tank situation right now is not that great. Therefore, if the threat of the enemy's tanks isn't that great, then there isn't much of a point deploying your top-line tanks when they aren't needed.
That being said, the optics are shyte when your troops are bleeding on the battlefield while you are holding military competitions with foreign troops. In that regard, I have some common ground with Lee.
After all of that, what's your interpretation of his tweet?
I have close to 30 years in the Army; I have seen tanks in action in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Tanks were used to support the infantry in the direct fire role. They were clobbering buildings and mud huts, not engaging with other tanks. The Syrians learned the hard way on how to employ their tanks and there, too, they now support the infantry, especially in built-up areas. The T-55 is just as effective as a T-72 or T-80 in walloping fortified positions. Not much has changed in Ukraine. Why use a T-80 or T-90 if a T-64 does the job, especially if it's a captured Ukrainian T-64?
Sorry wasn’t trying to challenge your expertise even though I can see it look like that.
I assumed the mistake was me- option 4 you quoted even if the 4 didn’t appear
Anyway thanks for the comments and detailed explaining.
Panic in Crimea seems legit although degree of panic varies depending on source. Russian media admits that explosions were a Ukrainian doings but claim it was a saboteur team rather than a missile strike. Russians have apparently fixed the railways but still don't run trains as they are afraid of new strikes. Crimea leader says there is danger of new explosions. I have just walked by a coworker who was on the phone with someone who was clearly panicking and coworker told her to take a taxi to Simferopol (Crimea capital). Russian media report a lot of speculation about possible attack on Crimean bridge.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
Panic in Crimea seems legit although degree of panic varies depending on source. Russian media admits that explosions were a Ukrainian doings but claim it was a saboteur team rather than a missile strike. Russians have apparently fixed the railways but still don't run trains as they are afraid of new strikes. Crimea leader says there is danger of new explosions. I have just walked by a coworker who was on the phone with someone who was clearly panicking and coworker told her to take a taxi to Simferopol (Crimea capital). Russian media report a lot of speculation about possible attack on Crimean bridge.
Ukraine also said it was a team not a missile strike, and the US said they didn’t think their missiles were capable of hitting the targets.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mull For This Useful Post:
Panic in Crimea seems legit although degree of panic varies depending on source. Russian media admits that explosions were a Ukrainian doings but claim it was a saboteur team rather than a missile strike. Russians have apparently fixed the railways but still don't run trains as they are afraid of new strikes. Crimea leader says there is danger of new explosions. I have just walked by a coworker who was on the phone with someone who was clearly panicking and coworker told her to take a taxi to Simferopol (Crimea capital). Russian media report a lot of speculation about possible attack on Crimean bridge.
I wonder if they will hit the bridge after the traffic clears. Twitter is full of speculation of how it may back fire for Ukraine at this time. Russia is worried as they have two radar decoy boats in the water (I am sure I got that terminology wrong).
Apparently there is a rail bridge too or something? I couldn’t find it on google maps. Given Russia’s love and need of transportation of equipment via rail .. if I was fleeing that area I would assume the rail line will get hit first and take the main bridge.
Is there a rail bridge? I can’t find it
Edit Ha ha it’s right beside it. I don’t know what I was looking at to miss it on google maps last night
I wonder if they will hit the bridge after the traffic clears. Twitter is full of speculation of how it may back fire for Ukraine at this time. Russia is worried as they have two radar decoy boats in the water (I am sure I got that terminology wrong).
Apparently there is a rail bridge too or something? I couldn’t find it on google maps. Given Russia’s love and need of transportation of equipment via rail .. if I was fleeing that area I would assume the rail line will get hit first and take the main bridge.
Is there a rail bridge? I can’t find it
Edit Ha ha it’s right beside it. I don’t know what I was looking at to miss it on google maps last night
It's a rail bridge and highway bridge side by side, when Russians say "Crimea bridge", they usually mean both, we treat them as one.
The main concern with possible attack on the bridge is that it would put enormous pressure on Putin to respond and there's a high risk Putin would do something stupid and dangerous in retaliation. Also, as far as I understand the bridge isn't really that important from military standpoint.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
It's a rail bridge and highway bridge side by side, when Russians say "Crimea bridge", they usually mean both, we treat them as one.
The main concern with possible attack on the bridge is that it would put enormous pressure on Putin to respond and there's a high risk Putin would do something stupid and dangerous in retaliation. Also, as far as I understand the bridge isn't really that important from military standpoint.
That's a good point. But also, he's already doing stupid and dangerous stuff so it's not like having the bridge intact is holding him back IMO. I just think that from a UA standpoint, they want at least a route to get everyone out before considering taking it down. So overall I do think the bridge is being discussed as a target, likely with US/NATO intelligence guiding Ukraine with the most effective strategy and timeline.
Unlike Russia, Ukraine isn't going to start shooting civilians in the back as they leave so the more people leave voluntarily, the "harder" Ukraine can push militarily at taking it back without backlash of any civilian casualties, no matter how justified it is at this point.
I do think that if/when Crimea is taken back, that bridge is as good as gone. Probably dismantled or an organized explosion, instead of missiles striking it.
It's definitely interesting to follow. Russia really seems to be on edge about it, as you have mentioned. Thanks for the insight. Interesting to see the thoughts from the Russian perspective.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
That's a good point. But also, he's already doing stupid and dangerous stuff so it's not like having the bridge intact is holding him back IMO. I just think that from a UA standpoint, they want at least a route to get everyone out before considering taking it down. So overall I do think the bridge is being discussed as a target, likely with US/NATO intelligence guiding Ukraine with the most effective strategy and timeline.
Unlike Russia, Ukraine isn't going to start shooting civilians in the back as they leave so the more people leave voluntarily, the "harder" Ukraine can push militarily at taking it back without backlash of any civilian casualties, no matter how justified it is at this point.
I do think that if/when Crimea is taken back, that bridge is as good as gone. Probably dismantled or an organized explosion, instead of missiles striking it.
It's definitely interesting to follow. Russia really seems to be on edge about it, as you have mentioned. Thanks for the insight. Interesting to see the thoughts from the Russian perspective.
Aligns with your comment -when you surround your enemies, leave an opening- Sun Tzu
First of all, Sun Tzu never said that. There's no mention of "golden bridge" in Sun Tzu's original work in Chinese. It might be a clever translation but I suspect it's probably a wrong attribution, some smartass guy made up this and attribute to Sun Tzu to get more publicity. It's also been attribute to Scipio Africanus.
Regarding letting your enemy retreat from the battle, Sun Tzu did mentioned it in Chapter VII: 兵争篇(Maneuvering). At the very end of the chapter, Sun Tzu noted:
Thus is the way of maneuvering your army: do not fight against enemies who took higher ground, do not face enemies while they're charging down hill, do not pursue enemies when they fake defeat, do not go head to head with enemies elite troops, do not take bait from the enemies, do not continue attack enemies that fall back to their own country; when you surround your enemies, leave an opening; do not push too hard on the enemies who are desperate. That's the basic principle of maneuvering your army.
The part about "leave an opening to your enemies when surrounded them" might be interpreted as "build an golden bridge for your opponent to retreat". Put into context, it's most likely Sun Tzu wants to avoid the next thing he mentioned "don't push too hard on desperate enemies". If enemies is being surrounded and discovered there's an opening, they'll most likely take the opening and escape. This creates 2 possible scenarios: 1) being surrounded, your enemies might not stick around and fight you to the death if they know there's a way to escape, which gives you an easy victory without suffering too much lost on your side; 2) you can set up further ambush to attack the escaping enemies who are busy escaping.
If you want to read Sun Tzu, read the original Chinese. If you can't, find a better more credible source than read it from internet. Oh, and Sun Tzu was a military strategist, he's not a poet. As a result, his work "the art of war" 孙子兵法 uses plain simple concise words to describe the situation and his ideas. When he do use analogies, he use them to describe the action (move your army swiftly like wind or set up defense like mountain... etc). If something sounds too poetic with clever analogies, it's most likely not by Sun Tzu.
I hope Ukraine takes Crimea back I really do, but I wonder if the best we can hope for is the status quo and Ukraine closing the canal starving water off that land. Even that seems impossible, I don't get how they are going to cross the river- They blew the bridges to prevent heavy equipment coming across. They now would have to build back up under fire.
Probably looking for a stalemate in the south, reinforced by the River, so they can put pressure on the east?
Last edited by Mull; 08-17-2022 at 10:16 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mull For This Useful Post:
Fantastic article by WaPo about the months, weeks and days leading up to the invasion and just how deep US intelligence runs within the Kremlin itself. The amount of moles and spies US intelligence has imbedded in the Russian government is staggering.
Nobody can ever argue that it's not fair to never trust the Russians ever again. Off ramp after off ramp were given, and none taken. Negotiations from months ago were NEVER done in good faith. A system of lies that never stops. They were ####-bags from the start and it continues to this day.
The day the Russian army and (hopefully) administration is dismantled and disabled will be a glorious day for the world as a whole.
Article is behind a paywall, but was posted to Reddit. Well worth the read.
Part 1 of a Russian VDV Paratrooper's experience in Ukraine. This part is the first portion of apparently a 141 page first hand account being translated. This thread is his experience before the war.
The invading Russians prove once again what vile wretched creatures they are by attacking a dormitory in Kharkiv housed by deaf people who couldn't hear the sirens to evacuate.
Quote:
Natalya Popova, an adviser to regional officials, said that deaf individuals, who could not hear the air raid sirens or respond to rescuers, were living in the dormitory.
What is going on in Kharkiv City isn't getting enough attention like the Donbas and southern regions are. That city never stopped getting shelled. There are multiple Russian terrorist attacks every single day there.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
This stuff is not unfortunately rare in wartimes, wouldn't surprise me if it was legit.
And yes it's stupid. Even if you're not starving, taking supplies from the enemy does no harm, and people during wartime should be stockpiling every chance they get, because you never know how things will be tomorrow.
We can only hope it will be mostly interpreted with at least some reason. But it's war Wars make people angry, and bitter, and unreasonable.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Wars make people angry, and bitter, and unreasonable.
