Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
dnivas
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 05:54

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by dnivas »

why does Russia need to maintain CAP all over Ukraine when Ukr sends maybe 2 - 3 planes up each day for maybe an hour of total flight time. So Russia needs to spends hundreds of engine hours a day just to block an imaginary attack maybe twice a day.

anytime Ukr sends up a plane, within the next 24 hour that plane is shot down.

It's this weird western obsession that seems to have encompassed our people that Russia needs to wipe out the skies over Ukr of any and all planes. from their perspective so far Ukr air force has not been very effective, so what's the point of spending all the jet fuel and engine time of fighter plans and bombers. Russia is practical about force efficiency and so far, Ukr air force has not put any serious dent in any Russian plans. There is also a matter of conserving Russian AF for the real enemy if that conflict starts.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by John »

dnivas wrote:why does Russia need to maintain CAP all over Ukraine when Ukr sends maybe 2 - 3 planes up each day for maybe an hour of total flight time. So Russia needs to spends hundreds of engine hours a day just to block an imaginary attack maybe twice a day.

anytime Ukr sends up a plane, within the next 24 hour that plane is shot down.

It's this weird western obsession that seems to have encompassed our people that Russia needs to wipe out the skies over Ukr of any and all planes. from their perspective so far Ukr air force has not been very effective, so what's the point of spending all the jet fuel and engine time of fighter plans and bombers. Russia is practical about force efficiency and so far, Ukr air force has not put any serious dent in any Russian plans. There is also a matter of conserving Russian AF for the real enemy if that conflict starts.
Well those planes aren’t necessarily shot down as those planes are typically flying low and lobing rockets, air defenses cannot really shoot them down that’s why we haven’t seen many shoot down for past few weeks from either side. As a result amount of sorties by UkrAF in daylight has gone up quite considerably since May, indicating older ACs/helos are starting to return to service (likely thanks to supply of old parts from west) and more comfortable flying them with little risk of RusAF interdicting them due to lack of patrols.

Mi-8s seen today
https://twitter.com/tpyxanews/status/15 ... ZibmV-kbZQ

Anyway Patrols are needed not for just shoot down enemy AC but rather preventing troop movement, long range attacks and supplies from west. Russia is forced to use to stand off missiles for that which is not really that effective. To expand for example without active patrols and support from RusAF there is not much you can do against Tochka and HIMARS attacks happening from well behind enemy lines (US AF actively hunted down Scud batteries in GW). Similarly without air support Russia was unable to protect its forces in Snake island as Ukraine was able to move SPG via landing ship in marshes and pound the area.

I know we want to justify everything Russia has done as brilliant maneuvers as Putin knows best but let’s be rational and see where deficiencies or mistakes that have been made.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2510
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Deans »

It is doubtful if a NATO air force would have performed better. They have not fought a war against any country with a real air force, or a good SAM network. Ukraine pre war, had upto 250 S-300 long range launchers, upto 72 BUK-M1, 9K33 (Osa) & new 6 * 9K330 (Tor) (medium range) mobile systems and they have refurbished obsolete SA-3 missiles.
Working in conjunction with NATO AWACS, which enable their own radar to be switched off until the last minute, this is a very formidable air defense network. All the above systems in the inventory of NATO have also been sent to Ukraine.

Russian AF is not needed for air superiority / interception missions (but have to fly CAP over their bases) so most missions are ground attack, which is also being done by the artillery.

Russian AF has been maintaining around 250 sorties a day, with around 250 aircraft available on any given day. Over 140 days, that's fairly impressive, as is the known loss rate (35 fighters as per Oryx). The Ukraine MOD which says `200 Russian aircraft lost' includes drones and helicopters in that figure (which would be 150 of the 200).
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by John »

Deans wrote:It is doubtful if a NATO air force would have performed better. They have not fought a war against any country with a real air force, or a good SAM network. Ukraine pre war, had upto 250 S-300 long range launchers, upto 72 BUK-M1, 9K33 (Osa) & new 6 * 9K330 (Tor) (medium range) mobile systems and they have refurbished obsolete SA-3 missiles.
Working in conjunction with NATO AWACS, which enable their own radar to be switched off until the last minute, this is a very formidable air defense network. All the above systems in the inventory of NATO have also been sent to Ukraine.

Russian AF is not needed for air superiority / interception missions (but have to fly CAP over their bases) so most missions are ground attack, which is also being done by the artillery.

Russian AF has been maintaining around 250 sorties a day, with around 250 aircraft available on any given day. Over 140 days, that's fairly impressive, as is the known loss rate (35 fighters as per Oryx). The Ukraine MOD which says `200 Russian aircraft lost' includes drones and helicopters in that figure (which would be 150 of the 200).
I don’t want to turn this into NATO or US vs Rus thread by former would have performed far better (I know if Brar was here he would have done a great analysis). For example Ukr Air defense where no where close to Orbat (I did a breakdown of s-300s few pages back I need to go back and get the exact counts from it) for example only half of S-300 listed (around 100 or so) where still operational and good chunk where captured/destroyed in 2014.

Unfortunately out of those S-300 operational most where undergoing an upgrade at start of 2022 (I have heard reports of as many 10 batteries where being upgraded) and we saw one of upgrade installations hit at the start of war (not sure the rational of having an upgrade facility in the east) which took out 1-2 battery. Russian had prioritized SEAD they could have taken those out but now those systems are starting to return to service and we see increasing # of cruise missiles getting shot down as a result. That said S-300 are not invincible IDF has no problem bombing Syria inspite of S-300 (which are newer variant compared to Cold War relics Ukraine has). Similarly Azerbaijan had no problem using HARPY drones to take out Armenian S-300s. So I doubt NATO would have had any problem dealing with S-300.

IMO Iraqi air defense during GW (which coalition had no problem disabling) without even factoring in Iraqi AF (which had more Mig-29s than total # of operational jets Ukr had) was far more capable compared to what Ukraine had at the start of war due to broad range of SAMs and complex radar network Iraqis posessed including large # of AAAs (Ukraine posses no where close to that). That said Ukraine Air defense has beefed up as S-300 start returning to service and newer equipment including MANPADs and NASAM from west starts getting integrated.

What this shows more of problems perhaps with Russian EW and ECM equipment. For example we utilize jamming pod from DARE for the MKI rather than Russian jamming pods. Probably a discussion for a another day.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by ldev »

I think the Russians did attempt a SEAD campaign but were not successful. After the SU-35 was shot down in May I haven't come across many photographs/videos of SU-35s in action. Prior to that Russian MOD used to show SU-35s taking off for missions over Ukraine. The SU-35 that was shot down had Khibiny L-265M10P/R ECM wingtip pods and remains of a KH-31P anti radiation air to ground missile was found in the wreckage, indicating that plane was on a SEAD mission. In the fog of war nobody knows what Ukraine missile downed it or how high it was flying. Russian defenders claim that the plane was flying low and was brought down by IR manpads thereby implying that the ECM pods work as advertised. But clearly that downing had an effect as Russia will not want to jeopardize any further reputational impact on it's tactics and equipment by risking another SU-35 shoot down and at least I haven't come across any further SEAD mission photos. Supposedly, most of the Ukranian S-300s that have been destroyed were destroyed by Russian artillery.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by NRao »

YashG wrote:
NRao wrote:And, he is right:
https://twitter.com/PutinDirect/status/ ... 8365956098
Embedded video worth watching:
Sorry i cant understand this. If they were to seriously start something - what more would it have that we dont see yet.

One could be overt mobilization & More troops.
What else?
Very good question.

Let me ask you: Do you **really** think Putin (or Modi/Biden/Macron) have the time to be concerned at the most granular level of "mobilization" or "More troops"? (Or for that matter S-400, drones, etc?)




Putin was talking directly to Biden/Johnson/Macron/Scholz/Draghi

And, IMO. what he was saying was: you lost on the local battlefield, and if you want to go global, be my guest. Which is what I was agreeing to.

How does one figure out who - at the level of Putin/Biden - won/lost/whatever?

Look at their stated objectives at the start of the conflict:

Russia:
* Capture Luhansk
* Capture Donetsk
* De-militarize Ukraine
* De-Nazify Ukraine

(Cannot recall if the land bridge to Crimea was another). However, the first three are close to being accomplished and the 4th is unachievable the way the Russians envisioned it, but have made some headway. So, all told, close to, if not all goals achieved.

West:
* Decapitate Russian economy (Biden: Rubles to rubble)
* Weaken Russian militarily (Austin: weaken Russia)

The mechanism to achieve the first - sanctions - have clearly failed. No two ways about that. The second is debatable.

Unable to achieve its objectives locally (militarily in Ukraine and economically in Russia) the West has expanded their "battlefield" to the global stage - their objectives (the above Biden/Austin construct) are still the same, those have not changed.

What has changed is the mechanism to achieve the West's stated objectives: by capping global oil prices the West intends to expand "sanctions" (Biden's objective) and by NATO declaring China as a threat and expanding NATO's military sphere to the Pacific (Austin's objective).





On the granular aspects of "War", I do not think one should compare the way the West wages war to that of the Russian ways. Two different beasts. The Russians - as far as I can see - are a LOT more math dependable than anyone else. A lot to unpack there, but that should suffice for now.

Having said that I do not think the Russians have shown more than about 15-20% of their hand, especially on the electronics front.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by ldev »

NRao wrote:
Having said that I do not think the Russians have shown more than about 15-20% of their hand, especially on the electronics front.
Can you think of any specific piece of EW equipment that the Russians are holding back? As far as I can see Russia has already deployed it's most potent ground based EW system, the Krashuka 4. In the early phase of the war, they did not have much success with it as the front lines were spread out all over from Kiev in the north to Kherson in the south. But with the concentration of the fighting in the Donbass, Russia is using the Krashuka 4 to good effect. I believe that they have effectively neutralized the TB2 Turkish drones, maybe by jamming their comm links. So Ukraine is now very keen on being supplied with loitering munitions, specifically the Israeli IAI Harop anti radiation drones, or equivalent, which will home on Russian EW equipment emissions. But as far as I know, Israel is not willing so far at least to supply these for various reasons.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Cyrano »

NRao saar,
A 100 times more insightful and crisp analysis than all MSM and TV experts combined. Namo vah!
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Cyrano »

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by ldev »

US to send more HIMARS precision rockets to Ukraine
The four additional M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, will bring the total number sent to Ukraine to a dozen, a senior defense official told reporters in a briefing Friday. The official said the first eight HIMARS were particularly useful for Ukraine, as the fight in the Donbas has largely evolved into an artillery duel. The official refuted Russian reports that two of the delivered HIMARS were destroyed, and said all eight are accounted for and still in use by Ukraine.
The shipment will also include 1,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition, which the defense official described as a precision-guided type that would allow the Ukrainian military to better hit specific targets, which would save ammunition. The official would not confirm whether these shells will be the guided Excalibur artillery rounds, but said they have not been part of previous security assistance packages to Ukraine.
The official said the weeks long process to train Ukrainian troops on how to use the high-end HIMARS platform has been a limiting factor, and is why they were delivered in batches of four at a time. The official said efforts to train more Ukrainians on HIMARS will continue, but would not say how many have so far been trained.
If the Russians think they can outlast the Ukrainians, they need to rethink that,” the official said. “We are already pivoting towards thinking about what the Ukrainians will need in the months and years ahead.
So neither side is willing to back down. This will go on for a long time.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by YashG »

supplying ukraine for years is a lol. Ukraine will run out of troops much before; Or artillery rounds; Not sure how well nato rounds can be fired by Ukrainian russian artillery.

Sending 4 more himars are signs of growing desperation on US side.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by YashG »

Deans wrote:It is do…….250 S-300 long range launchers, upto 72 BUK-M1, 9K33 (Osa) & new 6 * 9K330 (Tor) (medium range) mobile systems and they have refurbished obsolete SA-3 missiles.
Working in conjunction with NATO AWACS, which enable their own radar to be switched off until the last minute, this is a very formidable air defense network. All the above systems in the inventory of NATO have also been sent to Ukraine.

Russian AF has been maintaining around 250 sorties a day, with around 250 aircraft available on any given day. Over 140 days, that's fairly impressive, as is the known loss rate (35 fighters as per Oryx). The Ukraine MOD which says `200 Russian aircraft lost' includes drones and helicopters in that figure (which would be 150 of the 200).
As some areas get progressively cleaned up of thr air def radars and anti air systems; those frontlines will become prone to air bombardments with dumb bombs. It is impossible to maintain air cover indefinitely without active air interception.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by ldev »

YashG wrote: Sending 4 more himars are signs of growing desperation on US side.
The US Army has an inventory of ~350 Himars and ~350 M270s (12 MLRS tubes for M270 vs 6 for Himars) and they plan on inducting another ~150 Himars by 2026. So I don't see any constraint in the US alone supplying 40-50 Himars from their stock, not counting supplies from other NATO countries. The bottleneck is the pace at which Ukranians are being trained to operate these systems. If you read that piece it is apparent that the US is monitoring Ukranian requirements in the months and years ahead as Ukraine will necessarily have to transform to Western equipment as their ex Soviet legacy equipment is destroyed/gets worn out/runs out of Russian calibre ammunition.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Cyrano »

More and more people with military experience are calling out the futility of US strategy

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/07/the ... r-ukraine/

- Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times.
Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Hari Nair »

Cyrano wrote:
A few quick points:
• The end of his presentation is very poignant - he acknowledges the loss of his erstwhile Ukrainian subordinate in a recent battle. That is a very hard moment for any commander.
• The Western military equipment - well most of it, does not seem to have any major effect on the Russian campaign in the past month or so.
• In terms of resource and land value from agriculture and minerals, Russians already control about 80% of the net worth of Ukraine.
• It’s not going to end well for Ukraine- the West is already in a leadership crisis: BoJo is gone, the UK Govt's appetite to try and influence events is on a back-burner, Ole' Joe is rambling on more than ever (even reading off his teleprompter line to repeat his last line...) and having gulped down the US $ 60 Billion (or whatever percentage) of that "package", the US MIC appears to have gone into a bit of a silent mode. Not to mention the soaring inflation, gas prices and fast approaching mid-term elections to the Senate / Congress (?)
• I also say this, given some reports that a NATO advisory or command center of sorts near or in Lviv is supposed to be directing the tactical effort, apparently against the tactical opinions / outlook of some senior Ukrainian generals. The Ukrainian tactics (forced?) so far, appear to be short-sighted and just prolonging the attrition, without aiming for a decisive stand-off.
ldev wrote:I think the Russians did attempt a SEAD campaign but were not successful. ... that downing had an effect as Russia will not want to jeopardize any further reputational impact on it's tactics and equipment by risking another SU-35 shoot down and at least I haven't come across any further SEAD mission photos. Supposedly, most of the Ukranian S-300s that have been destroyed were destroyed by Russian artillery.
I agree - the Russians very surprisingly appear to have been singularly unsuccessful in their SEAD effort. The reasons for same will undoubtedly come out in the near future.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14333
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Aditya_V »

Nato has supplied all kinds of SAM.s is Giving 24 hours AWAACS, F-35's from POland and Black Sea, plus Satellite Coverage. Iraq and Serbia did not have any of this. So I think it will take time for the Russians.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Cyrano »

I agree - the Russians very surprisingly appear to have been singularly unsuccessful in their SEAD effort. The reasons for same will undoubtedly come out in the near future.
Is there a possibility that this is deliberate? If they show how to SEAD of Ukraine that uses Russian systems, tactics and doctrine aren't they instructing the west on how to do the same to Russia itself if this conflict escalates?

If S300s etc can be located and taken out and the west develops tactics for it by watching Russia, what will that do for potential sales for Russian equipment?

Lastly, as others have pointed out Russia has probably concluded the cost benefit to justify full blown SEAD is simply not there given that their doctrine doesn't call for full AS/AD to prosecute this war as they intend to.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Pratyush »

Cyrano wrote:
I agree - the Russians very surprisingly appear to have been singularly unsuccessful in their SEAD effort. The reasons for same will undoubtedly come out in the near future.
Is there a possibility that this is deliberate? If they show how to SEAD of Ukraine that uses Russian systems, tactics and doctrine aren't they instructing the west on how to do the same to Russia itself if this conflict escalates?

If S300s etc can be located and taken out and the west develops tactics for it by watching Russia, what will that do for potential sales for Russian equipment?

Lastly, as others have pointed out Russia has probably concluded the cost benefit to justify full blown SEAD is simply not there given that their doctrine doesn't call for full AS/AD to prosecute this war as they intend to.
Do the Russians actually need to conduct SEAD. Given the nature of opposition faced by them?
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by John »

Pratyush wrote:
Cyrano wrote:
Is there a possibility that this is deliberate? If they show how to SEAD of Ukraine that uses Russian systems, tactics and doctrine aren't they instructing the west on how to do the same to Russia itself if this conflict escalates?

If S300s etc can be located and taken out and the west develops tactics for it by watching Russia, what will that do for potential sales for Russian equipment?

Lastly, as others have pointed out Russia has probably concluded the cost benefit to justify full blown SEAD is simply not there given that their doctrine doesn't call for full AS/AD to prosecute this war as they intend to.
Do the Russians actually need to conduct SEAD. Given the nature of opposition faced by them?
They need to take out air defenses to do bombing runs Without it they cannot much against Tochka, HIMARS and Vilkha MRL launchers which are now starting to hit their supply lines. Nor can they stop supply of reinforcements from west and development of new equipment by Ukrainian.

Also it seems Ukraine air defense might be getting better at shooting down Kalibr cruise missiles, so missile attack are also becoming inefficient (there is recent video which shows 6 of 7 shot down by Dnieper).
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by ldev »

John wrote: Also it seems Ukraine air defense might be getting better at shooting down Kalibr cruise missiles, so missile attack are also becoming inefficient (there is recent video which shows 6 of 7 shot down by Dnieper).
Maybe the Russians are also running low on their Kalibr stocks. In the Kremenchuk shopping center attack they used anti ship KH-22 missiles which are not optimized for the land attack role, maybe the RF emissions from the external garage door openers or automatic door openers in the shopping center diverted the missile during it's terminal run, from it's real target which was 500 meters away.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14333
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Aditya_V »

It happens in war, in relatively unarmed Iraq there 1 million civilians killed as collateral damage, there were cases in Kosovo war. The truth will come at the end of the war. Till then propoganda will dominate
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by ldev »

Aditya_V wrote:It happens in war, in relatively unarmed Iraq there 1 million civilians killed as collateral damage, there were cases in Kosovo war. The truth will come at the end of the war. Till then propoganda will dominate
Hitting that shopping center would happen because of one of two reasons IMO:

One, is that it was a deliberate attack to demoralize the civilian population.

Two, if one assumes that the Russians did not deliberately target a civilian target, is that the KH-22 missile used is not optimal for the land attack role. AFAIK, it has a RF seeker which works out in the open sea/ocean as it targets a ship which is the only source of potential RF emissions. In attacking a land target, any RF emission, such as that emitted by door openers, can spoof it, specially if it nears it's real target during it's terminal run. Also AFAIK it does not have any IIR seeker nor does it have any scene matching software.

And why use a less than optimal missile when the Kalibr is optimized for the land attack role? One potential reason is that they are running short on Kalibrs and are preserving them.

Since this is a combat tactics and strategy thread, I am looking at exploring all options and causes.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18276
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Rakesh »

This was bound to happen. If you click on the thread below, the reverse is also happening and is being documented.

https://twitter.com/5thSu/status/154509 ... uUjdchoY1g ---> Russian intelligence conducted a multi-pronged operation that resulted in purchase of an American HIMARS missile system from Ukrainian soldiers by "Chechen investors" for further examination by the Russian military-industrial complex. The cost of the deal was about $1 million.

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by NRao »

ldev wrote:
NRao wrote:
Having said that I do not think the Russians have shown more than about 15-20% of their hand, especially on the electronics front.
Can you think of any specific piece of EW equipment that the Russians are holding back? ...........
A very rational question.

However, I subscribe to this view. I think the Russians will accept some material losses + humiliation, but will reserve their full spectrum warfare capabilities for a future date. This, IMO, is a full fledged war between NATO/Russia.

However, check what Russia did in 2014 - EW wise.

@Cyrano,

Thanks. Simple logic or just connecting the dots.
12 HIMARS (48 rocket tubes) + 6 M270s (72 rocket tubes) is a lot of hurt.

However, since about a week there are plenty of reports that the support for Ukraine is declining.
Aditya_V wrote:Nato has supplied all kinds of SAM.s is Giving 24 hours AWAACS, F-35's from POland and Black Sea, plus Satellite Coverage. Iraq and Serbia did not have any of this. So I think it will take time for the Russians.
IMO, this is a true multi-domain war in progress. Military, finance, trade, food, energy, politics, .... at a global level.

Do not count the Russians out. They have gamed this pretty good. However, neocons/trilateralists do have capability to recover.

Finally, any "shortages", use of WW2 equipment, etc are an indicator that Russia is preserving for an escalated conflict with NATO itself, the proxy is taken care of.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Atmavik »

Looks like Donetsk is being encircled.. movement is from the north
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by NRao »

NYTimes :: Lead story :: GLOBAL stamina:

Analysis: Russia-Ukraine Conflict Evolves Into Contest of Global Stamina
* The war’s trajectory seems likely to be shaped by whether the West can maintain their commitments to holding off Russia.
* The White House sees the dangers of escalation increasing, the prospect for a negotiated settlement still far-off and public weariness setting in.
So, now it looks like the roles have reversed: Russia would like to go global (and escalate), but the White House sees "dangers of escalation".

IMO, here on ALL "Ukraine" sector news will be irrelevant.

I think no matter what the West has lost the economic narrative and will slowly have to wind down their military one too. Suspect the West will circle back and come back in a few years.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by John »

More Ammo depots where hit but this appears to be huge explosion. Supposedly per FIRMS it’s appears to be one biggest explosions seen to date even compared to ones from past couple days. This is from #Shakhtarsk

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/15 ... 4252505102

IMO Overall TB2 & other drone look to be have to used to Monitor and document all depots for past couple months. Now they appearing to trying to take them out in one swoop before Russians move their air defenses.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by NRao »

Ukrainian governor: Russia raising ‘true hell’ in the east
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russian forces are raising “true hell” in Ukraine’s eastern industrial heartland, despite assessments they were taking an operational pause, a regional governor said Saturday, while another Ukrainian official urged people in Russian-occupied southern areas to evacuate quickly “by all possible means” before a Ukrainian counteroffensive. :eek: :shock:

Deadly Russian shelling was reported in Ukraine’s east and south.

...................
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by YashG »

John wrote:More Ammo depots where hit but this appears to be huge explosion. Supposedly per FIRMS it’s appears to be one biggest explosions seen to date even compared to ones from past couple days. This is from #Shakhtarsk

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/15 ... 4252505102

IMO Overall TB2 & other drone look to be have to used to Monitor and document all depots for past couple months. Now they appearing to trying to take them out in one swoop before Russians move their air defenses.
This stuff will hurt. This is mostly US intel. If given enough time, Russia will have to catchup here.

I have no idea what is the level current level of russian remote sensing but they cant intercept or destroy ukn'n stuff without some next level of intel. Their level of sources on ground will depend directly upon the state of Ukn'n government administrative capabilities- that havent yet degraded much. US funding for their govt.is ensuring that for now.

----

Alternatively, russians will adapt to depot destruction by smaller depots and obfuscated locations. Ukn's due to their weak air defence must have already done that a lot earlier. But as deans says if ammo consumption rate is equal to production for Russia, they can take a lot of depot destruction without severe offensive degradation. Max this will delay them. But still not good.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2510
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Deans »

John wrote: I don’t want to turn this into NATO or US vs Rus thread by former would have performed far better (I know if Brar was here he would have done a great analysis). For example Ukr Air defense where no where close to Orbat (I did a breakdown of s-300s few pages back I need to go back and get the exact counts from it) for example only half of S-300 listed (around 100 or so) where still operational and good chunk where captured/destroyed in 2014.

What this shows more of problems perhaps with Russian EW and ECM equipment. For example we utilize jamming pod from DARE for the MKI rather than Russian jamming pods. Probably a discussion for a another day.
Notwithstanding what I said about the Russian AF, I am disappointed (and I agree with what John is implying) by the overall performance of the RuAF.

I think they started their campaign with too few sorties (200/day when they could have done 400+) though they ramped up to 300 before settling
to a 200-250 sortie /day level.

There does not appear to be good air-ground coordination in close air support missions. A lot of CAS missions involve firing in the general area of the enemy - there was a TV clip where a Ka-52 pilot explains how they can fire rockets at an estimated enemy position without being seen (and presumably without seeing the target).

That said, the RuAF has to face a dense network of SAMs, backed by NATO AWACS that can't be attacked. I don't think Iraq is a comparison (The French, who designed Iraq's air defence network - named KARI' were happy to discuss it with Allied forces and the technical quality of Iraqi's were probably far inferior to the Ukrainian /NATO combination.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by John »

In his latest broadcast Ghirkin went off on S-400, apparently from last attack S-400 failed to intercept any of HIMARS and they supposedly moved there to stop such attack. This rises questions about S-400 ability to intercept ballistic missiles (or drones) I brought up a few times earlier in this thread including the incident where Tochka was only intercept over Belgorod in its terminal phase by a Pantsir.

One hypothesis is S-400 reaction time may just to be too slow in real world for ABM purpose especially against short ranged missiles. We might see Russia move to adopt S-350 Vityaz IMO as it uses SKorean Tech and KM-SAM (which is Korean equivalent) is being procured by UAE to deal with short range BM, cruise missiles and drones.
Deans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2510
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Deans »

I mentioned about artillery gun barrels in an earlier post. Apparently, 152mm barrels have a life of about 2500-3000 rounds, after which they get increasingly inaccurate, unless the barrel is replaced or reconditioned. The only factory in Russia that can do this has a capacity constraint.
Similarly, tank and aircraft engines have to be reconditioned.
That's the reason only a part of the front is active at any time. BTG's are also being rotated. 1 of 3 BTG's of a brigade are withdrawn for rest and refit at any time.

The other logistics problem the Russians have faced so far is a shortage of trucks, to move material from the railhead to the front. That will be greatly eased once 3 rail routes are operational. These are:
1. Belgorod to Izyum via Kupyansk
2. To Lisichansk from the East
3. To Crimea/Kherson via Mariupol.
Each will reduce a single leg of a truck journey by 200 km.

Each Russian combined arms army has a Railway engineer brigade to repair rail connections.
vijayk
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8785
Joined: 22 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by vijayk »

bala
BRFite
Posts: 1994
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by bala »

I agree with the analysis of Scott Ritter. Ukr had 3:1 advantage in terms of Army, well equipped and trained by NATO. Russia with a smaller force played brilliantly and conquered the most valuable territory of Ukr. Russia pinned down the forces in Kiev and Odessa by staging a fake move while the Russian ground forces engaged in Lugansk/Donetsk area. Of course Russia had cover by air and used their missiles to jab at things of their choosing. The amount of equipment and men lost by Ukraine is a staggering amount not revealed by anyone in public with actual numbers. The Western narrative is mostly one-sided and often times fake.

Putin's bold move is winning.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by NRao »

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by ldev »

John wrote:In his latest broadcast Ghirkin went off on S-400, apparently from last attack S-400 failed to intercept any of HIMARS and they supposedly moved there to stop such attack. This rises questions about S-400 ability to intercept ballistic missiles (or drones) I brought up a few times earlier in this thread including the incident where Tochka was only intercept over Belgorod in its terminal phase by a Pantsir.

One hypothesis is S-400 reaction time may just to be too slow in real world for ABM purpose especially against short ranged missiles. We might see Russia move to adopt S-350 Vityaz IMO as it uses SKorean Tech and KM-SAM (which is Korean equivalent) is being procured by UAE to deal with short range BM, cruise missiles and drones.
Another report along the same lines that the S-400 was not only not able to intercept incoming Himars MLRS but that it was destroyed itself by HImars. Not sure of the authenticity of the S-400 itself being destroyed as it's a hyper partisan Ukranian site reporting, but Girkin has been accurate so far, and in that it looks like the S-400 has been unable to intercept Himars MLRS inspite of the claims of Almaz-Antey the manufacturer of the S-400.

Scandal in Russian concern Azmaz-Antey - according to documents S-400 complexes should shoot down HIMARS missiles, but AFU destroyed this complex in Khartsyzsk with these missiles - Anton Gerashchenko Source: https://censor.net/en/n3353128
Adviser to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Anton Gerashchenko, made public the information that the use of the "HIMARS" anti-aircraft missile system by the Armed Forces of Ukraine caused a scandal among Russian manufacturers.

According to Censor.NЕТ, he stated this in Facebook.

Gerashchenko noted: "The Russian Defense Ministry has started a showdown with the management of Almaz-Antey Concern, the manufacturer of the lauded S300 and S400 air defense systems.

Mikhail Fradkov, the head of the board and former Russian Prime Minister, and concern director Yan Novikov may not only lose their positions, but also face criminal charges for undermining Russia's defense capabilities.

The leadership of this criminal organization, when signing many billion-dollar contracts for the supply of S-400, guaranteed that their air defense system would be guaranteed to shoot down not only planes and helicopters, but also missiles launched by American HIMARS.

As is usually the case in the military industrial complex of Nazi Russia, the technical characteristics of the flagship air defense system were overstated many times over, and the money allocated for the development of the S400 was stolen.

The deception proved to be recent when the C400s failed to shoot down a single HIMARS missile in the Donbass, Zaporozhye, or Kherson regions.

Not only that, during the strike on the Russian military base in Khartsyzsk, HIMARS missiles destroyed the C400 complex that was supposed to cover the area from air strikes. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3353128

In other words, the C400 air defense system is not only unable to protect the airspace, but is not even able to protect itself!

I think that this story will lead not only to high-profile resignations and criminal cases, but also to potential buyers rejecting Almaz-Antey's products.

I am certain that the C400 complex destroyed in Khartsyzsk will not be the last in HIMARS' record in Ukraine. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3353128
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by John »

Deans wrote:
Notwithstanding what I said about the Russian AF, I am disappointed (and I agree with what John is implying) by the overall performance of the RuAF.

I think they started their campaign with too few sorties (200/day when they could have done 400+) though they ramped up to 300 before settling
to a 200-250 sortie /day level.

There does not appear to be good air-ground coordination in close air support missions. A lot of CAS missions involve firing in the general area of the enemy - there was a TV clip where a Ka-52 pilot explains how they can fire rockets at an estimated enemy position without being seen (and presumably without seeing the target).

That said, the RuAF has to face a dense network of SAMs, backed by NATO AWACS that can't be attacked. I don't think Iraq is a comparison (The French, who designed Iraq's air defence network - named KARI' were happy to discuss it with Allied forces and the technical quality of Iraqi's were probably far inferior to the Ukrainian /NATO combination.
What’s happening in Ukraine war is likely what will happen to any AFs that did not adapt to what was seen in GW. Which was even in GW, Coalition largest strike operation with F-16 against Iraqi targets (think it was called package-z) was a disaster (though I believe only 1-2 F-16s where lost ton of time and fuel was wasted and op wasn’t completed as jets spent most of time dodging SAM).

From then on Coalition resorted to using F-117 to hit any heavily defended sites till air defense where rendered useless. This should have illustrated the importance of low RCS (ACs and long range drones), importance of PGM and how conventional ACs with dumb bombs will struggle when they are sent in without proper EW when enemy has extensive SAM network.

Unf for Russia export sales of Flanker variant meant very little effort was spent on developing a stealth AC or even a sophisticated jamming system (see Spectra). This strategy was proven successful in Syria where Su-30/34/35 have seen success since bombing jihadis who can’t hit back isnt the hardest thing to do (interesting how war on terror hurt conventional warfare capabilities of both NATO and Russia).

As a result Russia seem double down on flankers even while they had stealth FAC in development near end of Cold War. By the time they decided to fund Su-57 it was too late and that itself is half assed effort IMO (with both funding and tech that’s not to par), regardless due to funding issues they won’t even be able to field it in combat.
sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1544
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by sooraj »

From Telegram

As Ukraine continues to use its HIMARS launchers, Evidence surfaces of Russian army using its modern high-precision munitions for its direct counterpart to the HIMARS — “Tornado - S” MLRS - in Krivoy Rog, a spent block of the 9B706 control system from the latest 300-mm 9M544 high-precision guided missile for the Tornado-S MLRS was found.

Previously, spent sections for similar inertial guided ammunition were also found throughout the Donbass, near Kharkov and even Dnepropetrovsk.

The Russian variants carry a shit ton more destructive power than the HIMARS, especially the longer range version. It is not even comparable.

The reload time is also miles ahead of the American variants with an entire salvo of 6 300mm missiles being fired in under 20 seconds & fully reloaded in under 8 minutes.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Pratyush »

I am constantly amused by people claiming that the Russian MLRS can load quickly as compared to HIMARS.

I please refer to any you tube video of such systems loading. It well under 8 minutes.

I am not saying USA rah rah rah. But it pays to understand the various capacities of different systems and how those capabilities effect employment. Along with specific outcomes in the field.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

Post by Pratyush »

I have been wondering about the barrel life of Russian guns.

What I have noted about different Russian guns is that post shooting they are ejecting sent brass casing.

It's this brass case that contains the propellant charge. It appears that the Russians don't follow zone charge approach. That NATO guns ranges are measured by.

Now comming to be point, is it possible that the brass casing is helping enhance the life of the gun barrels. By being the element that reduces the heat generated by the propellant ignition. Once ejected post firing the hot part is removed from the gun.
Post Reply