They are not all conscripts. I believe they sent a group who were effectively their elite paratroopers to try and take Kyiv by air - despite not having air superiority and likely assuming they had ground support from pro-Russian groups within Ukraine (that did not exist) But they haven’t exclusively sent conscripts
Oryx, which has been tracking military losses during the war using visual confirmation, says that Ukraine has destroyed, damaged or captured at least 82 Russian aircraft, including jets, helicopters and drones
Yeah, only a fraction of the soldiers originally sent in were conscripts, which is their problem now. Their losses were extremely high among the professional soldiers, because those were the guys they were relying on to do the majority of the fighting. Trying to win by replacing quality with quantity means more logistical support which requires more convoys and all the things Russia has proven really bad at doing, and with a heavily conscripted army, at the end of that logistical chain is a bunch of guys who aren't terribly useful in a fight anyway. It appears that they've been pushing badly battered units back into combat rather than fresh conscripts, which speaks to how little they think of the conscripts. Russia is going to mass the troops for one big push to try and cut off the pocket of the Ukrainian Army in the Donbas, and they might be able to achieve that. But they have a pretty limited window before the start running low on actually useful soldiers, and the further they push, the more difficult it becomes to maintain their supply lines, and the more vulnerable their convoys become. Which is exactly what happened to them west of Kyiv, and that ended with them having to retreat in a hurry (and leave a lot of stuff behind) because their attempted encirclement was running our of fuel and ammo and was in danger of getting encircled.
Good post Schad. I just wish were able to give Ukraine 50 or so of our Challenger 2 MTB's - that would totally **** the Russian Army (we have around 400). We are currently upgrading to Challenger 3's, none of their tanks can withstand a Challenger 2 and they are considered almost indestructible in a direct firefight. The wide open plains of Eastern Ukraine really suits their defensive deployment.
Dunno, because the problem with tanks (versus ATGMs) is that they are fire shells horizontally. Russian tanks have very good armour everywhere but the top, which is fine when facing tanks, but a massive problem when facing top-attack missiles like Javelins (which more often than not detonate the autoloader). Big set-piece battles are not going to be Ukraine's strength; their current model, using hit-and-run attacks, their ridiculous supply of ATGMs, and their spotting capabilities from drones, is probably the right way to go. What they need more than anything right now is precision artillery, because those wide-open plains make it a bit more difficult to get close to convoys, but with sufficient artillery they can still drone-spot, blow stuff up, and bring all of those complicated logistical chains to a standstill.
The longest recorded tank kill is 4700m, fired from a Challenger 1 - the Challenger 2 has a more powerful gun. The Russian tanks rely on an auto feeder, rather than a fourth tank crew gunner. As a consequence, the ammo is stored in the turret area and makes them prone to explosion (a little like their flag ship!). The Challanger 2 can take out any Russian tank, including the T90, which is a small upgrade of the old T72.
Romsey, Impressed by your knowledge are you able to divulge how you know this. (Understand if you'd rather not say)
Writing in the Observer, former immigration minister Caroline Nokes said she was sticking with her decision to submit a letter of no confidence in the prime minister. It makes her the latest MP to back a leadership contest since the lockdown breach fines were issued to the prime minister and the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, last week. She also highlighted correspondence suggesting previously secure voters were expressing concerns. She writes: “There are those who say these emails are only from ‘the usual suspects’. It is true to say there have been a smattering of them, the political activists who send an automated email at the drop of a hat. But they are very much in the minority. “The bulk of the emails I received last week are from people who are genuinely distressed at the family events they could not and did not attend, and many are from people I know who have long been Conservative supporters. “I have not withdrawn the letter of no confidence in Boris Johnson that I wrote months ago to Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the [Tory backbench] 1922 Committee, because to do so would be letting down all of those people who spent the pandemic doing the right thing.”
One of those mails was from me and I was very glad to receive her reply that she is in no way withdrawing her letter of no confidence in the PM. I won’t be voting for her in the next GE but it’s good to know that there’s at least one conservative MP with some level of integrity.
FM reported to police over mask rule breach video - BBC News Not the first time she's breached face mask rules either.
If temporarily forgetting to put her mask back on the day before restrictions are lifted is the worst that can be found against her, then that`s pretty feeble really. Trust a pedant like you Tom to be all over it!
I used to work with someone who was ex-Tank Regiment and I spoke to him around the time the film "Fury" came out which described a tank battle in World War Two. His comment was that tanks were considered to be highlt vulnerable in modenr warfare and quoted some statstic regarding the anticipated "life expectancy" of a tank in combat. The figure he quoted was extremely short - something like a matter of hours because of the efficacy of modern missiles. The performance of the Russian armoured divisions would appear to be corroborating this fact and maybe suggests that tanks are now probably quite obsolete. The kind of military success the Russian acheived at Kursk under Zhukov is probably unlikely in the 21st century. The other comment I read a few weeks ago was the effectiveness of the Russian paratroop regiments. I found this interesting too as the Russian units appear to have failed just as German paratroopers failed in Crete and the allied failed at Arnham. The success rate of using paratroopers is pretty woeful - both Crete and Arnham were catastrophic failures. In the years to come, you can envisage the Russian offensive being a textbook example of how not to do things. The Russians appear to be quite shocked how poorly their services have preformed against organised opposition and you suspect that NATO will feel quite confident now that the Russians military structure has been so poor. I would say that the Russians have been consderably worse than the Americans and British in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe it is the case that military offensives have a propensity to go wrong or do not achieve their original objectives and it is very rare for them to be comprehensive. The Desert Storm operation int he early 1990s is probably the best example of a Western coalition out-performing the enemy. I do not think anyone anticipated the Russians to be quite so incompetent albeit I am still of this opinion that this is a proxy war on the part of NATO who will be keen to witness the superiority of the equipment they have provided to Ukraine. The worrying thing for me will be what will happen to all this equipment once the conflct is over and in whose hands it will ultimately appear.
I believe this was an oversight and that she put her mask on shortly afterwards. I have to say whoever reported her has stooped pretty low. All in all, Nicola Sturgeon had a good grasp of the Covid situation and managed it far more successfully than Boris. It seems very curmudgeonly to report her in the circumstances and just a little bit pathetic. I am not a fan of NS but this is scraping the barrel.
The paratroopers failed because the Russians did not have air control or ground support. It was a ridiculous strategy And I think you viewed on the Americans and the British in Iraq and Afghanistan are clouded by your own personal biases. Those military operations were effective. There is not “think” about it. They were brutally successful and the initial phases (especially in the second Iraq phase) were effective in the way Russia was hoping for here and still haven’t achieved Where those wars failed was the “holding the country” afterwards. The occupation phase. That is and always has been “the hard part”. In every conflict. And russia hasn’t got to the hard part yet. And have had to revise their objectives before even getting there
She spent a lot of time trying to make political capital out of criticising the Tory response to the crisis and putting in stricter measures. And in aspects she had a point. But to do this you have to be whiter than white. It is just something the left unfortunately always has to deal with. Just like how no labour chancellor could ever get away with wasting the money that Sunak has. It isn’t fair but it just seems to be how it is
I’m not ‘outraged’ by Nicola, but as Gregm says you have to be whiter than white. Also, just because she is on ‘your side’ it doesn’t exempt her from criticism. A lot smaller breach than Boris and co, but still a breach that an ordinary member of the public may have got a fine for. Boris has done the equivalent of shooting someone, she just tripped them up as they walked past
This. I'm in no way saying this is on the same level as Boris and his mates, but she broke the rules nonetheless.
