Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,131
Reactions
65 7,610
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh

Maximilien Robespierre

Committed member
Messages
190
Reactions
1 220
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Some people don't realized that, even though Western Tanks has better armor and usually it doesn't penetrate hence crews survives, but it doesn't mean tank remain usable after taking a direct hit from another MBT.
It mostly can be repaired and used again, If the shot didn't penetrate shell compartment most of the western tanks can be repaired and used.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,131
Reactions
65 7,610
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
It mostly can be repaired and used again, If the shot didn't penetrate shell compartment most of the western tanks can be repaired and used.

I am talking about the fact that when it gets a direct hit from another MBT, for the time being it has no combat effectiveness. Recovering and repairing is a different matter all togather.
 
Last edited:

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,910
Reactions
21 12,487
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I am talking about the fact that when it gets a direct hit from another MBT, for the time being it has no combat effectiveness. Recovering and repairing is a different matter all togather.
Rebuilding tanks takes a lot of time too
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,354
Reactions
28 4,163
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
IMG_20231103_191803_233.jpg
 

Relic

Contributor
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,458
Reactions
12 2,441
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
New USA 🇺🇸 $425 million defense package for Ukraine, consisting of $125 million usd worth of Presidential Drawdown Authority and $300 million usd worth of USAI funding. The package consists of the following...

- AIM-9 Missiles for NASAMS
- GMLRS / ATACMs for HIMARS
- 155mm artillery rounds
- 105mm artillery rounds
- TOW missiles for Bradleys and HMMVs
- Javelin anti-armor systems
- AT4 anti-armor systems
- Laser guided anti-drone systems
- 3 million small ammunition rounds
- M18A1 anti-personnel claymores
- 12 heavy equipment transport trucks
- Cold weather gear
- Spare parts, maintenance, other equipment

 

Relic

Contributor
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,458
Reactions
12 2,441
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
After extensive training, Swedish 🇸🇪 Archer 155mm artillery systems are now deployed with the Ukrainian military. The initial batch of 8 Archer self-propelled howitzers that were donated are being operated by the very experienced 45th artillery brigade in the Luhansk region. The brigade also also fields M777 howitzers, 2A65 Msta-B Howitzers and MT-12 Rapira field guns.

 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
352
Reactions
1 520
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
After extensive training, Swedish 🇸🇪 Archer 155mm artillery systems are now deployed with the Ukrainian military. The initial batch of 8 Archer self-propelled howitzers that were donated are being operated by the very experienced 45th artillery brigade in the Luhansk region. The brigade also also fields M777 howitzers, 2A65 Msta-B Howitzers and MT-12 Rapira field guns.

Good! The Archers are thought to be some of the best artillery systems in the world. We’ll finally get a chance to see how they performe in real action.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,910
Reactions
21 12,487
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia

U.S., European officials broach topic of peace negotiations with Ukraine, sources say



The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal with Russia.


WASHINGTON — U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official familiar with the discussions.

The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal, the officials said. Some of the talks, which officials described as delicate, took place last month during a meeting of representatives from more than 50 nations supporting Ukraine, including NATO members, known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, the officials said.

The discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the U.S. and Europe, officials said.

They began amid concerns among U.S. and European officials that the war has reached a stalemate and about the ability to continue providing aid to Ukraine, officials said. Biden administration officials also are worried that Ukraine is running out of forces, while Russia has a seemingly endless supply, officials said. Ukraine is also struggling with recruiting and has recently seen public protests about some of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s open-ended conscription requirements.

And there is unease in the U.S. government with how much less public attention the war in Ukraine has garnered since the Israel-Hamas war began nearly a month ago, the officials said. Officials fear that shift could make securing additional aid for Kyiv more difficult.

Some U.S. military officials have privately begun using the term “stalemate” to describe the current battle in Ukraine, with some saying it may come down to which side can maintain a military force the longest. Neither side is making large strides on the battlefield, which some U.S. officials now describe as a war of inches. Officials also have privately said Ukraine likely only has until the end of the year or shortly thereafter before more urgent discussions about peace negotiations should begin. U.S. officials have shared their views on such a timeline with European allies, officials said.

“Any decisions about negotiations are up to Ukraine,” Adrienne Watson, spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in a statement. “We are focused on continuing to stand strongly in support of Ukraine as they defend their freedom and independence against Russian aggression.”

An administration official also noted that the U.S. has participated with Ukraine in discussions of its peace summit framework but said the White House “is not aware of any other conversations with Ukraine about negotiations at the moment.”

Questions about manpower​

President Joe Biden has been intensely focused on Ukraine’s depleting military forces, according to two people familiar with the matter.

"Manpower is at the top of the administration’s concerns right now,” one said. The U.S. and its allies can provide Ukraine with weaponry, this person said, “but if they don’t have competent forces to use them it doesn’t do a lot of good”

Biden has requested that Congress authorize additional funding for Ukraine, but, so far, the effort has failed to progress because of resistance from some congressional Republicans. The White House has linked aid for Ukraine and Israel in its most recent request. That has support among some congressional Republicans, but other GOP lawmakers have said they’ll only vote for an Israel-only aid package.

Before the Israel-Hamas war began, White House officials publicly expressed confidence that additional Ukraine funding would pass Congress before the end of this year, while privately conceding concerns about how difficult that might be.

Biden had been reassuring U.S. allies that Congress will approve more aid for Ukraine and planned a major speech on the issue. Once Hamas terrorists attacked Israel on Oct. 7, the president’s focus shifted to the Middle East, and his Ukraine speech morphed into an Oval Office address about why the U.S. should financially support Ukraine and Israel.

Is Putin ready to negotiate?​

The Biden administration does not have any indication that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to negotiate with Ukraine, two U.S. officials said. Western officials say Putin still believes he can “wait out the West,” or keep fighting until the U.S. and its allies lose domestic support for funding Ukraine or the struggle to supply Kyiv with weapons and ammunition becomes too costly, officials said.

Both Ukraine and Russia are struggling to keep up with military supplies. Russia has ramped up production of artillery rounds, and, over the next couple years may be able to produce 2 million shells per year, according to a Western official. But Russia fired an estimated 10 million rounds in Ukraine last year, the official said, so it will also have to rely on other countries.

The Biden administration has spent $43.9 billion on security assistance for Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, according to the Pentagon. A U.S. official says the administration has about $5 billion left to send to Ukraine before money runs out. There would be no aid left for Ukraine if the administration hadn’t said it found a $6.2 billion accounting error from months of over-valuing equipment sent to Kyiv.

Public support slipping​

Progress in Ukraine’s counteroffensive has been very slow, and hope that Ukraine will make significant advances, including reaching the coast near Russia’s frontlines, is fading. A lack of significant progress on the battlefield in Ukraine does not help with trying to reverse the downward trend in public support for sending more aid, officials said.

A Gallup poll released this week shows decreasing support for sending additional aid to Ukraine, with 41% of Americans saying the U.S. is doing too much to help Kyiv. That’s a significant change from just three months ago when 24% of Americans said they felt that way. The poll also found that 33% of Americans think the U.S. is doing the right amount for Ukraine, while 25% said the U.S. is not doing enough.

Public sentiment toward assisting Ukraine is also starting to soften in Europe.


As incentive for Zelenskyy to consider negotiations, NATO could offer Kyiv some security guarantees, even without Ukraine formally becoming part of the alliance, officials said. That way, officials said, the Ukrainians could be assured that Russia would be deterred from invading again.

In August national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters, “We do not assess that the conflict is a stalemate.” Instead, Sullivan said, Ukraine is taking territory on a “methodical, systematic basis.”

But a Western official acknowledged there has not been a lot of movement by either side in some time, and with the cold weather approaching it will be tough for either Ukraine or Russia to break that pattern. The official said it will not be impossible, but it will be difficult.

U.S. officials also assess that Russia will attempt to hit critical infrastructure in Ukraine again this winter, attempting to force some civilians to endure a frigid winter without heat or power.

Administration officials expect Ukraine to want more time to fight on the battlefield, particularly with new, heavier equipment, “but there’s a growing sense that it’s too late, and it’s time to do a deal,” the former senior administration official said. It is not certain that Ukraine would mount another spring offensive.

One senior administration official pushed back on any notion of the U.S. nudging Ukraine toward talks. The Ukrainians, the official said, “are on the clock in terms of weather, but they are not on the clock in terms of geopolitics.”
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,910
Reactions
21 12,487
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
It's paywalled, but here you go.


Europe | War of attrition

Ukraine’s commander-in-chief on the breakthrough he needs to beat Russia


General Valery Zaluzhny admits the war is at a stalemate
General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
image: getty images
Nov 1st 2023

Share
Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Five months into its counter-offensive, Ukraine has managed to advance by just 17 kilometres. Russia fought for ten months around Bakhmut in the east “to take a town six by six kilometres”. Sharing his first comprehensive assessment of the campaign with The Economist in an interview this week, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, General Valery Zaluzhny, says the battlefield reminds him of the great conflict of a century ago. “Just like in the first world war we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate,” he says. The general concludes that it would take a massive technological leap to break the deadlock. “There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough.”

Read more of our recent coverage of the Ukraine war

The course of the counter-offensive has undermined Western hopes that Ukraine could use it to demonstrate that the war is unwinnable, forcing Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, to negotiate. It has also undercut General Zaluzhny’s assumption that he could stop Russia by bleeding its troops. “That was my mistake. Russia has lost at least 150,000 dead. In any other country such casualties would have stopped the war.” But not in Russia, where life is cheap and where Mr Putin’s reference points are the first and second world wars, in which Russia lost tens of millions.

An army of Ukraine’s standard ought to have been able to move at a speed of 30km a day as it breached Russian lines. “If you look at nato’s text books and at the maths which we did, four months should have been enough time for us to have reached Crimea, to have fought in Crimea, to return from Crimea and to have gone back in and out again,” General Zaluzhny says sardonically. Instead he watched his troops get stuck in minefields on the approaches to Bakhmut in the east, his Western-supplied equipment getting pummelled by Russian artillery and drones. The same story unfolded on the offensive’s main thrust in the south, where inexperienced brigades immediately ran into trouble.

“First I thought there was something wrong with our commanders, so I changed some of them. Then I thought maybe our soldiers are not fit for purpose, so I moved soldiers in some brigades,” says General Zaluzhny. When those changes failed to make a difference, the general told his staff to dig out a book he once saw as a student. Its title was “Breaching Fortified Defence Lines”. It was published in 1941 by a Soviet major-general, P.S. Smirnov, who analysed the battles of the first world war. “And before I got even halfway through it, I realised that is exactly where we are because just like then, the level of our technological development today has put both us and our enemies in a stupor.”


image: the economist
That thesis, he says, was borne out as he went to the front line in Avdiivka, also in the east, where Russia has recently advanced by a few hundred metres over several weeks by throwing in two of its armies. “On our monitor screens the day I was there we saw 140 Russian machines ablaze—destroyed within four hours of coming within firing range of our artillery.” Those fleeing were chased by “first-person-view” drones, remote-controlled and carrying explosive charges that their operators simply crash into the enemy. The same picture unfolds when Ukrainian troops try to advance. General Zaluzhny describes a battlefield in which modern sensors can identify any concentration of forces, and modern precision weapons can destroy it. “The simple fact is that we see everything the enemy is doing and they see everything we are doing. In order for us to break this deadlock we need something new, like the gunpowder which the Chinese invented and which we are still using to kill each other,” he says.

This time, however, the decisive factor will be not a single new invention, but will come from combining all the technical solutions that already exist, he says. In a By Invitation article written for The Economist by General Zaluzhny, as well as in an essay shared with the newspaper, he urges innovation in drones, electronic warfare, anti-artillery capabilities and demining equipment, as well as in the use of robotics.

Western allies have been overly cautious in supplying Ukraine with their latest technology and more powerful weapons. Joe Biden, America’s president, set objectives at the start of Russia’s invasion: to ensure that Ukraine was not defeated and that America was not dragged into confrontation with Russia. This means that arms supplied by the West have been sufficient in sustaining Ukraine in the war, but not enough to allow it to win. General Zaluzhny is not complaining: “They are not obliged to give us anything, and we are grateful for what we have got, but I am simply stating the facts.”

Yet by holding back the supply of long-range missile systems and tanks, the West allowed Russia to regroup and build up its defences in the aftermath of a sudden breakthrough in Kharkiv region in the north and in Kherson in the south late in 2022. “These systems were most relevant to us last year, but they only arrived this year,” he says. Similarly, f-16 jets, due next year, are now less helpful, suggests the general, in part because Russia has improved its air defences: an experimental version of the s-400 missile system can reach beyond the city of Dnipro, he warns.

The delay in arms deliveries, though frustrating, is not the main cause of Ukraine’s predicament, according to General Zaluzhny. “It is important to understand that this war cannot be won with the weapons of the past generation and outdated methods,” he insists. “They will inevitably lead to delay and, as a consequence, defeat.” It is, instead, technology that will be decisive, he argues. The general is enthused by recent conversations with Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google, and stresses the decisive role of drones, and of electronic warfare which can prevent them from flying.

General Zaluzhny’s assessment is sobering: there is no sign that a technological breakthrough, whether in drones or in electronic warfare, is around the corner. And technology has its limits. Even in the first world war, the arrival of tanks in 1917 was not sufficient to break the deadlock on the battlefield. It took a suite of technologies, and more than a decade of tactical innovation, to produce the German blitzkrieg in May 1940. The implication is that Ukraine is stuck in a long war—one in which he acknowledges Russia has the advantage. Nevertheless, he insists that Ukraine has no choice but to keep the initiative by remaining on the offensive, even if it only moves by a few metres a day.

Crimea, the general believes, remains Mr Putin’s greatest vulnerability. His legitimacy rests on having brought it back to Russia in 2014. Over the past few months, Ukraine has taken the war into the peninsula, which remains critical to the logistics of the conflict. “It must know that it is part of Ukraine and that this war is happening there.” On October 30th Ukraine struck Crimea with American-supplied long-range atacms missiles for the first time.

General Zaluzhny is desperately trying to prevent the war from settling into the trenches. “The biggest risk of an attritional trench war is that it can drag on for years and wear down the Ukrainian state,” he says. In the first world war, politics interfered before technology could make a difference. Four empires collapsed and a revolution broke out in Russia.

Mr Putin is counting on a collapse in Ukrainian morale and Western support. There is no question in General Zaluzhny’s mind that a long war favours Russia, which has a population three times and an economy ten times the size of Ukraine. “Let’s be honest, it’s a feudal state where the cheapest resource is human life. And for us…the most expensive thing we have is our people,” he says. For now he has enough soldiers. But the longer the war goes on, the harder it will be to sustain. “We need to look for this solution, we need to find this gunpowder, quickly master it and use it for a speedy victory. Because sooner or later we are going to find that we simply don’t have enough people to fight.” ■


Europe
November 4th 2023
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,131
Reactions
65 7,610
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
It is amazing how easy to stop a company size formation advancing in today's warfare.
 

Relic

Contributor
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,458
Reactions
12 2,441
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
While this might not be a popular opinion, a stalemate for the time being is still a win for the West. Keep in mind that the West has two goals in this war.

1. To ensure that Ukraine is not overtaken, allowing Putin to think that Russia can expand with impunity.

2. To ensure that the Soviet land arsenal left to the Russians is exhausted, essentially ending their ability to threaten a full scale land invasion of Europe for another generation.

While it wouldn't mean outright victory, both of the West's primary objectives can be achieved by simply continuing to fund the Ukrainian military at the current rate we are. This remains the cheapest price we'll ever get to ensure the destruction of the Russian army's capacity for deep expansion into Europe in a war with NATO.
 
Last edited:

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
352
Reactions
1 520
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
While it wouldn't mean outright victory, both of the West's primary objectives can be achieved by simply continuing to fund the Ukrainian military at the current rate we are. This remains the cheapest price we'll ever get to ensure the destruction of the Russian army's capacity for deep expansion into Europe in a war with NATO.

This is true as long as Ukraine doesn’t run out of soldiers. This is why I think the West should supply more long range weapons that can improve the kill ratio of Ukrainians. It is important for Ukraine to inflict the maximum amount of damage with the lowest possible loss of troops.

The common goal of Ukrainians and the West should be to reduce Ukrainian losses as much as possible while causing massive losses to the Russians. It is not worth it to throw away troops for a few miles of territory. Better fight from advantageous positions, like they are doing in Avdiivka now, and inflict huge damage with minimal losses on the Ukrainian side.

My opinion is that the Ukrainian summer offensive has been rushed, and many lifes were wasted for very little gain. The strategy should be to keep pounding on Russian positions with artillery, rocket artillery, drones and long range munitions such as cruise missiles (which should be provided in larger quantities to Ukraine).

At this point of the war, artillery pieces are much more useful than tanks, and ATACMS or cruise missiles are also more useful thank tanks and IFVs.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,131
Reactions
65 7,610
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
1699131374953.png



Ukraine has likely destroyed at least four Russian long-range air defense systems in the last week, weakening Russia's air defenses, the UK Department of Defense said in an intelligence update on Thursday.

These include three prized S-400 Triumf missile systems, which were destroyed in the Luhansk region on October 26, according to Russian media reports.

The loss of these prized systems means that Russia will likely have to replace them from other operational areas, weakening its air defenses there, the ministry noted.






S400 was literally the most overhyped Russian system, yet it performed poorly to this day. Systems like HIMARS/ATACMS and Neptune are taking it out that it was supposed to counter. Countries that bought it with billions like (Turkey and India) got totally scammed.
 
Last edited:

Maximilien Robespierre

Committed member
Messages
190
Reactions
1 220
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
View attachment 62596


Ukraine has likely destroyed at least four Russian long-range air defense systems in the last week, weakening Russia's air defenses, the UK Department of Defense said in an intelligence update on Thursday.

These include three prized S-400 Triumf missile systems, which were destroyed in the Luhansk region on October 26, according to Russian media reports.

The loss of these prized systems means that Russia will likely have to replace them from other operational areas, weakening its air defenses there, the ministry noted.






S400 was literally the most overhyped Russian system, yet it performed very poorly to this day. Systems like HIMARS/ATACMS and Neptune are taking it out that it was supposed to counter. Countries that bought it with billions like (Turkey and India) got totally scammed.
Hello, yes we would like a refund please.
 

Relic

Contributor
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,458
Reactions
12 2,441
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Hello, yes we would like a refund please.
How about a couple Patriot systems with PAC 3 missiles instead, as well as the block 70/72 F-16s you guys want, in exchange for 24 Firtina I howitzers, 750,000 155mm artillery shells and 50 Leopard 1 MBTs with associated shells for Ukraine?

Old stuff that you guys are in the process of replacing anyways, for the top of the line stuff you want.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,131
Reactions
65 7,610
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
How about a couple Patriot systems with PAC 3 missiles instead,

After a decade of drama Patriot chapter is closed for good. (Unless you are proposing to give it for free)

They got their own stuff now. (Which looks quite promising if you ask me)

1699169802206.jpeg

1699169861117.jpeg


as well as the block 70/72 F-16s you guys want,

They will probably get it for other reasons

in exchange for 24 Firtina I howitzers,

They are low on Firtina SPH. (Even though they probably could send in limited numbers if they want)

750,000 155mm artillery shells and 50 Leopard 1 MBTs with associated shells for Ukraine?

That is too much shell alone for Turkey given it already sent an unspecified amount.
Although I guess they could send those near obsolete Leopard 1. (But that would an escalation on their part, I don’t know if they are ready to do that with Russia)
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom