Update.
Q: Did they take the fur coats back from the war widows straight after filming?
A: You bet they did.
4 Likes
1 Like
10 Likes
So here comes another 54 lines of non-argument on the topic…featuring the most red-tinted Putinesque revisionism I have seen in the thread for a while. Just a few gems…
get ready…
So British pacifism meant the USSR had to take over other countries to protect itself from its ally Germany. For example in Poland…
Hogwash. Poland was fighting the good fight (retreating to the Romanian bridgehead) until Russia backstabbed them and helped the Nazis kick off an all-in WW2. Do you think that because the western half of Poland was occupied it was all over? Imagine if the USSR took that attitude!
Germany might have been stopped and WW2 with it if the USSR did not aid and abet its fascist ally. To claim the USSR was acting defensively against Germany is like saying Russia is now acting defensively against NATO (which I realise you do- again I disagree). Sometimes it is may be necessary to occupy another weak country for dire self-defence. Russia’s invasion of Poland was not one of those times- in fact it worsened Russia’s position in the long run by feeding the German war machine. This is Solovyov level logic Arthur, I fear because you believe in the communist dream. Austria was a completely different story with far more German sympathisers.
What about Finland then?
Again the argument, we have to start a war, otherwise we might get invaded. Perhaps if the USSR had stuck up for invaded countries they wouldn’t have had Finland invading them? 550,000 Soviet lives lost fighting Finns and Germans in the two Finnish-Soviet wars might’ve been been better used helping attack Germany and if necessary defending Finnish sovereignty from them.
And you don’t get a free pass by saying Finland was fascist. When the Bolsheviks had a recent history of the Holodomor, the cruel Finnish internment camps were a speck in comparison.
I do not deny the USSR was an integral part of winning the war. The problem was that by their outrageous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact they also were an integral part of cultivating, nurturing and invigorating the most deadly war in history.
9 Likes
1 Like
Don’t mention the War
- The Spanish Civil War and Russia’s role (and all the other players)
Homage to Catalonia
2 Likes
russian War Priest mass casting Compel Hostility, War Fervour , Commit War Crimes and Human wave attack
1 Like
@Benny40 Your thoughts on these numbers and this thread + comments? Do you think david D. might be in the ballpark/ have a fair point?
It’s all fog of war and anecdotes right now. I think he’s very very optimistic, but plausible. I’ll throw some datapoints at you.
- I shared a video of a Ukrainian artillery crew who were on their 7th Pion SPG, having burnt through 6 barrels on other guns.
- Russian artillery had been used in many previous conflicts and then put into storage without barrel replacements.
- Russia has been withdrawing WW2 era artillery from storage.
- NATO guns often have titanium barrels, giving them a substantially higher volume of fire before replacement is required.
- Anecdotes from both sides of soviet era guns being abandoned at end of barrel life as no replacements are available or heavy industry to do the swap cannot be reached.
- Russian artillery fire is still 3-5x more than Ukraine as the Russians are compensating for inaccuracy with increased volume of fire. This uses up artillery barrels 3-5x faster.
My gut feel is the Ukrainian shortage of 152mm ammunition has vastly extended the lifespan of their soviet arsenal. The donated NATO guns are by and large in good condition, so are providing far longer service than the average Russian gun. I don’t think Russia is short on barrels right now, but they are short on quality guns and quality crews. Russian artillery efficiency is reducing as their quality declines, needing more shots per target, which puts even larger strain on ammunition supplies. Eventually they’ll run short on barrels, but I don’t think it will be this year. Never underestimate how much rusted crap Russia has in storage.
Maybe, just maybe 3000 working guns could be in service. Thats still 2-3 times more than Ukraine likely has on the line. Russia will be doing something to overhaul the damaged ones, they aren’t sitting on their hands.
7 Likes
So you think ~4000 artillery have been lost by overuse (or whatever the term is ) and ~2k by anti-artillery fire?
If Ukraine has sophisticated Western anti-artillery equipment (which you showed us examples of back in thread 1) how come they haven’t taken out more? After all this would give them the best chance of evening up the artillery battles in which Rus still outnumber them by so much.
2 Likes
Cont…
You’re right, too much anecdotal evidence to know the true state of affairs but food for thought
1 Like
If a Russian barrel lasts 3000 rounds, then they will burn through 333 guns per million rounds fired. I can’t find a good source, but 3-6 million rounds feels the ballpark that Russia has expended to date. That means you could be looking at 1000-2000 guns burnt out just by wear and tear from brand new. If they are being delivered into service with 50% barrel life, then you’re looking at 2000-4000 from barrel wear.
Oryx has 700 Russian artillery captured or destroyed. Another 270 damaged. Ukraine is claiming 2244 destroyed artillery, but many of these will be outside camera range so footage isn’t attainable. I think Russia losing 1500-2000 guns is a reasonable claim.
Why isn’t Ukriane aiming for more counter-battery? I think range. Guns hold back a distance so they can safely hit the front line without expending full powder shots (more powder = more barrel wear = shorter barrel life). Maybe sitting 10-15km back. If Russia is holding back further and using maximum powder shots, they’d be wearing through barrels faster but also staying outside Ukrainian range. For Ukraine to hit them, they’d need to move awkwardly close to the front. Staying back makes it hard for Ukrainian drones to locate the guns. Counter battery radars may not be plentiful enough or they may be finding targets that are a difficult distance to hit. Or Ukraine might just not have enough guns available to do all the jobs being asked of them. So… ???
That being said, 5 guns a day is a damn good effort from an undergunned army.
5 Likes
Meanwhile, in the Arctic. Gazprom Neft has been given Russian Government approval to establish a private military army.
Construction has started on the Murmansk
LNG2 hub, with three trains forecast ready for operation by late 2023
Details in the Barents Observer
1 Like
The Kremmina sector seems to have subsided after this map 2 days ago. The Russians took massive losses, but weather was really poor and drones couldn’t fly. They made negligible impact and have shifted to defence in some areas. Likely to heat back up in coming days, but they’ve taken far far less terrain than what they had planned for in this sector.
North of Bakhmut, the Russians have crawled up a steep valley and are threatening to push out onto the high ground. This is dangerous to Ukraine, but this is also a very vulnerable position for the Russian troops. Could collapse the Bakhmut defence, could end in Russian disaster.
Further south the rail line looks to be heavily entrenched and is holding in most places.
Ukraine is gradually falling back to the river as their first line of defence. All the bridges are already blown up. They’ll then fold back to the rail line, to the left of the hotels. If the city isn’t surrounded, this phase will be absolutely brutal urban combat.
Another pincer movement to get behind Bakhmut from the south is in a similar risky position for both Russia and Ukraine.
Other sectors of the front futher south have had major Russian offensives for absolutely zero gain. Russia has lost a LOT of armoured vehicles pushing up hill at entrenched Ukrainian positions. A LOT.
So in general, this week has seen the Russians attempt to take the initiative and attack. Most of their advances have been blunted, those that are moving forward are at a crawl and costing enormous losses. Ukriane is copping it hard, but they have the advantage of fortifications. It is unlikely that Russia can increase the quality of their assaults, any larger offensive planned is going to be a similar slaughter. The Russians may find a brittle Ukrainian unit and take advantage, like they’ve done in a few places before. But currently I’m not seeing any disorganised collapses in the Ukrainian lines, just calculated withdrawals to pre-planned fall back defences.
6 Likes
I may take you up on the historical debate about events well before both our lifetimes. They are relevant background to the current war that most here would know little about and some might find it helpful. If I do I will focus on that last paragraph as being central and will focus narrowly on exchanges with you about it rather than taking on lots of others who are likely to agree with you.
But not tonite, nor tomorrow.
Anyone who actually lived through the directly relevant events was over 14 years old at the time of the 1933 “Pact of Accord and Cooperation” between Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy soon after Hitler came to power. They would be over 104 years old now. So the discussion can be relaxed and leisurely mixed with more pressing matters.
I am of course thoroughly familiar with the views you are presenting as they are completely dominant today.
You and others interested in following the discussion may not be as familiar with opposing views since they are not widely expressed.
So meanwhile here’s some background reading:
An “approved” account of what to think of it can of course be found at Wikipedia: