History in the Making: Russian Invasion

At GlobalSecurity.org, I used up my "four free pages" of intel  just browsing to this page, but it was a good summary: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/russo-ukraine-2022-02-25.htm   You can edit the date at the end of the link to see 2022-2-26.htm, but it hasn't been posted as of yet.

On the topic of the quality of Russian arms, armor, and armaments.

It seems like a lot of the stuff they have has been taken out of mothballs for this plan and has had no upkeep performed

NOHOME said:

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

So hard to filter out information even when we are willing to do so.  Here is the view from one of the World's most trusted sources!

...

Russia's response to the numbers from Ukraine Defense Ministry: The Russian Defense Ministry, on the other hand, has said there had been no casualties. Neither claim could be independently verified.

I was thinking last night, with Mrs. vCH, what motivation do these Russian troops really have?  Threat of retaliation only goes so far when literally the entire world, save for maybe China, is against you - and China's not exactly being too supportive.  If everything posted here is at least directionally accurate, it may be that this was intentional on the US part- back Putin into a corner, knowing he could only hold out for maybe a week, then clobber them. 

Messy in the short term, and terrible for the 5m displaced Ukrainians, but possibly a good long range outcome that rips the band aid off Russia and de-fangs them quickly rather than drawing this out over a decade or more. 

Not to mention a major success for those currently holding elected office in DC.  I have noticed gas prices seem to have held steady over the last 2 days, and the market rebounded yesterday after a major hit.  Oil prices are holding steady, too, again after a major hike.  Not saying all we ought to care about is our pocketbooks while halfway around the world people are getting murdered, but this does point to the direction the markets feel this is going. 

93EXCivic said:

Question for you guys that know a little bit more about military equipment. It seems like a lot of the Russian missles have not exploded after hitting their targets. Is this normal or are Russian missles just kind of E36 M3?

This is very much an historical thing with Russia.  You might notice Russian warships seems to carry a crap ton of missiles, this is precisely because of their high failure rate.  Russian planes would historically ripple fire missile because of this (I think the new stuff is a bit better though).  

I don't know if the modern equipment reliability is on purpose, but historically in WWII Russia was very much in the "quantity of quality" camp.   Their T34 was massively cheaper to build than the German Panther or Tiger.  Less capable, but when you have 3 or 4 times as many, it doesn't matter.  Didn't help that the complexity of, for example the Tiger, made it rather unreliable.  It very much worked for the in WWII.  Heck, they even had more men than guns at some points.

Doesn't look like a lot of progress for the Russians.  The primary area is near Kiev, which of course appears to be the primary objective.  This map does not show control of the eastern side of the river north of Kiev, but there was indication of the Russians attacking the power plant there (perhaps from a distance).

I have to say I am pretty impressed with the Ukrainians ability to hold them back.... there is potential I think.   Zelensky's is certainly helping in this case I suspect.  He seems to be willing to stand with is country and die defending it if needed.  I suspect Russia taking Kiev (if they can) will do little to stop the resistance.  If Russia does "take" the country.... oh boy, the resistance / partisan activity could be extreme!

I have seen a Russian MIG at an airshow and also toured a Foxtrot sub back in the late 80's. In both cases I was a little shocked at the build quality. The sub was a mess of high school class welding and really haphazard plumbing. And the MIG just looked crude compared to the F18's that were on display. Lots of exposed rivets and did not really look very well put together. I don't know anything about planes but side by side with an F18 it did not compare well. Perhaps things have improved over time but I suspect not. 

That is one thing that I think most don't realize, that Russia, is a bit of paper tiger in some ways.  Their air force for example.  They have some very advanced planes.... but... have very few of them, in some cases one or two!  Their pilots also get very little flight time.  Russia has always been a lot about showing that you have it, more than necessarily being able to use it effectively.  That new fancy hyper sonic missile for example.  How many do they have?  How well do they actually work?

Another interesting historical tidbit:

I saw on BBC, the rather sad sight of Ukrainian women and children putting Styrofoam into bottles to make Molotov cocktails (Styrofoam when added to gas makes a napalm like substance).  The Molotov cocktail of course was made famous in WWII and was named after a Russian Politician... by the Finnish!  It was a dig on the Russian politician, and as some may know the Fins thoroughly embarrassed the Russians when they attempted to invade Finland during WWII (why the Fins where somewhat aligned with Germany).

These same Molotov cocktails where used effectively (and probably more famous for being used) by the Russians on German tanks and vehicles.  They could be rather effective, especially against open top vehicles.  I am not sure how useful they will be against a modern tank or APC (armored personnel carrier) because if they are buttoned up, they are normally hardened against NBC (nuclear biochemical) attacks.  That means air tight.  I suspect it would not be a fun time for any infantry being splashed with flaming napalm though.

So, Putin.  A weapon made famous for destroying Nazi vehicles in defense of the Russian homeland, is now again being used to defend the homeland, except this time, you are the Nazi leader, and you are the one attacking the homeland!  You tiny little piece of sh&t (because there is nothing big about Putin).  

bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:

I have seen a Russian MIG at an airshow and also toured a Foxtrot sub back in the late 80's. In both cases I was a little shocked at the build quality. The sub was a mess of high school class welding and really haphazard plumbing. And the MIG just looked crude compared to the F18's that were on display. Lots of exposed rivets and did not really look very well put together. I don't know anything about planes but side by side with an F18 it did not compare well. Perhaps things have improved over time but I suspect not. 

My dad had a Nanchang CJ-6 (Chinese primary trainer - basically a Chinese Yak-18). Also got some time with guys who owned Yaks. Definitely interesting engineering decisions.

Granted these were older technology, but still notably inferior to the equivalent American trainers. Much of the engineering decisions were... interesting. Very different design philosophy from American craft. Overbuilt in lots of ways, clearly with the philosophy of being able to just... work... when being abused in crap conditions (e.g. very overbuilt landing gear for crap fields, and using pneumatic systems for things like brakes, flaps, and starter because air isn't going to freeze in Siberia).

I'd say the engineering and construction was better on the Chinese aircraft than Soviet.

One of the other owners was fond of a phrase to describe the design philosophy:

Russian engineering - Strong, like bull; Smart, like tractor.

Russian engineering - Strong, like bull; Smart, like tractor.

I may steal this and apply it to other things. 

It is sad watching these bewildered and frightened Russian soldiers captured or surrendering. They are just kids and have no idea where they are or what they are doing. If the numerical superiority consists of terrified conscripted teens then I would put a lot more money on Ukraine fighting them off. 

CrustyRedXpress said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

 Zelensky doesn't sound eager to leave Ukraine. From the AP:

A US official confirms Ukraine President Volodymyr rejected an offer from the American government to evacuate Kyiv.

A senior American intelligence official with direct knowledge of the conversation quoted the president as saying that “the fight is here” and that he needed anti-tank ammunition but “not a ride.”

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-united-nations-kyiv-6ccba0905f1871992b93712d3585f548 

This doesn't seem to be happening, but how exactly would the US facilitate this type of extraction without their people and equipment being involved? 

Is making this offer indication that the US has, or is willing to have, people involved with flying ordinance?

The Russkies are back at the Kiev zoo. It appears they really like evening drives downtown.

Ok so I have a question. I don't know much about nato but from what I've read it's primarily defensive in nature.

It allows however for the sharing/selling of arms to a country like Ukraine. With advanced military air tech like drones that can fire missiles from 1-10000 miles away what difference is there between sending maned aircraft in as opposed to giving control of a couple of these drones to Ukraine ? 
Is there a "limit" to how advanced the tech can be that's shared? Or is it just that more developed western countries don't want to hand their best gear off? 
I realize that's ignoring the political side but I'm curious as to whether there is an approved list of what can be sent or if it gets played by ear? 

In reply to 1SlowVW :

I am assuming a big part of it is that you can really hand over weapons that are going to take significant amounts of training to be effective because there just isn't time.

In reply to aircooled :

IIRC the feature of a Molotov cocktail is that, properly deployed, the fire starves the engine of air, disabling the tank. (Think blowing a fire extinguisher into a turbo, but with fire) Worst case you can at least keep the crew buttoned up and unable to see if you block the view ports.

John Welsh said:

Reading up some on sanctions I came across this graphic that I find interesting.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/25/list-of-sanctions-on-russia-after-invasion

I have a feeling their scrap iron exports are gonna increase after this. 

I was wondering a similar thing.  I mean, if a JDAM appears out of the sky (I suspect you could loft one quite a distance) whose to say at what point it is being "handed over" to Ukraine, or even exactly where it came from.

Normally, the US markings on something are a bit of a give away, but we are clearly giving them stuff to use already.

I suspect it's who launched it, but rules... well...  

A JDAM BTW is basically an iron bomb with some guidance wings a precision GPS guidance system, so after it hits, not a lot different from an regular bomb.

1SlowVW said:

Ok so I have a question. I don't know much about nato but from what I've read it's primarily defensive in nature.

It allows however for the sharing/selling of arms to a country like Ukraine. With advanced military air tech like drones that can fire missiles from 1-10000 miles away what difference is there between sending maned aircraft in as opposed to giving control of a couple of these drones to Ukraine ? 
Is there a "limit" to how advanced the tech can be that's shared? Or is it just that more developed western countries don't want to hand their best gear off? 
I realize that's ignoring the political side but I'm curious as to whether there is an approved list of what can be sent or if it gets played by ear? 

I'm going to assume that the big difference is that sending a manned aircraft would also necessitate sending the soldiers who know how to operate it.

It takes a lot of training to learn to operate a military aircraft. Certainly more than a drone. In the midst of a conflict like this, there is just not time to train someone up to be able to fly an F-35. Plus all the ground crew who know how to maintain it and upload all the necessary armaments.

In reply to Beer Baron :

Yes I agree, handing over a military aircraft to an untrained force is of not use. 

So far though I see that giving them guided missiles is ok. 
But like air cooled alluded it is it ok if a western pilot is flying a drone from wherever in the world they are and a Ukrainian marks a target and says fire ? Or is saying fire on the radio fundamentally different than pressing a button on a keyboard? 
 

I don't have an answer and just wondered if this is all just covered in some gentlemens agreement or something? 

I think there are also issues of national pride, and optics.   If we offered manpower assistance in any form it would quickly be spun as interference by the Imperialist West.

In reply to 1SlowVW :

IIRC one military operating something with another's colors is a war crime. So if we had US operators flying a drone with Ukrainian colors I believe that would against the Geneva Convention

In reply to 93EXCivic :

Indeed. That scene from Fury where they executed the German soldier (officer?) who was wearing an American coat was legally correct, for that reason.  Even though the guy probably scavenged it because it was a rather cold winter, not for any nefarious purposes.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

That makes sense, but do US drones have a tail number ? Are they tracked like regular aircraft ? Could the USA (not sure if we Canadians have the drone tech that USA guys do) just hand over operation of the drones to the Ukrainians and say "pay us a buck and they are yours?".

I'll stop sidetracking here. I was really just curious as to what was considered above board for weapons sales. 
I guess I'll have to go do some reading as my curiosity is getting to me. 

1SlowVW said:

Is there a "limit" to how advanced the tech can be that's shared? Or is it just that more developed western countries don't want to hand their best gear off?

I'm pretty sure it's that. We can't ask for it back if the Russians get it.