Russian Troop Movements Reported Near Ukraine

Ritch

LE

I saw a report the other day saying a Ukrainian squad used the Javelin for the first time in the conflict with opposing forces.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have quite a stockpile and the Russkie's know this.
 
Deep truck-counting blog post on Russian logistic capacity:


Argues that Russian formations' strength in artillery especially is the flip side of their weakness in logistics, and that they are short of the logistic support they would need to advance beyond a depth of about 90 miles without taking a significant pause to replen. This means a quick KO strategy even against the Baltics is ruled out unless the Baltics or Ukies make the mistake of trying to fight forward rather than trading space for time and preparing for a counterattack once the rocket artillery (a huge logistics consumer) is shot out.

Further points - NATO should avoid committing to forward defence, should use its strength in stand-off guided weapons to go after logistical assets (especially rail), and should encourage the potential targets to develop a strategy of defence in depth. That said, they have a list of railway bridges to drop and some of them are well inside Russia, which might be a problem in terms of escalation, especially if they are near the strategic early-warning network.

Very ironic that Boris could be the one eating his boots outside Moscow. Well, Kiev or Riga. But it's nearly Moscow, right?

[edit to include point about not kicking off a nuclear war because you want to block a railway line]
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Deep truck-counting blog post on Russian logistic capacity:


Argues that Russian formations' strength in artillery especially is the flip side of their weakness in logistics, and that they are short of the logistic support they would need to advance beyond a depth of about 90 miles without taking a significant pause to replen. This means a quick KO strategy even against the Baltics is ruled out unless the Baltics or Ukies make the mistake of trying to fight forward rather than trading space for time and preparing for a counterattack once the rocket artillery (a huge logistics consumer) is shot out.

Further points - NATO should avoid committing to forward defence, should use its strength in stand-off guided weapons to go after logistical assets (especially rail), and should encourage the potential targets to develop a strategy of defence in depth. That said, they have a list of railway bridges to drop and some of them are well inside Russia, which might be a problem in terms of escalation, especially if they are near the strategic early-warning network.

Very ironic that Boris could be the one eating his boots outside Moscow. Well, Kiev or Riga. But it's nearly Moscow, right?

[edit to include point about not kicking off a nuclear war because you want to block a railway line]
All very sensible however it's difficult to defend in depth and trade space for time when you have very little of either in the Baltics.
 
I noticed the media having a meltdown and people scaring when Vlad knocked his fcuked satellite out of space, no mention though of the fact that the yanks have had these, and tested them ages ago, am I missing something here ?
 
I attended a seminar with the outgoing US COMLANDCOM about 5 years ago (Gen Nicholson, IIRC) and he gave a very interesting presentation on the Russian logistics chain and how rapidly and at vast scale they can move materiel and personnel around by road and rail - compared with NATO and the stultifying problems of crossing borders and a plethora of restrictions in moving ammunition by road and rail, even in extremis. Moreover, the Russians exercise Corps size deployments on a very regular basis, something that NATO can't really do.
 
Last edited:

Proff3RTR

War Hero
Deep truck-counting blog post on Russian logistic capacity:


Argues that Russian formations' strength in artillery especially is the flip side of their weakness in logistics, and that they are short of the logistic support they would need to advance beyond a depth of about 90 miles without taking a significant pause to replen. This means a quick KO strategy even against the Baltics is ruled out unless the Baltics or Ukies make the mistake of trying to fight forward rather than trading space for time and preparing for a counterattack once the rocket artillery (a huge logistics consumer) is shot out.

Further points - NATO should avoid committing to forward defence, should use its strength in stand-off guided weapons to go after logistical assets (especially rail), and should encourage the potential targets to develop a strategy of defence in depth. That said, they have a list of railway bridges to drop and some of them are well inside Russia, which might be a problem in terms of escalation, especially if they are near the strategic early-warning network.

Very ironic that Boris could be the one eating his boots outside Moscow. Well, Kiev or Riga. But it's nearly Moscow, right?

[edit to include point about not kicking off a nuclear war because you want to block a railway line]
Pretty much the same as WW2 and the Russian front, most Russian offensives had an initial LOE of roughly 1 combat load of fuel etc, once they outran that and the offensives tended to bog down and there was a tactical pause. However, temper this with the fact that if the front caved in straight away, that distance was extended due to the fact that Tanks etc did not have to jockey when in contact etc thus saving fuel. The Red army has always been a logistics light army compared to what we are used to, and I think, always will be.
 
That said, they have a list of railway bridges to drop and some of them are well inside Russia, which might be a problem in terms of escalation, especially if they are near the strategic early-warning network.

On this point I checked the map - two of them (Narva and Pskov) are very close to the border, in fact one end of the one in Narva is actually in Estonia, it's only the one in Velikiy Luki that is in any depth and it's not at all far. The big radars are nowhere near there - the nearest is southeast of Baranovichi or else the other side of St Petersburg or the ring round Moscow.
 
More disinformation? Or has Ukraine really uncovered an intended coup plot? That would of course feed a certain narrative as "...saviours of the 'true' govt of Ukraine":
"We have challenges not only from the Russian Federation and possible escalation - we have big internal challenges. I received information that a coup d'etat will take place in our country on Dec. 1-2," Zelenskiy said.

Ukraine had audio recordings as evidence of the coup plot, Zelenskiy added.
 
More disinformation? Or has Ukraine really uncovered an intended coup plot? That would of course feed a certain narrative as "...saviours of the 'true' govt of Ukraine":
"We have challenges not only from the Russian Federation and possible escalation - we have big internal challenges. I received information that a coup d'etat will take place in our country on Dec. 1-2," Zelenskiy said.

Ukraine had audio recordings as evidence of the coup plot, Zelenskiy added.
Makes sense in one way: Coup and then Ru intervention at the request of 'the new government' . Makes you wonder about the size of the proposed pro-Coup forces. They would need to hold certain points to facilitate Ru intervention. Interesting stuff, particularly the timing.
 
More disinformation? Or has Ukraine really uncovered an intended coup plot? That would of course feed a certain narrative as "...saviours of the 'true' govt of Ukraine":
"We have challenges not only from the Russian Federation and possible escalation - we have big internal challenges. I received information that a coup d'etat will take place in our country on Dec. 1-2," Zelenskiy said.

Ukraine had audio recordings as evidence of the coup plot, Zelenskiy added.
A fabricated excuse/reason is particularly good for convincing the usual useful idiot defenders of Moscow's aggression.
 
A fabricated excuse/reason is particularly good for convincing the usual useful idiot defenders of Moscow's aggression.
So sayeth that famous Russian, Ahmediy Abdelovich Chalabski.

It's amazing how many countries have fallen under this Muscovite Mindset without having tasted vodka.
 
It would be interesting to have the views of Arrsers about whether there are pro-Russian forces/groups in Ukraine who could support Ru intervention? There was until relatively recently a pro-Russian (or at least Russia-aligned) government in Kiev. Despite the political changes in Ukraine, would those supporters remain in the ground in Ukraine? (that is, other than in the breakaway republics).
 
There was until relatively recently a pro-Russian (or at least Russia-aligned) government in Kiev.
The pro-Russian government was democratically elected, as I recall, and ethnic Russian Ukrainians don't make up a large enough portion of the population to swing that on their own, so there are bound to be some Ukrainian Ukrainians who'd be in favour. How many? is the question.
 
So sayeth that famous Russian, Ahmediy Abdelovich Chalabski.

It's amazing how many countries have fallen under this Muscovite Mindset without having tasted vodka.
Not really ........ but........ hey-ho......... freedom of speech and all that.
 
Not really ........ but........ hey-ho......... freedom of speech and all that.
Indeed. Even if it is made up bollocks to justify a war AND not Russian.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top