Page 222: Take Care What You Choose For Cover

[Turrosh Mak]

If you can tolerate a few F-bombs, you might like these 2 videos:

[Mk_C]

I believe that on strike missions, they fly it low and fast. Total load may be less important than the precision with which the munitions it does carry can be targeted.

The whole point of Kinzhal is taking 9M720 and making it air launched for higher velocity and range. MiGs fly very high to launch those - they don't need to fly low, since the range allows launches from outside contested airspace.

I do not know how successful it is in these types of missions, but you have to compare it to other platforms the Russians deploy, not aircraft developed in the West.

We know that it managed to damage a MIM-104, so it works, but those AA systems depend heavily on personnel qualification, airspace control integration and other conditions to work efficiently, and in less-than-perfect they've been frequently letting through even much slower Scud-derivatives launched from surface - like in Yemeni attacks on Riyadh. The missiles function, but we don't know if they are providing any real new advantage.

Now i´m surprised. MiG-25 and MiG-31 LOOK similar, but in fact are totally different airplanes with different roles.

Not really, no. There are numerous significant modifications, but the air-frames are still highly similar, and until the 31K modification the role was downright identical - they are interceptor/air control aircrafts.

I don´t think so. I guess they rely on their "kinshal"- and "svezda"-air-to-ground rockets.

MiG-31 cannot use Kh-35 missiles, as they don't carry the necessary targeting suite. 31s would make a very poor platform for them anyhow - why would you risk your huge, noisy interceptors to launch a Harpoon-equivalent from relatively close range when even the lightest Russian fighters can carry it instead?

Do not underestimate the russians. They are NOT inferior to us.

This thread is going places.

Russia has how many aircraft carriers compared to the USA?
1 vs 20, 9 of which are helicopter carriers.

Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier - it's an aircraft-carrying AA cruiser. In design, it's aircraft launch capability was secondary to the air control and missile launch facilities, the former of which is pretty heavily outdated by now.

The Ukraine war has proven that and showed the folly of relying on pure numbers with outdated and unguided munitions.

Russian forces engaged in A Certain Conflict never had numerical advantage on an operational level compared to their opposition (duh, one side used total mobilization and the other one did not), and their use of modern high-precision munitions - from guided missiles to kamikaze drones - exceeded that of their opposition by orders of magnitude. For example, the only guided missiles Ukrainian forces had through the entire conflict are Kh-35-derivative AShMs, while Russia has been using extensive amounts of 3M54s, and Ukraine has only started to receive guided M982 this year, while Russians have used 2K25 extensively since the first day of the conflict. If we count HIMARS GMLRS, then we'll also have to include 9М542, which Russians used a lot more. If anything, A Certain Conflict has shown that a relatively modernized limited force cannot do miracles and quickly win you a short victorious war against a large if outdated force if it simply digs in and holds on, even with airspace control and artillery advantage.

[QuakeIV]

I don't think the russians are really significantly better off as far as being 'outdated' goes.

The russians are using more guided missiles but are also losing many of those to air defenses, so the impact is less than might otherwise be expected. It seems GMLRS and stormshadow are having a lot more luck penetrating the opposition air defenses.

The ukrainians also have access to far superior orbital reconaissance which is providing a big advantage in knowing what the enemy is up to as well as knowing where to aim their longer ranged missiles.

Overall the russians are expending far more munitions for comparable if not lesser effect on the enemy. There isn't any other way to explain in some cases a local 10:1 artillery advantage combined with a lack of ability to advance.

[Mk_C]

I don't think the russians are really significantly better off as far as being 'outdated' goes.

Russia went through 2 full-scale modernization campaigns between 1991 and 2022. Ukraine started one in 2014 and cancelled it in 2018 due to issues with Ukroboronprom. Beyond the current lend-lease and um, 5 (five) specific system development projects that had at least some degree of implementation that I know of, the Ukrainian forces saw next to no development between the current conflict and... well... their inception.

The russians are using more guided missiles but are also losing many of those to air defenses, so the impact is less than might otherwise be expected.

It seems GMLRS and stormshadow are having a lot more luck penetrating the opposition air defenses.

We require actual numbers to make such judgements. We have numbers on the scale of system use for some of them, but as far as "results" go - there is nothing to be done, as even with object control evidence we have in droves on both sides, there is almost never a means to tie a destroyed vehicle with a specific system. And that's with vehicles - for other types of targets, evidence collection is very limited in Russia and outright outlawed in Ukraine - what is present is mostly material used in bidirectional propaganda efforts (so, deliberately skewed), and absolutely no data to estimate actual effectiveness (targets disabled vs targets hit vs system applications, etc). We will not see much reliable information on effectiveness of many systems until way after the conflict. As always. If anyone ever claims that he clearly sees the scale of impact of this or that system or tactic in the conflict - it just tells us which part of Social Network Formerly Known as Twitter they prefer to read.

The ukrainians also have access to far superior orbital reconaissance which is providing a big advantage in knowing what the enemy is up to as well as knowing where to aim their longer ranged missiles.

Not true - both Russia and NATO have larger observation and SIGINT satellite constellations than would be needed by the conflict in question.

There isn't any other way to explain in some cases a local 10:1 artillery advantage combined with a lack of ability to advance.

There is a very simple one - that even with effective application of artillery and air superiority, those might be insufficient to rout the defending force, and if the defending force does not rout - then an infantry assault is required, and an infantry assault means lots of casualties for both sides - casualties that Russian armed forces are reluctant to take due to limited size of their force and political factors, hence outsourcing this type of work to The Affluent Person of Some Importance That Shall Not Be Named Here and his little Warcrime Inc business, or just biding their time and expecting artillery shells to do all the fighting for them. This actually mirrors the issues of many less-than-perfectly-successful military interventions made by USA in the past very clearly - well, those come with the cosplay. Most of the planet fell too hard for the "get air superiority and they crumble into dust" meme after Iraq - turns out entrenched infantry can be incredibly resilient as long as morale and CoC hold, even with a constant noise made by arty and air support.

A relevant point here would be an speculation of how really effective orbital control would be for ground conflict in Outsider, but that is still not very applicable as Loroi and Umiak both probably use shittons of thermonuclear/taimat WMDs for, khm, orbital support.

[D-503]

Now i´m surprised. MiG-25 and MiG-31 LOOK similar, but in fact are totally different airplanes with different roles.

Not really, no. There are numerous significant modifications, but the air-frames are still highly similar, and until the 31K modification the role was downright identical - they are interceptor/air control aircrafts.

Well, "significant modifications" can be a broad term...
I´d still stick with "different plane", which is what the all new wings indicate.
E.g., a comparable example in cars would be the 1981 Audi Quattro with the 1981 Audi 80 Diesel. Highly similar at least from in front, similar body/platform, but absolutely NO comparison in performance.

I don´t think so. I guess they rely on their "kinshal"- and "svezda"-air-to-ground rockets.

MiG-31 cannot use Kh-35 missiles, as they don't carry the necessary targeting suite. 31s would make a very poor platform for them anyhow - why would you risk your huge, noisy interceptors to launch a Harpoon-equivalent from relatively close range when even the lightest Russian fighters can carry it instead?

I was refering to the Kh-31, also produced by "ОКБ Звезда".

Here under the ´31, on the port wing:





..

This thread is going places.

Um, my school english is a bit rusty - can you please "translate" to me?

[Gudo]

This thread is going places.

Um, my school english is a bit rusty - can you please "translate" to me?

We're getting off topic/political/controversial. @Arioch: Please either lock or spin-off I think.

I don't think the russians are really significantly better off as far as being 'outdated' goes.

Russia went through 2 full-scale modernization campaigns between 1991 and 2022...

Russia announced 2 modernization campaigns. I think the age of the equipment says something about how thorough and effective these campaigns were. I absolutely hate the meme but seriously, T-14 when? And that doesn't even touch on things like their NCO corps and internal fiscal controls that clearly remain in need of changes.

Beyond the current lend-lease and um, 5 (five) specific system development projects that had at least some degree of implementation that I know of, the Ukrainian forces saw next to no development between the current conflict and... well... their inception.

It's disingenuous to throw out "beyond the current lend-lease" as if the Ukrainians aren't rolling around in Leopards and Bradleys. It's modernized equipment in Ukrainian hands, it counts just as much as the casualties that hardware creates.

We require actual numbers to make such judgements...

This feels like missing the forest for the trees. We have all the evidence we need to see that Russian forces have under-performed while the Ukrainians have over-performed. We don't need to know exactly how effective a particular piece of equipment is to how well the larger force is fairing.

Russia has how many aircraft carriers compared to the USA?
1 vs 20, 9 of which are helicopter carriers.

Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier - it's an aircraft-carrying AA cruiser. In design, it's aircraft launch capability was secondary to the air control and missile launch facilities, the former of which is pretty heavily outdated by now.

The Soviets would never have called it a cruiser if it weren't for the Montreux Convention. Similarly, Japan would never call the Izumo a destroyer if it weren't for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. The Germans take first prize on this one though, with their "Air Sports Association". (Guys, Stillstorm might be on to something what with her "tools of deception." )

[D-503]

This thread is going places.

Um, my school english is a bit rusty - can you please "translate" to me?

We're getting off topic/political/controversial. @Arioch: Please either lock or spin-off I think.

Thanks for translation.
And no, no politics for me, thx.

The Germans take first prize on this one though, with their "Air Sports Association". (Guys, Stillstorm might be on to something what with her "tools of deception." )

Yup. Very scary:






Srsly: That´s en:wp gone weird. The DLV was only a governing body for glider pilots, an administrative step towards centralization.
Later Luftwaffe (after reincarnation 1935) had not much to do with that.

[QuakeIV]

The ukrainians also have access to far superior orbital reconaissance which is providing a big advantage in knowing what the enemy is up to as well as knowing where to aim their longer ranged missiles.

Not true - both Russia and NATO have larger observation and SIGINT satellite constellations than would be needed by the conflict in question.

I am referring to the ukranians being fed intel from the united states satellite constellations, which are far superior.

There isn't any other way to explain in some cases a local 10:1 artillery advantage combined with a lack of ability to advance.

There is a very simple one - that even with effective application of artillery and air superiority, those might be insufficient to rout the defending force, and if the defending force does not rout - then an infantry assault is required, and an infantry assault means lots of casualties for both sides - casualties that Russian armed forces are reluctant to take due to limited size of their force and political factors, hence outsourcing this type of work to The Affluent Person of Some Importance That Shall Not Be Named Here and his little Warcrime Inc business, or just biding their time and expecting artillery shells to do all the fighting for them. This actually mirrors the issues of many less-than-perfectly-successful military interventions made by USA in the past very clearly - well, those come with the cosplay. Most of the planet fell too hard for the "get air superiority and they crumble into dust" meme after Iraq - turns out entrenched infantry can be incredibly resilient as long as morale and CoC hold, even with a constant noise made by arty and air support.

A relevant point here would be an speculation of how really effective orbital control would be for ground conflict in Outsider, but that is still not very applicable as Loroi and Umiak both probably use shittons of thermonuclear/taimat WMDs for, khm, orbital support.

The russians are having to invent all sorts of creative excuses for why no progress is being made despite what would normally be considered a persian-gulf esque equipment advantage that should've resulted in overwhelming victory in a short time, up to and including "aha I guess modern war doesn't work after all", when in reality it appears to be a skill issue. Ever since world war 1 the majority of casualties are inflicted by artillery. Although infantry remains necessary, whether you want it or not the fighting has been done by artillery for 100 years.

[Gudo]

Yup. Very scary... Srsly: That´s en:wp gone weird. The DLV was only a governing body for glider pilots, an administrative step towards centralization.
Later Luftwaffe (after reincarnation 1935) had not much to do with that.

The wp:de version reads pretty much the same; a front organization for the training and establishment of an air force and an end run around the Treaty of Versailles. And while we're looking at pictures in the Wikimedia commons, you saw the pictures of the officer uniforms? And if the org was just a governing body, why would you create it with a uniformed officer corps in the first place?

I will grant you though, the org apparently wasn't quite militaristic enough since it wound up getting replaced.

[Arioch]

The threads on individual pages have a limited lifespan, so I don't consider it a problem if the discussion wanders a bit off topic. Aerospace subjects are appropriate to this forum, I think.

[D-503]

Yup. Very scary... Srsly: That´s en:wp gone weird. The DLV was only a governing body for glider pilots, an administrative step towards centralization.
Later Luftwaffe (after reincarnation 1935) had not much to do with that.

And while we're looking at pictures in the Wikimedia commons, you saw the pictures of the officer uniforms? And if the org was just a governing body, why would you create it with a uniformed officer corps in the first place?

Ah, now i see where you got that idea from.
But one picture of a fat bloke in uniform with some tin on it or a list of rankings is no proof.
There are a lot of swastika-obsessed kiddies out there who blow everything out of proportion.
That bloke´s vita itself says he got kicked out of the DLV.

The wp:de version reads pretty much the same; a front organization for the training and establishment of an air force and an end run around the Treaty of Versailles.

Like i sad, obsessed kiddies.
But there were real precedessor organisations, maybe those are what you have in mind.
The most important of them , e.g. the "Deruluft" were of course way more obscure (google "WIVUPAL" or "Walter Stahr, Hauptmann" if you like). THEY e.g. had training facilities in Lipezk, Sowjet Union (imagine that) with lots of airplanes, all very well funded.
And around those there was a LOT of effort to disguise them, e.g. flow of planes, spare parts, fuel, money...
THOSE are the interesting bits of history.

[Mk_C]

We're getting off topic/political/controversial.

I agree here, thank you.

Russia announced 2 modernization campaigns. I think the age of the equipment says something about how thorough and effective these campaigns were.

It's disingenuous to throw out "beyond the current lend-lease" as if the Ukrainians aren't rolling around in Leopards and Bradleys. It's modernized equipment in Ukrainian hands, it counts just as much as the casualties that hardware creates.

The irony: the youngest (and really, the only) Leopard 2 hull with confirmed age that we know of (the one confirmed on July 7 this year in Zaporizhie region, torn armor indicates B-tech series, 1987 or older) is about the same age than the oldest T-72B hull seen in combat with a confirmed age (02.02.2022 near Mar'inka, 1986 model frontal glacis). Really puts "age of the equipment" into perspective. One can argue refurbishment - but that contrasts poorly with the linked article.

I absolutely hate the meme but seriously, T-14 when?

Absolutely useless in the ongoing conflict, which confirmed that any operation that doesn't end in fanfare in under 3 months requires scale, not wunderwaffen. For all the advertised advantages, T-14 would be exactly as vulnerable to the banes of this conflict: heavy ATGMs, logistical disruptions and tens of thousands of ol' TM-62 pies that seem to be solely responsible for a massive share of all heavy vehicle disables and losses on either side so far (but again, it's extremely hard to get any solid figures). The big problem with tanks in this conflict is that nobody has enough of them, not that they are not cool enough. And regardless of how the program develops further in the future - I'm betting my left hand that T-72 derivatives will outlast all of us and our children, and will see use in military conflicts on the surface of Mars, should those ever arise.

And that doesn't even touch on things like their NCO corps and internal fiscal controls that clearly remain in need of changes.

This feels like missing the forest for the trees. We have all the evidence we need to see that Russian forces have under-performed while the Ukrainians have over-performed. We don't need to know exactly how effective a particular piece of equipment is to how well the larger force is fairing.

Beyond the careful slide from "armament systems, tactics of their use and their effectiveness" to "who's winning what" - this really just indicates your social media preferences. I mean, >Forbes.

We don't need to know exactly how effective a particular piece of equipment

But that is what we're talking about here. Weapon systems, their use and their capabilities. I'm downright exhausted by how this sort of discussion became an impossibility in the light of recent events.

The Soviets would never have called it a cruiser if it weren't for the Montreux Convention. Similarly, Japan would never call the Izumo a destroyer if it weren't for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. The Germans take first prize on this one though, with their "Air Sports Association". (Guys, Stillstorm might be on to something what with her "tools of deception." )

Here's a meme I actually hate. The classification certainly has nothing to do with only having two 35 ton aircraft lifts (against 4 on Nimitz, or two double-size (70+ tons) on de Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth) and measly two ammunition elevators (against , say, 11 on Gerald Ford), it does not have anything to do with the extremely limited air fuel supply, or the fact that Syria was the first ever case when the vessel's air wing has performed (absolutely meager scale) strike ops, or the vessel's straight up inability to maintain any form of continuous CAP with even one full-blood flight, or the fact that in a combat engagement the ship engages it's missile systems which prevents air ops (because the missile hatches are literally IN the flight deck), or the meager size of the air wing, or basically absent amphibious ops capabilities, all compared to still impressive missile arsenal (save the badly outdated airspace monitoring capabilities), comparable to 3 contemporary Ticonderogas. The sheer shining absence of a place for any sort of carrier ops in Soviet and Russian naval doctrine are also seemingly irrelevant. The cunning Soviets have duct-taped some launchers to an aircraft carrier and invented a new acronym, and that caused a brain aneurysm in the entire Turkish military command staff and foreign cabinet. A shining example of brilliant MASKIROVKA operations on part of the Soviet Naval Command! One cannot help but wonder why they were so dumb to plan the perspective Ulyanovsk as a Capital A Aircraft Carrier. Should've duct-taped a Granit to that one and called it a ТАВКР as well.

The bloody tub has only crossed Bosporus on 2 (two) occasions across it's entire service history. The Montreux Convention itself is not a Japanese or German internal classification where there's nobody to call bullshit on you - it's an international convention. Turkey government couldn't give half of a shit about which label the Soviets or Russia puts on a vessel - it applies the convention as far as it recognizes a vessel as a military vessel and/or an aircraft carrier, and only as much as it wishes. They are not idiots that can get played on a technicality. Kuzetsov does not have a judicial collision with the Convention because Turkish government does not recognize Kuznetsov as an aircraft carrier that can function as a power projection base, because it does not matter as an aircraft carrier, in political or military terms - the lone Millerovo air base near Rostov already fulfills the functions of a dozen-vessel strong carrier superfleet across the Black Sea. Kuznetsov matters as a source of practical experience in terms of carrier operations - which Soviets lacked terribly, and as an anti-air umbrella - but functional air control ops have required some actual presence in the air since the late 60s, at least in the form of helicopters. Kuznetsov can do that slightly better with it's air wing, the main purpose of which is limited air recon ops, compensating for inherent limitations of vessel-borne radar systems - which by itself is the largest reason for why the Soviet naval planners saw no issue with the downright meager payload that all Kuznetsov-launched air crafts can take in the air, like them literally never ever (not even once, not even in the tests) launching with any AShM - having a couple air-to-air missiles on them is good, but it's largely not why they are up there.

All because it's an heavy anti-air cruiser with limited aircraft launch capabilities, not an aircraft carrier. It's not a matter of fooling international regulations, as Turkey itself does not recognize it as an aircraft carrier - technically, functionally or politically. Their government has enough brain cells rubbed together to see that Kuznetsov cannot do any politically destabilizing aircraft carrier-ey things which are the reason for the Convention's existence.

And speaking of Izumo-class - the Japanese don't have an issue with calling them destroyers, because... they don't call them "destroyers". It's "Izumo-gata-goei-kan" - "Izumo-class escort vessels". Which does not indicate any form of false modesty or constitutional deception - similarly to Kuznetsov, these vessels are objectively incapable of serving as pillars of large scale naval combat operations, they simply lack the operational capabilities for that. Like Kuznetsov was a development of 1143 line of AA vessels, aiming to fulfill their support function for the rest of the fleet but better than before and secure the expertise necessary for maybe building and operating actual aircraft carries - so does Izumo fulfill the role of doing the support jobs of Hyuga and Shirane better, and in the process preparing the navy and industry for perspective carriers. This is just anglophone bias if anything. And I would legitimately love to see an argument in favor of calling the poor Izumo a carrier. Does Article 9's jurisdiction spread across USA as well, forcing the Congress to call America-class "LHAs" instead of carriers?

Apologies if I'm being a bit confrontational here - that is not my intention, I just had or saw a discussion of this very issue a few dozen too many times. I'm still glad that we get to talk some nuts and bolts around here. Let's just all be friends and shittalk the JSF program.

The threads on individual pages have a limited lifespan, so I don't consider it a problem if the discussion wanders a bit off topic. Aerospace subjects are appropriate to this forum, I think.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[Mk_C]

I am referring to the ukranians being fed intel from the united states satellite constellations, which are far superior.

And what do you think I'm referring to? Ukraine does not exactly have it's own satellite constellation. Eastern Ukraine is not a planet - both NATO and Russia have more than enough satellites in orbit to satisfy all their satellite intel needs for the conflict, many times over.

The russians

I am not even Russian, bruv.

are having to invent all sorts of creative excuses for why no progress is being made despite what would normally be considered a persian-gulf esque equipment advantage that should've resulted in overwhelming victory in a short time

Well that's the thing - we only have an extremely limited sample of military conflicts where persian-gulf esque equipment advantage has lead to a persian gulf esque outcome: the Gulf and Yugoslavia aaaaaaand... that's literally it. But somehow, those have completely defined our contemporary understanding of warfare. For some reason we've collectively decided to wipe the rest of warfare history completely off the board - including many cases where air superiority and artillery advantage did not sum up to a chill milk run across a country. An error that Russian military command seemingly made as well.

Ever since world war 1 the majority of casualties are inflicted by artillery. Although infantry remains necessary, whether you want it or not the fighting has been done by artillery for 100 years.

Unfortunately, in order to talk casualties - we also need actual figures that we simply don't have. And trust me, I looked. But on the functional level - casualties are not the singular defining factor of operations. Even if heavy support has downsized a company's defensive position to a platoon strongpoint - it still means that some force has to assault a platoon strongpoint. Which is a bad time even if you have a battalion to do it. Worse if your force is actually severely limited as well.

[Mk_C]

The most important of them , e.g. the "Deruluft" were of course way more obscure (google "WIVUPAL" or "Walter Stahr, Hauptmann" if you like). THEY e.g. had training facilities in Lipezk, Sowjet Union (imagine that) with lots of airplanes, all very well funded.
And around those there was a LOT of effort to disguise them, e.g. flow of planes, spare parts, fuel, money...
THOSE are the interesting bits of history.

Great point here.

[QuakeIV]

And what do you think I'm referring to? Ukraine does not exactly have it's own satellite constellation. Eastern Ukraine is not a planet - both NATO and Russia have more than enough satellites in orbit to satisfy all their satellite intel needs for the conflict, many times over.

Russia has four purpose-built reconnaissance satellites (two optical two radar).

Well that's the thing - we only have an extremely limited sample of military conflicts where persian-gulf esque equipment advantage has lead to a persian gulf esque outcome: the Gulf and Yugoslavia aaaaaaand... that's literally it.

How about blitzkrieg? How about the six days war in the middle east?

Even if heavy support has downsized a company's defensive position to a platoon strongpoint - it still means that some force has to assault a platoon strongpoint. Which is a bad time even if you have a battalion to do it. Worse if your force is actually severely limited as well.

So everyone in mainland europe and whoever was defending 700,000 square miles of russia simply weren't trying hard enough? Perhaps since it cost only 40 million russians (and significant outside material aid) to stop 6 million germans there is in reality nothing to learn from that.

Well that's the thing - we only have an extremely limited sample of military conflicts...
...
Unfortunately, in order to talk casualties - we also need actual figures that we simply don't have.

If it is unthinkable from the outset that the russians are simply incompetent, there will never be enough information. The gaps will always be filled with whatever is required for them to simply have had a bad plan, or wrong intelligence, or it was some other honest mistake.

[Mk_C]

Russia has four purpose-built reconnaissance satellites (two optical two radar).

Let us count the Cosmos(es)! No nav, no comms, no EWS, only military, only recon, only purpose-built, currently in orbit, no unknown package, all tracked and considered active by NORAD:
2453
2455
2481
2486
2502
2503
2504
2506
2515
2550

Feel free to point out if I counted wrong, but that does look like a bit more than 4. And that's without including a single geodesic, topography or meteorological sat, which are considered dual-purpose by every space-capable political entity - because they blatantly are dual-purpose, and we know for a fact that they are constantly used for military intel purposes. Or the satellites on which Russia just refuses to disclose any information.

I mean, just give your estimate on the size of the constellation that you would consider sufficient for monitoring one conflict taking place on the territory size of West Virginia.

How about blitzkrieg?

The one that sorta dragged out and kinda ended in Berlin the first time the opposing army did not fold immediately after the initial successful invasion?

How about the six days war in the middle east?

That's actually a wonderful example - the one where the victorious side did not really have a massive technological advantage, with superior tactics andorganisation playing a key role instead - and despite successfully inflicting tremendous casualties, the conflict ended with only modest territorial gains for the victor (most of which were eventually ceded). Sounds kinda familiar. IDF must've really sucked if they didn't manage to take Cairo, in that logic.

So everyone in mainland europe and whoever was defending 700,000 square miles of russia simply weren't trying hard enough?

You might've noticed that I did not state anything even remotely similar. On the contrary - I made focus on enduring Chain of Command and force-wide morale, which is far cry from something that can be achieved by simply trying hard enough.

Perhaps since it cost only 40 million russians (and significant outside material aid) to stop 6 million germans there is in reality nothing to learn from that.

Now come on - if we're counting blatantly exterminated civilian population as military casualties, then it would be only fair include the Holocaust victims in the tally for Germany - they were a part of German population after all, as citizens of Germany itself, or the occupation regimes. And there is a ton to learn from it - like how planned rapid operations devolve into wars of attrition.

If it is unthinkable from the outset that the russians are simply incompetent

It's entirely thinkable. I've stated as much, repeatedly. It's just that "these guys are dumb-dumbs while those guys are smarties" is an extremely reductive explanation - it doesn't do more than divide the humanity into Evil Idiots and Good Badasses, which always just so conveniently matches the ever-shifting political landscape, with Evil Idiots magically transforming into Good Badasses and vice versa in a matter of weeks whenever that landscape shifts. Like how the currently Extremely Competent Ukrainian Army is somehow largely the same one which was rated among the least capable on the continent prior to 2014, and has utterly failed to solve a particular [POLITICALLY_CHARGED_IDENTIFIER_OF_YOUR_PREFERENCE]ists issue for a very long period of time. Or how largely the same force that erased Yugoslavia from the map in a very short period of time spend decades in Afghanistan achieving nothing. Whose incompetence caused the entire Indochina conflict to go the way it did? The Falklands War? Enduring Freedom, Inherent Resolve and Freedom's Sentinel? It's never someone being simply incompetent, is it? I happen to think that there's a bit more to how armed conflicts develop than one side being Keystone Cops and the other one being Marvel's Avengers - things like numerical and technological capabilities, tactical and strategic goals, internal and international political climate, economy, logistical imitations, posturing, image making - all that jive that doesn't all fit into a dichotomy of competence and incompetence, even though it is often a factor among those. If anything, the ongoing conflict has shown that nobody on the planet is actually prepared for and capable of pursuing armed conflicts of such scale without fucking up a lot. Just like pretty much every such conflict did prior. Which paints the several conflicts that had significant risks of tremendous escalation but ended up going through very smoothly as extreme outliers rather than the norm that we should expect from modern warfare.

The gaps will always be filled with whatever is required for them to simply have had a bad plan, or wrong intelligence, or it was some other honest mistake.

The gaps will always be filled largely with what people find most comforting to believe.

[Gudo]

Apologies if I'm being a bit confrontational here - that is not my intention, I just had or saw a discussion of this very issue a few dozen too many times. I'm still glad that we get to talk some nuts and bolts around here.

I think there are definitely some places you and I agree, even if it's not everywhere. I think we both agree that recent events in Ukraine have been a colossal miss-step by the Russians. NATO is expanded, western defense budgets are up, anti-Russian sentiments are up, and the Russians are paying a steep cost in blood and treasure. Personally, I don't think it what they gained was worth the price they're continuing to pay.

I absolutely hate the meme but seriously, T-14 when?

Absolutely useless in the ongoing conflict...

The T-14 is absolutely useless in any conflict. It truly is a wunderwaffen in the most perjorative sense of the word. I brought it up though in the context of announced versus completed modernizations. "T-14 when?" translates to "If Russia was actually engaging in a modernization campaign, why didn't they build any of their modern tank?" And yes, I know they did in fact build some, but just a piddling handful. I think it's quite telling none of them were sent to even quiet parts of the front; if the tank was capable of performing well, you'd think the Russians would want the world to know it. You know they have the logistics and manpower to do it if they wanted to. It seems it's better to be thought useless than show up on the front and remove all doubt.

The irony: the youngest (and really, the only) Leopard 2 hull with confirmed age that we know of (the one confirmed on July 7 this year in Zaporizhie region, torn armor indicates B-tech series, 1987 or older) is about the same age than the oldest T-72B hull seen in combat with a confirmed age (02.02.2022 near Mar'inka, 1986 model frontal glacis).

There are B-52s expected to serve into the 2050s. Age of the hull is not nearly as important as the age of the sensors, optics, and computers inside. And it seems pretty clear that much of the lend-lease armor has newer kit than the Russian armor.

Really puts "age of the equipment" into perspective. One can argue refurbishment - but that contrasts poorly with the linked article.

From the article, emphasis added: "High losses and low production help to explain why most of Russia’s replacement tanks are old tanks that technicians pulled out of open storage, lightly refurbished and sent to the front with few or no major upgrades. A survey of reequipped Russian regiments is like a tour of a tank museum. There are 1978-vintage T-80s, T-62s from the mid-1960s and even T-55s from the late 1950s."

I know, the really old ones are being used as replacements for self propelled guns. But even the only kind of olds are outclassed by lend-lease gear and it doesn't matter because if Russia had actually modernized their force and built thousands of T-14s, they'd be pulling flippin T-90As from reserve!

And speaking of Izumo-class - the Japanese don't have an issue with calling them destroyers, because... they don't call them "destroyers".

They call them destroyers. Just look at all this garbage. That's not all press releases in there either. Also, the JMSDF uses similar numbering conventions to the USN. DD is destroyer, H is for Helicopter. Hull number DDH 183: IZUMO.

The Soviets would never have called it a cruiser if it weren't for the Montreux Convention..."

Here's a meme I actually hate... The Montreux Convention itself is not a Japanese or German internal classification where there's nobody to call bullshit on you - it's an international convention. Turkey government couldn't give half of a shit about which label the Soviets or Russia puts on a vessel - it applies the convention as far as it recognizes a vessel as a military vessel and/or an aircraft carrier, and only as much as it wishes...Kuzetsov does not have a judicial collision with the Convention because Turkish government does not recognize Kuznetsov as an aircraft carrier

So if Türkiye lets through a Nimitz class, it's not an aircraft carrier? Look, the whole point of my "Japan would never call the Izumo a destroyer if it weren't for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution" bit was pointing out that nations can just... say shit. "We're not occupying, we're nation-building!" kind of shit. And if the cost of addressing that nonsense is too high, other nations will just roll with it.

SpoilerShow

Don't @ me about the finer points of the Montreux Convention. I am well aware that a Nimitz class is well over the tonnage limit, and that aircraft carriers are excluded from the capital ship exclusion, and that the capital ship exclusion applies only to black sea powers. I know. It's not the point. The point is that just because some nation, Türkiye in this case, says a ship isn't a carrier doesn't it isn't in fact a carrier. Nations say shit all the time.

Technical differences and doctrinal differences between the Kuznetsov and other carriers. (I read it, I promise. Just trying to keep the thread short. Seriously, it's like three posts up.)

It's not a surprise that the Kuznetsov is both designed and employed differently than other carriers. The Soviets had different strategic goals, industrial abilities, doctrines, and geopolitical realities than other carrier building nations. But just because it's not a Nimitz clone doesn't mean it's not an aircraft carrier. Just look at the:
• Off-set Island!
• Angled flight deck for simultaneous launch and recovery!
• Internal hangers!
• Aircraft elevators!
• Ski jump!
• Arresting gear!
• Russians calling it an aircraft carrier is literally every context other than transiting the Bosporus!
• It's one and only (lol) combat deployment being a carrier air operations deployment! (I get not liking Forbes, this is a little different.)

because it does not matter as an aircraft carrier, in political or military terms

It really doesn't. That "tub" is a millstone on it's navy's neck. Russia would be better served by selling it to some dude in Macau. That ship is soaking up manpower and treasure that the navy could use much more lethally elsewhere.

[QuakeIV]

Let us count the Cosmos(es)

Guess I'll look those up
2453 - presumed ballistic missile early warning
2455 - assumed elint, nobody knows
2481 - communications, wtf?
2486 - persona (optical), counted earlier
2502 - yantar, no longer operational
2503 - bars-m, cartography satellite, not dedicated recon/military
2504 - nobody seems to know what that is, fair enough
2506 - persona (optical), counted earlier
2515 - bars-m, cartography satellite, not dedicated recon/military
2550 - pion-nks, imaging radar (didnt know of this actually fair enough)

I'll add:
COSMOS 2487 - kondor, imaging radar
I was going to add the other Kondor but its actually south african so my original count was off.

I'm inclined to disparage "dual purpose" satellites because at that point google earth is starting to become a major player, let alone nation states. It should probably have to actually pass over the area in question with some regularity and produce information useful for actually identifying targets and producing weapons grade coordinates to really be considered meaningful.

How about the six days war in the middle east?

...despite successfully inflicting tremendous casualties, the conflict ended with only modest territorial gains...

Well I meant more in terms of air superiority being decisive. Once they had destroyed the enemy air forces it was seemingly a walk-over. They also more than doubled their territorial extent, kindof an absurd claim to call it 'modest'.

I made focus on enduring Chain of Command and force-wide morale, which is far cry from something that can be achieved by simply trying hard enough.

Is force-wide morale supposed to produce something other than effort on part of the people involved? Ammunition and fuel perhaps?

"these guys are dumb-dumbs while those guys are smarties" is an extremely reductive explanation.

Nobody here said that.

Like how the currently Extremely Competent Ukrainian Army is somehow largely the same one which was rated among the least capable on the continent prior to 2014

Right, hence my conclusion being that the russians are incredibly incompetent rather than that the ukranians suddenly made a U-turn into a world class fighting force.

the same force that erased Yugoslavia from the map in a very short period of time spend decades in Afghanistan achieving nothing.

Yes, that was extreme incompetence on part of the united states to engage in that conflict at all. From the outset there were white papers published by the military on how there was no win condition for iraq or afghanistan and therefore it would be drawn out and aimless. "i will know when i have won" is not a viable objective.

[QuakeIV]

It really doesn't. That "tub" is a millstone on it's navy's neck. Russia would be better served by selling it to some dude in Macau. That ship is soaking up manpower and treasure that the navy could use much more lethally elsewhere.

Yeah they really need to give up on that thing already...

[gaerzi]

You cannot "turn" a high altitude interceptor into a ground attack aircraft. That would be a totally different machine then.

That's exactly what happened with the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. High-altitude interceptor turned into a ground strike aircraft. With a pretty telling record of striking the ground, indeed.