War in Ukraine

#26,601
#26,601
Germany had only one hope against the Soviets and that was to win quickly, like they did against France. Germany did not have the manpower to fight any war of attrition. Once the Russian counterattack in front of Moscow in December 1941 halted the Wermacht literally within sight of the domes of the Kremlin, the war was essentially unwinnable. A negotiated peace remained possible through 1942 until Stalingrad sealed Germany‘s fate. The irony to me has always been that Germany ran out of time in 1941 largely because Mussolini‘s not so excellent adventure in the Balkans forced Hitler to postpone Barbarossa for six weeks. Six weeks that would have put the Panzers at the gates of Moscow well before winter and before Stalin had time to bring in enough reserves to stop the tidal wave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, lukeneyland, AM64 and 5 others
#26,602
#26,602
NorthDallas40 said:
You are trying to assert these “regional conflicts” as some silly assertion they are defeating a peer adversary in a stand alone conflict. My comprehension is fine. You are not succeeding.
Click to expand...

Here's the initial comment and reply:
I think you underestimate the effectiveness of guerilla warfare and overestimate the capabilities of the Russian military. This is not an experienced combat force with great success since Afghanistan in the early 80’s and that wasn’t great or successful
And my reply to that comment: 'I'm not cheering for them, far from it, but they've had mainly success post-Afghanistan. And their methods are not easy on civilians.'
Then later: They haven’t won a stand alone war since Napoleon.
I did not bring up stand alone, prowess, skill, WWII, Assad, Britney Spears or anything other than to mention that Russia has won some conflicts and that they won their theater of WWII.
And I'll add that post-Afghanistan they've won more than they've lost.
 
#26,603
#26,603
OrangeTsar said:
Germany had only one hope against the Soviets and that was to win quickly, like they did against France. Germany did not have the manpower to fight any war of attrition. Once the Russian counterattack in front of Moscow in December 1941 halted the Wermacht literally within sight of the domes of the Kremlin, the war was essentially unwinnable. A negotiated peace remained possible through 1942 until Stalingrad sealed Germany‘s fate. The irony to me has always been that Germany ran out of time in 1941 largely because Mussolini‘s not so excellent adventure in the Balkans forced Hitler to postpone Barbarossa for six weeks. Six weeks that would have put the Panzers at the gates of Moscow well before winter and before Stalin had time to bring in enough reserves to stop the tidal wave.
Click to expand...
Even if true, that doesn't necessarily mean the collapse of the Russian fighting force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#26,604
#26,604
USF grad in TN said:
Two different perspectives on the next phase

Institute for the Study of War

The Battle for Donbas Will Be a Tough Fight for Ukraine
Click to expand...

Great takes, both of them, even if each comes to different conclusions. I think it boils down to previously long supply chains, multiple fronts and urban areas disadvantaged the Russians. With Donbas, supply lines are short, troops are concentrated and it is going to be a maneuver action in the open with armor and that favors Russians BIGLY.

Hoping Ukraine can keep from getting the bulk of its military encircled in a kill zone for Russian armor. Best to fight with guerrela actions and swift counter-attacks and use ground to make Russians pay dearly and hope its enough to drive them to the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, USF grad in TN and AM64
#26,605
#26,605
Velo Vol said:
Even if true, that doesn't necessarily mean the collapse of the Russian fighting force.
Click to expand...
One of the points that will always be debated. With the fall of Moscow, the Russians would have lost their Main rail and transportation hub and most of their remaining industrial base. The Soviet government was prepared to flee East. But their armies would have become logistically unsupportable The Germans would have dictated the timing and location of all remaining battles and picked off Armies at their leisure
 
#26,607
#26,607
OrangeTsar said:
One of the points that will always be debated. With the fall of Moscow, the Russians would have lost their Main rail and transportation hub and most of their remaining industrial base. The Soviet government was prepared to flee East. But their armies would have become logistically unsupportable The Germans would have dictated the timing and location of all remaining battles and picked off Armies at their leisure
Click to expand...
That's a good point. The government could carry on without Moscow, but it couldn't continue the war without railroad supply lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#26,608
#26,608
EasternVol said:
Here's the initial comment and reply:
I think you underestimate the effectiveness of guerilla warfare and overestimate the capabilities of the Russian military. This is not an experienced combat force with great success since Afghanistan in the early 80’s and that wasn’t great or successful
And my reply to that comment: 'I'm not cheering for them, far from it, but they've had mainly success post-Afghanistan. And their methods are not easy on civilians.'
Then later: They haven’t won a stand alone war since Napoleon.
I did not bring up stand alone, prowess, skill, WWII, Assad, Britney Spears or anything other than to mention that Russia has won some conflicts and that they won their theater of WWII.
And I'll add that post-Afghanistan they've won more than they've lost.
Click to expand...
Again winning a debate nobody was having there were four people goofing on Russian military incompetence and you jumped right in with “hey they won” in pummeling non peer adversaries as proof of their competence 🤷‍♂️
 
#26,609
#26,609
NorthDallas40 said:
Again winning a debate nobody was having there were four people goofing on Russian military incompetence and you jumped right in with “hey they won” as proof of their competence 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
It's a simple issue of disagreeing with a couple of erroneous points made. It's a discussion board. Don't let it get you so riled.
 
#26,614
#26,614
landscapingvol said:
Russia would have fallen to the Germans in WW2 without supplies from the allies and Hitler’s meddling. They were essentially saved by the weather against Napoleon and Hitler. They employed extremely poor tactics and simply overwhelmed the Germans with sheer numbers with no consideration for Russian infantry losses. They employed the same basic tactics in WW1 with little to no consideration for Russian infantry losses.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Russia had already moved plants from western Russia far into the east. As Germany moved deeper into Russia the supply lines would have been stretched and vulnerable to attack by guerilla forces. I still see Russia and China like big pillows that will swallow up conventional armies - the deeper you go the further fronts are spread and eventually the attack falls apart. There's just no way the Germans could have driven Russia into the Pacific. It's like a war of attrition with somebody who has you beat in numbers. Blitzkrieg against a huge country is like current TN football with a porous defense against a good team - starts out good, but ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and EasternVol
#26,615
#26,615
OrangeTsar said:
Germany had only one hope against the Soviets and that was to win quickly, like they did against France. Germany did not have the manpower to fight any war of attrition. Once the Russian counterattack in front of Moscow in December 1941 halted the Wermacht literally within sight of the domes of the Kremlin, the war was essentially unwinnable. A negotiated peace remained possible through 1942 until Stalingrad sealed Germany‘s fate. The irony to me has always been that Germany ran out of time in 1941 largely because Mussolini‘s not so excellent adventure in the Balkans forced Hitler to postpone Barbarossa for six weeks. Six weeks that would have put the Panzers at the gates of Moscow well before winter and before Stalin had time to bring in enough reserves to stop the tidal wave.
Click to expand...

The thing is Moscow isn't that deep into Russia. All the Russians had to do was fight and retreat until the Germans ran out of resources and were stretched too thin into Russia to be effective. It certainly helped that we supported Russia with equipment, but in the end all Russia had to do was fight and retreat because the numbers and landmass were always on the Russian side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Gandalf and EasternVol
#26,622
#26,622
I was told over a month ago that Russia was like 3 days away from running out of supplies...I wouldn't want to be stuck in the Donbas cauldron...surely a negotiated peace would have been preferable to having your military slaughtered, but when your leader is a coke head puppet, what are you going to do?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top