U.S. intelligence says Ukraine will fail to meet offensive’s key goal.

a reply to: Imhere

You must have misread my post, I was actually agreeing with you

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: putnam6

What are these indications you mention? Are they on that map?

2 years from now, Ukraine will be on fumes by then

People have been saying this the whole and it's all based on rumor and no logic. What are the numbers you're basing this on?

FWIW the only way they have a chance is to break that 3-1 troop advantage Russia now has a defending force, just defending the heavily defended eastern oblasts. With no air support, they can't conserve any munitions artillery was an area they had howitzers in depth

Again, what are the numbers here? And do you disagree with what I said? What makes you think they can't conserve them just because they don't have air superiority?

Not to mention the Ukrainians are up against proving they can make a push

That's true, and I'm saying they shouldn't actually invest in that too much. More of a propaganda issue.

I've been banging this drum since March here's the original link, is there a reason to think CSIS.org is wrong in their assessment? One reason they sent clusterbombs, it's all they had to send. ie ramping up production takes time, till then Ukraine has to make do without air support and with low artillery shell supplies. All indications are they are on the offensive

Look at some of the turnaround times on the chart for critical munitions, this was just 4 months ago. Now do the math with Ukraine firing 4000 shells a day since then

news.yahoo.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.csis.org...



Apologies, I've added the zoomed map and I've added a link that describes fighting all along the Donestk front. In other words, the offensive is underway and it's highly likely they aren't going to be able to conserve anything much less the needed artillery shells.

If you look at the weapons systems Ukraine received so far howitzers and mobile artillery are more numerous than any other system except MANPADS and Javenlins. They can not defend territory without using artillery and they certainly can't be on the offensive without using artillery



www.understandingwar.org...

Russian forces have dedicated significant effort, resources, and personnel to hold settlements such as Robotyne and Urozhaine, and recent Ukrainian advances in these areas are therefore likely reflective of a wider degradation of defending Russian forces. ISW continues to assess that Russian forces lack significant operational reserves, and the intense Russian effort to hold these settlements instead of withdrawing their forces means that Ukrainian forces have likely had to thoroughly degrade Russian units before advancing.[12] ISW recently observed Russian forces conduct lateral redeployments of elements of the 7th Guards Airborne (VDV) Division from Kherson Oblast and possibly from the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area to the Robotyne area, further suggesting that recent Ukrainian advances have significantly degraded the Russian forces that have been defending in western Zaporizhia Oblast without rotation since the start of the counteroffensive.[13] The lack of Russian operational reserves means that Russian forces will have to reinforce certain areas of the front at the expense of others, likely weakening Russian defensive lines in aggregate and offering Ukrainian forces opportunities for exploitation.[14] Khodakovsky’s recent complaint that the Russian command failed to send reinforcements to secure exhausted Russian forces defending Urozhaine may indicate that the Russian command is already making difficult choices about what sectors to prioritize as Ukrainian forces advance.[15] Russian forces increasingly appear likely to have to withdraw to secondary prepared defensive positions without significant support in the case of a Ukrainian breakthrough, and the further degradation of Russian forces creates opportunities for any Ukrainian breakthrough to be potentially operationally significant.[16] Khodakovsky’s apparent waning confidence in the Russian defense in southern Ukraine may indicate that he believes that recent advances have made a Ukrainian breakthrough more likely.

Ukrainian forces continued counteroffensive operations on at least three sectors of the front on August 17 and advanced near Bakhmut and in western Zaporizhia Oblast. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces continued offensive operations in the Bakhmut, Berdyansk (Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area), and Melitopol (western Zaporizhia Oblast) directions.[17] Geolocated footage published on August 16 indicates that Ukrainian forces made marginal gains in southern Klishchiivka (7km southwest of Bakhmut).[18] Additional geolocated footage published on August 14 indicates that Ukrainian forces advanced southwest of Novopokrovka (16km southeast of Orikhiv).[19] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces shot down two Russian Ka-52 attack helicopters on August 17.[20] Ukrainian military sources and geolocated footage posted on August 17 indicate that Ukrainian forces downed a Russian Ka-52 helicopter near Robotyne in western Zaporizhia Oblast.[21] Ukrainian Air Force Commander Mykola Oleshchuk stated that Ukrainian air defense units downed another Russian Ka-52 helicopter in the Bakhmut direction, although ISW has not observed visual confirmation of a downed Russian Ka-52 helicopter in this direction.[22] The destruction of two Russian Ka-52 helicopters in the same day could indicate that protracted Russian aviation operations without rest may be degrading Russia’s limited cadre of pilots, although it would be premature to draw firm conclusions from two instances.

www.cnbc.com...

a reply to: EternalShadow
Just to set your mind at rest. President Biden's request includes economic and humanitarian assistance and no additional oversight for military aid...???? Mr Biden, please keep calm, Blackrock has it all in hand, they just want a few billions of US tax payers money.

a reply to: putnam6

Yeah, we've been over this before. And it's not 4000 per day according to your article, it's 8000, at this point in time. I'm sure it will decrease again at some point.

Just like last time, you're only looking at US production. So it's like me looking up how many shells are produced in one part of Russia and then posting that to that Russia will run out. And the US military industry is the biggest in the world, that's true, but it's not reliant on artillery in the way many poorer armies are.

Apologies, I've added the zoomed map and I've added a link that describes fighting all along the Donestk front. In other words, the offensive is underway and it's highly likely they aren't going to be able to conserve anything much less the needed artillery shells.

Well, your source has higher expectations than I do. We'll see, anything is possible. I just don't think the frontlines will move much this year.

But it doesn't tell us much. It says Ukraine is conducting counteroffensives, but what does that mean? Could be a whole army attacking, or just some brigades here and there. It's not quantified. Keep in mind I never said the offensive isn't happening, I'm just questioning how significant it is militarily. So don't build a strawman.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: putnam6

Yeah, we've been over this before. And it's not 4000 per day according to your article, it's 8000, at this point in time. I'm sure it will decrease again at some point.

Just like last time, you're only looking at US production. So it's like me looking up how many shells are produced in one part of Russia and then posting that to that Russia will run out. And the US military industry is the biggest in the world, that's true, but it's not reliant on artillery in the way many poorer armies are.

Apologies, I've added the zoomed map and I've added a link that describes fighting all along the Donestk front. In other words, the offensive is underway and it's highly likely they aren't going to be able to conserve anything much less the needed artillery shells.

Well, your source has higher expectations than I do. We'll see, anything is possible. I just don't think the frontlines will move much this year.

But it doesn't tell us much. It says Ukraine is conducting counteroffensives, but what does that mean? Could be a whole army attacking, or just some brigades here and there. It's not quantified. Keep in mind I never said the offensive isn't happening, I'm just questioning how significant it is militarily. So don't build a strawman.

So you expect detailed battle plans, hold on I'll zap Zelenskky an email and see if he responds.

So I'm building a strawman when I've quoted and shown sources like CSIS with former military personnel's opinions as well as other professionals, and you have shown your opinion, that well yea if Ukraine would conserve their artillery shells it would be fine. That was your point of contention here CP, is it not?

Respectfully if so, I know and understand your opinion but believe there is NO conservation of shells here CP, they are at war with limited resources available, and they have no choice. Even a limited offensive is going to eat up artillery shells. There are plenty of sources showing the high importance artillery has played for Ukraine so far.

Hell I've looked at so many sources, it's like on one battlefront map you have Russian icons for a myriad of weapons systems, when you look at Ukraine's it is overwhelmingly artillery and drone attacks and the occasional cruise missile.






Here's another article with some pertinence here. In reference to the lack of air support. That's the key because with limited tanks and no air support in a ground campaign artillery and its usage is the only thing they have that can hit behind the front consistently. Thus they don't have the luxury of conserving their usage, they must be used especially if they are on the offensive. It's the only way to soften up the layered Russian defenses.

www.aol.com...

NATO armies would not consider tackling the minefields and defenses along the southern Zaporizhzhia front without high-end armor, anti-demining equipment, air superiority and a well-trained force. But somehow the West has afforded itself the luxury of impatience with Ukraine not being able to take an army of often-mobilized young men, rush-trained on new equipment, and overrun Russian-held territory by fall.

‘It is very scary’
Ukrainian troops know all too well the impact F-16s could have on Russian forces and the fight, as they are suffering the same from Russian jets now.

originally posted by: putnam6
So you expect detailed battle plans, hold on I'll zap Zelenskky an email and see if he responds.

Easier said than done, because it's probably all secret. Truth is the first casualty of war.

So I'm building a strawman when I've quoted and shown sources like CSIS with former military personnel's opinions as well as other professionals, and you have shown your opinion, that well yea if Ukraine would conserve their artillery shells it would be fine. That was your point of contention here CP, is it not?

It doesn't matter if you quote Jesus Christ himself if he won't say anything relevant. It's all vague, they didn't give any numbers at all. What do you expect me to do with that?

And that's not my point of contention, I never said that. I say that they will conserve artillery shells, whether it's fine or not. There's no set number of shells they need to use each month. They'll use as many as they can afford. If they're suddenly about to loose then they'll use more of them, because then there's no point saving them except to make IED's for guerilla warfare. But until victory or defeat they'll be balancing their use.

Respectfully if so, I know and understand your opinion but believe there is NO conservation of shells here CP, they are at war with limited resources available, and they have no choice. Even a limited offensive is going to eat up artillery shells. There are plenty of sources showing the high importance artillery has played for Ukraine so far.

Does a poor man conserve his money, or does he waste it as much as he can? Well, some waste everything, but then they won't live very long. The fact that the front is barely moving shows us that they're able to manage their ammo resources, same goes for the Russians of course.

So I don't get why you're posting those google searches, it proves my point.

Hell I've looked at so many sources, it's like on one battlefront map you have Russian icons for a myriad of weapons systems, when you look at Ukraine's it is overwhelmingly artillery and drone attacks and the occasional cruise missile.

The map is not the territory. Where is the data coming from?

Here's another article with some pertinence here. In reference to the lack of air support. That's the key because with limited tanks and no air support in a ground campaign artillery and its usage is the only thing they have that can hit behind the front consistently. Thus they don't have the luxury of conserving their usage, they must be used especially if they are on the offensive. It's the only way to soften up the layered Russian defenses.

The logical thing to do then would be to use artillery sparingly and avoid attacking a lot. I don't see the point in this whole argument though, because you still have no idea how many shells are coming in. The consumption would have to be compared to the intake before we can say if they're conserving or not.

Because using less shells today is bad, but running out completely in the future is worse. So if shell hunger is the bottleneck at any given point in time, then you have to adapt your style of war around that and sacrifice more of some other resource: time, land, men, other types of ammo and gear, or some combination of these.

originally posted by: Cutepants

originally posted by: putnam6
So you expect detailed battle plans, hold on I'll zap Zelenskky an email and see if he responds.

Easier said than done, because it's probably all secret. Truth is the first casualty of war.

So I'm building a strawman when I've quoted and shown sources like CSIS with former military personnel's opinions as well as other professionals, and you have shown your opinion, that well yea if Ukraine would conserve their artillery shells it would be fine. That was your point of contention here CP, is it not?

It doesn't matter if you quote Jesus Christ himself if he won't say anything relevant. It's all vague, they didn't give any numbers at all. What do you expect me to do with that?

And that's not my point of contention, I never said that. I say that they will conserve artillery shells, whether it's fine or not. There's no set number of shells they need to use each month. They'll use as many as they can afford. If they're suddenly about to loose then they'll use more of them, because then there's no point saving them except to make IED's for guerilla warfare. But until victory or defeat they'll be balancing their use.

Respectfully if so, I know and understand your opinion but believe there is NO conservation of shells here CP, they are at war with limited resources available, and they have no choice. Even a limited offensive is going to eat up artillery shells. There are plenty of sources showing the high importance artillery has played for Ukraine so far.

Does a poor man conserve his money, or does he waste it as much as he can? Well, some waste everything, but then they won't live very long. The fact that the front is barely moving shows us that they're able to manage their ammo resources, same goes for the Russians of course.

So I don't get why you're posting those google searches, it proves my point.

Hell I've looked at so many sources, it's like on one battlefront map you have Russian icons for a myriad of weapons systems, when you look at Ukraine's it is overwhelmingly artillery and drone attacks and the occasional cruise missile.

The map is not the territory. Where is the data coming from?

Here's another article with some pertinence here. In reference to the lack of air support. That's the key because with limited tanks and no air support in a ground campaign artillery and its usage is the only thing they have that can hit behind the front consistently. Thus they don't have the luxury of conserving their usage, they must be used especially if they are on the offensive. It's the only way to soften up the layered Russian defenses.

The logical thing to do then would be to use artillery sparingly and avoid attacking a lot. I don't see the point in this whole argument though, because you still have no idea how many shells are coming in. The consumption would have to be compared to the intake before we can say if they're conserving or not.

Because using less shells today is bad, but running out completely in the future is worse. So if shell hunger is the bottleneck at any given point in time, then you have to adapt your style of war around that and sacrifice more of some other resource: time, land, men, other types of ammo and gear, or some combination of these.

First of all want to say Im not arguing here, CP, just discussing the topic.


Here's another current article says they are burning through artillery shells, and another says Ukraine is fully engaged in a "counter-offensive" to split Russia's defenses in two.

So it doesn't matter if we both agree they need to marshall their forces and conserve ammunition the reality is they mostly are not, and if and when they do it severely hampers the already slow movement of the counter-offensive

www.newsweek.com...

KYIV, Aug 17 (Reuters) - The Ukrainian military on Thursday claimed gains in its counter-offensive against Russian forces on the southeastern front, pushing forward from a newly-liberated village in an attempted drive towards the Sea of Azov.

The military said it had made progress to the south of Urozhaine, a village a few kilometres from a Russian stronghold at Staromlynivka. Kyiv said on Wednesday it had retaken Urozhaine as it tries to build southward momentum to split Russia's occupying forces in half.

"In the direction south of Urozhaine they (Ukrainian troops) had success," military spokesman Andriy Kovaliov said on national television. He gave no more details.

Urozhaine, in Donetsk region, was the first village Kyiv said it had retaken since July 27, signalling the challenge Kyiv faces in advancing through heavily mined Russian defensive lines without powerful air support.

It lies just over 90 km (55 miles) north of the Sea of Azov and about 100 km (60 miles) west of Russian-held Donetsk city.
"Ukraine will never run out of 155 mm (millimeter) ammunition―there will always be some flowing in―but artillery units might have to ration shells and fire at only the highest priority targets. This would have an adverse battlefield effect. The more constrained the ammunition supply, the more severe the effect."

Ukrainian forces relying on high rates of artillery fire in attritional warfare has led to efforts to conserve as the war has progressed, Courtney said. It has also led to the U.S. heavily drawing from its own stock of 155-millimeter shells.

"For several decades the U.S. engaged in lighter, counterinsurgency fighting in which large artillery fires were less important," Courtney said. "And the U.S. thought large-scale Russian military threats to Europe were improbable. Some years ago, the U.S. even removed every one of its tanks from Europe. Now hundreds are back.

"In retrospect, the U.S. and its allies realize that they overinvested in new arms relative to ammunition, such as tube artillery shells and tactical missiles. Because of political pressure to save money, the U.S. and its allies did not retain or build enough redundant manufacturing capacity for ammunition. Greater capacity could have enabled faster ramping up of production of ammunition expendables."

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: ARM1986

I don't see why they'd do that. A mass armored attack without air superiority would just give the Russian air force an easy target.

They have done that anyway. Although the Russian airforce is hardly doing much. Proper planning and the equipping of sufficient anti air missiles would have given such an assault cover. Sending a tank or two here and there is diluting their effectiveness - it’s isn’t what tanks are for.

a reply to: ARM1986

Not one or two, of course they'd use full units of them.

a reply to: putnam6

I didn't mean a rude argument, just a disagreement. Maybe I use the word wrong.

The article says they took control of a village that of around 1000 people. I don't think that says much about how fully engaged they are. And this Courtney guys contradicts himself. You only highlighted the part that supports your point, that they may have to ration shells in the future. And yet in the following paragraph he says efforts to conserve have already been ongoing. I'm gonna presume he meant that individual units may (or may not) have to ration shells and already do.