Posted on 08/27/2023 8:55:08 PM PDT by Cronos
Interesting way to show air superiority, and a few stingers is hardly massive support
Hide behind the wire, lol, you boys sure know a lot about not much, but keep smashing those key boards and talking great Russian “liberation” victories
Yup bakmut is a great example of Russian “liberation”
The talk was about tanks if you paid attention.
Regarding aircraft, they lost about 400, of them some retired returned from mothballs and maybe 160 provided by the former Warsaw Pact countries.
Note, that they failed to score a single Russian jet in air combat.
Regarding the rest, I have no idea why are you trying to insult instead of arguing, but it is normally a symptom of butt hurt.
Feel free to reasonably refute any of my points, but I understand that it is really hard to draw parallels between your experience in A-stan and a real war.
It always cracks me up seeing NATO POG types commenting the videos of recent engagements, like what this or that guy did wrong. They just lack the basic understanding of NSW in principle and going to crap their pants the moment you’ll put them on real frontlines.
You once again have no idea of what are you talking about. Learn how the Russian reserves work. Make it your homework, on top of learning what air superiority is.
Appreciate you Russian MOD numbers, 400 lost aircraft and 4000 tanks is more than they ever had, and at the very least would mean they have none to counter attack with. That is obviously not true, but hey who can argue with reports that showed Bradley’s being lost before they were even delivered.
You have your narrative and I appreciate how strongly you stick to it.
Speaking of mothballed those t-64s t-55s and d-20s along with 1940s trucks do polish up well.
Air combat good point a lot of that going on from the Russian side, pop up drop your munitions and the high tail it out of there. Question how many Russian aircraft have ventured over Ukrainian air space
Russian air doctrine never stressed air to air, I get that, more of ground support role, but with the claim of 400 Ukrainian auto shot down I would think a country with “air superiority “ just might try some longer ranged attacks.
Well Russia has a few less transport aircraft, strategic bombers and fighter/bombers than they did a few weeks ago so there is that.
Bring on the T-14s and 57s should have an interesting effect on the export market
Who said 4,000 tanks? You basically make up my points to refute, that’s more intellectual dishonesty.
I don’t have any narrative, I am talking about facts. You claim to have military experience, but repeat media propaganda designed for dim-wits who don’t know the difference between woman and man.
Regarding Russian air doctrine you know about as much as you know about air superiority - not much.
And if Ukraine didn’t lose the planes, including 160 it got over the last 18 months, why there is a talk of F-16s?
Forgive me for perhaps conflating your numbers with others like kazan who have reported 4000 tanks lost, I stand corrected
As to needing F-16s or other western aircraft, yes they need the numbers to compete with Russian air fleet, but more importantly is the weapons and radar capability these aircraft will bring with them
But you already know this
Stand by my understanding of Russian air doctrine
Russia always knew it could not stand toe to toe with western airpower, that is why they invest heavily in ground based air defense abs artillery with aircraft namely being used for ground attack support and limited (temporary) air dominance in the area ground attack is happening
Western doctrine is air supremacy with airpower, B bombers and ground attack aircraft doing the major infantry support , not artillery
Yup limited knowledge
Here comes the problem: how do you expect to deal with ground based air defenses, and what are you going to do once your air support is wiped out? Question to a friend.
You deal with them with stand off weapons like harms missles.
The F-35 flys in targets missile radars with harms or gps guided munitions, then the fourth generation stuff and bombers launch their munitions at remaining missile platforms, air bases…..
Ground based air defenses gone, enemy aircraft destroyed runways unusable
Air support not wiped out, air superiority established
please feel free to forward “to a friend”
It sounds nice in theory but never worked in practice. There are plenty of HARMS in Ukraine but they are mostly shot down or hit residential buildings.
The only time US fought against a semi-modest aid defenses you lost 3,200 jets in Vietnam.
Modern SAMs are mobile, decentralized, and net centric.
If you’d lose 3,200 jets this time, it is game over.
Times have changed and bs rules of engagement in Vietnam cause much of those loses, not this time
Let’s talk gulf 1, iraq large air force and Russian air defenses, not a good look
We were told to expect 45% tanker loss, we lost 0
Time will tell
Still bad, but thought your number high
Take this for what you will
United States Air Force. All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 2,197 of the losses were fixed-wing, and the remainder rotary-wing.
Surprised by the low rotary wing aircraft since hueys were not armored but hey who knew, by these numbers Russia is closing in to rotary wing number which took 10 years in Vietnam and certainly were not the unstoppable flying tank ma-52, hummm
The rotary wing US lost close to 10,000, I don’t even count them into the previous number. 3,200 are fixed wing between USAF and USN, mostly Phantom jets.
On what Russia is closing I don’t get, you don’t make any point.
You still failed to address my point regarding modern SAMs. Who said that your plans are going to work? Petraeus and Hodges are on record saying how much a sweeping success Azov “counter-offensive” is going to be. You know, “Western-trained, western-equipped, highly motivated, using proper tactics” against “ poorly armed, poorly led”. The operation was fully planned in Pentagon and performed on scale the US military never dared to do itself since Korea. Would you explain me why thunder runs didn’t work?
I stand corrected looking deeper into the numbers , but yours are wrong as well
The original source I pulled up had a ridiculously low number of rotary which is why I said Russia was closing in on those lose numbers,
More looking shows around 10000 total almost 4000 aircraft and almost 6000 helicopters
But as you know those loses are much more nuanced, from what I can find less than 300 were lost to sams, and many of the aircraft were lost to accidents
Additionally most aircraft were low and slow close air support prop planes, and the helicopters were in armored helicopters.
That was a different time with different aircraft and systems so the comparison is actually pretty difficult to make but would agree it was bad.
Interesting that those loses went down when Nixon got rid of terrible Rules of engagement, allowed bombing of sams sites(manned by Russians by many accounts), bombed Hanoi and mined and attacked the harbor there.
Much was said of ho chi min trail for supplies, but the major supplier of weapons was Soviet Union through the harbor and for many years there was a fear that killing Russians there would lead to WW3. Fact is after Soviet ships were hit the result was strongly worded letter from them.
Interesting topic but not really relevant a bit like talking German loses during ww2
If as you say russia has air supremacy why have Russian aircraft not ventured over Ukrainian air space and ka-52 fleet suffered 30-50% loses.
Your point I think I am inferring is that a NATO led air Champaign would be a slaughter I will disagree with
As to thunder runs…, I am a follower of Hodges and his comments and don’t recall him saying anything like that in fact quite the opposite
Russian defense plans and mostly extensive minefields were and are a major problem. Kharkiv was a success primarily because russia had no prepared defenses, and though many predicted a repeat of Kharkiv, without sufficient airpower to quickly eliminate threats primarily from russian artillery attacking forces trying to negotiate the minefields the advance was going to have to be slow, attritional, and methodical.
That is bearing fruit now, russian forces have been severely attrited esp artillery, air defense and logistical support
Russian lines of defense have been crossed and the question remains what do the Russians have to man those remaining built defense lines.
Time will tell, but mobilizing an additional 500000 indicates things are not going as planned
Will the russian forces crack like In Kharkiv or do a massive withdrawal as in kherson is yet to be determined.
The observation I will make is that this russian “SMO” against a relatively small Ukrainian force with also relatively small amount of western supplies weapons as compared to the full force of a NATO response to a russian invasion does not give a good look to Russian capacities and capabilities
Again we will see
You have your facts wrong down to a minor detail, including such insignificant as the fate of USAF personnel who have attacked the Soviet ship in Vietnam. Four were court martialled in Philippines and three only escaped conviction on procedural grounds, wing commander (a Colonel) was dishonorably discharged.
And I can go on and on.
Also the aircraft aren’t much more survivable against AD compared to Vietnam era nowadays, but ADs are exponentially more advanced and much better in killing aircraft now.
USAF doesn’t have experience in dealing with high end defences that aren’t of 1950s vintage and poorly organized on top of that as was the case in the Gulf War.
Regarding Hodges you probably missed something. According to him, the Ukrainians had to be in Crimea long time ago. He is starting to turn on the dime right now, but he is on record claiming exactly what I have told. It is only now that he has started to tell that the lack or air support is the problem and how everybody is not serious about victory by not giving Ukrainians enough.
Regarding the rest, like the loss of 50% Ka-52s, attrition of Russian artillery and AD - none of it is based on anything but media propaganda.
And once again, check out what air superiority is. Hint: it doesn’t mean the ability of air assets to operate with impunity, it means diminishing the enemy’s ability to do so.
Check out the comments of the Ukrainian air command. They admit to being shot down every other time once they get into the air deep inside their territory. AWACS supported Mig-31s take them out from 170 miles away. F-16 and AMRAAMS won’t change it. I have no doubt that USAF could have performed better, but the idea that they can seriously challenge the Russian air superiority in this exact area has about as much merit as Petraeus’s and Hodge’s fairy tales about “thunder runs”.
Regarding Harkov “success” the reason was in a fact that a battalion worth of regulars and a few thousand rebels were sitting on a huge territory, where the Ukrainians committed about 6 brigades to dislodge them. They forced them into retreat in the end, but some of the brigades took up to 70% casualties to artillery and helicopters while they were at it.
A good PR value, but nothing to write home in terms of military success.
Regarding mobilizing additional forces and the overall Russian performance in the campaign you are once again allowing propagandists to do a thinking for you.
Russia came last year with a force of 90,000 supported by the equal number of local rebels.
The very reasonable expectation was that Ze-clown is going to fold and accept particularly modest demands, like to let Donbas and Lugansk go and pledge to abstain from NATO.
It was close but NATO derailed the negotiations by promising to bring Russia down with sanctions and organize a revolution to oust Putin.
Ze-clown believed them and declared a total war where he had a chance to get away with minor spankling.
Maybe NATO expected that Russia is going to back away from it, but the challenge was accepted.
That was exactly when NATO de-facto lost.
Regarding small Ukrainian force, they bragged to have raised a 1,200,000 army last year. It was maybe a lie, but they certainly had 900,000.
That Russia did is to shorten the front and turn it into a war of attrition with the idea to minimize own casualties and to maximize it for the enemy.
And given that the conservative objectives don’t make sense anymore, it absolutely make sense to expand forces to control more territory because it is now about inflicting the total defeat on Ze-clown.
Your experience is needed in Ukraine. Go put your $$$ where your mouth is.
The Ukrainians have got it and the point is unlike iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam…. US service members are asked for or required.
What they need are weapons, weapons designed, and built for fighting Soviet Union now soviet 2.0
But you know that
Share all that military experience with Zelensky. Leave today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.