Russia has now lost one-third of the ground combat force it committed to the invasion of Ukraine.

According to an intelligence update provided by the British Ministry of Defence:

  • Russia’s Donbas offensive has lost momentum and fallen significantly behind schedule. Despite small-scale initial advances, Russia has failed to achieve substantial territorial gains over the past month whilst sustaining consistently high levels of attrition.
  • Russia has now likely suffered losses of one-third of the ground combat force it committed in February.
  • These delays will almost certainly be exacerbated by the loss of critical enablers such as bridging equipment and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance drones.
  • Russian bridging equipment has been in short supply throughout the conflict, slowing and restricting offensive manoeuvres. Russian UAVs are vital for tactical awareness and directing artillery, but have been vulnerable to Ukrainian anti-air capabilities.
  • Russian forces are increasingly constrained by degraded enabling capabilities, continued low morale and reduced combat effectiveness. Many of these capabilities cannot be quickly replaced or reconstituted, and are likely to continue to hinder Russian operations in Ukraine.
  • Under the current conditions, Russia is unlikely to dramatically accelerate its rate of advance over the next 30 days.

What has the UK sent to Ukraine so far?

Britain has so far sent more than 6,900 new anti-tank missiles, additional consignments of Javelin anti-tank missiles, air defence systems including Starstreak anti-air missiles, 1,360 anti-structure munitions and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosives.

The information was provided by Leo Docherty, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (jointly with the Ministry of Defence), you can read the information below.

“The United Kingdom strongly condemns the appalling, unprovoked attack President Putin has launched on the people of Ukraine. We continue to stand with Ukraine and continue to support its right to be a sovereign, independent and democratic nation. The United Kingdom and our allies and partners are responding decisively to provide military and humanitarian assistance. This includes weapons that help Ukraine’s heroic efforts to defend itself.

We have sent more than 6,900 new anti-tank missiles, known as NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—a further consignment of Javelin anti-tank missiles, eight air defence systems, including Starstreak anti-air missiles, 1,360 anti-structure munitions and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosives.

As Ukraine steadies itself for the next attack, the UK is stepping up efforts to help its defence. As we announced on 26 April, we will be sending 300 more missiles, anti-tank systems, innovative loitering munitions, armoured fighting vehicles and anti-ship systems to stop shelling from Russian ships.

The United Kingdom has confirmed £1.3 billion of new funding for military operations and aid to Ukraine. This includes the £300 million the Prime Minister announced on 3 May for electronic warfare equipment, a counter-battery radar system, GPS jamming equipment and thousands of night-vision devices.

The Ministry of Defence retains the humanitarian assistance taskforce at readiness; its headquarters are at 48-hours readiness, and the remainder of the force can move with five days’ notice, should its assistance be requested. The UK has pledged £220 million of humanitarian aid for Ukraine, which includes granting in kind to the Ukraine armed forces more than 64,000 items of medical equipment from the MOD’s own supplies. We are ensuring that the UK and our security interests are secured and supporting our many allies and partners, especially Ukraine.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

196 COMMENTS

  1. DAMN. That is an absolute mauling. I’d never have thought attritional warfare this costly could take place in modern times

    • I have always thought it was possible, although not a certainty. Given modern firepower be it in the form of shear volume fire or pecision fires it only needs one side or other to get its’ act together and… well you get it.

      Also, I have never believed the “2 week war” idea because if two enemies are so implacably engaged, as the Russians and Ukrainians currently are, they’ll find a way of engaging each other even if they use up all of the high end kit early on in a conflict.

      Ukraine has the advantage that the West is falling over itself to rearm it with high tech kit even to the extent of ramping up production! So I think the firepower balance will gradually shift in Ukraine’s favour, potentially enough for them to really start pushing the Russians back rather than chasing a retreating army. We are already seeing them mount small local offensives and the link below sugguests that they may be inflitrating behind Russian lines to attack safe areas. This is going to get worse before it ends – grim.

      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/watch-this-russian-t-72-tank-turret-get-absolutely-catapulted-into-the-sky

      Putin could yet loose control of the Donetsk completely which would be a serious own goal!

      Cheers CR

      • I agree I always felt the modern war is a short war to be an ill conceived, the only short wars tend to be if a nation is functionally unable to defend itself because of:

        1) a political unwillingness to fight ( the french third republic and India are classic examples of nations sold out by leaders).
        2) the population are unwilling to fight because they don’t actually support their government ( Iraq was a classic example and the french third republic again).
        3) technology overmatch, ( South America states, North America tribes ect against Europeans).

        If one of these are not in play then it becomes a war between the totally of two body politics and that means attrition at every level, from military assets, industrial capability, financial system, population and political will and that always takes a long long time.

        • Nicely summed up Jonathan.

          It will be interesting to see how long the Russian Army can or will keep fighting given that the situation which will only swing further against them. There is one way in which this war may come to a sudden end and this if the Russian Army breaks. The idea that a modern Army might break is a bit far fetched, but if you had asked me that Ukraine would not only still be in this fight but actually turning around then I, along with many others, would have found the idea unrealistic to say the least.

          Cheers CR

          • I agree, I think that motivation of the two armed forces will be key, if the Russian forces have lost 33% of their capability that will be a lot of shattered units that will not be any cop for offensive operations. Where as a unit defending its own home will be more motivated.

            I always thought russia invading Ukraine would be a meat grinder, it’s a large country with a lot of resources. But I always thought the risk was a decapitation that crashed the fighting sprite of the nation.

            This conflict has re taut a lesson that seems to have been forgotten and that’s the importance of towns and cities as a block to invading armies. As all the transport links flow through towns and cities they become nodes that need to be controlled, but a modern city is actually a massive defensive obstacle that will eat an army.

    • If the Russian public gets to hear these figures from a reputable source then the damage to the Russian hierarchy will unbearable then Putin will be toasted

  2. Many lessons will be learned from this invasion. The biggest shock has been the vulnerability of Russian tanks to the ATM. I always put down Russian-made tank failures when operated by other nations, to poor training, but they fair just as badly in the hands of Russians?? Thousands of T62/92s and other variations are in service across the globe and all are basically poor when it comes to protection? One obvious development the MOD could consider is an interim upgrade to the CH2 fleet by fitting Trophy, plus other CH3 features as a matter of urgency. Though the Russians are currently on the back foot, I fear Putin is in this conflict for the long term and recent setbacks will be addressed.

    • Notwithstanding the cost implications, according to RUSI fitting Trophy to Ch3 will be ‘challenge’ enough since it was the only significant afterthought when the design requirements were maturing. So, technically as well as financially, Ch2 not likely a goer. All the more reason for a successful and coherent Ch3 delivery, which can be considered the Ch2 upgrade in itself, I suppose.

      • We shouldn’t forget Challenger 3 isn’t a newly built and designed, just an upgraded Challenger 2. In my opinion, we should join this:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Ground_Combat_System

        It makes sense for me for Europe’s largest powers to have commonality amongst its armoured abd mechanised units, it would surely save on costs to, as well benefit the European defence industry.

        • Everything’s feasible if the politics are right, of course. So far EU still wearing its grumpy face, from which visage it even seems willing to cut off the nose. Should sense prevail, then re-cooperation on National, as opposed to purely commercial, land and air projects opens up once more. Microcosmic, if ludicrous political example; suddenly UK’s gone from zero to hero at Eurovision!
          Separately, you noticing the ever closer mood music between the Nordic countries? to which group we do have a historical claim.
          Overal, I remain sanguine for the long term outlook.

        • Id rather we went in with the M1A1 replacement programme and got true economies of scale. The US army will operate thousands of vehicles whereas our EU allies and friends are likely to spend billions on divergent design requirements. Then Germany will reduce its order to just 10 vehicles whilst France demands full construction rights and export rights around the world.
          No thanks. Observer status is fine. So we can observe ftom the didelines as the programme falls into delay and dispute.

          • US procurement for armoured vehicles is even worse than ours. Everything they do is decades late and massively over budget. They have the same requirements as the British army that all vehicles must be lighter than air and able to withstand a nuclear blast. The generals only have vague acquaintance with the laws of physics but their contractors are well versed in ripping everyone off. Just look a General Dynamics and Ajax.

          • Martin, agree, commentators here seem to go all misty eyed when it comes to US kit, but ignore the US record of procurement disasters.

          • I’m going to be devils advocate and say I’d rather not get too involved with the yanks tbh…pulling the strings with the 35b delivery and associated weapons upgrade options shows they are the same as they ever were.
            Just a shame we cant do it on our anymore.

          • We really can build tanks and other AFVs ourselves, as we have always done – just give the contract to BAE.

          • Yep but once we give out a contract don’t change a single flipping thing. 😡 😡 Any desk warrior who tries to get something added or changed should get a 5 year posting as defence attache in Pyongyang.

          • That’s really hard to do when a procurement project runs for 10 or more years pre-production.

          • I dont want to agree but when did the US Army last order British kit? M777 but that’s now made by Bae USA and so copyright/export security is theirs.Seems we are more between a rock and a hard place unless we go it alone.

          • Unfortunately because of ITAR the yanks will always pull the strings, if even a nut or bolt is procured from the USA then that gives them the door to declare the whole project ITAR which gives them alot of control over said object

        • Since when have ‘sense’ and ‘Europe’s largest powers’ gone together. Anyway it means dealing with the French….and I don’t see the British Army prioritising a tank where an automatic shot activated ‘White flag dispenser’ is a mandatory feature.

        • They won’t let us in hence Challenger 3. Same as FCAS France and Germany have decide they are the master of Europe.

        • The timeline doesn’t look good for UK, being that delivery is only a few years after FOC for CR3. Maybe we could buy Mk2 MGCS in the late 2040s/2050s.

          • If rebuilt hulls for new turret are delayed the project won’t be delivered on time !

        • Sounds like a good idea but, going into anything with the French cones with a history of failure and blame shifting and for that I’d rather say thanks but we can design a tank without help from the likes of the french

      • CH3 should be scrapped. A new Tank is required, in su\ignificant numbers. No doubt we need to return to 1990 numbers.

        • Why, 1990 numbers were to support the BAOR that was facing the massed armour of the Warsaw Pact….we now need what we can deploy and support our allies in Europe with or if we have our own operation and we are never going to have the capability to deploy more that what we have now. Russia is not the Warsaw Pact, it’s cannot even win against one less capable militaries in Europe.

        • The CR2 LEP (later CR3) project started in early 2014. Downselect to 2 bidders happened in 2016 when I joined the project for Rheinmetall. Much money has been spent. You really want to chuck away 8 years work and £millions?

          Why procure a new tank rather than do a brilliant upgrade to a very good tank? Which new tank? The latest versions of M1 Abrams or Leo2? The costs of training crew and maintainers, establishing engineering and logistic support for a very different new tank would be high.

          Politicians have decided we will only have 148 tanks. They would not countenance a higher number whether they be CR3, M1 or Leo2. We probably had 700-800 tanks (CR1 and Chieftain) in 1990 – the politicos would not agree with that size of fleet.

          My view? We should have done incremental upgrades to CR2s every 7 or so years from ISD in 1998 ,as we always used to, maintained the full number of Challys (386 purchased) and started a highly innovative replacement tank project in 2013, fielding that replacement from 2025 or so.
          [CH is the abbreviation for Chieftain].

          • No matter what they do to upgrade the C2 to C3, it will only ever be 148 units. Whether anyone agrees or not, that number is still too few. You still need that type of armour irrespective of what other assets we or other allies have.

          • Agreed. 148 really means two armoured regiments each with 56 tanks. Worrying that our other important tank-killer, AH-64 willonly see 67 replaced by 50 E models.
            Fully aware that there are other ways to kill tanks – but Chally has the added massive advantage of seizing and holding ground (with infantry of course).

      • Gavin, the problem is the development time. We simply do not have time on our side if our land commitments continue at the current rate. It’s okay to commit land assets but if Finland and other states are physically threatened, we need our MBT’s to be more advanced. CH2 is possibly the best brute out there but needs enhancements. I don’t believe the cost of a Trophy like system, will be an issue as such, it’s the feasibility that needs to be investigated. Britain was brilliantly creative during both World wars and if there was a need for such skunkworks, now is the time.

        • Cost of Trophy is not an issue – it is the time it takes to integrate it to our equipment. Dr Jack Watling of RUSI cautions that t is a lengthy process.

          • Ok. Good article and thought provoking. Thank you for sgaring. That being the case all C2s need upgrading asap to C3 standard.

          • I too am disappointed with the slow pace of the CR3 project, which evolved from the CR2 LEPproject in early 2014. IOC is 2027 and FOC is 2030. That is shocking.

          • The only real positive we can now draw, is the hope that the hype is fully justified with slow & sure producing the AFV result this time – finally. Chally fully deserves to end its Mks on the reputation high carried by forebears.

          • This is a dodgy article, he says we should make an early decision on projectiles after putting the case for both options being works in progress and states the added weight of the system at 1-3 tons whereas the actual weight is 0.8 tons. Stopped reading after that. Adding Trophy is a minor upgrade compared to other upgrades and we are not talking novice contractors in BAE/Rheinmetel.

          • Afternoon, OR.
            I majored on the Trophy cautions, of course. Dodgy is not a description I would naturally associate to a Senior Fellow in Land Forces within RUSI, but there you go. Either way my gut reaction on the ammunition was that you await the German KE2020Neo more designed for the weapon.
            The afterthought comment, as opposed to the more accurate separate development programme described, was my bad as previously conceded.
            Rgs

    • It’s a design flaw in the storage of shells in the turret, that leaves them vulnerable to being detonated causing the turret to be blown vertically upwards if they are triggered. I believe the Allies first discovered this during one of the wars against Iraq.
      Only the Armata appears not to have this flaw, but they are few in number and not certified for combat operations still, so none deployed to Ukraine.

      • Sean wrote:

        It’s a design flaw in the storage of shells in the turret, that leaves them vulnerable to being detonated causing the turret to be blown vertically upwards if they are triggered.

        I came acrosss this the other day:

        • Great diagrame. Highlights the flawed design.
          T64/72/80 and 90 series tanks all have the same flawed design. Eg mounting the autoloader and ready to fire ammunition on the autoloader carousel.
          Any hit to the turret neck will result in secondary explosion killing all crew and total loss of tank.
          Modern Western tanks store ammunition in blow out compartment at rear of turret. Furthest away from enemy fire if facing enemy head on. Which vecomes a problem for French leclerc tsnks as they spend time in retreat. 1 forward gear. 3 reversing.😁😆😅😅 im off course joking.
          I dont think T14 Aramata will be significantly better as I like most people in the West now view Russian military material science as sub standard and their ability to absorb damage to be woefully poor.
          If the T14 was any good Putin would have sent every available tank to Ukraine. 50-100 runoured to have been constructed in low level initial construction batches. Then there is the price. Russia can of course afford a well equipped and reasonable large military thanks to their fossil fuel sales. Unfortunately 80% of all Russia’s GDP goes to line the pockets of just 400 of Putin’s cronies and oligarchs. Thats the route of the stinking festering problem. Corruption. Its just a pity the Russian populace living in wooden shacks cant see that.

      • Not ammo in turret but the carousel autoloader, in T64 ammo was stacked vertically so was vulnerable to pen’s in lower hull which blew turret off. T72 solved this by stacking ammo horizontally however top attack again showed how vulnerable it is

      • Its the storage of rounds in the exposed carousel autoloader which is not in the turret, its in the hull.

    • I am not shocked that a tank can be taken out by an ATM – that is what ATMs are intended to do. UK MoD would only do an interim modification (eg fot Trophy) to CR2 if we were going to deploy them against Russia in the next few weeks or months – however RUSI’s Dr Jack Watling cautions that fitting Trophy is extremely complex and would take a few years to achieve.

      • Just a thought, what if BAEs ‘Black Knight’ had been chosen would the gestation time be roughly the same as CH3?

        • Black Knight had innovative technology but I believe it retained the original turret structure and rifled 120mm cannon (old school).

          With only the information available in the public domain, I could not say if Black Knight would have been developed faster. than the Rheinmetall/selected design.

    • Another lesson to all will be the recognition that logistics are vital and that war isn’t about tanks or fancy aircraft it about the ability to sustain the fight

    • The question is whether Russia has anything left to actually addresss the issues. They tried regrouping in the south and that hasn’t worked. I doubt they have huge numbers of extra troops/equipment in reserve that they can bring forward.

      The part is dont’ get is just how badly their airforce has performed, its one thing using effectively gorrila tactics to funnel the ground forces into kill zones, but you can’t do that in the air and yet it seeems Ukriane is still able to operate there. Same with the much feared SAMs they all seem to have failed badly. That bridging disaster was meant to have partially happened through air assets.

      • Steve, The Russians have got around 30,000 troops close to the border who have not yet been committed, and there is always the possibility of the Belarussians coming in. Unfortunately.
        The poor performance of all components of the Russian armed forces except perhaps for devastating artillery and air power reigned against cities, has been unexpected for many.

        • Not heard the 30k figure before, but if true it’s odd they haven’t been deployed considering how bad things are going.

          • They are probably a strategic reserve and may have a role in helping to extract the deployed force at ENDEX.

      • I believe it may be possible for Ukraine to have more excellent protection from the Russian airforce as the influx of foreign anti-air weaponry floods in. I also think Putin knows that his options are dwindling by the day and resorting to chemicals may be on his mind? However, if Putin remains in office he will continue to pose a threat across Europe, possibly for years?

  3. There is no way Putin isn’t scathing after this farce. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some Stalinesque like removal of numerous incompetent and corrupt officials in both the military and the intelligence services whenever this ends, and assuming it ends before he kicks the bucket. He only has himself to blame for allowing widespread corruption to continue being the norm of Russian society.

    Meanwhile, I doubt the war will end until Putin has something he can use to convince the Russian population that their “special military operation” was worth it.

  4. After getting kicked out of the north of the country (Diversion my rusty sheriffs badge) The Ukrainians set about cleaning up areas where battles were fought and collated the left behind, damaged and destroyed Russian vehicles, here is a video somebody took of one such location in the city of Nizhyn, Chernihiv Oblast, 70 miles NW of the capital Kyiv:

    • Great video. Thanks for sharing. Sheez the Russian army has taken some serious loses. They arent going to be in any fit state to threaten Finland or Sweden anytime soon.

    • Some people think those vehicles were destroyed by Ukrainians but they were not. If you look carefully in the back of those burned out trucks you will see some stolen washing machines, unfortunately for the Russians they were dodgy Whirlpools.

      • Jack wrote:

        If you look carefully in the back of those burned out trucks you will see some stolen washing machines, 

        Such poor control by the chain of command over their troops goes a long way to explain exactly why Russia is doing badly.

      • We all thought that washing machine were just individual soldiers trying to get stuff for home/to sell, but there have been recent stories about Russia using the controllers/circuits boards on these as they can’t get the right electronics components due to sanctions for weapons. I now wander if this is a standing order for Russian troops. Take washing machines as we need the circuits for our weapons?

        • Think they need the upmarket washing machines with digital displays for the useful chips, not sure there would be many of those in Ukraine ?

        • I don’t think missiles operate on a spin cycle😂😂😂
          Maybe I should phone the Russian embassy my neighbour has had a Bosch machine sitting in his front garden for 3 months now. Maybe I get a reward

  5. “Russia has now lost one-third of the ground combat force it committed to the invasion of Ukraine.”
    And will continue to do so given the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people, not to mention the military aid and training supplied by the west.

    Clearly, they have learnt nothing from invading Afghanistan back in 1979 but Ukraine has by employing similar tactics.

    Adios Ivan.

  6. I think we are near the final act of this play now. It will either Peter out and end on some diplomatic agreement or Russia will do something rash such as a small tactical nuclear weapon to force a conclusion. The fact remains that Russia is no longer the superpower it once was and ultimately that may be a bad thing for Europe as lack of threat/competition breeds complacency.

    • Agree. This is my concern. Initially NATO upped defence expenditure and tried to reinvigorate military forces left for too long to atrophy (Germany, Netherlands, UK to a lesser extent)
      With Russia in essence losing their war badly there is a real risk EU NATO partners fall back into their old habits.
      NATO needs to get match fit as China most definitely are the threat for the near future. A defeat Russia is likely to look towards Chinese military/ industrial complex to rebuild capacity and replace losses post Ukraine war. Russia once rearmed (so 2030s) will then become a junior partner in a Sino/ Russian axis threatening NATO or allied countries.

        • I think it will be if they go for soverign and democratic Taiwan or encroach on Japan (lots of historic hatred there) or South Korea. Or cause trouble against Australia or New Zealand or even the Philippines, which America has historically protected.

    • But we must also be cautious as to what comes after Putin. Think post WW1 and the toxic resentment that grew in Germany.

  7. This is rapidly becoming a nightmare for Russia. They will have to reorganise retrain and rearm their armed forces and do so on the back of an economy on life support thanks to sanctions. Institutional corruption for one will have to end. It’s highly doubtful they can do so without wholesale political change. In the best/worst scenario Russia will be combat ineffective for at least a decade and more likely a generation.

  8. This is why Russia had to retreat from Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, and Kharkiv it’s second city. Many units appear to have had low morale to begin with, but such high attrition rates would wreck it further.
    I believe Soviet doctrine was to only pull out units after 70% casualty figures, and the Russian army seems to be still stuck in the past. So the majority of these loses were presumably on the Kyiv and Kharkiv fronts where they subsequently retreated having not been able to advance further. (It’s been suggested they only advanced as far as they did in those fronts because the Ukrainians allowed them, so that they could fight a defence in depth against the Russians.)

    Donbas appears to be different. They have made little advance due to the Ukrainian defensive positions that have been in place since 2014, when Russian mercenaries staged uprisings in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
    Instead the Russians now appear set on outflanking them, turning the Ukrainian defensive positions into a salient they can then cut-off. Rather than try and defeat these forces, they’ll starve them out while flattening the area with bombing and artillery.
    These flanking manoeuvres need to be fast to be effective, yet again they are not making the advances at the pace necessary. This makes their intent even more obvious and exposes these flanking forces to Ukrainian counter-attacks. It would appear the Ukrainians again are surrendering ground to allow Russian flanking forces to advance into preplanned kill-zones such as river-crossings.
    It’s appears that while Ukraine is on the defence, they can probably smash advancing Russians units indefinitely until Putin runs out of units to deploy.
    This might change if the Russian airforce became capable of providing close ground support for advancing ground units, but this seems less unlikely given both diminishing stocks of precision weapons and Ukrainian air-defences.

    But retaking areas where the Russians are busy securing, such as the Southern coastline are going to be expensive to Ukraine.
    Recovering those areas lost in 2014 may be impossible until the West provides Western standard tanks and aircraft, rather than inherited soviet stock.

    To avoid his army being rendered ineffective for decades to come, Putin may end up settling for the Southern coastline and the landbridge to Ukraine, and have his remaining forces dig in to defend these areas. These may like the so-called DPR and LPR effectively becomes ‘failed statelets’ with little economic activity, displaced populations, and a frozen state of war in place.

    This can’t be allowed, as he still gains Ukrainian territory through the use of military force – though at a huge price he never ever expected to have to pay. The West’s objective has to be internally triggered regime-change in Russia, brought on by the complete defeat of Russia’s forces in Ukraine.

    • The G7 is doubling down it seems. Now its saying it will never recognise any new borders (eg Crimea, Donbas etc in Russian control). Mind you you probably need an army to control territory and Russia’s is shrinking fast. Lets hope that increases.

      Statement on Russia’s war against Ukraine – G7 Foreign Ministers – Auswärtiges Amt (auswaertiges-amt.de)

      also the ISW is suggesting Russia may annex occupied territories and then threaten nuclear attack on those that try to retake it. Not sure that will occur (or whether anyone will heed it) but it is getting interesting.

      • I can see Russia using chemical weapons simply because the West said the use of them in Syria was a red-line, Russia used them, and the West did nothing in response…

        Putin may threaten a nuclear strike in Ukrainian territory, but fallout doesn’t respect borders and could end up landing in Russian territory. Not that this matters to Putin, he places no value on the lives of ordinary Russians.
        However the use of nuclear weapons may tilt all those countries that profess to be neutral; India, China, etc, to final take action against Russia. Many countries have invaded peaceful neighbours since WW2 and are rightly condemned for it. But using nukes would probably result in universal condemnation.
        There would also be the danger that NATO nations affected by fallout from a tactical nuke may declare this an attack on them and invoke Article 5. For all his bluster, Putin doesn’t want a war with NATO.

  9. 1/3 is a vast number. It indicates the Russian (and Chinese) doctrine of a large mechanised fist is past it’s sell by date. The advent of the drone with the manpad is causing casualties and losses the Russians cannot keep on losing. A weaker Russia will be subject to many challenges from the “stans” and other nations.

    • Indeed it has passed its sell by date, unless you are committing very expensive, well protected and highly sophisticated tanks and APC’s coupled with highly trained professional Soldiers and perfect all arms cooperation, this is what happens….

      You get your ass handed to you….

      Imagine when Spear3 and similar systems are fully deployed in quantity, had the Ukrainians had access to such systems, the Russian invasion would have had the guts ripped out of it inside week and what was left heading back to the border…

      We had better make sure we have thousands of Spear3 ready to use in future.

      Russia has no answer, they need to utterly reform and rebuild their Armed forces as a well motivated and equipped professional force.

      It’s ‘utterly’ beyond their ability to do so….

      • Not sure its past its use by date – but it does need more protection than formerly expecially from drones etc. We also shouldn’t equate China with Russia. The Chinese are much richer and better organised and they will be learning all the lessons just as we are.

        • China is richer and better organised, but it still sings from the same mass Artillery and sheer numbers hymn book the Soviets wrote.

          Look at their incursion into Vietnam in 79, they poured through the border at Lang Son with a plan to threaten Hanoi in a few days and force the Vietnamese to withdraw from Cambodia.

          The Vietnamese absolutely malleted them and they withdrew after taking heavy casualties…

          • However, the Chinese have made huge changes to their military since then so drawing a direct link between then and now is not necessarily valid.

            Basically, Vietnam ‘ 79 was China’s Ukraine ’22 and the Chinese did what Russia will need to do over the next 20 or so years. Difference is I’m not sure Russia is capable of the kind of change they need – corruption is the big problem for them.

            Of course, there is no guarentee that China’s remodelled military would fare any better than the Russian’s, but it would be a brave person who gambled on them failing in the same dreadful manner.

            Personally I think NATO needs to be very alive to the risk of Russia / China forming an alliance to counter the West. If that happens the next thing to give NATO commanders sleepness nights will be Chinese divisions west of the Ural Mountains ‘supporting’ their Russian ‘friends’.

            Cheers CR

          • China in 79 is very different to it in 22. If I recall China’s GDP then was about the size of the Netherlands. Not sure what it is now but vastly increased. It also has developed a vast hi tech industry (good enough to cough up lots of basic to reasonably advanced drones and other tech). It has also developed spying/stealing/sabotage to unprecedented levels. And as for numbers they are useful. Meanwhile in comparison the UK has gone (in relative terms) backwards – truly sad to see. If only the idiots in Parliament would stop allowing selling of our best companies to foreign investors it would be a start on th eright track.

          • Yes and no Old School.

            While China is a far different country than it was in 79 and has a good deal of high tech embedded in its armed forces today…

            That said, the high tech (many think it’s still somewhat behind the west) is a silver bullet force, they still rely on conscription and low tech ‘mass’ to punch forward.

            That mass requires an absolutely enormous support network to sustain and simply falls on its arse if it doesn’t reach its objectives quickly, as we have clearly seen.

            Let’s not forget the cheap Chinese tyres that fell off Russian BTR60’s in Ukraine, great example.

            If China attacked Taiwan in a serious amphibious invasion attempt, I honestly think they would be smashed to bits by superior equipment and training of the Taiwanese forces.

            The world has moved on and old fashioned blitzkrieg tactics don’t work anymore against a well trained and equipped defence.

          • One must be careful about the mass side of things and I understand your points but we should not underestimate the difference between Chinese conscripts and Russian ones. The Russians are poorly trained and poorly motivated. The Chinese are probably at least reasonably trained (tho may use basic but reliable weapon systems and tactically are probably pretty good at their tech level) and are likely to be highly motivated.

            One shouldn’t forget that the Chinese helped train the Vietnamese army back in the late 1940’s-1950’s and did a good job tbh. I know that the Vietnamese were (and possibly still are) highly motivated having known a Vietnamese soldier who fought the Khmer Rouge for around 5 years in the early-mid 1980’s. Very tough and patriotic infantry (and I expect Chinese to be the same). The Russians by comparison are a shambles.

    • A weakened Russia can and will likely have to ceed territory not just to the Stans but more likely China.
      I can see president Xi saying he wants Vladivostok

      • More likely is a breakup of Russia itself, it’s a federal structure in theory. That said, many local leaders, such as Chechnya’s Kadyrov depend on Putin for power. So you may see civil war break out in many of these if Putin fell or the federal structure collapsed.

          • I’d like to see Putin break up into 4 pieces.

            The man deserves nothing less than being hanged, drawn and quartered.

          • Too quick an end for him, I’d want him to live years in constant agonising pain, misery, and humiliation for what he’s done to the Ukrainian, Georgian, Chechen and Russian people.

        • My thought was that Syria might be the first Russian backed government to collapse. I can also imagine Belarus changes.

    • Even worse when you factor in tactical satellites and long range precision fire. Soon tanks will require so many combined arms to protect them there will only be one in a division.

      • MQ-9 UAV = huge drone is a part of air warfare, its about securing air space.

        If China prepares a large surveillance and reconnaissance drone, it should first be asked whether it has a stealth fighter.

        Contrary to what China claims, stealth fighters are still in their infancy.

  10. I know I’m probably in the minority here. Whilst I see the PR value a line of tanks looking good for the cameras I still can’t see the requirement for large numbers of them, if any, when wars are being won by quality ATGW, drones and to some extent artillery.
    Add to this that we have Challenger 2.5…it’s not really a 3 is.it with problems to come probably; Ajax which doesn’t work and a wheeled IFV (?) which can hardly defend itself, never mind keep up with dodgy armour.
    For me, with the army the size it is, we should fight at a distance. Engage the enemy 20 or 30 miles out with artillery, both traditional and rocket ;drones and gunships and if they get through that give the infantry an NLAW apiece. Bit simplistic I know but the principal makes sense I think.
    Last but not least who are we going to fight with armoured columns? Not likely to be Russia, China ten thousand miles away?, another Blair incursion into the middle east? I don’t think so.
    Better off investing in top of the range insertion systems for ALL special forces personnel so that we can respond quickly around the globe.
    As for the existing material, once the Ukranians have beaten Putin, let the UK be at the front of rebuilding their forces and if need be give them what we can to let it happen

    • Geoff, our tanks are better designed, built, handled and maintained than Russian tanks. Just as well that you don’t see a need for a lot of British tanks – that’s what we have got – not a lot of them (soon to be a fleet of 138 – means max of 2 regiments of 56 tanks each).
      Totally agree that a small army like ours (and one that wants to minimise its own casualties) needs to fight at arms length. [NLAW is good but is a very short range weapon, so we need also the longer range ATGWs too, preferably a CVR(T) STRIKER replacement]. We need IFVs all with long-range cannon. Far more artillery including truck mounted 155mm. We need heavy mortars, vehicle mounted, thatcan be fired under armour with no crews exposed. We need far more than 50 Apaches, more like 100.
      We have used our tanks a lot operationally in the last 30 years – it would be a brave man who thinks that there will be little to no tank-on-tank battles in the future.

      • There has been no major maneuvering battle of tanks in the last 30 years, and never will be.
        [last battle was iraq war 1990]

        The former Imperial Japanese Navy was obsessed with the delusion of a fleet battle.

        It was the idea of deciding the outcome of the war with between the large battleships Duel of gunfire

        How reckless it is to imagine a war like a cavalry battle in the past, waging massive mobile warfare with tanks and tanks.

        War is always about crushing, ignoring, and forcing the other party’s intentions. 

        Was the current Ukrainian war going on with tanks and tanks waging a  maneuver battle on a huge plain?

        Fortunately, the British army seem to have a different opinion from Graham’s.

        and next 30 years later , apache will goes bunch of scrap

        latest Bayraktar TB2 has air to air missile 

        • Tanks have several roles or tasks – deterrence, show of force, delivering shock action, supporting armoured/mechanised infantry with direct fire, seizing and holding ground. We have deployed our tanks a lot in the last 30 years in one or more of the above roles – 221 tanks deployed in kinetic operations on Gulf War 1, 120 tanks deployed (kinetic ops) on GW2, Peace Support operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Deterrence duty in Estonia. I have never said that tanks only deploy on wide open plains.

          Challenger 1 and 2 tanks have destroyed much enemy armour in real shooting wars [and been used in deterrence and show of force tasks]. How many RN ships or submarines have engaged an enemy ship or submarine in the last 30 or 40 years? How many times has a Typhoon engaged with an enemy aircraft? I am not suggesting we downsize our surface fleet, attack submarines or Typhoon fleet because such engagements are as rare as hens teeth – but your logic would suggest that.

          You are very bold to speculate that we ‘never will’ again deploy tanks against tanks – that is reckless thinking.

          Perhaps current British Army personnel think differently to me – perhaps they are delighted with: a cut to 73,000 regulars; the AFV fleet being in a total mess (mostly elderly, unmodernised and much reduced in size); having a paucity of artillery; having capability gaps; having to wait to 2030 to get the full quota of a small number of upgraded tanks; getting 17 fewer Apaches (albeit new E models).

          You make much of anti-tank weapons and also weapons that can take out Apache (rendering it obsolete) – nothing new. The first anti-tank weapon was fielded in 1916 and the first ATGW in 1955. Anti-aircraft weapons have been around for ages; it makes no difference that you can fit them to drones now. If eveything was obsolete and should be scrapped because there was a counter, then we would have no AFVs, trucks, artillery, dismounted infantry…and no ships, submarines or military aircraft.

          • Even if we “never will” deploy tanks against tanks; we learned that that isn’t the primary way to defeat Tanks in the deserts of North Africa, 1940-1942. Even back then the RAC’s doctrine of trying to engage Panzers with Cruisers and Crusaders ran headfirst into the reality of dug in German and Italian AT guns.

      • Hundreds of AH-64s,

        So, have you ever thought about what the price is?

        Not only the unit price, but also the maintenance and equipment price, you will have to consider the cost up to 20B.

        I know that those who comment here only want the military to upgrade their weapons and increase the number of weapons, but it is far from reality – the difficult economic situation and the government’s efforts to calm inflation with the goal of reducing government spending, the real world It is absurd to see the opinion that the volume of the nonsensical army should be increased unconditionally while ignoring all the suffering caused by the economy of the British majority.

        Is it okay for the rise of an army volume that ignores the real world to become the object of hatred by the majority of Britons?

        Moreover, in the trend of achieving the performance of a light fighter of drones equipped with a short-mid-range radar, which the AH-64 is difficult to respond to?

        That’s really nonsense.

        • I’m sure he has thought of the price, he worked for the purchasing arm of the MoD, DES.

          And he suggested 100, not hundreds.

          The original AH64 requirement was for 91.

          • Hi DM. Bloody hell, 91 AH64! I had no idea.
            That would have been a remarkable outcome. if only!

          • I’m hoping one day that the replacement number will be down to ONE . Cos in the theory of ‘less but better’ it will be the most fantastic piece of equipment you can imagine😂.

          • ….
            …
            ..
            .

            AH-64E : $120 to $140 million per unit

            I hope buy that, what he want to. 

            but Tell him to buy it with his money Not taxes

            91??????

            MOD’s budget isn’t 100 trillion pounds

          • The cost per unit of our new AH-64Es is $60m. The higher prices you mention are an estimate of the through life costs, including maintenance and crew.

          • My figure of 100 was very idealistic and was based on 3 and 4 Regts AAC being reinstated with 3, not 2, attack squadrons of 8 AH each, 12 for trg at Sch of Army Avn, 10 for the OCU sqn and 30 split between the Repair Pool and the Attrition Reserve. I know it won’t happen but 50 is too small a number.

            Some of the money for extra AH (above the 50) could come from not operating 227-148 (ie 79 tanks).

          • Agreed. As they were before, with 48 front line out of 67. Your figure creates a greater rotation pool

        • I said 100, not ‘hundreds of AH-64s’. Certainly I agree that would be expensive to have 50 more than the 50 E models we are buying, but would offset the loss of so many tanks. It depends how much we are willing to pay for our security.

          My point about army numbers is not that we should expand the army to an enormous size for almost no valid reason, but that they should not have been cut so frequently or harshly and the last one, a drop of 9,000 should be cancelled – I do not believe the British people would hate the army as a result.

          Global Britain needs to be able to afford the armed forces that are required for defence of the nation and to meet global commitments and responsibilities. Defence is the first duty of Government. Where to find the money – many areas and perhaps amongst the first could be to cancel vanity projects such as HS-2 and to pursue recovery of £6bn mis-spent or lost through fraud in the Pandemic project.

          • I don’t know what a global Britain is, but I’m sure British taxpayers will never agree.

            The US will also replace Apache with a drone capable of 25 hours CAS that will transport APKWS in the future.

            Not only the A-10, which is already in the process of decommissioning, but also the role of Apache can be replaced by drones. And so it will be. more capable than

            Buying weapons should consider not only current demand, but also whether it will be useful in the future.

            With the US testing APKWS in Ukraine, will Apache be useful 10 years from now?

            Enough to operate 100 units?

            It has already been proven that the shortage of tanks can be replaced by low-cost drones such as Viraktar.

            Simply said

            For the price of one Apache, 24 bayraktar tb2 can be operated.

            For 100 Apache, 2400 bayraktar.

            One fly of Bayraktar destroys 2-4 tanks.

            It is an aircraft that has proven its performance in the desert winds and jamming in the Syrian civil war and Azerbaijan.

            Is 100 Apache still valid?

          • You have not heard of ‘Global Britain’? – I guess you are from overseas. Britain has been a global power for hundreds of years. The moniker has recently been used by Boris to emphasise that leaving the EU does not mean insularity and isolation but that we remain a global power, and suggests that our globalism is enhanced. Hence the increased interest in Asia/Pacific Rim and carriers sailing repeatedly to that area and the AUKUS pact. British taxpayers have nothing to do with this.
            Good info on BAE’s APKWS – a very effective and low cost missile system. You can buy over 7 of them for one Apache dlivered Hellfire. Drones are not perfect – they cost more than they should, need expensive C2 infrastructure and skilled operators (pilots) and would be liable to being jammed or shot down (as with any helo). May be a good replacement for Apache.
            Not sure how a drone can replace a tank – it cannot seize and hold ground, do a show of force or cast a deterrent effect – it can just shoot other tanks. Can it work in close cooperation with other arms such as Infantry?
            Whenever a new technology is deployed, it rarely means that multiple other systems that can do similar, are retired.

          • Soldiers are citizens in military uniforms, and citizens are entitled to the prosperity of society. The first thing that constitutes a society is to promote the peace and prosperity of its members.

            Society does not exist for the military, but the military exists for society.

            An army that consumes resources that should be devoted to the prosperity of members of society is a savagery.

            This is where Britain has an advantage over Russia

            If Global Britain is a value made at the expense of Britain, which takes precedence over the prosperity of the people of Britain, that value will not be necessary for Britain.

            a simple logic

          • Very philosophical. All armies, and air forces and navies and police forces etc etc consumes national resources. That is not a savagery. That is necessary.

      • Hi Graham,
        I think you make my case very well. Long range, mobile artillery must surely be the way to go on the ground and the heavy mortars too. I would love to see more Apaches but at £80/£90 million each I can’t see it. Drones on the other hand, especially the small pack launched type, will I’m sure move into the scheme of things soon.
        As I said I don’t see tanks being utilized any more in the future than they are now which is infrequent. A brigade supporting the JEF and maybe another in the Middle East? If we are going to go down that road I would suggest we knock Ajax on the head and order sufficient CV90’s to equip two “T56” type brigades. Also, what are we supposed to be doing with 600 odd Boxers?

        • In all honesty, I can’t see the Apache AH64E order being raised above 50, but that is a taut number to equip 2 AAC Regts, the Trg Org, the OCU and to have enough left over for the Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
          I am sure that drones are a growth industry but some see no problems with them at all – they do have restricted payload and endurance, can be jammed and shot down and are not that cheap when you factor in the C2 vehicle and equipment, trained operators and maintainers. They can also not seize and hold ground, so they can’t replace tanks and infantry.
          I have often made the case that we have used our tanks on ops a lot in the last 30 years – and that includes kinetic ops, whereas our RAF air superiority fighters have not shot down a single enemy aircraft in that time – and our ships and submarines have not engaged an enemy surface or submarine fleet in that time. Does not mean I advocate scrapping the RAF and RN kit that has not been kinetically used – but just point to the fact that the tank is actually used in hard-edged combat situations. Happy with 2 armour-heavy brigades as a minimum.
          Ajax is of course a recce vehicle – if we scrap it we should get some money back from GDUK and buy a decent recce vehicle elsewhere – clearly not standard Boxer, which is just (a hugely expensive) APC. The Boxer CRV (recce variant as supplied to Norway) might fit the bill, as might CV90 recce variant (not the IFV version obviously, we want the recce version).
          As far as infantry carriage, an entirely different topic – I wish we had upgraded Warrior with WCSP pack, so as to retain a tracked IFV to work with CR2/CR3. But we have instead bought Boxers for our armoured infantry. We have also bought Boxers to replace FV430 (including the uparmoured Bulldog) and Saxon (which was actually sold off years ago). We have ordered a lot of (600?) Boxers for those purposes; too late to decide we want CV90 instead of Boxers for largely infantry carriage.

          • Hi Graham,
            I take your point about ships and ‘planes and tanks (there’s a song in there somewhere). Everything is a deterrent in the end isn’t it? Since we exchanged posts the MOD has ruled out additional tanks, although even I wouldn’t have objected to the extra once the go ahead was given for the Chally upgrade. Likewise I agree with you about the Warrior or at least bringing in a tracked IFV. The problem all the way through this army fiasco is that we buy according to the flavour of the year. Let’s not develop Challenger, actually yes we will, no we won’t, eh yes go on then; Not Scout but Ajax but with a wheeled mate, or not. Let’s pull out of Boxer, I know let’s join Boxer. Strike Brigades… that’s the answer, no they’re not. Four Brigades, or three or two or….. I could do a lot more detail but I think I’m in need of a rest!

          • I would suggest it is not yet too late to go with CV90 or any other similar vehicle. Boxer is modular. You can change the module fitted to Boxer & you have turned it into something else. Stop building infantry modules & start building other modules. There are plenty of designs to choose from or design something completely new. There are options for SPH (155), assault gun (105), 120mm mortar, ATGM carrier, AAM carrier, SPAAG, AShM carrier, CRV, etc. Unlike Ajax, you can still find a use for Boxer.

          • DJ, I said (in reply to a comment by a CV90 fan) that it was too late to go for CV90 instead of Boxer for infantry carriage, (as MoD signed contracts for the first tranche of 500 Boxers in early Nov 2019).
            I am very well aware that Boxer has interchangeable modules.
            Did you think I was talking about the possibility of Boxer replacing Ajax?? Ajax staggers on and we get waffly MoD statements without stating resolution timelines. I am most unhappy with nearly all aspects of the Ajax vehicle and the Ajax programme, but MoD is allowing it more time to succeed. If this attempt fails and the Ajax project is canned, there are many alternatives, but front and centre must be the need to field a proven recce vehicle in a very short space of time, as Scimitar is now 50 years old.

    • I agree. We need no more than 3 T56 regiments of tanks for the 3 brigades, with the priority being the redevelopment of the RA, speed, logistics, CS and CSS, and precision munitions, AD, Drones, and the likes of Brimstone on Boxer.

      None of which Future Soldier even hinted at save the new GMLRS rockets.

      • Hi Daniele, we are keeping 3 armoured regiments? That would be 168 tanks in three Type 56 regts, plus maybe 13 split between the RAC and the REME Trg Orgs, plus maybe 18 in the Repair Pool plus maybe 28 in the Attrition Reserve.
        So we need 227 CR3s! Not 148!

        • No, Graham, we’re not, unless plans change again.
          The 3 current armoured regiments still planned to reduce to 2, the Ajax delay has resulted in the KRH switch to Armoured Cavalry being paused.

          I suggested keeping the 3rd armoured regiment to enable 7 LMBCT to have an armoured component.

          I myself would reduce their size more so a 4th regiment would be deployable.

          • Yes, I now recall that we come down from 3 armd regts to 2 at some stage.
            As far as unit size is concerned, we have T56 regts now but there once was a time when we had T38 regts. Perhaps the Army Reserve armd regt could supply a sqn to each reg regt if the latter were cut back to allow your 4 regts in the Orbat.

      • Hi Daniele,
        I know what your saying. FSA is another fascinating paper on doing a lot and getting nowhere. How many times must we restructure to achieve???? The tank debate puts in my mind the 1930’s argument of the battleship is king and nothing can withstand it. Well, we know what happened there. Take care.

    • Geez Airborne what a cluster f**k for Ivan! Seriously, what were they thinking? That’s largely a rhetorical question as clearly the didn’t think at all! I’m really shocked at the Russian rank n file, no honour nor compassion for the civie population.

      On a personal note, I’m really chuffed at the news of Finland and Sweden joining NATO. That’ll expose the Russkie Northen flank. Putin is an evil idiot!

      • Just goes to show that no matter the numbers it’s about training, experience and some decent kit (and combined arms experience)! Like you mate im glad Finland and Sweden can now see the danger and, no longer afraid of the false Russian so called bear, are joining NATO!

  12. Quite apart from Russia’s catastrophic losses and impending strategic defeat, I think that the Ukrainian defence will have given many other hostile states such as Iran and China pause for thought. It is very clear now that Western/NATO equipment, training, orbat and combined arms is several orders of magnitude better than Russian/Soviet legacy equipment and doctrine. An Iranian swarm attack on a US/UK/French naval patrol in the Straits of Hormuz for example would result in a serious mauling for Iran. Likewise I expect that China is re – assessing its likelihood of success in any attempt to invade Taiwan.

  13. The amount of investment and focus on logistics, C4I, EW, other force enablers, training and morale etc are more accurate indicators of military success than the paper numbers of tanks or infantry.

  14. Losing a third of initial force of 190k means they have had 60k + casualties. Most of those casualties will be concentrated in teeth arms where the casualty rate must be horrendous. I very much doubt that there is any morale left in these units which explains why generals are having to go forward to ensure orders are carried out. Without general mobilisation there is no way that these losses can be replaced while the Ukrainian force is growing through western aid and their own general mobilisation. That means that Putin must now declare war and mobilise (which has costs – i.e. will the Russian nation do it?) or lose.

    • In the past, during World War II, the Soviets tried to win the war by consuming all adult males on the battlefield.

      Totalitarian regimes do not seem to stop unless they end the dictator = putin

    • This is why From the first days of the war, Russian young men started fleeing the country in case they were conscripted to fight. Rumour has it that if you’re of fighting age it’s now very difficult to leave Russia.

      • Got that Sean. Thing is, if they conscript all these people who don’t want to fight and give them weapons, who are they more dangerous to? Ukraine or Putin?

    • Putin could find manpower and materiel from Belarus, and materiel from China. Perhaps he does not need to mobilise.

      • Belarus are committing their troops near to the Ukrainian border. They have been conducting a number of exercises and marshalling into large camps, much like Russia did pre-invasion. To be on the safe side, Ukraine has a large number of their troops near the Belarus border.

        It’s a smart play by Belarus, as it is a way of supporting Putin, without actually getting into the war. But perhaps more significantly it ties up a lot of Ukrainian troops that could otherwise be used in the south of the country.

        I haven’t seen anything recently about the Russian BGTs near the Polish border. Are they still there or have they been moved to take part in the Ukraine war? If these have been removed and committed, They will only have those in Eastern Russia near China and the few up around the Artic who are “1st line” and not reserves. The way they are losing men and materiel, they will seriously struggle to have a meaningful Army at the end of the War, that aren’t just made up with conscripts!

        • If the Belarus forces move into Ukraine who will be left to defend the Belarus regime from the Belarus people? Could result in another major Putin disaster if he loses Belarus too. 🤞🏼

          • Losing satellite Belarus, and seeing that scumbag Lukashenko toppled at the same time, as well as being mauled soundly by Ukraine would be just sweet, sweet justice. We can only hope.

          • Rob,
            Belarus would not move all their armed forces into Ukraine, as Russia has not moved all their forces into Ukraine (I think Russia deployed 190,000 out of 280,000 army).
            Belarus also has police forces to control the population, and might have Govt parmilitary too?

        • Very much agree with all that. BGT? Should that be BTG, Bn Tactical Group?
          The worry is that Belarus want to show Russia what a really, really good ally they are and perhaps negotiate cheaper gas prices from Russia, so may deploy those troops into Ukraine, but would they head for Kyiv?

  15. When I was in the army the accepted figure for a unit to be non-combat effective was that it had suffered 30% casualties. Extrapolated to the 152,000 Russian soldiers committed that translates to 45,600 casualties.
    If Russia has had 15,000 KIA and about 60,000 WIA and maybe 1,000 missing – then that is 76,000 casualties. So the entire Russian army must be combat ineffective – yet they fight on. These numbers must be wrong – or they are fighting when they aren’t combat effective.

    • The 30% figure is quoted for ‘combat effective’ which is different to continuing to fight on. Plenty of examples where units have fought on with casualties well above 50%.
      The U.K. estimates 15k dead, and Ukraine estimates in over 24k dead. Most of these losses will have been in the attacks on Kyiv and Kharkiv. Those forces were left combat ineffective which is why the Russians retreated from both before the Ukranians wiped them out. (Soviet doctrine was only to withdraw after 70% losses, not 30%)

      Those forces in the Donbas and South have suffered far less casualties %-wise and so are still effective for now. But I’m sure the Ukrainians will change that soon enough.

      • Hi Sean, Agreed.
        Russia either has units that have lost more than 30% casualties and they are fighting on even though they are not combat effective and will make little or no gains – or they have amalgamated under-strength units to make them combat effective.

        • They have certainly combined units together, reportedly some units comprise regulars, special-forces, conscripts, and Wagner mercenaries. This can’t help unit cohesion and effectiveness, even if it makes up the numbers on paper.

          That Putin and Gerasimov are now directing things at such a low operational level shows how badly the Russian military is disintegrating.

    • Combat Effective is for a unit. A Section looses 30% manpower it becomes combat ineffective. But if two sections loose 30% manpower and you combine them to make a new section, then it’s no longer combat ineffective.

      You can also loose 80% of one unit and 10% a few other units, and come out to an average of 30% and make it look like the entire force should be combat ineffective, when really it’s just a few units.

      Without details on the Russian force structure and what reorganizations they’ve made, and how the casualties are distributed, impossible to say.

      • Dern, yes you are right. My comment did not recognise the factor of re-organisation as you suggest, the details of which we do not know, as you say. However the Russians have lost a lot of combat power overall, and this may well have been the reason they switched strategy to concentrating on the Donbas and southern coastal strip.

    • I hope not. That would be a serious escalation.
      Give them intelligence and training, but do not use our own SF. Their capture would be a gift for Russia and undeniable.

      • Given that the Ukrainian Army is faring so well, and we are very active right now, I would not put it past them. As you say, if discovered we are in deep shit

        • Agree, I would not put it past them either.
          If so I’d hope in no more than a mentoring capacity over the borders in NATO countries.

          There are obviously numerous channels and direct laision regards intelligence, how and where best left un guessed at.

  17. This is not confirmed but I thought it worth putting here, even though it will probably generate the normal string of abuse from the usual suspects. If correct and depending on what, if anything, is agreed, today could be perhaps the most significant yet. I will update this.

    One of the ‘significant’ areas mentioned was a tunnel that was used to get fresh water.

    MOSCOW, May 16 – RIA Novosti. The Russian military are negotiating with the Ukrainian side on the territory of Azovstal, said Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the Vostok Brigade of the DPR.

    “Now a lively stage of negotiations is underway … As it turned out, the group went out to represent the interests of a larger group that continues to be at Azovstal. Several of our servicemen, officers, along with the group that came out of the tunnel with white flags, went back with this as a group into the tunnel to conduct the negotiation process. We do not yet know the results of the negotiation process at the moment,” Khodakovsky said on the air of the Rossiya 1 channel.

    He specified that a group of nine Ukrainian soldiers came out of one of the tunnels leading to the territory of Azovstal. “After we blocked areas that were significant for the enemy, the enemy found himself in a hopeless situation,” Khodakovsky added.

    https://ria.ru/20220516/azovstal-1788773820.html

    • First update from the DNR

      Commander of DNR’s Vostok unit claims an agreement has been reached with a group of Azovstal defenders about their surrender. He assumes they are going to release their wounded. Another source says this is expected to happen at 1730 local time.

      Apparently, the evacuation of the wounded is being prepared. A group of parliamentarians from the enemy’s side, who left in the morning with white flags, and a counter group from our side determined the route for the removal of the wounded the enemy began clearing the rubble, we are observing and do not interfere.

    • You generate criticism due to your undying support for an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation by your head shed Putin! Any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine yet? No thought not, hence why your bike is challenged (and you are unable to answer or challenge back to any replies)

        • No comment on my post again, just your standard bile as you would describe it. What a waste of effort.

          This is one of the most important events so far and if the western press won’t report it then I have to use any source available.

          Just try and get it into your head that there is a possibility that Russia might achieve its objectives in Ukraine.

          The wounded coming out of Azovstal today and over the next few days is a symptom of that potential success. The following is a quote, translated by Yandex, from official Azov Twitter that could well be an indication that they, having done their bit, are surrendering.

          Azov
          @Polk_asov
          · 2h
          ‼ The defenders of Mariupol carried out the order, despite all the difficulties, for 82 days they delayed the superior enemy forces on themselves and allowed the Ukrainian army to regroup, train more personnel and receive a large number of weapons from partner countries.

          • Your posts are repetitive RT chuff, which I, and others have proven time and time again to be propaganda and Nazi supporting vomit! You only post your directed info and yet again, even now you are answering me (purely because I said you wouldn’t) will not condemn Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine! That simple lack of condemnation proves you are a Putin mouthpiece with no real or relative information to give.

            We are all laughing at your efforts, most won’t bother to reply to your garbage but I find it amusing so will reply and challenge! And you would want the Russians to “achieve their objectives in Ukraine”? Yes? Have the balls to put it out there for all to see instead of hiding behind a keyboard! Condemn Putins illegal war and invasion of Ukraine! Thought not, therefore we will all continue laughing at you, Putin and your useless rapists amateurs pretending to be soldiers!

            Oh dear a troll doesn’t like being trolled, stop crying!

          • Any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine? No? It’s been asked of you every day and you are to scared to do so! As for the event, from RT just more chuff, BUT if after over a month, your Russkie rapists are declaring a victory over about a thousand worn out, tired, hungry, men, women and children who have no ammo or supplies left (as you’ve been saying for about 3 weeks now) and have been carpet bombed senseless by half trained morons, then it’s another massive embarrassment for Putin and your amateurs pretending to be soldiers! A travesty that this is the only pitiful victory you can drag up and celebrate! Embarrassing is more the truth johnskie…now, about that condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine?

          • I see the war crimes trials have started on a few of your rapists! The remaining females (and young boys) in and around the steel works will need to be very worried now then eh?

          • Your silence is very telling! Coward, sheep and appeaser of war crimes and rape. You must be proud troll!

          • Any genuine commentator on here, if accused of supporting an illegal war, if accused of supporting rape of women and girls, if accused of supporting murder, torture and looting would be giving me a right hard time, as they are accused of those things, as I do to you.

            You on the other hand either fully support those actions, or, confirm your troll status by not responding! Two reasons why, first, you support the illegal actions of Russia, second, you are a confirmed troll account as you are a organised group of Russia supporting Putin bits, with many avatars and accounts, and you don’t really read and digest what is said, you just spew out Putins RT nonce propaganda. The third option is even sadder, you actually live in the UK and are a supporter and appeaser of Putins actions (like the head of the RMT union, that fat mess) and therefore that makes you absolute dirt and your views are very much in line with the Nazis final solution.

          • He is struggling mate, he knows he can’t so will continue to try to deflect the question! He loses his supposed impartiality when he gets flustered, I find him amusing, sad, quite useless but amusing nevertheless 😂

          • Stop making yourself out to be so virtuous, it doesn’t fool anyone here. The media are reporting the evacuation because that’s what independent and free media do – they report the facts. Which, inversely proves that ninety-nine percent of the rubbish you post here is unsubstantiated, baseless, untethered to reality Kremlin propaganda and fake news.

          • JIMK wrote:

            This is one of the most important events so far and if the western press won’t report it then I have to use any source available.

            I have to ask exactly where you came to that conclusion seeing it has been well reported not only by the Western media, but the worlds media, here are 11 examples including China, Turkey, Japan NZ and Aus
            https://i.postimg.cc/FzRWpRK0/Untitled-1.jpg

          • First I used the qualifier “so far” and second I was replying to Airborne’s comment about me daring to quote RT. At the time I put it up I didn’t find it elsewhere.

          • Then you need to open your eyes pal, and as we are chatting, any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine?

  18. It makes you think how they would have performed against NATO, even a weakened one? As Ukraine are using tactics taught to them by the UK, Canadian and US armies. It goes without saying that NATO would have used similar ground tactics. But it’s the lack of Russian air superiority that has flummoxed me. Everything I was taught when in the military was that Russia would push with its mechanized divisions and be continuously supported by the air. Especially as Russia’s fixed and mobile air defences were so numerous, making it near suicidal for friendly close air support, thereby almost guaranteeing them local air dominance over the battlefield. Basically as per Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising.

    How the mighty have fallen! That book was written in 1986 and based on how the Warsaw pact would have invaded Western Europe in a traditional Cold War scenario. It was also written before the West had significantly leaped ahead of Russia technically, where Russia although not quite as technically advanced could at least still compete due to sheer numbers.

    Roll forwards nearly 40 years, equipment and the tactics have evolved in the West, but it seems to have stood still in Russia. Following the debacle of Chechnya and to some extent Georgia. You would have expected Russia to learn from experience. But in the main they were facing similar Russian based weapons. Then there was Syria. Not really a peer fight, but a means of proving to the World that Russia was still a major player. They used Syria to test new weapons, were they had mixed results. But from the outset, their Air Force were in the main using unguided weapons. Only using guided cruise missiles for precision strikes.

    When, they first sent sent T90As to Syria, four out five were knocked out by TOW and Russian made ATGMs. They then later sent in 3 T90Ms. One was killed by a Konkurs ATGM. Another was captured near Aleppo and the third one managed to defend itself from an ATGM, suspected as being a TOW. Russia even mounted a special raid to recover the captured T90M. Since then very little has been heard about them, as they were probably brought back to Russia.

    The first war Russia had with Ukraine in 2014 was pretty much inconclusive, discounting the annexation of the Crimea. But the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict of 2020, should have been a wakeup call. Both Ukraine and Russia have been using unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) with varying degrees of success around the Donbass and Luhansk regions. I believe Ukraine were making better use a and integration of their UAVs. Russia clearly understood the issues of trying to combat small UAVs. As they developed and built a BMP3 based 57mm SPAAG called the 2S38 Derivatsiya-PVO specifically to counter UAVs. It has not been seen in Ukraine.
    Perhaps the biggest outcome from 2014 was that Ukraine no longer supplied or maintained marine gas turbines for the Russian Navy. Also the majority of sensors used on Russian made guided missiles were also suppled by Ukraine. Who again halted all supply. Forcing Russia to set up from scratch manufacturing facilities in Belarus and Russia, which apparently haven’t been very successful.

    The Baykar Bayraktar TB2 is not a cutting edge UAV. It is relatively small, predominantly made from carbon fibre composites and is powered by a commercially available Rotax engine used in microlites. This will give it a relatively small radar cross section, but it won’t be minute.

    Just like against the Armenians with their Russian based air defences. The TB2 has had a devastating effect against the Russian ground forces and Navy. The Pantsir SHORAD system should be making mincemeat out of the TB2s, even the Buk and Tor systems should be able to see them if not intercept them. But the evidence suggests they can’t! Especially when you see videos taken from a TB2, firing a weapon at a Panstir whilst circling above it.

    Apart from the ready supply of Javelin, NLAW and MANPADS. The TB2 has has been the major strategic difference to how Ukraine are doing in the war. It has been instrumental is causing the most damage, either by using its own weapons or providing targeting information for other systems. It has allowed the Ukrainian Air Force more freedom to operate, as its been used to actively hunt Russian air defence systems. It has perhaps help stave off an amphibious assault on Odessa, when it “might” have been used to help target the Moskva cruiser with the Neptune anti-ship missiles. Thereby forcing the Russian Navy away from the Ukrainian coastline.

    Unless Russia find an answer to the TB2 and quickly, then their forces are going to face further humiliation and devastation. As the TB2 seems to be fairly immune to Russia’s current air defence systems.

    It looks like Russia will concentrate on the Donbass and Luhansk regions. As their BGTs and Logistics have been hammered. If Ukraine’s artillery has been taught by our Royal Artillery, where they use the Watchkeeper and AS90s in combination. The combination of the TB2 and FH77s will be instrumental in not only halting Russia’s push, but also turning it back. What will Russia do if it has been kicked out of Ukraine and it has suffered enormous losses of men and materiel?

    • A lot of technology issues and corruption I suspect. Also Putin has created a system of yes men, so there is nobody questing decisions or presenting new ideas.      

  19. So, what’s the route back for the Russians without tactical nukes or equivalent scorched earth policy? How do we end this. Looks like Ukraine can win the war in months but what about the peace? Does anyone really believe the Russian will just pack up and go home?
    They’re proud as hell and I doubt there’s enough cosmetic manufactured globally for face saving on this scale.

    • Putin may well save face with his people if he permanently holds most or all of the Donbass, and the landbridge to Crimea including Mariupol.
      He could claim a major victory if he also took Odesa.
      It’s still tough for Ukraine to win back Donbass and the land bridge.

  20. And even better ,than all those loses is now Generalissimo Putin has taken overall command of Russian forces illegally in the Ukraine someone else did that Hitler and look where that got the German Army it seems Putin is copying the same textbook as the Nazis next it will be Bunker fingerscrossed

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here