Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Military History not Visualized"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@righteousindecision2778 Well there are many things to talk about in the American way of production. But I guess I think division of labour is one such classic starting point.
And division of labour means that you divide up work and let people specialize in each separate tasks. And you see this thing in almost every society. People don't work as postman at the morning, and become a doctor on the middle of the day, and end the day by working as lawyer... and the next day work as a pilot and a school teacher.
Instead people specialize their skills in doing one type of job and become good at it, instead of being mediocre in everything. Another benifit of people specializing is that you don't have to waste time from going from one job to another.
And you can drive this division of labour even further at a workplace. Some guy can become a specialist at cut timber, and another person can turn that timber into tables, and third person can make the paint job.
And the point is that your team of experts togheter will work much more effiecently than if everyone on the job tried to do all kinds of work for himself and both cut the timber, assemble the parts and paint it.
And the more you can divide your job up into smaller tasks people can specialize in - the more effiency you get. And if you are only going to sell only one table, then it would be pointless to buy expensive machinery for your workers. But if you are going to sell many tens of thousands of tables, then you realize that cutting timber can be very time consuming without good tools like an electric saw.
And with better tools you get even more effiecent at making stuff. And you can make more tables in workday that you could do before. And you no longer need as many workers to work to produce the same amount tables as before, since the amount of tables produced per worker in a day have risen.
So what you always want to do is to seek out ways to divide work into smaller and smaller parts. And let people specialize in each separate easy task. And you give them tools and machines that are easy to handle even for a villiage idiot.
And then you position those machines in a sequential order inside a factory, and every guy along the assembly line adds his own little part to the construction of a car. And just like with Lego you add part after part until you finally get a car. And each worker produces his own little Lego brick to the car and nothing more or less.
And the benifits of this system is clear. You no longer need skilled labour to build cars and instead you can use cheap low skilled workers. And you no longer specialist knowledge to build cars, so the power the workers have against the capitalist is now broken.
And when the job of building a car have been so broken down into hundreds of small jobs, then you can also start using machines or robots to make them much of the parts and assemble them.
And with standardization you will always have components that fits with each other - like lego bits always fits with each other, and you don't have to tailor made every little goddamn thing. So you can just store screws, bolts and wheels in a depot and know that they will fit - which is nice, imagine if no ammunition could fit into your cannon so you always had to wait until a new shot was specifically made only for your gun.
Instead the military use some standardized sizes of the bullets they use in rifles, machine guns and cannons so solidiers easily can use the same ammunition for one pistol as for another pistol.
And that makes life easier and it makes it possible to cut down the cost of producing and storeing things. And you can also let other companies build all the parts for your firm, while all what you do is it put togheter all the pieces into a car, or a plane, ship, tank or what it might be.
The problem with German production was that it never really went over to Fordism and started to massproduce vehicles along fordist principles of using low skilled labour with specialized tools.
But instead German used craftsmen that kept on building tanks with overly complex designs. And standardization was not taken so seriously, and a panther composed of about 200.000 parts while a T-34 only had about 50.000.
And the proud German craftsmen kept their traditions of using the best high quality components for a tank, despite they costed more money money and took more time to make than other alternatives. The Russian tankmakers realized that it would be pointless to build engines that would last for 40 years, if their T-34 tanks they built were most likely soon a burning wreck, when the average life expectancy for a Russian tank was only 6 months.
So the Russians managed to drive down costs and building time of their tanks by removing all unecessary luxuries. But the Germans never did that, and as a result did they also not produce as many tanks as the allies.
One can of course speculate about the reasons why they never went over to fordism.
If it was because the lack of money in Weimar Germany that prevented
people from buying cars after the hyperinflation and the great depression, so that Germany never would build an automotive industry the same size as USAs?
Or was it other reasons, like stubborn craftsmen traditions, military traditionalism that wanted perfect tanks without backing on any quality requirements regardless of the wartime situation?
Or was it because German automotive industry was lazy and never forced by the nazis into any painful "structural rationalizations" that would force German companies to fire unnecessary workers and become better at making more cars per worker?
Personally I think Germany had problems with all these 3 things.
And it was only in the late war the tried to simplify their designs of their weapons. And the advanced MG34 got replaced with a more "Made in China" MG42. And the amount of components to make a Panther was reduced somewhat, just like the SdKfz 251 used a much simpler design at the end of the war.
But it was too little too late.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petershaver5006
That is actually not a bad idea. People who want to fight a classic good vs evil war should join the foreign legion. This war along with the war against ISIS are wars with two very clear alternatives: Good and evil.
So if you are about 25 years old and got military training and don't have a wife and kids... then I don't think its dumb to consider the option.
Not everyone can fight a war in the frontline. If you are for example an elderly person you might perhaps help with teaching the kids at school if you are a former teacher. Women without military training can cook food for the troops and produce weapons and ammunition for the troops. Men who are around their 40s could staff anti-aircraft guns that protect big cites and feed those guns with ammunion, or they can do other jobs like driving military trucks with supplies for the troops at the frontline, or guard camps with prisoners of war.
As a foreigner I want my country to help Ukraine. I want my tax money to go to help Ukraine pay its bills. And I want Swedish weapons to be sent to Ukraine to kill Russians.
If my country was the victim of a Russian illegal, unprovoced, unjustified war then of course I wish that the world community would act exactly in the same way for us.
We democracies hava a duty to sick togheter. A small democracy on its own might be weak, but we stand togheter are we strong, and indeed invincible.
We have 60% of the World GDP. We have better motivated troops than what Russia, China, North Korea, and Belarus have.
And our we are technologically more advanced. Our Russian foes are something like 40 years behind us.
For the last 25 years I have never felt proud over my country as it is a country in decay.. with deindustrialization, a decaying democracy and independence because of the EU.
But this week I feel proud after my country decided to sent Archer and 50 Combat vehicle 9040 to Ukraine.
And this just one of all other shipments of aid to Ukraine which include everything from helmets and vests, to C-rations, 155mm ammunition, tens of thousands of AT-4 launchers, and powerful anti-ship missiles and KSP-58.
And other countries have also sent Swedish made weapons to Ukraine as well - NLAWs , Excalibur and Bonus artillery are shells are probably the most famous examples. But also the Swedish modified BMP-1's that was has been mentioned earlier on this channel.
And the Carl-Gustaf that Canada sent, and PV-1110 that some Baltic country sent to Ukraine.
It makes me proud that my little country have strongly helped Ukraine so much to win this war. And I am of course proud that our excellent arms industry finally get a chance to prove foreign critics that our weapons are at least as good as those of other countries.. if not even better in many cases. Archer and CV90 are probably the best weapons of their type around the world. So is Gripen E.
NLAW has also proven itself to be excellent at its job. Swedish anti-tank weapons were designed during the cold war to kill Russian tanks if our country got invaded. Now is Russia invading a country, and Swedish anti-tank weapons have already been killing Russian tanks and vehicles by the thousands.
1
-
Yea we should be so afraid of Russia and nuclear annihaltion that we give in to any blackmail they do. We are too weak to resist the Russian bear so what is the point to fight and see our men die in an unwinnable war? Better then to just give in to Putins demands. Let him take Georgia. Than Ukraine. Then Moldova. Then Kazaksthan.
And then can China take Taiwan with the same argument. And then northern Indiochina and India, and then islands in the pacific that are contested with Japan and the Phillipines. And then let China establish naval bases in Sri Lanka and Africa and expand its influence there and put troops in those places like Russia have in Transnistria and then destabilize those countries so that a pro-Chinese fascist regime can take power.
And now when the Communist bloc 2.0 have re-emerged should we be so fearful to honor our security guarantees that we do not dare to retaliate once a small country like Estonia has been overrun and occupied in less than 48 hours. Would we really want a global nuclear war over a tiny country with only 1.3 million?
The weak leadership from Biden is hesitant about seeing New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, Chicago all getting nuked...
And Macron, Draghi and Schulz are more worried about not hurting Putins feelings and selling electronics and buying Russian gas than helping their allies in EU/Nato.
The rest of Europe realize that the big countries are useless allies and pull out from those useless shitty clubs that only benefits the big countries at the expense of the small - so they try to form their own military alliances on an ad-hoc basis, with very little trust and nuclear deterence backing them.
And Putin can eat up country by country in a piecemeal fashion as everyone is too afraid to fight back.
Everyone is arguing like you that it is better to be safe than sorry. So just giving up and not fighting back is what people do.
People give in to fear and blackmail. Despite the free world do have enough military muscles to crush evil regimes like a bug under a boot if they wanted to.
Idiots in the west will act like elephants who grew up with an iron chain around their foot, and which learned that it is impossible to run away and trying to escape and do whatever they wanted. So once the elephant gets bigger and stronger and you replace the chain with a tiny rope that it can easily break - it will still not even try to flee, because it have learned that it is pointless to try to run away when it got a thing around its food.
And people are equally superstitious, and paralyzed by the feeling of being powerless.
Why fight back against Russia? Its a juggernaut that crushed nazi-Germany, it did beat USA in the space race, and Canada in ice hockey, it have better tanks than the west and the superfast MIG25 jet, and super weapons like Armata, SU57, kornet, S400, and alligator attack helicopters.
And Chinas army is the largest in the world and they got super-duper missiles that have rendered all American aircraft carriers obsolete... so now can USA not dominate the air or sea anymore or transport troops to Asia to hold back the country with the largest GDP in the world and the 2nd largest population!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The battle of Kursk turned into something it was never intended to be. Manstein just wanted a small offensive to straighten the frontline and encircle and destroy a number of Soviet troops.
But the operation was deleyed, and deleyed and deleyed, and Hitler wanted to have his super tanks there to ensure success. And meanwhile did the Russian make minefields, dig trenches, build tanks and concentrate more forces to that area so it would become a hard nut to crack.
And by then this battle was about to turn into something it was inteded to be: A large operation involving all troops available for the 1943 summer offensive. And it was the first days of July and the offensive hadn't even started yet. This slow warfare wasn't much like the old Blitzkriegs in the past with surprise attacks and speed. This was a battle that both sides prepared for for a long time.
So of course did many Generals abandon the idea of an offensive in that area, because it would likely be dearly bought victory at best.
Germany started the battle and on paper did they as usual did they inflict disproportionatly high losses on their opponents. And they did actully have some success at one side of the pincer, but the operation was anyways no longer kept in move. Why? Because Hitler wanted troops to be moved to defend Italy against an allied landing in Salerno.
So the Germans were probably likely to take take their objectives if they had wanted to. But the Kursk operation would have been useless anyways, since the Russians were beginning their huge offensives at Orjol and other places simultaniously. Which could pose a serious threat to the northern pincer of the Kursk operation, so my guess is that the Kursk operation would have been called off anyways regardless of what happened in Salerno, due to the risk that the northern wing of Kursk might be encircled.
So what would I have done? I guess that I wouldn't had attacked at all, but rather saved my forces for another day. The summer had been lost anways, so I could as well use the time to beat back the allies at Salerno and then in other places. And meanwhile could I try to keep my panzer divisions at full strength for the next summer offensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
As I said earlier, I think it was extremely unlikely that Germany would win the war by 1943 - about 1-3% percent or so. And neighter am I sorry that the nazi lost. I just think that there was still a small chance to win after Stalingrad. And by winning I mean that Germany could inflict so heavy losses on the allies that they would have to agree to Germany keeping all her core provinces including Austria, Alsace, Sudetenland the Danzig corridor and Danish Holstein.
Germany still possessed much military power as the large number of men involved in the Ardennes battle and Bagration shows. And the number of uboats was actully higher in early 1944 than what it was in early 1942. And Germany's military production was gearing up and reached its peak in 1944, when an impressive 80% of its GDP was directed to the war effort. And if the Heinkel 162 had been early on choosen for production instead of the complex two engined me262 or the me109k, then Germany would have a much better chance of also protecting their factories from being bombed.
Had also priority been given to air-to-air missiles and surface-to-air missiles instead of to the V2 rockets, then the allied airforce would certainly bleed heavy losses.
And had Hitlers orders of static defence, fortified towns and "not a step back" been replaced with a more flexible defence, then the German troops would no be so likely to get trapped in encirlements, while it would be easier for the Germans to mass forces for massive counter attacks on the flanks that would smash the Russian troops as they have advanced forward so much that their lines have streched out thin and they have runned of supplies. Von Mainsteins counter-offensive it Kharkov in 1943 is a classic example on how the Russians could have been crushed.
The Russian army would bleed to death as they make one failed major offensive after another.
That never happened in real life, but it likely could have happened, since in the real world would the Russians would have runned of manpower faster than the Germans on the same path of aggressive offensives as they did from late 1943 til early 1944. And their liberation of Ukraine could relief some of their need for manpower. This is the conclucion Zetterling makes in his book "The Korsun pocket".
The Germans could then just wait for the Russians to make the mistakes and run out of manpower, and then the push to take southern Russia could be made. And then another defensive line could be put up with barbed wire and minefields that reduced the need for manpower to defend it. So men could be sent from the east and to the west.
The entire landing operation could also very well have ended in a disaster for the allies if the Germans had concentrated all their reinforcements to the Omaha beach (instead of Bayeux) and crushed the landings there. And then they could have moved all their troops to the next beach and crushed the D-day landing zones one by one from north to South.
Furthermore did the 7th Army defending Normandie only have 11 Divisions. While 18 Divisons were positioned in Pas the Calais during all the weeks that the battle for Normandy lasted because the Germans still thought that the main allied landing would come somewhere else even after D-Day had happened.
So there was much troops that could have been moved to Normandy and ended all hopes for an allied breakthrough. It would be impossible to support the allied beachead in Normany throughout the winter, and the allied planners had never anticipated that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People say they will be used as StuGs, or as point defence behind the frontline, or as indirect fire artillery. Or perhaps given to the Luhansk and Donetsk armies. But given the lack of dicipline among the leadership and the careless attitude towards losses would I suspect that they sooner or later are pushed into idiotic frontline attacks just like other tanks, just to get slaughtered.
And if you lack any other tanks, then maybe this is what you have to do.
Anyways, had I been a western country and been given a thousand T-55 tanks as a gift which I could not throw away, then I would just remove the turrets and use in a defensive line - perhaps to defend a coastline like that the fortifications on Crimea. And when the turret is removed I could rebuild the chassis of those tanks into recovery vehicles, mine clearers, engineering tanks with a bulldozer blade, flamethrowers, or putting a 155mm artillery piece on top of it and making it a self-propelled gun, or I could perhaps put a Gepard turret on top of it. And if the chassi is crappy it would not matter much since I dont think a point defence AA system would have to move around much. And being a bridgelayer is probably pretty boring when you don't lay bridges. And being an artillery piece does not require much movement either I guess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You are talking from complete 20/20 hindsight."
No. Had I been a nazi in early 1942 then I would have adviced Hitler to skip Rzhev because it was not a priority for Germany - all it had was a piece of useless railroad. Southern Russia on the other hand had oil, black fertile farmland, industrial capacity, black sea ports, lend lease routes - which would benifit Germany greatly. And even without the oil, this would be a great price for Germany. And it would also be a disaster for Russia to lose it for the same reasons.
The Russian economy was at the brink of collapse in late 1942 and if Russia could not win at Stalingrad and take back Caucausus, then the economy would likely have collapsed just as in 1917. And with strangeled lend lease supplies, and newly created food and oil shortages after the loss of southern Russia it would be very hard for Russia to keep on fighting the war - even if America would increase its lend lease in Alaska and Archangelsk.
The war would definatly then change in caracter. There would be no liberation of Southern Russia or supplies from USA that could replace Russian workers... so Russia would therefore suffer from a manpower shortage. And this in turn would force Russia to change tactics and not let med just die in a wasteful manner.
The great offensives on multiple fronts in late 1943 where the Russians took much land in exchange for heavy manpower losses would never happen. Simply because the Russians could not afford to waste men in such a matter even in the short run.
Russia was a poor country, and it didn't have tractors or expensive industrial machines like in USA or Germany - So Russia therefore needed more workers to things by hand. Today it takes on average 4 Russian workers to produce the same amount of stuff as 1 American worker. So as you can see cannot the Russian economy spare workers the same way rich countries can. They cannot just buy a tractor to replace one farmer and then send him to the frontline, or buy a big machine that produces stuff instead of a worker.
The Russian economy needed its manpower. And the Russian military was also desperatly short in manpower. So in late 1942 there began a growing dilemma? Should the army get too little solidiers? or should the farms and industry get less workers, with the result of less weapons being produced?
So Stalingrad would probably have been a disaster for Russia even if Germany would not succeed getting much oil from southern Russia the coming years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VT-mw2zb
"In order to get any more troops than they already had in 1942, the Germans would need to abandon the siege of Leningrad."
The Germans had a dozen Divisions in France they could have used on the eastern front instead.
"First of all, divisions of the AG Centre were already reduced in strength. It went from 9 battalions per division to 6"
Then those divisions could be sent to France to protect against an unlikely allied landing while the stronger formations would be sent to Russia.
"Why? Because the Soviet was fooled thanks to a deception plan called Operation Kremlin"
It was because of multiple factors. Stalin thought the main blow of the German offensive would target Moscow, just as it did in 1941, and most high military leaders tend to ignore economic factors of the war so therefore was Moscow wrongly seen as more important than Southern Russia. So therefore did the Russian side worry more about protecting Moscow than defending southern Russia.
But the main reason why 1942 started well for Germany was that Stalins massive winter offensive had attacked too deep, and over a broad front. And supplies and coordination ran out for the Russian offensive spearheads, and the Germans could isolate them and destroy them one by one. And the winter offensive that could have completly destroyed the ostheer and ended the war in 1942, instead turned into a disaster for the Russians with gigantic losses.
And then the bad news continued with the last big military disaster à la Soviet 1941 happened when Russia suffered a crushing defeat at Kharkov in May in 1942.
So the campaign in Southern Russia started better than what one realisticly could have expected beforehand. However, things could have gone even better for the Germans, and they could have exploited their success even more. Just as destroying the worlds largest airforce in the first days of the war in 1941 was just an incredibly lucky shot, but the Germans could of course have exploited this success even more. What if the battle of Britain would have never happened and Germany would have had more bombers? What would have happened if the Luftwaffe destroyed the entire Russian baltic fleet in a Pearl Harbour style attack?
This is one of those big "what if's".
A better start of case blue would in itself probably not change much. But in combination with other factors it could have changed the tide of war significantly, and end up with the capture of southern Russia - a disaster for the Russians. It would almost be like Frederick the Great losing Silesia - continuing the war without it would be hopeless.
*"The main issue with 1942, from the German perspective was their distance from their kick-off point, Voronezh to where they wanted to go was about 30% longer than the distance they covered in 1941. This was the plan when they were short on both men and fuel, compared to 1941*"
Germany was weaker than in 1941, but so were also the Russians. But in terms of firepower instead of manpower the balance had changed in favour for the Germans and to the disadvantage for the Russians (according the the book Hitler vs Stalin, by Mosier).
And this talkingpoint about distance is strange. Army group South had faced hard resistance in 1941 while army group north could capture the baltics in just a few weeks. So expecting south to move long distances like army group north was not so much to ask I think. The Germans gave this front priority and supplies and weather was better in the south than in the north.
And initally was the Russian resistance also very light on this front - but that thing could the Germans of course not know back then.
1
-
1
-
"end of their social class"
I don't think this is true. Most officers had played the game clean. And Manstein and Guderian would get nice treatment by the allies after the war, even if you would apply a little higher standards upon them.
Most German officers also wrongly believed that they still had respect and admiration for their skill by their British counterparts in 1945 - so they became sad and surprised when they did not get a salute from allied officers as they surrendered. Most Britons was simply tired of the war. British cities had been bombed and many had died in the war, so the love for Germany was gone. And the news of German war crimes had tarnished the image of German officers as respectable professional gentlemen.
But the German officers did not know that back then. So most Germans therefore preferred to surrender in the west.
Only a handful few SS men wanted to keep on fighting the war, because they had painted themselves into a corner. If the Russians found out that they were members of the SS, then they would be tortured and executed instantly. The Russians knew that the SS had committed so many war crimes that the did not give any pardon.
And trying to flee as an SS man was not an option.
You could be killed as a deserter by the Germans if you were captured. And throwing away your SS uniform and pretending to be a civilian or Wehrmacht soldiers was not an option either - because every SS soldier had a tattoo on his arm to tell doctors which blood-group he had, in the case if he got injured in battle and needed a blood transfusion. So it would therefore be pretty easy for the Russians to found out what men were members of the SS, and which weren't.
So many SS men kept on fighting the war until the end in Berlin. And they massacred regular army soldiers, old men in volksturm and innocent civilians for "defeatism" if they did not show the same enthusiasm for the war as the SS.
So the German people began to hate the SS. Now it no longer just massacred foreigners, but now it had also begun to kill many hundreds of Germans from place to place as the German military retreated.
Some German commanders feared prosecution for war crimes, but they allowed their men to surrender because it was the right thing to do, and they did not want their men to die a pointless death. Otto Carius is one such example.
1
-
The west have given away so much equipment to Ukraine that it needs to win now in order to not let earlier investment to have been in vain. Many countries have now given away some of the best weapons they have.. Caesar, PZH2000, Archer, HIMARS, Combat Vehicle 90, Bradley, Leopard2, Abrams, thunderstreak, NLAW, Javelin etc.
So far have Russia suffered gigantic losses and the west have not yet even lifted a finger trying to get its industrial military might at bear. And ammunition problems have so far been solvable by importing 155mm shells from South Korea. But there are lots of countries in Europe, America, and Austrialia that can make those if the war escalates so I see no problems in all this.
And sending away 50 Bradleys to Ukraine is no big deal as I sees it. I mean USA still got 6000 left so it can afford to send thousands more if it wants to. And the west also have lots of old weapons that are going to get phased out... F16 fighters and A10 warthog. Those planes are very old, but still much better than their russian counterparts.
So even if we give Ukraine just scraps and spares would it still probably be enough to beat Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the Goodwill Wehrmacht is overrated"
I think the contrary is true. People expected Ukraine to fall within 3 days. Now have this war lasted for over a year and Russia have lost more men than USA had in 20 years of fighting in Vietnam.
"Their air force is practically non-existent"
And the Russian air force is nowhere to be seen as they are too afraid to penetrate Ukrainian airspace. Ukraine does however fill the air with drones that bombard Russian troops. And the remains of the Ukrainian air force fills the function of a fleet in being. Not bad for an air force that started this war with fewer planes than their enemy, less trained pilots and planes that were less modern than those of their enemy. The Ukrainian airforce have done well considering those circumstances. While the Russian air force have underperformed - and to paraphrase what Perun said: " it have been a waste of 15-20 years of military spending, as the russian airforce have proven itself to be almost utterly useless throughout this war."
"the majority of their pre-war tank reserves and other losses that they simply do not have the capability to recover from"
Ukraine says they have more tanks now than when they started the war. So many enemy tanks have been conquered that Ukraine have managed to compensate their own losses and even adding a few extra tanks to their inventory. And on top of that have they been given extra tanks from other countries such as Poland, Slovenia, Albania, Slovakia and Czechia.
To me it rather seems like the Russian tank force will never recover from this year.
Their best tanks are gone. Their tank crews have been sent up to Cosmos with their flying turrets. Sanctions are harming Russian tank production. And the thousands of tanks that exist as reserves on paper are heaps of rust that lacks modern upgrades, corruption and maintance have destroyed them. People have stolen metal from gun sights. The coating around electric cables have vanished after a half a century since the tank was built. And even without rust, have the armor quality decayed a lot since the tanks were built because of wear and tear that cause metal fatigue and because of ageing.
And if the Russian army of 2022 was piss-poor when it came to basic tank tactics and combined arms warfare - then will the Russian army of 2023 be even more crappy as men with even less experience and even crappier machines and crappier support troops will take over.
Ukraine will start the next year better prepared than the last one. It now have all the anti-tank weapons that it needs from the start. Troops have gained training in Europe. Fighting morale is high after the victories last autumn. The have learned what their crappy opponent are upto. Russia cannot launch any succesful strike against Kyiv, because there only exist one road towards it - and Russia tried that last year and it failed. It failed despite they had experienced troops, more modern tanks, lots of artillery, lots of cruise missiles, attack helicopters and aircrafts to support it.
This year are the enemy prepared and knows what direction Russia will take. And the badly trained Russian infantry has to attack a prepared enemy with lots of anti-tank weapons. And they get no cruise missiles, helicopters or aircrafts to support them. And most of Russias SPGs have been lost so there is no way momentum can be kept high in any offensive. Russia still have lots of APCs, but not so much tanks. So the attack towards Kyiv has to be done without tank support for the infantry. So as I see it are all their offensive plans doomed to fail.
Furthermore are all the logistical issues from last years not solved - but on the contrary have they become worse by the lack of trucks.
I feel sorry for Ukraine that Russia is dumb enough to continue to press on in a war that has already been lost so badly.
But on the other hand do I feel much joy to see that Russia is throwing more and more salt into their own wounds and increase their own pain. Eastern Europe will feel relief to see the Russian military utterly destroy itself for decades to come. And that Russia is undergoing a de-industrialization as only about 15 out of over 60 Russian car manufacturers now remains, and that the country have undergone a massive braindrain.
This war is also a demographic disaster for Russia with severe long term consequences.
Sometimes I begin to wonder if mr Putin hates Russians more than I do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1