Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Russia Bakhmut Pincer Closing, Paraskovievka Captured, Approaches Kupiansk; Macron No Regime Change" video.

@BlacKnightm93r This is exactly why Russia uses volume of fire, you can saturate a area, of where the enemy is or where the enemy will be based on probability. This is exactly why Russia is losing when it has to expend so much more ammunition to accomplish the same task that Ukraine can do with a fraction of the shells used, but hey you keep thinking that's the way to go when most Russian shells are hitting empty ground. That's pretty much why in WWI major offensives were preceded by days if not weeks of bombardment and yet at the end of all that shelling enemy troops still survived to come out and fire back at advancing soldiers. Volume of fire will always be more important in a war like this compared to pure accuracy. Accuracy really only comes into play when hitting static defenses or logistical supply hubs with minimal ammunition Russians don't have the widespread capability to land accurate shells on target which is why they go for volume to compensate, but again keep believing that throwing thousands of shells down range everyday is the way to go when Russia already has a ton of logistics issues.
2
@fsaari Powerful shells mean nothing if the majority of them are hitting empty ground. Also you should read up on the effectiveness of trenches that can protect troops from shells that hit close but not right on so that they can avoid getting hit by shrapnel. Also accuracy matters when you see a large number of Russian armored vehicles getting damaged and destroyed when they're not moving by accurate Ukrainian arty fire. I've haven't seen Russian artillery hitting Ukrainian vehicles nearly as often and recently its been Iranian drones that have been hitting Ukrainian equipment more because surprise surprise its a guided munition.
1
@fsaari What good is it for a bunch of Ukrainian soldiers to come out of their holes to see russian soldiers advancing with heavy equipment and all they have to respond with are portable weapons? Machine guns arent gonna cut it against advancing tanks and heavy weaponry. Dude were you asleep the first couple of months of the invasion last year??? Did you not remember seeing thousands of Russian tanks and other armored vehicles rolling across the Ukrainian border last February? Shouldn't they have crushed the Ukrainians long ago? Somehow though the lowly Ukrainian soldier armed with ATGMs stopped that seemingly impossible wall of Russian armor and here we are a year later. If Russian heavy equipment was so effective so much of it wouldn't be sitting on Ukrainian land as scrap metal right now. So yeah I don't think Ukrainian troops have much to worry about when it comes to Russian armor and its why the Russian advances have been so slow and have gained relatively little land ever since the beginning of the invasion. The Russians threw away so many of their armored vehicles at the beginning of the war that they haven't been able to launch a major armored offensive since the retreat from the Kiev front.
1
Are you insane? If Russia was fighting the US almost every Russian artillery piece and missile system would be a smoking wreck when they get hit by long range air and ground launched precision missiles. Artillery is for poorer countries that can't afford modern aircraft and missiles that would wipe artillery off the map before they had a chance to make any difference on the battlefield.
1
@KJ-md2wj If Russia WERE fighting the US they would achieve early superiority as you suggest, but wars are won on the ground unless you want to go nuclear. If Russia were actually fighting the US their weak airforce would get completely destroyed in short order and after the US gains air superiority then the Russian army would get completely curb stomped very quickly. In a modern conventional war if you don't have control of the air then you're fighting with an impossible to overcome disadvantage when your enemy can destroy your army and logistics with ease. This is why Russia is having such a difficult time in Ukraine when their airforce is complete trash that it can't even beat a nation with barely an airforce to fightback with. Ground wars take longer and US/NATO strategic thinking hasn't thought about this even being possible. Ground wars don't take long at all when you have superior weapons systems and you saw that in both Iraq wars. After seeing how poorly they've performed in Ukraine, the Russian army would fair no better than the Iraqi army did against the US especially after they take complete control of the skies which is the final nail in any chance that the Russians ever had against the US armed forces.
1
That's why Russia is stuck in WWI doctrine and will ultimately lose the war. You're trying to justify WWI tactics because back then artillery lacked precision and the only way to hit the enemy was through volume of fire. Russia is acknowledging that they haven't advanced very far from WWI when they still have to rely on volume of fire rather than accuracy. I think you don't understand how modern wars are fought when you think firing thousands of shells everyday is the way to go without thinking how much resources it takes to produce those shells and then to haul them hundreds of kilometers to the frontlines to your guns. That takes time, energy and plenty of fuel, manpower and trucks. If you can accomplish the same task of hitting your target using much fewer shells, that greatly reduces the burden on your logistical train which Russia is already having major problems with and is why the invasion in the first few weeks was such a disaster for them.
1
If the Russians do not fully occupy Ukraine right up to the Polish border, the US will rearm and retrain another powerful army to attack Russia again. Too bad for Russia that will NEVER HAPPEN and if they can even keep what they've taken so far they would count it as a major victory let alone trying to take and occupy more territory.
1