The Russian invasions of Ukraine is three weeks old. Enough time has passed to make some preliminary assessments.
The Russian military is "hollow".
Russia has far fewer guided missiles and "smart bombs" than the U.S. or other developed nations, and apparently used up much of its supply in the first day or two of this conflict.
Russia's pilots are only minimally trained, Russian forces weren't patient enough to wait until they had air superiority, and the widespread availability of MANPADS among Ukrainian forces (infantry carried anti-aircraft missiles) have all worked together prevent Russia from gaining air superiority and control in Ukraine. This deprived Russia of an edge in the conflict could have had a decisive advantage for their forces if it had been secured.
Russia's logistics planning is horrible. Its forces were literally running out of gas, running out of food, and getting lost in the first few days. Ukrainian forces have targeted the "tow trucks" used for heavy military vehicles that are disabled and fuel and supply trucks, that are more vulnerable, for strikes to prevent their advance, and have been quite effective at doing so.
Despite their treads, tanks overwhelmingly stay on main roads, leaving their column exposed to attack.
An expectedly large share of Russian tanks and artillery are very dated models.
The best available data suggests that something on the order of half of Russian tanks deployed in this mission have been destroyed, as well as many armored personnel carriers and some mobile artillery vehicles. The large number of small, anti-tank missiles available to Ukrainian forces have been an important factor on this front.
Russian forces have lost significant numbers of fixed wing warplanes and military helicopters, maybe two dozen, all told.
About one in seven Russian soldiers have been killed or seriously injured in this conflict so far. About one in twenty-five of its generals have been killed.
It does not appear that either side has been able to use their tanks to secure decisive victories.
About a quarter of Russian soldiers are minimally trained and marginally competent conscripts. They are not properly trained to defend themselves against reasonably competent attacks or otherwise.
Inaccurate and indiscriminate unguided howitzer shell attacks that hurt civilian and military targets alike instilling terror in the general population, and indiscriminate bombing by fighter aircraft with "dumb bombs" are shaping up to be some of the characteristic tactics of the Russian invasions. But this has not been cost free. It has painted Russian troops from Putin to the rank and file Russian soldiers in Ukraine as war criminals. These tactics have unified the Ukrainian people against the Russia. These tactics have helped cement global public opinion against Russia.
Russia's substantial Black Sea naval forces have done very little after the first day or two when they were part of a campaign to launch missiles all over Ukraine. They have not been used for fire support for ground troops and do not appear to have been important in making amphibious assaults. There has been essentially no naval warfare so far.
Russia already controlled Crimea and the Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine, immediately prior to its invasion. As shown on the map below, Russia has crept a few miles past the Russian-Belorussian border in the north, has gained control of a narrow strip of Ukraine's Aral Sea coast, and has gained control of some territory immediately adjacent to Crimea. But they have been stalled in the suburbs of the capital city Kyiv for three weeks.
Overall Russia's territorial gains over the last three weeks have been very modest and have been largely confined to areas with substantial Russian minorities, despite the very heavy toll that Russian forces have suffered in both casualties to their troops and destroyed major military systems.
Even if Russia manages to eventually take Kyiv, that would be a pyrrhic victory, as it seems highly unlikely that this would result in regime change in Ukraine or in giving Russia control over the vast majority of Russian territory. It is hard to imagine a scenario at this point in which Russia could secure regime change in Ukraine or could control anything close to the majority of the territory or population of Ukraine.
This is a map of the territory Russia controlled on March 17, 2022 (yellow dots indicate recent battles):
One thought: I checked the Ukraine weather report shortly after the invasion started. It was already above 0 C throughout the country. Huge blunder by the Russians to wait until the mud season to start. I doubt they could have driven anything but specialized vehicles cross country, and it has only gotten worse.
ReplyDeleteA second thought: Where is the most advanced Russian equipment? According to reports very little of their modern equipment is being used. My guess is it is on other borders, mainly with China. The Russians have no reason to trust China. Chances of China invading are very low, but not zero.
Putin or his generals may have thought that Ukraine would be a good opportunity to get some last use out of their more antiquated gear in what they thought would be a fairly easy operation, and they don't care how much of it is lost as long as they get what they want.
I would not call the T-90 old.
ReplyDeleteWhile the T-14 is better/newer, the Russians only have about a dozen of them.
I think we may be looking at the end of "the tank". It can only shoot about 6km and anti-tank missiles are getting better all the time.
Good point Dave. 1990s era, so not old if upgraded.
ReplyDeleteSome of the destroyed tanks were T-70s (built late WWII to 1948), and many were T-80s (a ca. 1976 design).
ReplyDeleteI agree that we are looking at the end of "the tank".
Similar old tanks were promptly trounced by Bradleys, A-10s, AH-64s, F-16s and infantry, en masse, both the Gulf War and the Iraq War. But new tanks are only marginally more resistant to anti-tank weapons.
The M1 Abrams didn't fair well in Kosovo, and struggled in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is too heavy to deploy abroad in large numbers by anything but ships that take weeks. They are too heavy for rail bridges and lots of other European and African and Asian road bridges. They are too wide for narrow mountain roads and narrow urban streets designed before French and American urban planners stepped in. Despite their tracks, they are overwhelmingly deployed on roads -- procurement planners greatly overestimated the extent that military operations require hard core off road capabilities that a commercial 4x4 pickup couldn't handle. Their 0.5 mpg fuel economy means a long logistical supply train of less well protected vehicles which doesn't work in wars without front lines - Ukraine's defenders have targeted fuel supplies.
Their machine gunners were vulnerable until upgraded in Iraq. Their visibility isn't tops making the vulnerable to close in attacks by infantry. Anti-tank missiles and smart bombs kill them. IEDs usually don't kill the crews as they would in lighter vehicles, but do take them out of action for a while and are very hard from them with their big flat bottomed footprint to avoid.
The U.S. Marine Corps has ditched them entirely, the U.S. Army has dramatically reduced the number they are fielding, and the Russians sent thousands to the bone yard although some may have been recalled for this fight.
Multi-wheel drive off road wheels are good enough relative to tracks. Missiles are better than unguided direct fire 105mm-120mm main guns and much more weight efficient. Heavy armor still isn't good enough to stop major weapons or tanks or artillery shells so active defenses are more worth it and more weight efficient. And, no so many shots are fired in anger that the keeping the cost of ammunition low matters much. Tanks aren't the best way to kill enemy armor or fortifications when you have air superiority. Infantry support is necessary for tanks whether in the same vehicle or another one.
WTF!
ReplyDelete"The Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) provided further details on conscription measures in the DNR and LNR on March 21. They reported that Russian authorities are increasing the conscription age from 55 to 65 and aggressively recruiting 18-year-old students. The GUR reported conscripts in DNR/LNR forces are supplied with military equipment from the 1970s.[6] Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/22/russia-invasion-ukraine-debate-future-war-tank-armor-drone/
ReplyDelete"what we have seen to date is already offering fresh evidence for the continuing debate in military circles over the future of warfare — and in particular over whether the tank can continue its eight-decade reign as the king of land warfare.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
On one level, what we are seeing vindicates the judgment reached by national security adviser H.R. McMaster’s 2017 National Security Strategy and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’s 2018 National Defense Strategy. Both proclaimed, in the words of the Defense Department, that “inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.” And both documents correctly focused on the looming threat from Russia. As the National Security Strategy stated, “Russia seeks to restore its great power status and establish spheres of influence near its borders.”
That change in national strategy encouraged the Army to double down on conventional, large-unit armored operations. The Marine Corps went the other way by ditching its tanks to focus on a strategy of employing portable missiles to challenge Chinese ships and aircraft in the western Pacific. Both decisions can claim some degree of vindication from events in Ukraine.. . . Open-source reporting indicates that the Russians have lost more than 1,600 vehicles and equipment, including nearly 300 tanks and more than 500 armored vehicles of other kinds. . . . The combination of TB2 drones and Israeli-made loitering munitions proved highly potent for Azerbaijan in its victorious war against Armenia in 2020. As I previously reported, 47 percent of Armenia’s combat vehicles were damaged or destroyed. . . . former British army officer Nicholas Drummond wrote: “Russia’s disastrous tactics have been a terrible advertisement for tanks. But we should be careful to avoid drawing the wrong conclusions. No artillery support. No infantry support. No air support. This is not how combined arms tactics work in an era of multi-domain operations.” If the Russian tanks were better supported by infantry, artillery and airpower, the argument goes, they would not be so vulnerable to the hit-and-run tactics of Ukrainian infantry armed with antitank weapons. . . . The question, then, is not whether armies should have tanks in the future but what they should look like. The U.S. Army is spending $4.62 billion upgrading its M1A2 Abrams tanks with the Israeli-developed Trophy active-protection system to defend against drones, electronic warfare devices to counter roadside bombs, and ballistic armor upgrades. But is there a point at which these 40-year-old, 80-ton behemoths become too costly and unwieldy? The Army is spreading its bets around by developing a light tank, along with unmanned ground vehicles.
Some visionaries suggest that the eventual M1 replacement shouldn’t be a new tank at all, Breaking Defense writes, but a wolf pack of manned and unmanned vehicles working together: “Instead of having gun, sensors, and crew all on one vehicle, you could put, say, your long-range sensors on a drone, your decoys on another (expendable) drone, your main gun on a ground robot, and your human controller in a small, well-armored command vehicle hidden some distance away.”