Russia's War Against Ukraine

[JudgeDredd]

Why are the Russians so wedded to rails? Don't they have any truck drivers?

They probably don't have any trucks!

[JudgeDredd]

JD, your posts are always cordial, respectful, and welcome in my book. I will try to always be the same.
...

Thank you - though I'm as guilty as some at times. Also, it was me that started to take this down the politics road 

[FarAway Sooner]

Rails are FAR easier to move heavy tonnage.  In normal, civilian transport, the cost per ton-mile is somewhere between 3x and 20x cheaper for rail. 

Obviously, trucks have to get supplies the final stretch of the distance to the front, but the ease-of-access to nearby railheads is a huge factor.  This is even more the case when roads are poorly maintained or you have adverse weather. (in particular, trains are largely immune to mud and snow)

The primary thing that the HIMARS did was to drive the centralized Russian supply depots back from about 15 miles behind the front to about 40 miles behind the front.  Given that the Russians have a limited fleet of trucks, this meant that their ability to move stuff the last mile was reduced more than 50%.

The SCALPs and Storm Shadows have made that even harder, although there are fewer of them in inventory than the HIMARS-launched rockets.  At least, there were in the starting days of the war.

As I opined a few threads up, the inability of the NATO allies to upgrade their production of ordinance over more than a year-and-a-half of war has been infuriating.  It makes me suspect that it is a feature of the system, rather than a bug.

[SirAndrewD]

All one needs do is go back to the early days of the invasion and you'll see why the Russians favor rail over trucks. 

Another issue they had then and still have no with motorized transport is that due to enormous graft and corruption, many of their wheeled vehicles are equipped with substandard wheels and parts as orders were made on bottom of the barrel equipment but passed off as purchases of a higher grade so that quartermasters could pocket the difference.  Lots of very Sgt. Bilko stuff goes on in the Russian motor pool.

It's telling that the Russian army has been unable to mount any kind of offensive operations much beyond their access to rail.  It's also why I was critical of the UAF in not making Starbolisk the goal of their counterattack rather than Tokmak/Melitopol.  It wasn't as sexy for the media and NATO but it is the most vital railhead for the Russian war effort and its loss would've been catastrophic.

[Jarhead0331]

JD, your posts are always cordial, respectful, and welcome in my book. I will try to always be the same.
...

Thank you - though I'm as guilty as some at times. Also, it was me that started to take this down the politics road 

Absolutely not! And it warms my heart to see you posting around here with greater frequency. Hope you stick around.

[GDS_Starfury]

But are we really so limited that we can't build more production lines for 155mm shells, or that we can't shift to working round-the-clock shifts to produce more shells than we did historically?

more factories are coming online and the ones that are already operating are working 3 shifts.
IIRC one of the driving factors in giving them sub munition shells was to get over the hump of increasing our production.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-u-s-planning-artillery-shell-production-boost-to-over-80000-a-month

[Windigo]

But are we really so limited that we can't build more production lines for 155mm shells, or that we can't shift to working round-the-clock shifts to produce more shells than we did historically?

more factories are coming online and the ones that are already operating are working 3 shifts.
IIRC one of the driving factors in giving them sub munition shells was to get over the hump of increasing our production.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-u-s-planning-artillery-shell-production-boost-to-over-80000-a-month

looks like meat is back on the menu for some 

[Skoop]

Regarding giving Ukraine whatever they need to win, would that also include Nukes? Who here, for the record, would be in favor of giving nuclear weapons to Ukraine if they asked for them? If the answer is, 'no', then you really don't support giving them whatever they need if it came to that. So there are limits to what the West is willing to provide, that doesn't sound like heresy to me.

Regarding Trump cozying-up to dictators, if you mean engaging them in meaningful dialog in order to curb their behavior, and doing it successfully--no new wars under his admin., then I would be in favor of cozying away. Believe them? No way. But as the Great One used to say, "Trust but verify". That worked pretty well in 1980, it'll work today.

Regarding the take-over of BBC, as I understand it, Britain already has Hate-Speech Laws on the books that prohibit speech the government doesn't approve under penalty of fines or imprisonment. Does this work both ways or just when the Party in power is the one a person particularly supports?

Yeah i'd say we'd all be in agreement of not sending nukes to Ukraine, talk about going to extremes to make a point.

Since you went there, Israel acquired nukes to fend off the Arabs, and the pakis acquired nukes cause the world thought the Russians were going to roll through the Afghans then on to them.  Which makes the pakis a lesson on never sending nukes for security guarantees, not very stable there most of the time.  So it's not as audacious as it may seem cause it's been done before.

Let's not forget that Ukraine HAD the third largest Nuke arsenal when they broke off, and they did the right ethical thing by turning them over.....I wonder if they regret that today.  As part of that agreement, the US along with Russia, vowed to be protectors of Ukraine.  Ironic that one of those protectors is now their biggest threat.  I'm surprised this diplomatic commitment isn't brought up more by the Biden administration to justify spending to critics, but Biden probably struggles with remembering what he had for lunch, let alone the history of Ukraine. 

Regarding Trump negotiating like the 1980s.....Bro, no way trump is even in the same league as Reagan.     

[GDS_Starfury]

I don't think any military around the world planned on a major conflict lasting more then a few months.
I can't think of one 80s WW3 novel that had the war lasting more then 4 months.  its just been the way things were.
then two wars in Iraq reinforced that concept.  the article I posted was somewhat recent, the google search had articles going back to late last year.  I think the biggest hangup is plant machinery being built to make this stuff.

[GDS_Starfury]

I wonder if they regret that today. 

you wonder........ 

[FarAway Sooner]

more factories are coming online and the ones that are already operating are working 3 shifts.
IIRC one of the driving factors in giving them sub munition shells was to get over the hump of increasing our production.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-u-s-planning-artillery-shell-production-boost-to-over-80000-a-month

Thanks for the link.  It's good to get the most recent specifics.  Here's my understanding of that article:

* We were manufacturing 14,000 shells/mo in February-2022.
* 20 months later, we've increased capacity to 24,000 shells/mo (call that a 70% increase).
* A year from now, the US plans/hopes to be at 80,000 shells/mo.
* As of April, the Ukrainians claim to be firing approximately 200,000 155mm shells/mo.

So, 2 1/2 years after the fighting started, if everything goes according to plan, the US will be able to produce 40% of what Ukraine says it needs, assuming that we don't allocate a single shell to backfilling our own depleted inventories?

I know that other manufacturers in other countries are also looking to produce shells.  They've been talking about it for close to a year now.  I just haven't seen that much of an increase.  And I'm wondering why it's taking 2 1/2 years or more.

[GDS_Starfury]

this isnt 1942 and we arent at war.

[FarAway Sooner]

I'm not asking us to get the whole US economy on a war footing.  I'm asking us to do what it takes to start manufacturing 100,000 or 120,000 shells per month for a very particular kind of howitzer in a war against an adversary where it could likely be the difference between winning and losing.

The fact that we haven't been able to do so suggests to me that helping Ukraine to win the war doesn't seem to be a very high priority for us.  Or, rather, it's not as high a priority as some other things.  I suspect profit motives for arms manufacturers might figure more prominently in that than many of us have suspected.

I didn't feel this way a year ago.  But as I've seen how slowly and clumsily this ship has turned, I've begun to wonder whether the slow ramp on production is a bug or a feature.

[GDS_Starfury]

its a feature of building brand new factories.  right now the labor pool for construction is pretty lean because theres so much going on right now. 

[JasonPratt]

Meanwhile, remember a winter or two ago (or both) when Russian vloggers had a meme going where they'd leave their cameras on 24 hours to show off running their cheap gas stoves all the time? Probably the one way they were heating their little apartments, but still...

...this winter? Maaaaaybe not so much.