I find these articles so rational and helpful. Thank you. Also want to say thanks for the reference to Pyle's WWII book "Brave Men" I tracked down a copy and am about 50% through it. Great writing. Such a different perspective from the usual army general's view of the war. My father was in the British 8th army march from North Africa up through Italy. I now understand better what it must have been like for him.
Very interesting. I wonder if Montgomery's 'colossal cracks' is relevant here, which I believe was a method of focused warfare designed to reduce casualties and exploit a materiel advantage?
It also seems as if Ukraine needs more capability to hit and stretch those supply lines. I think the slow ramp up approach of the US was prudent last year, now I'm not so sure given the key few months before the next winter.
The latest Kiel Institute's analysis https://twitter.com/Ch_Trebesch/status/1676937085595394049?s=20 shows how the West, despite much self-congratulatory backslapping, is still not fully supporting Ukraine. And only around 1/4 of what Zaluzhnyi asked for in December for a successful offensive (300 MBTs, 600 - 700 IFVs, a constant flow of 155mm ammunition) was delivered after much agonising and redlinery. What is more, no ATACMSs, GLSDBs and mobile GBAD systems, obviously badly needed, were delivered.
Yet, the West demands a successful offensive. To me, the Western attitude reeks of cynicism and perfidy. Also, we have yet to learn what the "it" in "for as long as it takes" actually means.
It seems prudent to note that the "counteroffensive" attacks by Ukraine have been essentially probing so far; aren't there still several divisions that have not yet been activated for the counteroffensive?
It is revelatory that the US is regrettably supplying Ukraine with cluster munitions. These horrendous weapons are ideal for neutralizing entrenched defenses such as the Russians have prepared in Crimea and presumably also in the eastern contested oblasts. They will efficiently kill everything in these elaborate defensive trenches, thereby negating the costly (in lives lost) Russian delaying strategy, but unfortunately leaving the odd unexploded bomblet on the ground to be picked up and accidentally detonated by innocent passers-by, possibly years into the future.
A huge number of Soviet cluster bombs have already been used, by both sides but mostly the Russians, as the article notes. The American cluster bombs have a failure rate of about 3% compared to about 30% for the Soviet bombs. Even if the Pentagon ships Ukraine a great deal of American bombs, it will only comprise a small fraction of the unexploded cluster bombs that remain after the war. A great cleanup effort will be needed either way, and it's better to win the war faster.
The following is a direct quotation from a contribution by the BBC's Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner, to a BBC website article this morning covering international criticism of the US decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine:
"But Gen Sir Richard Shirreff, a former deputy commander of Nato in Europe, defended the decision, saying their deployment should make it easier for Ukraine to break through Russian lines. If the West had provided more arms sooner, he said, then there would not have been a need to provide this weapon now."
The key point is, of course, in the final sentence. When, eventually all this is over, I wonder if NATO/Western strategy will stand up to scrutiny as well as the Ukrainian strategy.
It is the US insistance on a commensurate response that always seems to cause these conundrums. The enemy does something. The US responds. The enemy develops a capacity to deal with the US response and does something a little nastier, drawing another slightly more lethal commensurate response, rinse and repeat ad Infinitim.
That's if they don't step on one of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of mines and boobytraps already strewn by the Russians across the Ukrainian countryside.
It's a terrible decision to have to make, but anything that can shorten the war without adding significantly to the long term risks to life and limb is a decision the Ukrainian leaders will surely stand by.
But there is so many mines already and in fact they trigger other mines to explode. It is app 2,35 percent of these cluster munitions that do not explode, but the will make more of the fixed mines to explode so in total they will decrease the total number of not exploded explosives.
Yes. It is a very bad result with or without cluster munitions. One way you have innocent children picking them up because they look pretty, only to be cruelly injured or killed when they explode in a little hand or pocket. The other way you have Ukranian military being slaughtered in countless numbers because they must assault entrenched Russian positions through withering automatic fire unseen since the days of Gallipoli. Certainly neither is a good or desirable result.
I recommend watching Ryan McBeth’s analysis of the cluster munitions for a reality check: https://youtu.be/C4E4H9mZJbU. He believes that Ukraine will actually use the internals for drones to drop them which means there won’t be left over unexplored munitions caused when they bump into each other from artillery causing about 2-3% to fail to explode. I tend to agree. Also Russian versions have close yo 40% failure rates as a comparison.
The tepid response of the Western 'supporters' of Ukraine is at best fence sitting or at worst cynical insurance against a Russian victory.
It is ironic that "get there fastest with the mostest", the advice of one of America's most successful generals, Ulysses S Grant, employed by one of their most successful generals in WW 2, General George S Patton, is being neglected/ignored by the politicians in NATO, the US and the EU.
Two squadrons of F16s with logistical support would revolutionise the Ukrainian battlefield options.
I keep seeing discussions about the counteroffensive(s), the progress or lack thereof, and many rather callous tweets and comments about the actual fighting involved. It was therefore refreshing, if that is the right word, to read WW2 correspondent Martha Gellhorn's description of a Canadian assault on the Gothic Line in Northern Italy. Previously unpublished, it was incorporated into a short story by Margaret Atwood about a veteran of that campaign.
Gellhorn's telegraphic account of the battle is extraordinary, and fits well into Atwood's depiction of an old man still haunted by his experiences.
I've no comment except to say this was a darn good read and I sure as hell will keep on reading as the slow "stretch and attrit" phase continues.
I find these articles so rational and helpful. Thank you. Also want to say thanks for the reference to Pyle's WWII book "Brave Men" I tracked down a copy and am about 50% through it. Great writing. Such a different perspective from the usual army general's view of the war. My father was in the British 8th army march from North Africa up through Italy. I now understand better what it must have been like for him.
A few typos:
so much time starting at maps. SHOULD BE staring
containing and shells and Grad multiple-launch missile systems REMOVE first and
Although counting here is an in exact science, SHOULD BE inexact
Very interesting. I wonder if Montgomery's 'colossal cracks' is relevant here, which I believe was a method of focused warfare designed to reduce casualties and exploit a materiel advantage?
It also seems as if Ukraine needs more capability to hit and stretch those supply lines. I think the slow ramp up approach of the US was prudent last year, now I'm not so sure given the key few months before the next winter.
"Force-directed offensive" is the phrase we are looking for
The latest Kiel Institute's analysis https://twitter.com/Ch_Trebesch/status/1676937085595394049?s=20 shows how the West, despite much self-congratulatory backslapping, is still not fully supporting Ukraine. And only around 1/4 of what Zaluzhnyi asked for in December for a successful offensive (300 MBTs, 600 - 700 IFVs, a constant flow of 155mm ammunition) was delivered after much agonising and redlinery. What is more, no ATACMSs, GLSDBs and mobile GBAD systems, obviously badly needed, were delivered.
Yet, the West demands a successful offensive. To me, the Western attitude reeks of cynicism and perfidy. Also, we have yet to learn what the "it" in "for as long as it takes" actually means.
The West (specifically Europe), doesn’t have a lot of armaments and now is cranking up military production.
Actually, it has much of what Zaluzhnyi asked for; Germany, for example, is not fearing an imminent assault from Denmark, Czech Republic or France.
It seems prudent to note that the "counteroffensive" attacks by Ukraine have been essentially probing so far; aren't there still several divisions that have not yet been activated for the counteroffensive?
It is revelatory that the US is regrettably supplying Ukraine with cluster munitions. These horrendous weapons are ideal for neutralizing entrenched defenses such as the Russians have prepared in Crimea and presumably also in the eastern contested oblasts. They will efficiently kill everything in these elaborate defensive trenches, thereby negating the costly (in lives lost) Russian delaying strategy, but unfortunately leaving the odd unexploded bomblet on the ground to be picked up and accidentally detonated by innocent passers-by, possibly years into the future.
A huge number of Soviet cluster bombs have already been used, by both sides but mostly the Russians, as the article notes. The American cluster bombs have a failure rate of about 3% compared to about 30% for the Soviet bombs. Even if the Pentagon ships Ukraine a great deal of American bombs, it will only comprise a small fraction of the unexploded cluster bombs that remain after the war. A great cleanup effort will be needed either way, and it's better to win the war faster.
3%, is that why Cambodia lost over 20 people to farming accidents from the massive amount of duds from american cluster bombs?
edit, context: over 20 people in 2022 alone
I believe the technology has actually improved somewhat since the Vietnam war.
Considering the M483A1 is from 1975 and M864 is from 1987, not really.
Sad but true Andrew.
Not true. They will reduce the total.
The following is a direct quotation from a contribution by the BBC's Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner, to a BBC website article this morning covering international criticism of the US decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine:
"But Gen Sir Richard Shirreff, a former deputy commander of Nato in Europe, defended the decision, saying their deployment should make it easier for Ukraine to break through Russian lines. If the West had provided more arms sooner, he said, then there would not have been a need to provide this weapon now."
The key point is, of course, in the final sentence. When, eventually all this is over, I wonder if NATO/Western strategy will stand up to scrutiny as well as the Ukrainian strategy.
It is the US insistance on a commensurate response that always seems to cause these conundrums. The enemy does something. The US responds. The enemy develops a capacity to deal with the US response and does something a little nastier, drawing another slightly more lethal commensurate response, rinse and repeat ad Infinitim.
That's if they don't step on one of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of mines and boobytraps already strewn by the Russians across the Ukrainian countryside.
It's a terrible decision to have to make, but anything that can shorten the war without adding significantly to the long term risks to life and limb is a decision the Ukrainian leaders will surely stand by.
Agree
But there is so many mines already and in fact they trigger other mines to explode. It is app 2,35 percent of these cluster munitions that do not explode, but the will make more of the fixed mines to explode so in total they will decrease the total number of not exploded explosives.
Yes. It is a very bad result with or without cluster munitions. One way you have innocent children picking them up because they look pretty, only to be cruelly injured or killed when they explode in a little hand or pocket. The other way you have Ukranian military being slaughtered in countless numbers because they must assault entrenched Russian positions through withering automatic fire unseen since the days of Gallipoli. Certainly neither is a good or desirable result.
"Mala Tomachka"
Mala ToKmachka (same stem as Tokmak)
Tony RadAkin
I recommend watching Ryan McBeth’s analysis of the cluster munitions for a reality check: https://youtu.be/C4E4H9mZJbU. He believes that Ukraine will actually use the internals for drones to drop them which means there won’t be left over unexplored munitions caused when they bump into each other from artillery causing about 2-3% to fail to explode. I tend to agree. Also Russian versions have close yo 40% failure rates as a comparison.
Oldjock.
The tepid response of the Western 'supporters' of Ukraine is at best fence sitting or at worst cynical insurance against a Russian victory.
It is ironic that "get there fastest with the mostest", the advice of one of America's most successful generals, Ulysses S Grant, employed by one of their most successful generals in WW 2, General George S Patton, is being neglected/ignored by the politicians in NATO, the US and the EU.
Two squadrons of F16s with logistical support would revolutionise the Ukrainian battlefield options.
Why the delay?
Building up the logistical support isn’t as easy as snapping your fingers.
For this to be the case, Russia would need to be suffering attrition
I keep seeing discussions about the counteroffensive(s), the progress or lack thereof, and many rather callous tweets and comments about the actual fighting involved. It was therefore refreshing, if that is the right word, to read WW2 correspondent Martha Gellhorn's description of a Canadian assault on the Gothic Line in Northern Italy. Previously unpublished, it was incorporated into a short story by Margaret Atwood about a veteran of that campaign.
Gellhorn's telegraphic account of the battle is extraordinary, and fits well into Atwood's depiction of an old man still haunted by his experiences.
Name of the Margaret Atwood short story? Is it available online?
The story is titled "A Dusty Lunch", from her latest book Old Babes in the Wood. I borrowed it online from the Toronto Public Library.