A major aim of Kremlin’s war was to guarantee security for Russian warships operating from the Sevastopol base in the Black Sea. That is in ruins as its fleet retreats from an opponent without a navy.
Actually, I think the Russians have avoided deploying their Armatas or Su-57s in any meaningful capacity… so to some degree yes, but I don’t believe that they’d have any meaningful impact given the shift in military doctrine towards swarms of drones. Russia also hasn’t deployed their conventional ICBMs and scramjet missiles for obvious reasons (because a conventional ICBM strike is indistinguishable from a nuclear one).
Meanwhile, we’ve seen state-of-the-art tanks in the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A4 achieve no success on the battlefield and the Patriot system incapable of intercepting drones hundreds of kilometers into Ukrainian territory. We’re yet to see how the F-16 will fare and probably won’t see F-16s in combat until mid-2024.
The most effective weapons in this conflict have been short-range guided munitions: HIMARS, Javelins, FABs, Lancets, Shaheds, FPV drones.
the Russians have avoided deploying their Armatas or Su-57s in any meaningful capacity
mostly because their numbers are scant.
Agree with your premise, but don’t forget to add DPICM to that list, it’s helping sustain overall artillery fires at high tempo. Russia’s trying to buy shells from North Korea, ugh…
I also have doubts at this point that many RU tube artillery systems are worth shit - the volumes they’ve tried to sustain throughout the conflict don’t come at a cost of just rounds fired, but barrels used up. Unless those wiley bears have figured out a way to quickly rehabilitate/recycle old tubes into new, we’re going to see RU tube arty rapidly decrease in effectiveness in both accuracy and range.
People have been projecting that since the start of the war given the rate at which Russia is burning through their artillery shell stockpiles. So far, we’ve seen nothing, which indicates that either Russia is able to operate their artillery for longer or able to repair it more quickly. For what it’s worth, old Soviet doctrine probably prioritized easy maintenance over how long it lasted.
Actually, I think the Russians have avoided deploying their Armatas or Su-57s in any meaningful capacity… so to some degree yes, but I don’t believe that they’d have any meaningful impact given the shift in military doctrine towards swarms of drones. Russia also hasn’t deployed their conventional ICBMs and scramjet missiles for obvious reasons (because a conventional ICBM strike is indistinguishable from a nuclear one).
Meanwhile, we’ve seen state-of-the-art tanks in the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A4 achieve no success on the battlefield and the Patriot system incapable of intercepting drones hundreds of kilometers into Ukrainian territory. We’re yet to see how the F-16 will fare and probably won’t see F-16s in combat until mid-2024.
The most effective weapons in this conflict have been short-range guided munitions: HIMARS, Javelins, FABs, Lancets, Shaheds, FPV drones.
mostly because their numbers are scant.
Agree with your premise, but don’t forget to add DPICM to that list, it’s helping sustain overall artillery fires at high tempo. Russia’s trying to buy shells from North Korea, ugh…
I also have doubts at this point that many RU tube artillery systems are worth shit - the volumes they’ve tried to sustain throughout the conflict don’t come at a cost of just rounds fired, but barrels used up. Unless those wiley bears have figured out a way to quickly rehabilitate/recycle old tubes into new, we’re going to see RU tube arty rapidly decrease in effectiveness in both accuracy and range.
People have been projecting that since the start of the war given the rate at which Russia is burning through their artillery shell stockpiles. So far, we’ve seen nothing, which indicates that either Russia is able to operate their artillery for longer or able to repair it more quickly. For what it’s worth, old Soviet doctrine probably prioritized easy maintenance over how long it lasted.