Overestimated: Ukrainian Army is it good?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- Is the controversial statement: "The Ukrainian military today [November 2022] is not a good military." correct or not? Something Nicholas "The Chieftain" Moran brought up in a discussion in early November 2022.
General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces battalion of Vinnytsia soldier training with M14/M21 rifle, June 2022, Mil.gov.ua, CC BY 4.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
00:00 Controversial Statement
03:15 Rant: Winning due to Western Tactics?
06:03 Ukraine versus an American or British Division
06:32 Western Military Culture not Tactics
#ukrainewar #ukrainianmilitary #goodmilitary
The Ukrainians don't have to be perfect. They just have to be better than the Russians.
Which let's face facts isn't hard
true though they are losing a ton of men just by being incrementally better than the Russians. This is a war of attrition that has far more Russians than there are Ukrainians. Next spring will be the deciding time when both sides will have 500k+ men on the fronts who are armed and trained to fight (the fronts will start looking like ww2 fronts). I'm still rooting for the Ukrainians, but itll be tough and bloody.
He is just clearing the perception that Ukranian armed forces are very sophisticated force as perceived by many Westerners.
This very much
@@TheFirebird123456 Does Russia actually have more soldiers available to send to the front ?
1/2 million ran for the borders, 300k called already they got ~210,000.
the 'stans & chechians have been used up, Belorus is pulling back and is handing out SKS's & Mosens.
One of my favorite comments on this subject is a line from a Ukrainian video some months back. A superior was talking to a bunch of troops and telling them "A small Soviet army can not defeat a large Soviet army. Therefore we need to transform ourselves and the way we fight to win this war." Obviously they are doing this conversion under duress and time constraints, but historically, those are the conditions that move innovation along the fastest.
They're also pioneers of military hardware. I think they're underestimated and most people think NATO is the reason they won many battles despite them winning the main battles for the war when NATO already gave up on them (Kharkhiv, Mikholaiv and Kyiv), I would say NATO helped more in speeding up counter offensives and replacing losses.
They also got real experience.
Our military, from generals to pfcs, has only theories about a modern near-peer war. And in terms of performance, could not win against a few thousand people with rusty AKs IN 20 YEARS!
All our generals care about is earning Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman as much money as possible because if they do they will be hired as consultants by the same companies. Which is exactly opposite of winning wars quickly and efficiently, or winning them at all.
They ate those VDV who assaulted the airport in Kviv like I would snack on a Slim-Jim, with less than ideal forces. I would say, from 10 months perspective, that the Ukrainian ideas of 'modernisation' and 'innovation' are just fine, and were fine then, too. If it works, it's good.
I don't really think neither of those are even remotely using the Soviet combat doctrine, maybe Ukraine was for sometime, but I heard they are actually using an hybrid of the newer Russian field manual and that was actually advised by the US, I don't know why, don't really know the results, but like 5 years after the end of that war we will know.
And probably, the Soviet doctrine would be better, but, both lack motorized divisions to even think about that.
@@MrBendylaw That VDV assault on Hostomel was a terribly planned operation. They attacked an airfield with a National Guard base attached to it, and from what I have read, there was no preparatory airstrikes or missile strikes on that base prior to the operation. The Russians just assumed the Ukrainians would let them quickly take the airfield, and the VDV could be supported by the Il-76 transport aircraft that would arrive thereafter. There was no contingency if the field couldn't be secured, or if the incoming ground forces from Belarus got held up in any way. The VDV was nevertheless able to fight off the initial attacks by the Ukrainians, and there were heavy loses for the National Guard. But once the Ukrainians were able to bring their artillery to the fight, and additional units joined from nearby, the VDV were in a dire position, lacking any support. Any army would have a very difficult time if their command put them in a position like that. This is not to discount the Ukrainian accomplishments that day. If they hadn't fought as hard and effectively as they did, the capture of Kyiv could have been much more likely. Especially if the Russians could start flying in men and material on day one. So yeah they performed well, but it's not necessarily the best indication of whether they are indeed a modern force on par with the best in the world, which was the Chieftain's question.
This makes me think that 90% of the worlds standing armies dont know how to fight properly.
That’s because their mission is directed at controlling their own country and supporting their regimes.
I don't know about the percentage, but your general idea is right. In a lot of countries, the army is really there to keep the ruling party in power and put down any attempts at revolution, not to fight another modern army. I once spoke to a Green Beret about his experiences training partner nations, and he basically said that the US Army isn't really "elite" in the sense that it always does things perfectly, it's just that most other countries are so much worse at war that it makes the US look elite by comparison.
Would you put much trust in most S/C American, African, quite a few Middle Eastern or minor Asian armies in a stand up fight?
Most are there for control, not military action.
Or they know how to fight their *last* enemy, but not their *next* enemy. (As a U.S. citizen, I wonder about that with our military, whose current position is influenced by Afghanistan (and previously Iraq).
@@karlr750 The Army leadership is always ready to fight the last War. It’s hard to look forward
It is difficult to fight by US training in Ukraine with the tools that Ukraine can give their soldiers. US Army soldiers fighting in Ukraine have to fight differently because of the difference in equipment and resources that is available to them. Ukrainians are very good at fighting with the equipment they have.
It's not so much changing their tactics is how to modify them to suit their environment. Western militaries emphasize non-commissioned officers much more than the Russian (Soviet) army. The Russian NCO's really have no authority or power, their role is primarily done by junior officers. How many Russian generals, division/brigade commanders have been killed because they had to be leading from the front? Lots. Why do they do that? Because if the officers don't push their troops they just hunker down and won't take any initiative.
Can you imagine the Russians doing what the Ukrainian Territorial Defense forces did around Kyiv and Kharkiv, squad/section level units working on their own to hunt down and destroy tanks and ambush supply columns.
@@Bob_Betker That is an important difference but the US is very dependent on calling in close air support. Close air support has been a central go-to resource in Iraq and Afghanistan when the shooting starts. Experienced former US Army soldiers fighting in Ukraine are often taken aback by not having any close air support.
@@scottt5521 CAS is overatated in people's criticisms of US forces. CAS was used to bale isolated units out of serious problems, like being surrounded and outnumber 3+ to 1. The only asset platoon leaders and forward observers can consistently call on is motors.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 The statements I made were from listening to several Brits and Americans who have fought in Ukraine and are home on a temporary break.
@@scottt5521 I agree with you. CAS has been an important of the US Army war-fighting doctrine since WWII. What has changed that before Iraq/Afghanistan the Army maintained a large number of artillery systems that could provide support in case CAS was not available. During Iraq/Afghanistan (circa 2008-2010) someone, probably a bean-counter, made the decision to reduce the number of artillery systems and rely even more heavily on CAS. That bean-counter didn't realize that the US would not always be fighting in a theater where it had air superiority or air dominance. From a logistics point of view it made some sense, you didn't have to transport the artillery and its ammunition into Afghanistan since the airbases where CAS was stationed were outside the country but in the long run it was a poor decision. I think this war has a lot of people in the Army rethinking that decision.
You touch on a very interesting point about German generals transitioning from East to West and having to adapt to a new way of fighting. It would be great to get a more focused video on this
Yes more details on this would be good. Did they find it more difficult or easier to fight western armies compared to the soviets ?
@@Paludion They faced an enemy who dominated the skies, who had superb and agile artillery, and who were completely mechanized/motorized. Worst still this enemy had outstanding logistics, so they didn't have to throw bodies against German defenses. They could instead expend material at stupendous levels. Take a look at Operation Cobra as an example. The US didn't throw a wave of tanks and infantry against the German defenses. They obliterated one portion of it with a massive air strike and rolled over the survivors. The Soviets just didn't have anything like that. Toss in the face that US/British/French/Allied forces were very well trained and becoming increasingly more combat experienced and you had a front that was VERY different from the Eastern Front.
@@Paludion They always said that fighting the Soviets was in some ways it least more difficult than fighting Western armies. But much of what they said was written in US sponsored memoirs post war, in which German generals tried to minimise their responsibility for the mistakes they made, blaming Hitler for most of them, and coming up with all sorts of excuses for being defeated. I would take anything they said with a huge load of salt.
@@bobmetcalfe9640 very important point
The overwhelming Allied air superiority in the West was the most obvious difference. In the East the German could count on Luftwaffe to at least achieve local air superiority, even as late as early 1944. This had a huge impact on "everything"; German logistics and troop movements, as well as subduing the otherwise very effective German artillery. With few exceptions where the effect of air superiority was limited (Stalingrad, Market Garden, Hurtgen Forest), nobody won a campaign in WW2 without having air superiority.
i am from Finland, and my people know what it's like to fight against a country that is many times stronger than you...
What it's like to fight when the enemy has thousands of tanks and completely unlimited artillery shells, we are finns understand Ukrainians perfectly and we know how difficult it is to resist such a force and when you save every projectile, and the enemy burns the ground and strikes indiscriminately at everything he sees... When the enemy outnumbers you in aviation, armored vehicles, in artillery many times over... Ukrainians they know how difficult it is...
And with all these advantages of the enemy, the Ukrainians not only stopped the enemy, but also gradually take away the initiative from him, what is this if not an act of bravery-feat?
Damn right . I’d rather trust any Finn with this knowledge than an arrogant U.S. tanker with unlimited resources . Finland had almost nothing in 1939, and they adapted .
@@wehosrmthink7510 if either war had lasted just another month, Finland would have collapsed.
Bravery only carry you to a certain point.
@@johanmetreus1268 Somewhat true in The Winter War, not quite so In the rest.
@@tapiomanner232 The Lapponia war had other difficulties, trying to get the Germans out of the country while at the same time demobilising, but both the Winter War and the Continuation war ended with Finland accepting rather harsh peace conditions.
What other reason than the Finnish armed forces being on the last leg do you suggest for that?
A highly resourced enemy will tend to expend those resources too quickly in the beginning and if they don’t succeed quickly they will often “double down” and make the situation even worse. Only once they find that the battle will become protracted do they adjust, because the reality is they have little left. This is where Russia is at now.
Chieftain is exactly right about the European perception of the American Civil War. I read somewhere years ago that the only ACW battle that ever showed up in the curricula of European military academies was the 1864 Battle of Nashville, where Union General Thomas completely smashed the Confederate Army of Tennessee. And to be fair to the Europeans, a lot of ACW battles are comedies of errors. I'll mention Antietam and Gettysburg, since the former remains the bloodiest single day in US history and the latter is the bloodiest battle in US History (unless you count the weeks long Meuse-Argonne Offensive in 1918 as a single battle). At Antietam McClellan threw his forces into the battle piecemeal in a way that allowed Lee's much smaller force to survive and escape. Both sides at Gettysburg continually blundered into each other over the course of a three day battle.
Back in 2018 the Real Time History podcast (the people who produce the Great War Channel) interviewed Edward Lengel about the American Expeditionary Force in Europe in 1917-1918. Lengel noted how far behind American officers were at understanding modern warfare and at adapting tactics and organization to cope with it (and how resistant they were to advice from the French and British). Essentially, even in the 1910s our Army was set up to fight Native American tribes and chase bandits over the Mexican border, not to fight a peer competitor, and this was the case arguably from the nation's founding until modernization attempts in the lead up to World War II (where the generals with Great War experience finally had the Congressional funding to put their ideas on things like armored doctrine into practice). Chieftain himself did a good series of videos on the slow process the US Army had to get a proper armored doctrine in the interwar period.
per your statement then, it's possible the same thing has happened during GWoT. interesting...
to be fair though they kinda did not have the time to really refine and train their troops to elite level in the civil war when they did not have a large army to begin with.
Well, that foolishness on the part of Europe would be paid in blood in WW1, where they kept trying to fight the Napoleonic wars against machine guns.
I don't think European armies had such a great record in the same period. Plenty of unaware blundering into battle there. The Austrians and French at Solferino, where huge armies simply pushed into each other, unaware of the other's positions. Even the Prussians, supposedly the best, seemed to win against Austria and France only because the latter were completely inept. Apart from sending out some detachments, Benedek didn't manoeuvre at all. Conversely, even then it's argued the Austrians could have beaten the divided Prussians if they attacked at midday, having pinned the King's army. MacMahon and Napoleon III allowed the main French army to be enveloped at Sedan, something that never happened in America, unless maybe Vicksburg. But look at Grant's movements there; is there any European equivalent? The Prussians were slow, stodgy and unimaginative in comparison. It's just that the French were even worse.
Also, American armies could take a loss and bounce back immediately. The ACW went for four years. Austria folded after one or two lost battles in its wars. The Franco-Prussian involved one series of battles on the border and a siege.
American armies were also highly mobile, able to use rail and sea movement and adopt technology. Mid and late war American cavalry would have it all over Europeans in the kleinkrieg, from tactics and weaponry. I'd hate to see how European cavalry would fare, on the picket line against repeaters and then deployed in close order in battle.
Lee's Gettysburg army or Grant's 1864 army would have mopped the field with a European army, in my view.
@@alatamore typical american mythmaking,
Midt 19th century Eurupe saw much larger battles with more modern arms than any civil war battle.
And they showed that with well trained soldiers and proper discipline battles could be won offensively.
Lindybeige just did a interview with a British guy who has come back from fighting in Ukraine. He was scathing about most former US soldiers (there were exceptions) - stating unequivocally that they were so used to having air support and massive superiority that they found it very difficult.
This is the interview - worth listening to the whole thing (seems like the Ukrainians also had issues which he discusses), but the big part about different nationalities starts around @26:30 m.ruclips.net/video/TCbD4WBqPg4/видео.html
Yes the British soldier also makes a comment something like, how long till medevac?
Dude you walk back to the ambulance.
And the problem of trucks full of weapons disappearing from the column.
Rather ironic tho. The brit speaks yet doesnt consider an army is trained for its doctrine and tactics almost like any scenario USA tends to be in has ranging from Massive Air Superiority to contested airspace using all American equipment not a mix of everything
TLDR an army is trained for its equipment, ways to use it, and how to deploy it, Ukraine is nothing like it
@@le_floofy_sniper_ducko7964 Ukraine is trained for old Soviet era weapons - but have adapted their tactics and strategies to an enemy using the same weapons but with no change to tactics and total lack of strategy. Right now it looks like Russia has returned to century old tactics and strategy. Just use rockets as artillery, throw in waves of soldiers with little coordination and hope that numbers outranks skill.
When getting weapons better than the old Soviet era weapons their adaptation bears fruit and they have already been learning how to adapt so a new weapon further enhances the abilities. Add N-Law and Javelin to a tactics where you earlier used RPGs will just require small tactical changes but give a better yield. The N-Law and Javelin doesn't add much if you fight in a city environment and can actually be a disadvantage because they don't activate when the distance is too short (intended to protect the shooter) and then a classic dumb RPG might work better, especially if it strikes the top of a tank.
There is definitely a lot of room for improvement in the way Ukraine arranged its army, but they are taking the lessons of the war extremely seriously - the difference beteeen the experiences of the foreign legion at start of war and now makes that clear. Considering in 2014 they were as much of a mess as the Russian army is now they have done very well to come this far, since it can takes decades to to turn a hopeless fighting force into a fully competent and capable one - cultural transformation being the slowest and hardest.
Honestly,claim that US military will clear up Eastern Ukraine in 2 weeks sounds pretty much as russian claims to capture Kyiv in 3 days. Despite all fun which we (ukrainians) making of russian military,we never do one thing - we never underestimate them. Sure that 3 american divisions will make great difference on ground,but I don't think that it will be that easy for them.
Ну да, он слишком... ну ты и сам видишь какой он, с реторики "Украинская армия плохая" до "Это не означает что они плохи" и то его мужик подталкивает к этому. Главная его проблема, он берёт US армию, которая имеет бюджет как 5 годовых ВВП нашей страны на протяжении многих десятилетий и сравнивает её с нашей - которая родилась в 2014 и сейчас функционирует только благодаря донатам, практически без авиации и фактически флота. Сейчас не время сравнивать наши армии, я считаю. Нам много чего нужно будет реформировать и модернизировать. Как только недостаток бюджета и времени на реформы(и то чтобы они заработали) не будут проблемой, только тогда это видео будет иметь смысл.
Я думаю, это вполне возможно за пару недель. У американской армии есть всё то, чего очень не хватает украинской армии для успешного освобождения оерритоий. Всё то, что американцы боятся передавать украинской армии: сотни современных танков, бронемашин, сотни современных боевых самолётов и вертолётов, томагавки и прочие мощные высокоточные и дальнобойные боеприпасы. Американская армия вполне способна несколько дней наносить мощные авиационные и артиллерийские удары, после которых российская армия разбежится как она бежала от украинской во время наступления в Харьковской области.
Украинская армия сейчас имеет не более 2-3% технической мощи американской армии.
Well , we're talking about a conflict here that would be fought conventional with enemys in uniforms, at terrain that fullfits combined arms warfare on a larger scale
Air superiority with supression of russian anti air capabilitys (sead) would lead to immobilized russian elements that are outmaneuvered by ground forces while their logistics, communications and leading elements behind the lines have to deal with several commando units.
Seriously, there is no doubt us military would crush the russian lines in days and occupied regions within weeks
I would even consider an european unit to be capable to do this, not that fast, but with ease.
Russian Military isnt that much of a deal as we're witnessed the past months
That’s all quite funny because people remember US success in Iraq, Afghanistan. And forget Vietnam. And the problem is Ukraine us not a Vietnam in 1960s. The main victory was not battle for Kyiv. But battle for air. Really strange to see any discussion in this. AsI know actually US already understood somethings from Ukraine example. Airplanes do not live a lot when country have anti-aircraft warfare. Then you come close yo first world war. Even not second world war, which depends much on tanks. Now one troop with Javelin can stop tank troop. But what showed best are Himars. Possibility to blow up enemy supplies from 100 km.
and all this discussions remind me who is more powerful bear or lion. Who now have the closest war experience those is better. Ask military guys.
But what has no discussion weapons are better in the west. And by the way thanks for help with that. And lets not discuss who is better, but together fight with darkness.
yeah although he made one slight and key difference and that's air support. Maybe with good air support it could be possible to do it but that's a big maybe and i totally agree with you on the point that it is underestimating the opposition
Little Ukraine wins areas against big Russia. Everyone had thought that the Russians would overrun Ukraine. So Ukraine isn't overestimated. Russia was overestimated.
It's both Russia was overestimated and Ukraine was underestimated by most. Ukraine obviously has a pretty good military overall, maybe not to NATO standards but certainly better the vast majority of military forces in the world. Russia has been shown to have more severe systemic problems that means they were badly overestimated particularly by those who count up they tanks, planes, etc. ignoring it's the personnel that truly matter.
Except that they’re not winning. And losing men they can’t replace. The Russian a very is a very blunt instrument, slow to organise and adapt, but you don’t want to be on the anvil when the hammer comes down.
@@samb2052 They are winning. Russia is losing ground. In a year they will be driven out
@@washingtonradio The elephant in the room is that apart from the US basically no NATO country has a force anywhere near the numbers of Ukraine right now. So absolutely a British division would be better than a Ukrainian division/Brigade but how many divisions or brigades could Britain actually deploy?
That being said the US could beat Russia on the ground no question.
Russia was overestimated (because some of their systemic failures only became obvious in the crucible of war), but Ukraine was *also* underestimated. One of my favorite sources (Perun) mentioned that the big unknown in February was whether Ukraine had the will to fight. When he started seeing photos of babushkas making Molotov cocktails in town squares, he realized that Ukraine would be a tougher nut to crack than he'd previously assessed.
@Sam B ,
Ukraine isn't running out of men. They instituted mobilization early. Many of their neighbors are training their new recruits. Currently, on the ground, Ukraine enjoys a numerical advantage over Russia on all fronts (in men, not materiel, where the situation is usually reversed).
The Institute for the Study of War ("ISW") recently estimated that each side had suffered approximately 100,000 casualties. Ukraine had a (pre-war) population of almost 44 million. Assume half are male. Assume 20% of the males are sufficiently fit and fighting age. (Ukraine has adopted a broad definition of "fighting age," and employs some irregular troops that don't have to meet *any* definition of fitness, other than their willingness to fight. In addition, they're accepting female volunteers.) Just on rough numbers, out of a pool of 4.4 million, only 100,000 have been depleted (not considering that some of the injured could later return to combat).
Ukraine is losing men, but they're replacing their men (at the front) faster than Russia is. And they can withstand these losses for years or decades. On a certain level, they can't replace those men (i.e. bring them back from the dead). But that's a long-term consequence they'll have to deal with in the future. During WW2, Ukraine lost approximately 2.5 million men on the front lines, and approximately 5.5 million (or more) civilians. Ukraine survived those losses. Their current losses are substantially smaller.
If you have sources that show a different picture, let me know.
Very interesting discussion.
Thank you both for sharing.
I love these conversations. Please keep it up.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. Discussions at this level are very important and I truly enjoy watching you guys as creators.
Where can i learn about "German generals in 1944 going from eastern to western front and witness a completely different way of fighting" in more detail?
MHV has videos on the topic
Well one story I heard, was a German general used to fighting in Russia set up his HQ on a hill in Normandy, it was obliterated in short order by the allied air force.
There is a link when he mentions this in the top right corner.
@@ihcfn Yep, its not about comparison of eastern and western front. Maily its about reports of Rommel about state of things in Normandy.
I believe B. H. Liddell Hart has touched on that topic in several of his works, like in his set of interviews in "The German Generals Talk."
I also believe Stephen Zaloga has touched upon that topic in several of his books on tanks and armored warfare.
To the point made by another poster, the Germans at least once had a key command post detected and destroyed very rapidly in the early days of the Normandy invasion. Now the Germans were faced with overwhelming air supremacy of the Allies, when on the Eastern Front, they either had local air supremacy, or there was a trading off of local air supremacy depending on the battlefield. Otherwise, the communications network, artillery and logistics of the Allies placed the Germans at a significant disadvantage, such as with the counteroffensive at Mortain (those elements basically enabled an implementation of combined arms that proved challenging to the Germans, that they had not seen as much in the East).
I have mixed feelings about that. In Germany, we have right now a discussion about ammunition stocks. Artillery ammo would last about two days of intensive fighting, from the back of my head. Navy vessels have a single loadout of missiles and ammo and no stocks available for resupply. And so on. Nato demands 30 days of ammo stock and three ressupplies for ships.
I was a bit shocked to hear how bad the situation in regards to ammo is. Then I read that it is not much different to most of the western Nato countries, except the USA.
So, we might have good tech, but too few available. The situation of ammo and spare parts is disastrous in many cases, to put it mildly. Flight hours of helicopter pilots are close to russian ones in many cases.
But the reason is completely understandable. Germany did not expect to use its armed forces in a major conflict after the end of the cold war, nor did most of the other countries. The money went elsewhere. Without the pressure of an actual conflict, armies get sloppy in essential categories.
So, apart from UK and France or countries with actual pressure on them like Israel, Singapore or Taiwan, I would expect serious shortcomings in an actual conflict. The US is another category, as they have practically been in constant war since their founding and throw absurd amounts of money at this.
The only thing relevant for Ukraine right now is how they fare compared to their enemy. And they have shown an incredible will and ingeniuity so far. What they still lack is sufficiently modern tanks, IFVs, artillery and modern aircraft in sizeable numbers. I'm baffled about the hesitance the supporting countries show in this regard.
But who do we plan to fight once Russias military is destroyed? I feel that European armies are about to spend a lot of money on weapons that will never be used.
@@zedeyejoe Those weapons can lie in stock until russia will rebuild its army and try something funny again.
Col Douglas Macgregor Retired has been excellent on this tragedy
@@zedeyejoe That is a very good question. And frankly, I prefer the money to be spent in the civilian sector. Better hospital staff, better infrastructure. Adequate amount of teachers. And so on. Its not that everything is gold-plated here.
But the problem with military spending is the long duration until hardware is available and the time you are stuck with your available hardware. You have to make educated guesses about the future political situation two decades ahead.
In 2000, nobody in Germany would have thought, that "Germany is to be defended at the Hindukush". Absurd statement, but was from the former defense minister in 2001. Or that the US would invade Iraq as a response to 9/11. Almost equally absurd. (What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?)
Or that Russia would invade Ukraine in February. Many people would not be willing to believe that prior to February.
My take on this is: if you have an army with the explicit task of territorial defense, it should be equipped to do its job. You don't have to spent absurd amount of money like the US, but when you fail to order spare parts with your submarines and practically the whole fleet is out of order or if helicopter pilots are not flying and the price per flight hour is spiralling out of control, there is some room for improvement.
I find it interesting that as soon as a large conflict starts, every nation always seems to be shocked at the rate of ammunition being depleted on the frontlines
That had some really good points, and I don't think any of it should be considered a slight against Ukraine. What their military has done since February has been outstanding for what they had, and they have the potential with the track they are on now to raise to the level of Western Militaries.
They just threw 1,5 million of soldiers against 150 000 of Russians.
How's that outstanding lol.
I doubt it. My strong belief is that most armies from the third world countries can defeat the Russian Army - Turkey, Iran, Pakistan - to name a few. I do respect what Ukrainian army did but don't overestimate Russian Army. By no means it's the Soviet Army. Not even close.
PS Do you know that Russian Minister of Defense (who is in charge) never served in the army and has mobilization specialization of reindeers breeder. I am not kidding. I am quite sure he has no idea how to use tanks on the plains, etc.
@@andreypetrov4868 so strange, that you have so russian first and second name. Hmmm. Russian army much worse that army of USSR, yes. However I doubt that Pakistan or Iran have any potential to beat Russians. Even with more people in their armies. russian army have some good soldiers with experience, they was in different wars. But fortunately they all died in winter 22 on the North and East of UkraineeIran last have big war in the end of 80-s. Only Turkey has enough experience and resources, to fight with russians. So Ukraine have maybe not best or smartest enemy, but strong enough to defeat big number of best armies of the world. Don't underestimate the Ukrainian nation and its feat. Now is the chance to destroy the russian army for the first time in 400 years.
@@leman7648 I am Russian and I know what I am talking about. Being an army officer in Turkey, Iran or Pakistan means belonging to elites. In Russia it is not. Moreover level of corruption and favouritism in Russia is so high that real professionals have no chance to go higher than captain rank (company commander), so there is no motivation for young talanted people to join the army. Most people when they talk about Russia still mean half size Soviet Union. It's not. It's not even nearly 1/10 of Soviet Union. Probably close to 1/20.
@@andreypetrov4868 the reason that russian army have a lot of issues, problems, a dumb generals don't make Ukrainian army weaker
“I just relocated it” (referring to his hair loss). LOL !Oh man, I almost fell of my hospital bed. (Broken Femur-work related). Oh that was good, thanks guys. The nurses think I’m crazy now.
Love these two and their chats! Maybe you guys need your own channel of “Tank Chats”
My hairline isn't retreating, it's just advancing in the opposite direction.
My hair is being dispersed to better conceal its numbers.
My hair isn't receding, it's being strategically redeployed to other sectors.
Just tell them you're listening to an Austrian man who sacrificed his hair to efficiency and an American man who escapes from burning tanks for a living.
They'll either give up entirely and accept it, or send you to the mental ward. 😉
get well soon
@@Leon_Portier thx. Working on it. I never understood the complete life changing event that a broken femur is, nor did I think about the pain. Let this be a lesson to everyone, never to walk on ice without grips on.
Thanks for your positive comment.
@@andrewklang809 Has any of it retreated as a gesture of goodwill yet? :P
Based on my past experience in the Australian army & understanding how we fight & my limited understanding of the Ukraine armed forces, I would say they are far more competent than their adversaries. They are indeed well motivated, reasonably well equipped & supported & seem to be making consistently sound tactical decisions. However, I would not class them as professional. They are a mixed bag of regulars, milita, volunteers & conscripts doing a remarkably good job against overwhelming odds.
@@MrWolfstar8 based on all available info, Ukraine is kicking the living daylights out of Russia. This is significant as Russia was considered a major threat to NATO for decades. Ukraine has dispelled that myth.
Russia may indeed win in a long war of attrition however, comparatively speaking, Russian military capability has been shown to be at best mediocre by a far less capable opponent who by any measure is punching way above their weight.
On a side note, whilst the battlefield is no place for a 65yo you have to put that into context regarding the situation Ukraine is in, being the victim of an unprovoked attack by an aggressive, tyrannical dictator. I have recently hit the 50's, I would volunteer to re enter active service if my nation was invaded.
@@MrWolfstar8 after the collapse of the USSR the threat did indeed ease significantly. NATO too was less relevant as it was created specifically to counter the USSR. However, there are still many in modern Russia that retain the Soviet mentality & very much desire to envelop former satellite states back into the fold & expand the empire, this is why NATO could never be disbanded.
I am not suggesting that the west has not made mistakes yet, history shows that it is generally, tyrannical dictatorships that are the aggressors, as it is in this instance.
The world is poised on a knife edge yet, the Russia Ukraine conflict whilst tragic & highly destructive, does not give me cause for worry in the bigger picture. There are far greater threats than this.
@@ikabody I dont see russia regaining their power again, their time is simply done. The USSR Collapse basically ended their reign and their potential. the west should focus more on other possible threats such as China. Thou i doubt china would pose such a problem to western dominance, from how i see it the west remains the hegemon of the world for a long long time. Plus if we want to preserve freedom and democracy the west must be in power, i don't see the east being good in a leadership role.
@@jmgonzales7701 I too believe that Russia is essentially a spent force however, given the very real possibility that their economy could collapse I foresee a possible last resort move into the middle east specifically against Israel should Israel begin supporting Ukraine & continue in its push to supply Europe with its vast reserves of natural gas.
@@ikabody effin hell man russia is EVIL. No way around it. They need to be wiped off clean from the map. What the west needs is to focus on balkanization efforts. Then focus on china. Now is the time to strike, russia was always a has been ever since the ussr dissolved. Their time is simply over.
They have shown themselves to be determined, resilient, flexible and innovative.
I would take that over a lot of other armies anytime.
This. How do you even deal with, say, the VC when they speak your language, can tap your communications, are technologically equivalent to you, perhaps better, and are capable of outnumbering you wherever and whenever they want? Oh, and every first world power is backing them to some degree? I get a laugh out of the Rus-sympathizers you see here and there, trolling.
They are not innovative or flexible.
I would take superior firepower everytime
My complaint is the AFU is incredibly wasteful with lives. Ironically, it reminds me of the American Civil War. Lee was a butcher who lost more of his own men than he killed. That's why he was so badly outnumbered at the end. The AFU seem to be spending lives like they aren't the side that's outnumbered in all this.
@@GUMMRUCHK I haven't seen US forces being this flexible and adaptable
Corruption in Ukraina is also reduced by western support, volunteers who arent used to corruption encounterring corruption have actually whent to Kijev to complain that their regiments weapons where stolen, leading to the corrupt officers being cort martialed and the volunteers being commended.
It has been trending downwards since the 2014 revolution; on the way, but not there yet. I think Bernhard has a point about the effect of war, at least in the short term. With everyone aware that they risk losing everything, it becomes less tempting to pull money to the side. Also in the short term, capital is destroyed, and thereby some of the elite's power, but this "benefit" is not enough to outweigh the real economic loss of that capital.
A critical period will be at the end of the war. There will be a lot of unused potential suddenly available for those who can organize and capitalize it, and a bureaucracy that is unprepared for the sudden new situation.
Did you watch the recent interview on LindyBiege's channel with a returned U.K. volunteer? That exact scenario showed up.
@@jensdanbolt6953 oddly, one of the interesting features of frozen conflicts and deeply divided societies that I turned up doing research into the 2004 Georgia-Russia war over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, was that corruption can have a de-escalating effect. Essentially, as certain forms of corruption tend to transcend the divisions of the conflict (e.g. in order to access markets outside the constraints of the exploited party's knowledge and influence), they develop networks of cooperation which benefit from a limitation of outright hostilities, and operational paradigms not opposed to persuading, bribing and/or coercing actors into maintaining that state of affairs. Unfortunately, the benefits don't extend to the pursuit of conflict resolution, as corruption benefits from sustaining frozen conflicts; with the disruption to societal institutions and norms providing the optimal habitat.
@@jensdanbolt6953 Good points. Corruption was endemic in the Imperial Russian Army. The Russian Minister of Defense, Sukhomlinov, was a favorite of the Czar and was known to be taking bribes and kickbacks left and round besides being thoroughly incompetent. There was corruption of a different form in the Soviet Army and I'm sure that found its way into the Ukrainian Army. 2014 seemed to a wake-up call that they needed to get their act together and reduce corruption.
I wouldn’t be so sure about Ukraine and corruption. If anything all the western support money seems to be encouraging a kind of resource curse; Half of all the weapons delivered or unaccounted for it’s documented many of the Salinas reported as missing while their commanders pocket their pay, and gear often fails to meet the front lines but instead ends up on market stalls. Surviving volunteers who have come back report horrendous mismanagement by their Ukrainian bosses who are more than willing to kill people to shut them up by say deliberately ordering them in two areas the Russians had zeroed for artillery fire if they complained. Remember Ukrainians are the people who lied to their civilians about what was about about what was going to happen so they can keep them in place to use as human shields, Remember Ukrainians are the people who lied to their civilians about what was about about what was going to happen so they can keep them in place to use as human shields imagine the contempt they have for your not Ukrainian not even a Slav ass.
It's one thing comparing the Ukrainian army units to heavy Western units but it would be interesting (to me anyway) to see how the Ukrainian light infantry compared to Western light infantry. They've been on a steep learning curve of late.
I say that as an (ex) navy man so don't have skin in the game.
UKR light infantry right now....are better at fighting Russians. You compare UKR light infantry to western light infantry and its a different ballgame. How good are the UKR at fighting Americans? Yes, there is a combat experience aspect of this that carries over but a lot of the theater specific tradecraft and techniques for fighting Russians are not going to work. We conduct operations different, run our convoys different, conduct recon different and so forth. A UKR light infantry division is going to lose to an American light infantry division; especially if we stop giving them shells for their M777s ; p
I think with such a high intensity conflict you're probably going to get good or get yourself killed/injured in a way that you're just not going to have in something like policing, peace keeping or even somewhere like the Iraq and Afghan deployments. A lot of how well you're trained contributes a massive amount as does the veterancy of your guys in a unit, being able to take in new soldiers and teaching them how it all works and clicks together on combat operations.
It would be fair to say Ukraine isn't a western military, there's a lot of things we can teach them but I think at the end of the day there's also probably a lot of living memory in Ukraine which is also worth a really detailed investigation in the sense of fighting Russians on what is essentially a shoe-string of supplies and ad-hoc tactics. Like those guys would definitely be making sure every bullet, move and launcher they've got isn't going to waste and probably a bit more conservative with what they've got in the sense it might be needed tomorrow.
@@Dadecorban hey, dudes. Maybe you would compare a 7 y.o. and 17 y.o. in a fight then?🤣🤣 A fair fight, isn't it?
Why do you forget how much a brigade of the US costs and how much UA brigade costs in all terms of spending on it: money, infrastructure, time and so on.
What a ridiculous comparison.
@@ruslandukhnovskiy5694 How long do you think an American brigade would last on the budget of a Ukrainian brigade? Hours?
@@Dadecorban - Where would they be fighting in this hypothetical, and when? In Ukraine in the winter? Florida in the summer? Neutral territory?
I really enjoy the chieftain videos.i would have commented that in the 60 s the Vietnamese army wasn't the same class as US but that didn't stop them.
Exactly, there were extremely motivated and adapted their tactics to suit their strengths and the US vulnerabilities.
It's an unfair comparison but it's constructive to play devils advocate and interesting to consider. Let's hope Ukraine continues to learn faster than Russia.
True. But the VC and NVA were only successful on a political level. The NVA fought the US Army head on only a handful of times and they got smashed. When the NVA fought the ARVN, the situation was different. But 1974 was nothing like 1965.
I think that I best start proof reading my comments because good god this made no sense. 😄
Or the Chinese army in the Korean War, to name a more conventional conflict.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 You are correct the NVA changed their tactics and avoided head-on conflicts. Death by a thousand cuts still kills you just like lopping off your head, it just takes longer. In most cases, the ARVN lacked motivation and the will to fight unlike the NVA, who had that in spades.
I remember when general Ben Hodges talked about how he was surprised by the Kharkiv front operation when Ukrainians liberated Izyum because they apparently mastered modern mobile forces operation on at least brigade level.
I've listened to a gen. Mark Hertling today and he said that Ukrainian army is good but not great. There is a huge improvement comparing what it once was and he expects also great value provided by troops which are currently trained in UK. He also told that there is some training facility in Germany where the combined operations will be drilled on a large scale and that should lead to improved ability to push Russians further back.
You should read the new interviews published in the economist. Leadership does not sound optimistic. Z man is talking all the old bullshit about retaking Crimea and Donbass and more. Zaluzhny gave a shopping list which is bigger than basically any allied army apart from the USA’s. He also made an allusion towards the possibility of surrender by Ukraine; he said he isn’t ready to give a Mannerheim speech just yet. Syrskyi said the Russians are tough and must not be underestimated, especially as the power of power balance is strongly tilting against Ukraine with the mobilization working and heavy losses from the prior offensives; he wants and needs to do more offensives, but the horrible losses in vehicles and heavy weapons mean he can’t. This last one is especially scary because he’s the guy who lead the fall offensives. Combine that with his boss making a reference to having considered surrendering and it’s very revealing.
@@Mortablunt Least biased “MiGhTy Russians will CrUsH Ukraine” doomer.
This is the best kind of video: it touches on a controversial topic (it is taboo to say anything negative about "the good guys"), it's nuanced, and experts are not fully agreeing with each other. Videos like these help us form our critical thinking, and not just about current events, but about historical events as well.
It may be slightly taboo, but the way he set up the question was stupid. I almost feel like The Chieftain brought it up in the first place because he’s an arrogant dweeb who hates anything that gets a lot more attention than him.
@@The_ZeroLine I didn't get that vibe from this discussion. Was there something specific he said, or the way he said it that gave you that impression?
@@davidhoffman6980 Nothing in his language, but his general attitude. I find this topic to be an interesting discussion nonetheless, but intolerable to listen to coming from “The Chieftain” (super humble name lol). But, hey, what do I know?
Edit: What I think is that if you ever see TC in a video with other experts, he seems to be quite combative in that he likes to try to establish he knows more than them. And how I think this extends to this topic is that lots of normies and experts have showered praise on Ukraine. And without consulting him first! So, he feels the need to ensure this view is approved or disabused by him.
@@The_ZeroLine Ok that's fair. I disagree, but you articulated your position well. Also, I assumed that his user name is a reference to the British Chieftain tank as he discusses tanks and mechanized warfare. If Bernard called himself "The Leopard" I would assume he was referring to the tank as well.
@@davidhoffman6980 Civil debate! We definitely should be looked on as icons. I only know the signs of arrogance so well because I’m so arrogant. lol
The thing is that US army (and all western armies) haven't fought against an equal ennemy for a long time. No one knows how they would perform, just as no one knew how the russian would perform in Ukraine (most people thought they would win quickly). It is easy to say western armies are more competent when all they have done for years is to fight against farmers.
A lot of observers thought the Iraqi army would be a stiff challenge for the USA, but it was wiped out with almost no US losses. Same as a lot of people thought Russia would walk over Ukraine, but very different outcome.
@@jrd33 I mean, the Iraqi are somewhat of a counter-example to my argument : the west has shown that it could win a large scale war. But as you said, the Iraqi were wiped out, so no one knows how well western armies would perform under great pressure.
Great video as always :)
Probably the first time I disagree with Chieftain.
If you want to put American or British tank brigade personnel and put them into the similar equipment to what Ukrainians have. I mean, for example, that some machines are 40 years old, a huge number of parts are missing, and the brigades have their stocks filled on average only about 70%. So, after all, they would achieve worse results than the Ukrainian brigades. Why? Because Western forces are not prepared for a war of this scale, Western personnel would still be clamoring for air support and artillery support. The Americans lost 1 tank in Iraq against 100 Iraqis, not because they are so ultra super, but because they have huge resources, superior technology, and many times more firepower. So if we want to compare, let's not create miraculous scenarios where everything would be ideal for the US tank brigade, but let's put it in the same situation as the Ukrainian one.
They remind me of the British just after Dunkirk. They are doing what they can, with whatever they can. They are going to have their Paddy Maynes, and they will haver their Captain Mainwarings. We are seeing everything from trench warfare that harks back the First World War, and battles that look more like Mad Max.
War is chaos. The will and ability to muddle through is a vital skill.
It looks like WW1 because anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons are so deadly now they've almost negated tanks and aircraft so once again artillery is queen of the battlefield and the infantryman is king.
The big point to make is that the soldiers rescued were professional soldiers who went on to train the new army alongside the Territorials for action in North Africa, Italy and eventually to Berlin.
Please! At the end of this series, bring the full interview online. Please!
My understanding is that they're using Soviet Deep Battle doctrine (trade land for time then counterattack, use deep pushes through your enemy's line and pour resources into that breech, etc.). However, they've also adopted western-style pull model on logistics (as opposed to a Soviet push-style), and they emphasize initiative on the platoon level to take advantage of the situation on the ground.
Bernhard and Nicholas have the same amount of hair.
Bernhards hairline just retreated* to a more advantages position
Edit: *Regrouped
There were Ukraine - NATO exercises in Germany some years ago, where indeed Ukraine blew the rest out of the water. Experience counts.
I think a thing to consider is that the UA is transforming itself from a former Soviet-bloc army to a NATO army while fighting a war for national survival. It had a head start with NATO providing some weapons and training prior to February, but it's had to make some fast and hard adaptations while under fire. We'll see what kind of training the UA can receive during winter and if it can outpace the Russians in getting enough troops to learn the right lessons from this fight and throw the Russians out of their country in Spring.
I'm sure there will be a huge difference in how soldiers coming from training will be recieved by each side. Reportedly, RUS sends them straight into the grinder. I would bet UKA will go a different way. Taking front line lessons and refining them with a higher degree of training will be an interesting result.
Russia is a paper power
@@jeremyt7722 People forget that almost through entire war Ukraine has numerical advantage. Despite Russia attacking! Initially 150k Russians attacked almost 200k Ukrainian forces. The progress was mostly due to fact that Russia did have way more equipment and concentrated in sparsely populated areas. Russia never catch any major city outside one case what was result of treason. Furthermore Ukraine from get go start mobilization and currently deploying almost milion soldiers, rotating forces and training them. It is why they did have sufficient numerical advantage to make two offensives. When Russian forces, both equipment and also training personel deteriorate. So when they actually start mobilizing after realizing that they 500k regulars, conscripted separatists and PMC's isn't enough. They could not do more then plug the holes (though they prevent Ukrainian counteroffensive for a time). And for reminder, Russia has only three times more people. When also having non existent morale, training and in near future equipment. It still wouldn't be easy win. But Russia can't really achieve even Pyrrhic victory at this point.
Ukraine has had Nato training since 2014.
@@alexanderbarkman7832 NATO training yes. But is not NATO level army. One word. Airsupremacy.
A few things to note from a Ukrainian perspective.
If you take an average US unit and put it up against the Ukrainian unit of the same size, the latter one does not have much of a chance, since most units right now is a hodgepodge of veterans, volunteers with little training. In terms of equipment it's everything from crowdfunded mad-max pickup trucks and old cold war era equipment to the state-of-the-art russian tanks and IFWs. So, you know, the full-time, fully-funded professional military is not the same as basically a unit that is build from what's available in terms of menpower and material.
Not to mention the US air dominance and CAS. I don't think there is an army in the whole world that can stand against that.
However, a reasonably well-equipped Ukrainian unit, stuffed with mostly regulars basically what we call "A heavy brigade" can give a an equally sized US unit a run for it's money in a real fight on the ground without air support. There are several reasons for that.
First off all, the experience of fighting against near-peer who's got a lot of artillery. Some people just don't realize how scary and demoralising this shit is. I know it is an anecdotal example, but during the battle of Kyiv some American foreign legion fighters left, because they were sure that "all was lost". Don't get my wrong, I don't want to say that they were cowards or anything, same happened to some of our territorial defence units (hastly assembled militia with little training or experience) in the east. Of course, Americans thought they were experienced, because they fought in Afghanistan or Iraq. But they lacked precisely the experience I'm talking about. Experience of soaking up an artillery barrage, then MLRS barrage, then another artillery barrage and moving on.
Secondly, experience in counterbattery fire. Self explanatory, I don't think it's controversial to suggest that we have a lot more expensive with that and some pretty good software designed for that.
Thirdly, use of drones, the smaller the scale the more advantage is on our side, because of all the DIY stuff. So this one is really depends on the scale of the fight.
To sum up, I'm not saying Ukrainian unit will win that. Just that it will not be a walk in the park for US.
Love from Ukraine and thanks for support
Fair points. The US Army learned some bad lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan. They believed that the USAF would always be able to gain air superiority and provide CAS in all theaters. As a result, the US Army de-emphasized artillery and significantly reduced its artillery units and overall numbers of weapons. This war shows that might be a flaw in our doctrine. I imagine there are all a lot of discussions within the US Army about ground fighting in a contested air space.and how to fight against an opponent with significant artillery capabilities. Unfortunately, the US Army thought their experience in fighting low-intensity conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan would be the only kind of conflicts they would engage in.
Regarding drone, The US has excelled in using drones at the theater level down to brigade level. I have been impressed with what the Ukrainians have done a the company and below levels. They are taking stuff off the shelf and tweaking a little accomplish the mission. I think that is one of the flaws in the US approach. We often too much time and effort in developing something some complicated and sophisticated that it becomes too expensive or takes too long to field. There is no way in hell that the US would have taken a stock drone and added hand-grenades to drop on enemy positions.
@@Bob_Betker I was thinking about that scenario the other day. Say, US deploys troops to Taiwan to keep China locked in first island chain. Well, if China decides to attack it would have more jets with shorter leg on it's side than US carrier group. Not to mention, all the sams on their ships. Remember their last "exsersises" around Taiwan? They basically encircled the island with their ships, so unless the US deals a decisive blow in the naval engagement to Xi's fleet, that airspace would be pretty-much off limits. Even if the Chinese fleet will suffer dearly and won't be able to keep up the full blockade, their land based SAMs can reach Taiwan airspace anyway.
What I'm trying to say, is that US would need to be prepared and ready to slug it out with their ground forces for most of the time and then operate outnumbered in heavily contested airspace. And that is the best-case scenario i.e. if carrier group scores a victory and Chinese fleet can be thrown back eventually. Other scenarios are much more grim. Personally, I think that "Carrier Killer" missile is a load of bs. There are a lot of "wunderwaffe" in world on paper, not many to confirm their capabilities in actual fight. I'll believe it when I see it.
Long story shortly, I hope US higher ups know what they are doing and have a plan for that fight. There is a lot more than just the fate of Taiwan that would be on the line.
@@katamarankatamaranovich9986 I'm not a naval expert but even then Taiwan will be a tough nut to crack. Taiwan has a decent number of aircraft and air defense systems that are going to be taking shots at aircraft attacking the island or attempting to fly past it towards USN forces.
It comes down to competent staff officers at the brigade and above levels of command who understand operational level of warfare, combined arms, logistics and fatigue management.
Ukraine got none 😂😭
Retired Generals also mention morale is a great asset and state the Ukrainians are highly motivated.
They also have the aid from all of the Western Intel Agencies combined,, at least a large number of them. The Russian forces can't come close to them when it comes to intel.
They also have numbers, outnumbering the Russian forces 2, 3 or more to 1 in nearly all engagemens. It was even worse prior to Russia's partial mobilization. Now that many of those mobilized troops are on the line were beginning to see the difference. For the last week they've been pushing Kiev's forces back and advancing along much of the front line. Kiev put out another call for mobilization yesterday but there aren't many that haven't already been mobilized. Kiev has lost upwards of 150,000 troops at this point and climbing. With many of those captured or surrendering say they had little or no training before being thrown into combat.
Great question to pose and great conversation. I would ask, how well would an american armored division do wiithout any tactical or strategic air support?
Just give the Russians a really big artillery target.
Also if in this hypothetical scenario the opposing force are the Russians, even without the benefit of air support the U.S. force is still facing an enemy that is staggeringly incompetent and nowhere close to being a peer. Through 10 months of war in Ukraine the Russian army has not infrequently looked rather amateurish, and not all what one would expect from a supposed great power.
@@ahorsewithnoname773 The Russians took 30% of a country while outnumbered 2:1 by the defenders.
@@Mortablunt The Russian military - supposedly that of a world power - has to failed to achieve any of it's major objectives after ten months of war. It has performed abysmally in combined arms operations, has poorly handled logistics, has been exposed to be rife with official corruption that has also degraded it's combat effectiveness, has been unable to utilize air power for decisive effect despite Ukraine fielding a small air force, it is plagued by low morale and the troops often seem to be poorly trained, the strategic and operational performance of the armed forces has at times been so amateurish and poorly coordinated as to utterly baffle military experts the world over. It has also now, without any tangible strategic gains to show for it, suffered more killed than the United States did in nearly two decades of war in Vietnam.
Aside from being better equipped the Russian military looks like not like the army of a major power, but rather one fielded by some third world dictator.
the problem for the UAF is not in some paper NATO standards but in absence of the quantity and quality of standard NATO weapons and equipment. moreover none of NATO countries would have these standards kept in case of 1/5 of their territory was occupied and their standing armies comprised 3% of total population
While I don't think Ukraine has the best military standards, they don't have much in the way of Western equipment to best make use of certain tactics. For example, neither Ukraine or Russia can maintain air superiority, so combined arms offensives don't work that well, on top of just a general lack of long range, mobile artillery, and advanced armored vehicles. Like, they're pretty much stuck with Soviet era tanks, which lack vital systems for an effective, autonomous MBT on a modern battlefield. I'd be willing to bet if they had all these fancy gizmos, even if they're 30 years old, would probably thrash Russian positions severely.
Also the comment about how Russia is fighting Ukraine and not NATO is so true as well, some of them I'm sure are genuinely convinced that they're fighting NATO forces just to cope from how bad their army is. It's entirely true that the frontline would most likely incinerate the moment NATO got involved, and pushed Russia to pre-invasion, or even pre 2014 borders.
It seems that the "Western training" is more along how to operate the new equipment being provided but that the tactical use in the field is still more along the Ukrainian systems especially at the smaller unit levels but with Western style tactics adding options.
In a similar way, when Wurttemburg joined the Confederation of the Rhine the troops were trained in fighting in Two Ranks similar to the British but as part of the Confederation they also learned the French 3 Rank system so were able to take advantage of which ever was appropriate for the situation although they still preferred the 2 rank formation.
Would a Western force equipped the same way as the Ukrainians were in different stages of the war do as well in so many engagements over the same period? I think that's how you define competence, isn't it?
Precisely. This is giving off "russia has more tanks so they will destroy Ukraine" vibes.
Yes.
Not only would it do as well it would do better than the Ukrainians did. That's at least true if we're talking about the top tier of NATO forces.
@@davidpnewton The West gives Ukraine so far mainly defensive weapons (javelins, stingers, etc.). For an offensive, especially in the bare, flat, open steppe, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and aviation are needed. But the cowardly West refuses this to Ukraine or gives it in very limited quantities.
If you replaced all of the territorials and newly trained soldiers with experienced reservists or professionals from a western military, who were also defending their own country from invasion? Hell yeah. Many of the fuckups of the early-war would be prevented and I doubt Kherson would have been infiltrated. War might be over by now.
@@davidpnewton They'd melt if equipped that poorly. Top tier NATO forces are trained to fight with overwhelming superiority in materiel. Send them into a meat grinder where the enemy has 10:1 artillery superiority and they'd refuse to fight.
Greetings from Ukraine. Thank you for honest opinion. And thank you for interesting thoughts.
I love these videos!
When you compare Ukraine division and British division, you forgot that in comparation of Ukraine division and Russian division will be even more obvious, however one of the main Russian advantage is number of troops, so if you deploy part of US army or other NATO member army in Ukraine Army place they will be outnumbered, overhelmed and destroyed. The thing is that the more your army grow in a short period of time, the harder it to train and supply.
7:45 That's a low blow and followed by a good counteroffensive.
I love this moment, when Chieftain comes around with a question for Bernhard.
Chieftain makes many correct and valid points, but I think he's incorrect that the ZSU isn't a good army. Innovation, determination, and combat experience are what make them a good army, even if they're lacking in equipment and logistics. In the early days of the war, they withstood a blow that would have broken many "better" armies. My feeling is that among others, the Brundeswehr would have totally crumbled if faced with the same assault.
You make a good point, but I would suggest that if germany had russia as a direct neighbour with the same treatment that russia gave ukraine, there would be a different bundeswehr today. Atleast in terms of readiness and ammo etc..
Dunno about “better armies” Russian VDV armored column weren’t fighting in the beginning in the Kyiv thrust while Russian army was fighting from the get go at Kharkiv, Sumi, and Kherson. Ukrainians had pulled most of their troops from Kherson and were compromised by Russian Intel with SBU officer from the South guiding Russians through minefields. The Kherson bridge was purposely not blown by those compromised officers.
@@zeitgeistx5239 Interesting information that doesn't seem to be widely known.
Wrathofachilles: I think it was poor wording on his part. I think he was meaning more that it wasn't a modern army that is capable of division or corps level combined arms operations. Anyway, you don't always have to be good, just better than your opponent.
The current BW couldn't fight against the girl scouts without loosing badly.
I think the answer to this idea is, 'so what?'. Even if we accept that Ukraine's army isn't good compared to Western professional armies, so what? When have we ever expected to hold it to those standards? Even if we accept that the premise is true, Ukraine's army isn't objectively great, it's still fantastic compared to expectations. Ukraine only needs to be good at a limited amount of things, not a global power. That doesn't mean it's not good at those limited things
Yes and no. There are some folks out there going on that the Ukrainians are invincible and cannot be beaten. Kind of like when I joined the Army in 1978 and everyone thought that Ivan was 10 feet tall and we would be speed bumps for the Soviet Army. I think this discussion was an attempt to dispel that notion. The Ukrainians are better than everyone thought and a lot better than the Russians. The big question is will they be able to inflict a severe enough defeat on the Russians before the Russians can get their act together and mobilize effective. Russia still has 3 times the manpower than Ukraine and that could possibly tell in the long run.
I think there is some truth in saying that they aren't a "good" professional army, but it depends on the context. I think in the current state the Ukrainian army is about on par with most second and third tier armies. If Ukraine is "bad / poor" then the vast majority of the world falls into that camp and lets be honest they definitely do however in most cases that level of competence and the equipment they have works for the threats they expect to face. A better argument or discussion would be that Ukraine should have done more and faster to modernize and be on par with a Western army in terms of training, tactics and at least on track to integrating equipment systems for effective combined arms.
"A better argument or discussion would be that Ukraine should have done more and faster to modernize and be on par with a Western army in terms of training, tactics and at least on track to integrating equipment systems for effective combined arms."
This is an easy thing to say, but not easy to do in the time they had and with the resources they had.
how many first tier armies are there?
one also has to consider that urkaines total defense budget is less than 1/3 of polands.... and polands defense budget is about 1/4 of for example Germany, UK or France.
we are talking about defense spending in the realm of all 3 baltic states + romania and slovakia combined
People tend to forget that Pre-2014 ZSU is corrupted and down-size so much that In Early 2014 conflict, It carry out by Militias and Special Forces. In span of 8 years, come from Bad to Competent is good enough for 2022. The Modernization of ZSU still in progress and shouldn't uphold because of war.
That why new equipment - Assets for Ukraine should be one the table soon, not just refitting soviet stuffs. And ZSU should have access learning process and prepare logistic for that too.
@@mr.seaotter-1429 yes, but Ukraine must also be able to finance and upkeep its military by itself. Nato won't continue to pump billions each month into Ukraine after the war is over.
The acquisition of a typical nato style tank brigade would swallow 1/3 of Ukraines annual defense budget. The acquisition of a single 212a uboat would swallow 3/4 or more of Ukraines annual defense budget.
And the country has lost 2/3 of its economic power and gdp due to the war in the last months. So it will be extremely difficult to finance anything
Question to author of channel and guest. What would be attacking capabilities and performance of mechanized brigades/divisions of NATO armies in the case of enemy air superiority.
I have a feeling that the Ukrainian army is very soon going to be one of the strongest forces in NATO.
Not happening. Ukraine was getting the NATO carrot dangled in front of it for one reason and that was because they had a big population and were positioned so as to easily invade Russia. With half of Ukraine now either living in Russia or having flood and with Ukrainian surrender becoming such a possibility their top general even mentioned it in his recent economist interview that’s not gonna happen especially when Ukraine is delegated to the poor as shit western agricultural regions. There will be no euro rebuilding money there will be no NATO rebuilding. Ukraine is going to fail at its one and only job. In case you haven’t noticed from watching roughly the past 40 years of geopolitics but the West is very unkind towards failure, especially when it has to do anything with opposing Russia. The euro economic planners and they need to top brass I’m gonna take one look at what it would require to make rump hick Ukraine into a contributing member of the team and decide it’s not worth it.
I don't have this feeling, I'm sure about it!
I've been following this war from the beginning and I've watched the Ukrainians become very professional.
Very interesting point about European observation of the American Civil War compared to Western observation of Ukraine War.
You can add in European observation of the Spanish Civil War. Every observer should have learned that charging into machine guns was a futile waste of troops … but none of them did … until WW1 taught them the lesson again, with a catastrophic body count.
@@karlr750 Spanish civil war was after ww1?
@@tiaxrulesall, should been the war between Japan and Russia.
@@tiaxrulesall
there was more than one
Outstanding conversation.
If you put a given Ukrainian formation up against an equivalent NATO formation in a straight-up fight, yeah, it's probably going to come off second-best. Possibly even a very distant second. But what would happen if you gave that Ukrainian formation the same standard of equipment and support (logistics, intelligence, planning etc.) that the NATO formation enjoys? I'm asking because I don't know - maybe they'd need a bunch more training to make effective use of the additional resources. If so, would that make them "not a good Army"?
On further reflection, the very first question that needs to be answered here is, What exactly does it mean to have or be "a good Army" vs. "not a good Army"?
When the Chieftain says the US could push Russia out of Ukraine in short order it is because they have access to weapons that Ukraine does not and which the US is deliberately denying Ukraine. For example, the US would fire a bunch of ATACMS missiles off and put the Kerch bridge out of action and sink the entire Black Sea fleet. Then the whole of the southern front would collapse ala Kherson because it is supplied almost entirely over that bridge. Ukraine would *LOVE* to have access to those weapon systems.
A good army got brains. Finlands army in the winter war and in the continuation war had brains. The Israeli army in the six day war and the Yom Kippur war had brains.
The US army does not have as much brains. It got more muscles than brain. It is a bit like the Roman army. It is large and well supplied and can afford to take heavy losses and still win a war - unlike Finland's big brained army that lacked the muscles to destroy Russia.
USA do not have the smartest Generals, its doctrine is stupid (it have neglected Auftragstaktik unlike the Israelis for example) and it have become a bit lazy by beating their enemy by using air power, fire power and technological superiority instead of finding ways to win their enemy without using such luxuries.
But with all that contempt for the US military I shown, do they also deserve some admiration and flatter.
They are extremely good at technological development - DARPA gave us internet, GPS, microelectronics and so on, so without the US military would there have been no economic wonder with great IT companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Amazon that gives USA enormous economic power around the world and brings them enormous economic wealth.
The US military is also extremely good at organising acute medical care for wounded soldiers. Both military and civilian healthcare around the world have copied the model of the US army and is now organized by the same model
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_(medicine)
And like the Romans, are the Americans good with logistics and at organizing things like planning for a military operation.
And sometimes are the Americans creative as well - like operation Bolo.
And there are of course a few good american Generals, like George C Marshall, Matthew Ridgway to just name a few
Logistics and planning are in the hands of the Ukrainians, it's not something you could just gift them. Equipment can be given and would be beneficial, but I doubt Ukrainians would know how to make most of it all. Even if you gifted all the logistics equipment of a US armored corps, I don't think they could deploy it like the Americans do.
I think Ukraine must have adapted and learnt to fight admirably to have survived this long, but one of the things I personally believe they still lack is a proper 1st rate military culture. The corruption while reduced is still an issue, and at least the lower intensity conflict doesn't seem to have weeded out all the bad practices. For example, how the foreign legion was housed in the first stages of the war; first in a big military base that was almost a self-evident target, then in tents that were not dispersed, dug in, nor camouflaged. I doubt this kind of military laziness is just a few singular occurrences. It happens partially because it's hard to completely train away, and because you can get away with it against the current Russian military.
For another anecdote, there was this video in circulation of a Ukrainian mechanized infantry squad storming a Russian defensive position on a berm. What happened was they drove right up to the position riding on top of the BMP (maybe 20 metres away), dismounted into what could be described as a gaggle fuck, and then shot at the few guys ready in the defensive position without much of an attempt to achieve movement. Ultimately they got a few grenades close enough and killed some of the guys in the defensive position, at which point the rest of the Russian soldiers hiding behind the berm decided to run off.
Why they succeeded is that the Russians for some reason had
1. no anti tank weaponry or machine guns in the position to stop them from closing in
2. did not actively move to defend, most of them preferring to stay behind the berm out of action at all points
3. did not throw any grenades, at least into where the Ukrainians actually were.
By achieving this objective, you can judge the Ukrainians as capable, but not competent.
The same way, some middle-eastern non-state actors have been at conflict for over twenty years, and despite this, they still do not fight very well. They are certainly battle hardened, and they may have their elite, but ultimately simply fighting a war does not always develop the fighting skill beyond a certain point.
@@mattilaiho7979 Good points.
I also think that the famous video with a guy in Mariupol shooting a NLAW down on a T-72 also display that the Ukrainian troops are lacking some skill. This man firing this missile and filming it at the same time is undoubtably very brave, but he did waste one very expensive missile in a foolish way because he did not know that you cannot fire on targets at such a short range - because then will the missile not activate.
So the enemy was too close, and the missile did not activate and did not explode on impact.
Had this video clip been coming from some reservist troops in the Ukrainian army I would not have said anything.
But this video was coming from the Azow troops - some of the best troops in the Ukrainian military with years of experience of fighting the Russians. So I have to say that I did expect more skill from them.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 If it was just weapons we would all be speaking German now, nicht so? The US has three aircraft carriers in the range of Ukraine. If they were going to do anything they would do what they did in Yugoslavia from the air. Nato has never been to war in Europe. Ukraine is not a member and will probably never be but follow a Finnish model assuming they win enough to satisfy them.
4:20 You are correct I think, but only for the top of the line and the staff.
Those are the ones that actually have access to soviet training, experience and western training and can synthesize and adapt all 3.
Most of the line will never have seen a western trainer, or (for some of the draftees) only have seen western trainers.
In addition many of those are newer, without the 8 years of combat experience.
So all the pieces are in the Ukrainian army, yes.
But not always in the same parts of it, which they need to be to really have the effect you speak of.
I am positive though that many of ukraines special forces are an absolute terror that would probably beat out many western specialists *in the precise circumstances of fighting russia in 2022*.
NATO has had trainers working at all levels within the Ukrainians forces. A brigade recently completed training in the UK and the UK is providing basic training as well, so even Joe-snuffy or his Ukrainian equivalent is probably being exposed to Western trainers.
Thats the thing about special forces. Most of them teain for a very specific mission and excel at that. UA sf jave trained to fight behind russian lines over and over again. Nobody can compete with them there.
The grand irony is the only Ukrainian commander who has been reliably successful in fighting the Russians is actually a Soviet who went to Soviet command school.
I think the main takeaway is that Ukraine is doing exceptional *with the resources they have* but is by no means competitive to a western military.
Thanks!
Thank you!
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized - You are welcome - and thank you for all the informative / entertaining history videos you have published. I have watched most of them. Incidentally, My US Army unit was stationed in Neu Ulm, W Germany: 1973-74.
Some months ago at Ukraine War thread on our local military web I came out with the idea that 80s US armored division (stationed in West Germany at that time) had enough firepower and resources that it alone (and even without air support) could beat Russians into mincemeat in matter of few weeks. Even in situatin where americans would be having 80s tech and russians standard 2020 stuff they had now. Standard M1A1 is generally on par with everything RF had now in terms of armor, Bradleys are more than on par with all russian IFVs thay can field, and MLRS and M109s provided enough indirect fire support and counter battery fire. But what would really made the difference is training. US troops spens so much time (and money) in training that russians couldnt even dream of. After seeing this video Im glad that someone much more informed (Chieftain) says same thing. :)
Before 2/24/2022 I expected the Ukrainian military to be pretty much like the 2014 Ukrainian military that russia steamrolled. Turns out that I just wasn’t paying attention to how they’re improved since 2014.
Mr. Nemesis; You weren't the only one. The Ukrainians very good performance and the Russian extremely poor performance surprised everyone.
I can only surmised that the Ukrainians were embarrassed by their poor performance in 2014 and didn't want a repeat so they really improved their training. From the Russian perspective, it appears they believed it would be primarily an occupation, roll in, occupy city hall, police stations, and major road and rail junctions, maybe a couple of local firefights, and then the Ukrainians would give up. Otherwise, why tell your troops you are going on a training exercise. I can only imagine Ivan's shock when he realized that they were shooting back at him with real bullets.
@@Bob_Betker if you want to see a mind blowing example of that, look for Volodymyr Zolkin's early interview with the young VDV guy that got captured at Hostomel. Spoiler alert: they found out they were invading only once they were airborne in Belarus and crossing the border!!
Or Ursula could have leaked the truth
@@geopolitix7770 that must’ve been one hell of a day for the VDV guy. From wondering what you’re gonna have for lunch after training to knowing that you’re gonna be invading another country in an hour.
@@Bob_Betker About thing that russians didn't know that they are doing in Ukraine is largely a lie form russian POWs if that was really true - so how these troops even get to Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, Sumy, Mariupol and Popasna? They knew that perfectly
There is a lot of perception mismatch. The Ukrainian military is, at it's core, still a former Soviet military with a lot of the same weaknesses and operations shortfalls.
In adition, it is a poor country`s military, which simply can`t afford all that new fancy stuff like airplanes and modern tanks.
@@BillionsWillDie the russian assault of Grozny was an example of how wrong the soviet doctrine was. And chechen fighters just couldn't have used it as it is a doctrine of millons men and thousands tanks strong army which the chechens obviously didn't have. Soviet doctrine was good for one and only one thing: total war with the west. And now it's simply obsolete - nobody's gonna drive tank collumns through fulda or suvalki gap.
One thing about the US Civil War that did impress European observers was the advent and deployment of ironclad warships. While they were not wholly interested in things like CSS Virginia as they had their own refit ironclads monitor and it's successors we're very interesting. They took the concepts proven in the civil war to their shipyards and developed first riverine and inland warships like Monitor and then went straight on to create ocean-going ironclads like HMS Warrior that fit their needs better. They had the industrial base to apply the lessons learned and technologies developed in the civil war and run with them. The West and China may well be in the same situation with Ukraine.
The French are actually the real standard of a Western Army. Their operation in Mali was shockingly good. They have shown that they can operate on a shoestring budget, with limited notice, a thousand miles from home, and pull off the impossible with almost no fanfare. Yet we also know that they train big Army/Navy/Air Force formations for high intensity combined arms warfare at least as well as the U.S. does. And they are the only nation besides the U.S. with a *real* aircraft carrier.
t. U.S. Army OIF1 veteran.
Lots of European militaries are probably better than the US military on a man for man basis, because they don’t need to reach as far into the shallow end of their manpower pool. When it comes to major operations though, the US has the depth of assets to do things that other couldn’t dream of. Like fly our own troops without borrowing aircraft.
Utter bullshit!!
Ex British Para.
It was so good that Mali asked them to leave and invited Russian troops instead.
You mean the same French army that hasn’t been victorious in anything since 1918? You mean the same French army that’s been kicked out of every colony tried to hold onto? You mean the same French army that’s been fired by multiple countries they have defense agreements with for being ineffective despite decades of operations?
@@Mortablunt none of what you said is accurate
"Are we overestimating the Ukrainian army?"
"The US could capture the Donbas in 2.5 weeks"
as a Ukrainian i am want to see how they do it without airsupport. But USA is too scared to fight russia for some reason. I also would like to shorten the war.
@@dukenukem8381 Afraid to fight Russia, no. Afraid the world will end in nuclear winter, yes. There is a difference.
@@dukenukem8381 bingo US soldiers compare thier experiance from Iraq and Afghanistan with Ukraine is a commen misteake they do.
@@Angry.Dinosaur Well russians are clearly losing what is stopping them from firing nukes at you now ? Maybe take a risk and end this ? I guarantee you that nukes dont work. i bet most silos are empty or with water.
@@dukenukem8381 Your comment was on the US fear of Russia and that is what I was responding to.
Nice discussion with good points raised on both sides. Not sure how much progress was or can be made to a solid conclusion though. Especially knowing the entirety, seemingly of the professional military analysis community got so much so wrong in assessing the capabilities of the Russians for what was likely decades.
When you said military analyst you must've meant the proclaimed "military analyst" since they are not professional nor expert at all.
Professionals are predictable, amateurs aren't constrained by doctrine as much, so can be more flexible.
I was a army reservist on an exercise years ago and feedback after the Ex was that we were watched by the SAS, but not infiltrated or attached as our movements were "too unpredictable". Maybe there are advantages to making it up as you go?
The older saying is that the best swordsman in the world fears the second best swordsman less than the rank amateur because the latter might do something utterly unpredictable. Might. Most likely will just do something silly and die, but could throw an odd one.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Well, Russian army is now busy amateurishly doing a lot of silly things, yet it costs Ukraine a lot damage-wise.
"Professionals are predictable, amateurs aren't constrained by doctrine as much, so can be more flexible."
But amateurs make more mistakes during the finding of new tactics. And at the operational level an amateur is dead.
The US officer spoke about the operational level....
The point that was not mentioned, do those 3 US divisions go in with, or without USAF, because that makes a huge difference.
Also the question, how many casualties can US units sustain before they can`t fight any more?
We have no idea, because it's been a while since the US took much in the way of casualties in a war. The doctrine is certainly designed to expend munitions in order to minimize casualties. A well-supplied, well-supported US army is unlikely to take many casualties in a conventional battle, provided they are able to take the time and expend the ammunition to destroy the enemy before risking their own troops (which was how they fought in Iraq). I don't think the current Russian army would fare much better than the Iraqis did.
@@jrd33 Iraq is a bit special, because it is desert. Ukraine consists of many, many villages and forests. In Fallujah, US took some decent casualties. Issue is, it would have to fight hundreds of such battles for every Ukrainean oblast they want to liberate. So, how long would those 3 divisions last?
This isn`t necessarily the case of me saying US is bad, but that Chieftan seem to under-estimate the sheer size of the taks at hand.
@@alexa-wh4en The US would bypass strongpoints and aim to strike deeply into Russian-held territory for strategic objectives. The vast majority of the Russian forces currently in Ukraine don't have the equipment, training or morale to launch effective attacks after they are cut off, assuming the US has its expected surveillance capabilities and control of the airspace. Cities would be the only obvious problem, and Russia has captured few of those. The US would probably leave Ukrainian forces to recapture cities, for political reasons.
@@jrd33 then again you underestimate the sheer size of the battlefield. The front line is over a 1000km
@@antonkovyakh6581 Obviously 3 US divisions are not going to cover a 1000km front.
US officers tend to have bias namely :
- A volunteer force cannot reach a professional level.
-Whatever or wherever they go they have air superiority.
I think talking to a Finnish or a ex conscription country officer could be interesting.
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 no matter what.
What the Ukrainians have done both on the battlefield and of the battlefield is being incredible. They may not be up to NATO standard but they are a force to be recon with. With that said, they are getting a plethora of Intel and modern weapons from the west unparalleled to any other conflict that I can think of.
Both of them are correct I love this clip, I'd like to see it expanded on
The thing you have to understand about asymmetric warfare is that you don't need to win the war against the superior opponent, you win just by not losing.
You need to fight until the aggressor gives up.
It's slight misunderstanding of Russian strategic secondary goals. If they can level Ukraine (see: power grid) and turn it into rubble, it's a strategic goal accomplished for them. Because their secondary goal is to show that they can and will turn you into smoking rubble if you oppose them, that you can't just live our life near Russia and ignore their demands with impunity.
What Chieftain says is in-line with what I've heard from several US veterans serving in the International Legion in Ukraine. They generally report that the Ukrainian Army is a mess when compared to the US Army, but that the Russian Army is a mess when compared to the Ukrainian Army. That's worth keeping in mind, because I've often seen the widespread pro-Ukraine sentiment in the West manifest into claims by laypeople that the Ukrainian Army is the best in the world now. When I think the reality is more that the Russian Army is far worse than anyone suspected.
Which doesn't discount Ukraine's modernization being much better than anticipated! They've certainly done a great job there, compared to what they had in 2014.
I think the Russian Army is holding back. They are not sending their best tech or best forces yet I suspect as that is Traditionally what Russia does they never sent their latest MTBs to Afghanistan for example to avoid the risk of them getting captured and NATO now having them to study.
during the beginning of the french revolutionary wars was also a mess,
I would like to see the Chieftain talk with Ret. Gen. Mark Hertling about his statement. Gen. Hertling actually worked with the Ukrainian army during his time in the Army. I think Gen. Hertling has a lot of good things to say about the Ukranian army and how they switched from the old Soviet-style military and are now like a modern western/NATO-style army.
They aspire to be like a modern NATO military but they aren’t there yet. And their active duty troops, the closest to the ideal, have suffered tremendously during the war, leaving them with mostly recalled vets and fresh meat. There’s no shame in that, it’s how war works. The US got its shit pushed in at Kasserine Pass with fresh troops in 1942 and was a completely different army in the winter of 44-45.
@@scottzagger Go look up what Gen. Hertling said about the Ukrainian army. They have things like an NCO corps and even their own war college. They even have professional soldiers in their army. They are not as bad as some people say or think. Gen. Hertling was involved in this himself.
@@Lonewolfmike I’m familiar, the issue is that a huge percentage of their active duty professionals were killed, wounded or captured by now and they are badly outnumbered by new troops, many of whom last served before the reforms. Their officers are good but as RUSI points out they had high turnover rather than experienced NCOs.
@@scottzagger Then why are the Ukrainians kicking Russias ass then if all of that has happened?? Why haven't the folded?? If everything you said is true then Ukraine should be run over way before now. And how do you explain their counter attack?? Please tell me how do you explain that?? You forget the have generals now who are very competent and took the lessons they learned from NATO and America and have put them to extremely good use. You forget things like that. I mean look how many high ranking Russian officers have they killed since the invasion started. How many high ranking officers have the Ukrainians lost?? I haven't heard of any. How you?? They have fought smarter than the Russians and it shows. You cannot deny that one bit now matter how much you want to.
@@Lonewolfmike
i do not think this is calling them bad, they had a long, hard way to go and what they achieved is impressive and more.
they have not arrived at the top, not YET
As usual I find this discussion suffering from same problem all the other casual discussions about if something is 'good', because the definition of course if something is 'good' is very case dependent and subjective. I think Bernhard did a good job bringing more contextual argument into it. Because when I heard Chieftain 'would UKR army win against UK forces?' I had to ask myself, well where would they be fighting, and with what weapon and support available? Because I think if they fight with weapons that the UKR have available atm on the soil of UKR, I am pretty certain UKR will win. But if they would fight with weapons that UK would have available, UKR will have a lot more difficulty.
However a very interesting point by Chieftain is that the western training is perhaps of the cultural one, not so much a tactical one. This is something I would like to hear more about. I often hear about how the russian army has no NCO equivalent, which affects the discipline and morale, and I could see something like this playing a big role.
Live your comment
Sending 3 US armored corps isn’t a fair comparison. Although without air superiority it could be a disaster still. I’ve seen posts from US veterans who couldn’t handle volunteering over there. The air is contested, and although the Ukrainians have small amounts of very accurate artillery, the Russians have a huge advantage in volume of fire. US troops aren’t used to not having artillery superiority and air superiority. Imagine being shelled incessantly and having really limited call fire ability and essentially no air support. No helicopters for maneuver, logistics, of even medivac. I’m not sure if the US Army could do half as well if they had the Ukrainian material situation. I hope they don’t have to find out.
Absolutely spot on!
Regarding the "western training" comments that we hear, I assume that is in reference to *one* aspect of western training: the willingness to delegate decision-making to lower-level officers. Russia doesn't do that, and Ukraine does.
Ukraine also has the advantage that they see this as an existential battle for their survival, while Russian troops do not. See Simon Sinek's TED Talk "What Game Theory Teaches Us About War." ruclips.net/video/0bFs6ZiynSU/видео.html
Very good points. Just think of it from Private Ivan's perspective. He is Belorussia completing a training exercise, he is told they are going on another training exercise into Ukraine when to his surprise the OPFOR starts shooting back with real bullets and blowing up tanks left and right. If he made it through day, do you really think he is going to believe what his leadership ever tells him again.
I think that the comparison is a fairly buggered up by the issue of surveillance intel.
Modern Western armies have a tremendous benefit in SigInt and overwatch which tries to down through C&C in a timely manner.
The difference in intel and its impacts on C&C are at the heart of this debate and it kind of really messes things up because the capture and dissemination of intel and signals isn't a very interchangeable thing.
Important to the question is what troop numbers and casualty numbers are you assuming here?
I chuckled at the comments about American spending.
If you have seen Lindybeige's interview of a returning soldier, he was somewhat critical of the US ex military volunteers, being "Spoilt".
"Wheres the air support?"
Absolutely agree. I found that interview by Lindybeige very enlightening. Sure, if the US military went in with all the vast resources normally available to them, I have no doubt the Chieftain is right; they would be able to steamroll the Russians. However, take away all their toys (especially the air supremacy) and I believe MHV is right when he says the US army would not be able to make the most of so little. US training and strategy relies on all that support being in place, whereas the Ukrainian armed forces have (had to) become masters at utilising the few resources they have to their maximum potential.
Are use to 3 meals a day,
Same thing was said of the US military by the Brits in WWII. Logistics has been and will be the America strong suit.
It makes sense they be "spoilt". They have the biggest industrial might of the Free World and they are using it to keep the soldiers alive. Saipan, Guadacanal, Iwo Jima, Hurtgen forest, Aachen, even Manila, Petersburg, Vicksburg, and Gettysburg shows how much bodies you are going to need to victory. The nuke is created specifically to keep US troops alive in a planned invasion of mainland Japan. If you have that capacity you are going to use it to its fullest...
I love our man going, “bruh you can’t compare any army on earth to your army. That’s literally been your doctrine of operations for half a century, and then some”
Isn’t this exactly why NATO is expanding the training programme to include Ukrainian general staff officers? The Ukrainians are aware of their shortcomings in coordination and synchronisation and it’s hard to see this as anything other than a response to those Ukrainian requests.
Results speak for themselves
Ukraine has one badass army
It strikes me that they are both right. The advantage the American corps would have is both uniform equipment, and the institutional knowledge and support on things like logistics and fire support. Meanwhile I think the Ukrainians have a lot more expertise at small unit tactics and improvisation.
I think the most impressive achievement of the Ukrainian military has been adapting to an entirely new set of circumstances, equipment, and the ability to maintain effectiveness while suffering huge casualties.
Especially at the beginning of the war. When the Russians had artillery and air superiority. The Ukrainians would use guerilla like "shoot and scoot" tactics. Using only 1 to 3 SPG's in a fire mission. The same for their tanks.
Idk about the small unit tactics thing, you can find old GI training videos from WW2 that are hours long delving into small unit tactics, maneuvering, firing techniques, utilizing terrain features, etc... I can only imagine how advanced the techniques they have today are for frontline troops.
Determination is very important though.
The U.S has lost a lot of wars lately due to lack of determination (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.)
Determination of the troops or determination of the nation though?
Troops, especially volunteers are by definition extremely determined.
@@DaSpineLessFish I'd say both, actually.
An army needs a determined nation behind it. There wasn't enough national determination behind the war in Vietnam or Afghanistan, and both ended up in a loss for the U.S.
It will be exceedingly difficult to win a war without determined soldiers. But the same is true for not having a determined nation, since the army depends on the nation for material support.
@@DaSpineLessFish Determination of troops is meaningless if they can be pulled out of deployments at any time by a change in administration.
I would dispute this, I think the US lost these wars for political reasons. In the case of Vietnam they did not understand the war they were engaged in, and their political belief was wrong, in that they lost it and noting much happened on the strategic level. Afghanistan, what were they trying to achieve and how where they planning to achieve it?
Lack of determination resulted from lack of clear targets. The troops fought hard, and won the battles, but it's hard to stay focused when nobody around you knows wtf you're all doing here. This experience can't be translated to a war with clearly defined aims, like the Desert Storm, or the first phase of Iraq 2003.
Lots of "good" soldiers got there and shit there pants when they didnt have perfect logistics and fire support. Most ukrainian soldiers are not NATO trained, barley. But...To do any tough task you must be motivated, they are motivated.
You can only compare if the weapons arsenal is exactly the same.
Good video and points made. Ukraine's military basically started from zero in 2014, when they lost Crimea. Since then, they've been trained, but until just recently were still using mostly old soviet era military equipment. Now, USA, Germany, Britain and other countries providing Ukraine with the better military equipment. Maybe, they are not as well trained as other NATO countries, but they are motivated, experienced and willing to fight.
And Russia has massively "fallen from grace" in terms of influence, economy, and military power. Their time was done and they should have known before invading a country.
They’re being fed into a grinder with the very real threat of being murdered by their own side pushing them.
Much of the NATO equipment they're getting is Soviet era.
@@news_internationale2035 wtf commie.
@@jmgonzales7701 I'm not BSing you.
They're getting a lot of M113s, which despite being a US design, are Soviet era.
Quoted from the Art of War
"He will win whose army is animated by the spirit throughout all its ranks."
"If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve."
Sounds like Sun Tzu. Or Clauzewitz?
@@ildart8738 Both quotes are from the Art of War. Its credited to Sun Tzu, but most modern historians believe the text is a collection of military axioms and philosophies, rather than a comprehensive work from a single individual. Kind of a "best of" war compilation assembled over several centuries.
The second quote is an excerpt from a lengthy paragraph. I think it (broadly) applies to the Ukrainian nation as a whole. I'll quote the entire passage here; it gives me chills every time I read it.
Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength. Soldiers in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in the heart of a hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard. Thus, without waiting to be marshaled, the soldiers will be constantly on the alert, and without waiting to be asked, they will do your will; without restrictions, they will be faithful; without giving orders, they can be trusted.
@@MrGouldilocks Thermopylae.Camerone. The retreat from Chosin Reservoir. And others I cannot recollect just now.
@@paulmanson253 Yeah, you don't want to fight a man, an army, or a nation that feels like they have nothing to lose and their survival is at stake. There is another passage from the Art of War that says something to the effect that you should always leave an escape route for your enemy as it's incredibly dangerous to fight a desperate opponent.
Caesar, in particular, was a master of putting his soldiers into life or death situations. Alesia, Alexandria, Pharsalus, etc. All battles where Caesar is heavily outnumbered. But his men fight like demons and achieve decisive victories because they understand the only two outcomes are death, or victory.
I thought the most cogent statement was when the guest retorted (paraphrasing here) the comparison that would be an eye-opener is if a U.S. or UK brigade had to use the same battlefield equipment the Ukranians are using. Hmmm.
1st infantry division is also an armor unit. Has more tank companies than infantry.
And 1ID is 3rd corps
He is not arguing that. He is grousing that 2nd Armored Division was inactivated instead of 1st Cav.
@@Bob_Betker I'm saying is that as 3rd corps stands it is 1st cav, 1st ID, and 1st armor. That's all I'm saying
@@davidward3848 In my day, III Corps consisted of 1st Cav, 2AD, 5ID. and 6ACCB.😃
To the basic question- yes. Could an American Armored Division do better? I would hope so but we haven’t fought a high intensity conflict since the 1950’s and a lot of those guys were WWII veterans.
In Korea, most soldiers were new. By 1950, most WWII veterans had retired from the Army
1:54 "They viewed it as a bunch of amateurs fighting a bunch of incompetent." Which it was. Come WWI the US army was both. With armies, lessons don't stick until you lose a lot of lives. Like the French general Ferdinand Foch observed "It takes 15000 casualties to train a major general."
The American arrogance towards its more experienced western colleagues was very telling. In WW1 did they at first refuse to listen to advice from their french and british friends which had tried trench warfare for 4 years and did know that the old pre-war tactics did not work in this war and would lead to catastrophic losses. But the Americans refused to take their advice and American losses quickly skyrocketed, and the US military quickly got humbled as a result.
And in World war 2 did the Americans not show much interest in the lessons that the British had learned from the failed Dieppe raid in 1942. The British did develop Hobart's funnies to make the amphibious landings in Normandie easier, but the Americans did not show much interest and suffered some higher casualties on D-Day as a result.
*"Like the French general Ferdinand Foch observed "It takes 15000 casualties to train a major general."*
Lel. True. But some idiots refuse to learn even after they lose millions.. like Hötzendorf and Cadorna. Indeed it seems like the Austrian army have long tradition of worthless idiot Generals.. von Benedek, Hötzendorf, and Matthias Gallas who earned the nickname “the destroyer of armies” for his incompetence - all of them were men who prefered to drink and eat and live a life in splendor more than keeping their armies in order.
@@nattygsbord Well, for D-Day, there were other factors, like Omaha having defenders that were very combat experienced, having just rotated off the Russian front.
The example I'd use would be "The Second Happy Time" of the U-boats, where the US didn't listen to the British about what they'd learn about dealing with U-boats, and did incredibly dumb things like not blackout the east coast cities (so the lights made shipping easy to spot at night), nor arrange convoys. End result, we suffered a lot of lost shipping and dead merchant marine.
That said, I reckon these type of things tend to be par for the course, regardless of the country. An army might learn some stuff from observers they send to watch the conflict, provided what they bring back doesn't conflict with what the generals believe too much, but they'll resist the same info from their new allies, and instead opt to learn the same lessons with their own soldiers' lives.
@@Axterix13 It's par for the course, sure, but there really is no excuse for the our lack of training going into WWI. The number of casualties we took to gas attacks should have been a national scandal. Gas mask drills aren't difficult and they don't take all that much time. The only country that performed worse was Russia and at least they had the excuse of just not being able to afford counter measures.
I'm reminded of the Lindybeige video interviewing the returning British volunteer for Ukraine, back from the war. What I mean by that is his comments that *SOME* American former soldiers volunteering for Ukraine weren't such great soldiers because they were reliant on having the ability to call in huge firepower, and benefitting from cosy logistics, giving them confidence in fire superiority, hot showers and food in their bellies. (Others *were* very good, and he made sure to point that out e.g. Rangers, SF, 10th Mountain.) So while I agree that a US armor corps would smash Russia in Ukraine, if you deployed it in isolation, without all the supporting logistics, airpower, artillery, C4ISTAR (except what we already give Ukraine!), and whatever other support services they take for granted to do their jobs so well, suddenly there wouldn't be such a difference.
Correct. It's not just the teeth that fight, it's the whole body behind them.
Chieftain is correct that Ukraine is not nearly as good at fighting a conventional war the way the US would fight a conventional war. But I am reminded of a conversation quoted in Colonel Harry Summers Jr. book, "On Strategy". "You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant." Hopefully everyone understands that, in the end, you have to win the war. Doing so with a particular style is way down the list of priorities.
Chieftain forgot one point. Ukraine is fighting for survival with an underequipped conscript army against a bigger army, which also consists mostly of conscripts after months of meat grinder. US has fought with professional army with total supremacy in air, sea, armour and artillery against irregulars and/or smaller armies. Hard to compare these two situtations
The Russian army is bigger overall, but in Ukraine the Ukrainians considerably outnumber the Russians now, and are arguably better equpped.
Russian conscripts aren't sent into Ukraine
@@user-qn3xu5ee3t they are since september.
@@Zz_Mike-Hawk_zZ I guess they didn't get the memo that they are in Ukraine
Cut that ABC crap dude, they are there only in US and Urkainian dreams
@@user-qn3xu5ee3t But Russia literally mobilized 300k soldiers and 150000 are in Ukraine. There were no conscripts until september 21, just volunteers and contract soldiers.
It depends on what is most politically convenient at any given time. They are either portrayed as a massive, unstoppable juggernaut, or David against Goliath. No in between, just one or the other
Reviews are coming mainly from the russian army. Its them who are impressed.
I am not sure the Russians are overly impressed. They are definitely shocked at Ukrainian brutality especially towards civilians. I think the main Takeaway is Ukraine is willing to all positions to sheer stubbornness even after a position became doomed and just a killing Ground weeks or even months ago.
You can't send an armored core without air superiority.
The thing of combined arms is that they rely on each other. The whole in not only larger than the sum of the parts, there is nothing until all the part are there.
To be honest, spending 800+ billion dollars yearly, it'd be outrageous if you couldn't win against those you're outspending by 20 times. There's no competition, no business, nothing that could explain not being successful. US military is practically running a blank check compared to everyone else today. That also explains why so many US 'veterans' ran back home after a week in Ukraine. They just cannot fathom not outmatching and steamrolling the opponent in a war today where they'll die for little to no gain when so many wars required hundreds of thousands of casualties piled gradually until victory. Ukraine is doing better than expected in their particular situation.
I think the Chieftain was trying to make a point here that did not go over very well. Let me start by saying that I think that there are very good soldiers in all armies. There are also bad ones in all armies.
If I look at Russia to start, they have a number of quite good forces (example parts of the VDV). They have a larger number of competent forces. They have an even larger number of incompetent forces. To me, the biggest problem that the Russians have is that they threw away the most of those quite good forces in those early days of the war. These are not units that can be replaced in months. They will take a decade to replace. You can not lose that many experienced and tough troops and leaders, reconstitute the unit with replacements, and actually think that the unit is the same.
The Russian command made a good decision to back off their notion of a fast victory and have tried to make this war an attritional battle. They would be winning that battle if the West had not provided the high quality artillery pieces that they have over the past several months. Not just HIMARS, but also things like M777 and CESAR. The precision strike capability has negated this strategy by Russia.
On the Ukrainian side, they have been fortunate to face an enemy that created so many of its own problems. They have been competent as a whole, but unit quality varies. If I were Ukraine, I would be looking to organize new Brigade formations that can attack and drive out the Russians. They have had some success, but it is limited and based more around Russian weakness than Ukrainian strength.
And this is the point that Chieftain was trying to make. Which was if the US decided to move a couple of heavy divisions to Ukraine, it could drive the Russians out of all of Ukraine in a month. It would be even faster if the US decided to pound the Russians with air power. He was saying Western but he meant US, UK or French. The rest of NATO forces are either too small or too focused on one thing or German.
Let's not kid ourselves, the UK and France can't 1v1 ruzzia, even as incompetent as they've shown themselves to be.