I've found the mixed article quite interesting. I understand that many people will quit reading after the first page, but I quite liked both the diversion, that the reference to antiquity causes, and the overall style.
I personally don't care what style you use so long as you keep writing these very insightful and interesting stacks about the Ukraine war and battles that have happened in the past! I appreciate the time you are putting into writing them.
You write longer and more deep-thinking articles than most, so i guess your readers expect to take time and ingest what you have to say. Of course, do as you see fit, but i found this mixed article very stimulating !
All of the articles written on this blog are excellent and I particularly like the reflection back to battles of antiquity as they provide a sound basis for the observation that "things change, but they also remain the same". Looking forward to further articles. Thank you for your hard work.
In the meantime, the US has changed its nuclear doctrine, significantly lowering the threshold for a 1st strike, even against non-nuke countries, suggesting that our conventional weapons are depleted to the point that we can't expect to win a conventional war.
While mainstream cw has spread the unmerited fear of a 1st strike by Russia, in the US according to retired Cl MacGregor, recent talk of a "tactical nuke" has been "serious."
And Russia claims to have evidence of the dirty bomb plot, yet another crazy plan by M16 & the CIA. That is presumably what the recent kerfluffle was about when Ben Wallace made the emergency trip to the US for in person talks. Apparently Russia broke into their secret communications. Possibly linked to the "trawler accident" that left the Shetland Islands" sans comms.
"That leaves only Ukraine itself, and in this case we are asked to believe that Ukraine would irradiate its own territory simply to try and bluff NATO into entering the war on its side."
I'm not too sure that West Ukrainians would very much mind irradiating East Ukraine.
Very good analysis. I found the information on Russian Force Structures of the most interest simply because no one else is talking about it (that I have seen, anyway). Many thanks for this.
"The BTG was devised as a temporary solution to the problem of being legally unable to readily deploy the entire parent brigade."
what? no. btg its new russian average tactical unit and it fits perfectly to new russian military doctrine which has changed last 10 years drastically. its much more maneurable and better than big brigates.
" The resulting formation is very high on firepower, with plenty of artillery and armor, but low on infantry. It is a powerful unit in short, high-intensity action, but it lacks the manpower to engage in protracted campaigns with full strength enemy units. "
no, its good for long term as well. if russia had 90 k btg troops vs 550-700 k of ukranians it is not btg system problem. its problem that russia had less troops in general. period.
btgs are highly INSANELY effective and whole conflict proved it. by destroying best ever nato proxies like its nothing
if ukraine has 3-4-5 times more army this is a problem and NOT btg formation which is again highly effective. if you need more troops just make new btgs and russia is doing exactly this. russia is creating btgs and sending it to battlefield
its not first time when i see some explanations in anglosphere "why btg is bad" and why you need giant corps and battalions without understanding new combined arms operations doctrine of RAF. especially i like when ppl start comparing firepower of single ONE btg (600-800 soldiers) vs 4-5 k full battalion and not firepower of 3-4-5 btgs vs 1 battalion how it should be. need more army? make another btgs. russia does have enough equipment for that but lacks manpower thats why mobilization happen
and mobilization was not to grab everyone. russia mobilized according to specific war professions list for creating btgs unit. its not that russia grabbed 300k of riflemen and sent it to ukraine
so now you gonna see another 150-200 btgs on battlefield thats it. plus reinforcements to current btgs with new troops. if you need you can reinforce any btg with another 4-5 infantry platoons at any time
main advantage of btg cause its self sufficient and highly mobile by itself. so you can micromanage troops much better and acheve much better results
btg system wasnt made just for ukraine. its entire new doctrine for combined arms operations
and thoughts and first tries of it was back in 2010, even before coup in ukraine
What's a "3-4-5k full battalion"? Are you trying to compare a BTG to a brigade? The author was also referring to the modern version of the old Soviet mobilization doctrine. The old doctrine made these partially (e.g., 20%) manned units essentially useless until a mobilization occurred. The BTG structure allowed them to be effective. I suppose if they have the firepower to build more BTGs as they expand their force, you might be proven right, but that's a lot of guns...
I refuse to believe this historical nonsense about Chariots as super-weapons. Have any of these historians actually been outdoors? Terrain that is flat as a pool table on maps is actually a field of rocks, ditches, gullies, logs, sand pits, and assorted obstacles. You can barely ride a modern mountain bike across it without a trail. (Also Note: everything but tracked vehicles still gets bogged down in cross-country maneuvers).
The idea that wooden wheels with greased wooden axels could travel hundreds of miles over such ground and then assemble and operate in effective high speed attacks on massed infantry just seems preposterous on its face. If someone wants to build a bunch of ancient-technology chariots and demonstrate how it's done they can knock themselves out. In the meantime, color me skeptical.
Hello Droogie, you make a good point, chariots come and go in ancient warfare but foot and horse (and its C20th mechanical equivalents) were and are almost universal. it may be that the ground at Kadesh was conducive for chariot operations but this would make it exceptional.
The Chariot was like the F-35 of its day, Hittite defense contractors probably made a fortune by selling expensive over-hyped technology to the regime.
Big Sergei, you are an excellent communicator and teacher. Thank you. By the way, if you compare the map of the Battle of Kadesh at Abu Simbel with actual geography, you may agree the battle of Kadesh actually took place downstream of Carchemish. The city, Kadesh was on an island in the river with a double wall and moat. The moat is still visible in the Euphrates River today. There were crossings one above and one below the city on the island. The high east bank is also depicted at Abu Simbel. 36°48'27"N 38°02'04"E
Well, came here first time, from a link at Pepe Escobar´s Tg channel, and have to say that were the two parts of the article had been published separately, I probably would had not reached to read the second one....
This way I was able to test that not only you seem a great military analyst, but also a knowledgeable historian.
Very interesting and entertaining the way you tell it.
Thank you for your double analysis. I like it. My only issue is with “Bronze Age Slovaks”. I really doubt there were Slovaks at that time. Slavs maybe 😇🙃😏
Great article as usual. Truly one of the top blogs on military affairs and history, and I do follow a lot. I will have to learn more about the Hittites, as they seam to be one of those great, but forgotten, empires.
Better, in my opinion, to have divided this very informative post into 2 separate articles
Thank you - in the future my plan is to have battle histories and Russia-Ukraine War updates run in two separate series.
I've found the mixed article quite interesting. I understand that many people will quit reading after the first page, but I quite liked both the diversion, that the reference to antiquity causes, and the overall style.
same here.
I personally don't care what style you use so long as you keep writing these very insightful and interesting stacks about the Ukraine war and battles that have happened in the past! I appreciate the time you are putting into writing them.
You write longer and more deep-thinking articles than most, so i guess your readers expect to take time and ingest what you have to say. Of course, do as you see fit, but i found this mixed article very stimulating !
Please don't!.. thanks
All of the articles written on this blog are excellent and I particularly like the reflection back to battles of antiquity as they provide a sound basis for the observation that "things change, but they also remain the same". Looking forward to further articles. Thank you for your hard work.
In the meantime, the US has changed its nuclear doctrine, significantly lowering the threshold for a 1st strike, even against non-nuke countries, suggesting that our conventional weapons are depleted to the point that we can't expect to win a conventional war.
While mainstream cw has spread the unmerited fear of a 1st strike by Russia, in the US according to retired Cl MacGregor, recent talk of a "tactical nuke" has been "serious."
And Russia claims to have evidence of the dirty bomb plot, yet another crazy plan by M16 & the CIA. That is presumably what the recent kerfluffle was about when Ben Wallace made the emergency trip to the US for in person talks. Apparently Russia broke into their secret communications. Possibly linked to the "trawler accident" that left the Shetland Islands" sans comms.
Most incredible trip back in time. I halfway felt like I was there....
I think it is a great idea to share wisdom associated with battle from antiquity.
Best to you,
BK
"That leaves only Ukraine itself, and in this case we are asked to believe that Ukraine would irradiate its own territory simply to try and bluff NATO into entering the war on its side."
I'm not too sure that West Ukrainians would very much mind irradiating East Ukraine.
Very good analysis. I found the information on Russian Force Structures of the most interest simply because no one else is talking about it (that I have seen, anyway). Many thanks for this.
Thank you! This is an informative and entertaining departure from dreary propaganda.
"The BTG was devised as a temporary solution to the problem of being legally unable to readily deploy the entire parent brigade."
what? no. btg its new russian average tactical unit and it fits perfectly to new russian military doctrine which has changed last 10 years drastically. its much more maneurable and better than big brigates.
" The resulting formation is very high on firepower, with plenty of artillery and armor, but low on infantry. It is a powerful unit in short, high-intensity action, but it lacks the manpower to engage in protracted campaigns with full strength enemy units. "
no, its good for long term as well. if russia had 90 k btg troops vs 550-700 k of ukranians it is not btg system problem. its problem that russia had less troops in general. period.
btgs are highly INSANELY effective and whole conflict proved it. by destroying best ever nato proxies like its nothing
if ukraine has 3-4-5 times more army this is a problem and NOT btg formation which is again highly effective. if you need more troops just make new btgs and russia is doing exactly this. russia is creating btgs and sending it to battlefield
its not first time when i see some explanations in anglosphere "why btg is bad" and why you need giant corps and battalions without understanding new combined arms operations doctrine of RAF. especially i like when ppl start comparing firepower of single ONE btg (600-800 soldiers) vs 4-5 k full battalion and not firepower of 3-4-5 btgs vs 1 battalion how it should be. need more army? make another btgs. russia does have enough equipment for that but lacks manpower thats why mobilization happen
and mobilization was not to grab everyone. russia mobilized according to specific war professions list for creating btgs unit. its not that russia grabbed 300k of riflemen and sent it to ukraine
so now you gonna see another 150-200 btgs on battlefield thats it. plus reinforcements to current btgs with new troops. if you need you can reinforce any btg with another 4-5 infantry platoons at any time
main advantage of btg cause its self sufficient and highly mobile by itself. so you can micromanage troops much better and acheve much better results
btg system wasnt made just for ukraine. its entire new doctrine for combined arms operations
and thoughts and first tries of it was back in 2010, even before coup in ukraine
What's a "3-4-5k full battalion"? Are you trying to compare a BTG to a brigade? The author was also referring to the modern version of the old Soviet mobilization doctrine. The old doctrine made these partially (e.g., 20%) manned units essentially useless until a mobilization occurred. The BTG structure allowed them to be effective. I suppose if they have the firepower to build more BTGs as they expand their force, you might be proven right, but that's a lot of guns...
Never underestimate the insanity of the psychopaths in Washington for doing their capability to do the unthinkable.
I refuse to believe this historical nonsense about Chariots as super-weapons. Have any of these historians actually been outdoors? Terrain that is flat as a pool table on maps is actually a field of rocks, ditches, gullies, logs, sand pits, and assorted obstacles. You can barely ride a modern mountain bike across it without a trail. (Also Note: everything but tracked vehicles still gets bogged down in cross-country maneuvers).
The idea that wooden wheels with greased wooden axels could travel hundreds of miles over such ground and then assemble and operate in effective high speed attacks on massed infantry just seems preposterous on its face. If someone wants to build a bunch of ancient-technology chariots and demonstrate how it's done they can knock themselves out. In the meantime, color me skeptical.
Hello Droogie, you make a good point, chariots come and go in ancient warfare but foot and horse (and its C20th mechanical equivalents) were and are almost universal. it may be that the ground at Kadesh was conducive for chariot operations but this would make it exceptional.
The Chariot was like the F-35 of its day, Hittite defense contractors probably made a fortune by selling expensive over-hyped technology to the regime.
Big Sergei, you are an excellent communicator and teacher. Thank you. By the way, if you compare the map of the Battle of Kadesh at Abu Simbel with actual geography, you may agree the battle of Kadesh actually took place downstream of Carchemish. The city, Kadesh was on an island in the river with a double wall and moat. The moat is still visible in the Euphrates River today. There were crossings one above and one below the city on the island. The high east bank is also depicted at Abu Simbel. 36°48'27"N 38°02'04"E
Very instructive. Thank you
Interesting article. I liked it being mixed, as it made me think of the past and the future moves of both armies.
Hopefully, at the later stage, when you run out of ideas, an audience could suggest a battle :)
Well, came here first time, from a link at Pepe Escobar´s Tg channel, and have to say that were the two parts of the article had been published separately, I probably would had not reached to read the second one....
This way I was able to test that not only you seem a great military analyst, but also a knowledgeable historian.
Very interesting and entertaining the way you tell it.
Keep it coming!
No need to apologise about irregularity of posts. Quality always trumps quantity.
Thank you for your double analysis. I like it. My only issue is with “Bronze Age Slovaks”. I really doubt there were Slovaks at that time. Slavs maybe 😇🙃😏
Great article as usual. Truly one of the top blogs on military affairs and history, and I do follow a lot. I will have to learn more about the Hittites, as they seam to be one of those great, but forgotten, empires.