Two dozen retired generals are trying to stop an overhaul of the Marines | Hacker News Reader

Two dozen retired generals are trying to stop an overhaul of the Marines

politico.com

32 pointscwwc27 comments

The way the Russian war against Ukraine (which was run by older generals/tactics/tanks/helicopters etc) has failed against a somewhat more modern with 2022 generalling, coupled with assorted ant-tank drone missiles and other drones from allies as well as modern NATO anti tank and ant air weapons has revealed the truth that a WW1 army can not fight a WW2 war - fast forwarded - a cold war army lagging in tech can not fight a Ukraine of 2022. We know Russia has weapons in far greater depth and can outlast and wear Ukraine down - unless saner minds prevail. In like manner, US forces need to be brought to 2022 and beyond and the old war horses need to retire - in part. I feel a hybrid approach is needed - selectively keep some of the old ways and retire the rest. There is no doubt that modern AI flown by wire planes with no pilot, capable of higher G loads - 25-35G, higher weapon loads which replace the life support systems former pilots needed can be made in larger number, be cheaper and be smaller that the current top guns. No need for WW2 thoughts any more.

Yep. Armor and ground support A/C have been shown much more vulnerable to shoulder-launched countermeasures than they were even ten years ago, and it isn't even close, though I hate to see A-10s rendered obsolete - for that is what they are, now.

Russia failed to meet its objectives (blitzkrieg), but Ukraine totally failed in actually defending its own population and strategic locations. Their tactic seems to have been inflicting loses and strategically retreating. This worked great due to dysfunctional structure of Russian Army command. Order of a General means you will repeatedly try airborne landings into enemy controller Hostomel airport under direct fire, it means you will move choppers into Kherson Airbase targeted by artillery fire 3 times in a row, etc.

Handheld anti-armor weapons are great, but I would preferer my military to actually stand their ground in front of a city giving me time to evacuate. Instead Ukraine almost acted like they deliberately tried to look weak and vulnerable. Not only there was no mobilization, but they didnt even evacuate Antonov fleet (huge strategic asset) despite both direct NATO warning in early February and petition written by the pilots/crews. Its either a brilliant plan to make them look pathetic to provoke Russian overconfidence, or enormous strategic blunder by someone high up simply not believing attack would happen.

Right now they are recapturing territory on a great majority of fronts.

They lost ton of Southern territory that's clearly being indicated as a work of traitors now, so your characterization of their tactics are not the most charitable.

The Russians are leaving and sending the troops to break the Eastern front. They are not leaving because a Ukrainian push is making them intenable. Rather, it's because the Russians are invading with 3x fewer soldiers than the Ukrainians have deployed, so they need every soldier they can in the South, now that the southern cauldron has been formed and Mariupol is on the verge of being taken.

The fact that they have just recently been able to form the cauldron lends some credence to this theory. Now, the Russians will have to push the sides of the cauldron, which will necessitate a much higher amount of troops. If they succeed, the payoff is immense - the 100k+ troops of the Eastern front will have to retreat without mechanisation, making a fighting retreat impossible. The Ukrainian army will be greatly struck, and the Russians will be able to take a lot of prime terrain and perhaps try a push all the way to the Dnieper and then up, completely cutting of Kyiv from any mechanised supply line.

Some have speculated that the only reason they attacked the North is to prevent the Ukrainian army from rotating their forced to the Donbass, thus maximizing the effectiveness of their small invading force. I don't know if I buy that.

In any case, it's abundantly clear the Russians are leaving the North to send the troops in the East, and are not being pushed back.

I was wondering what happened to the liveua map - There was a massive Russian arm stretching to within kilometres of Kyiv that just disappeared seemingly overnight. Does this mean the war is over soon if Russia achieves their goals for Donbass? I don't remember expansion of Crimea being a part of their goals but I also don't have good memory.

Russia is indeed retreating from the Kiev front, not because of some genius strategy, but because they failed to achieve their initial goals, lost a ton of material and troops, and now they need to regroup those troops which were attacking Kyiv to reinforce the ones in the east and south to try to achieve their new more limited goals - occupying the whole Donbass and southern Ukraine.

You have a very optimistic view of things. I would suggest spending less time reading RT :)

The Russia soldiers seem to be much better at executing tied up civilians than actually winning battles

You would not be able to get such a perspective from Russian media. They aren't saying that the Russians abandoned Kyiv and are repeating like a mantra that they "will achieve all objectives", whereas I just wrote that they are falling back to the Donbass.

I also don't see how it's optimistic for their side to say that they are runnning out of soldiers and have to redeploy.

"Some have speculated ... it is abundantly clear"

Russians left so much destroyed equipment behind them during the retreat from the North that OSINT servers have problems catalogizing it all.

Russian retreat wasn't a Suomussalmi-like rout [0], that much is abundantly clear from the fact that most of the personnel was able to get out (there are neither thousands of dead nor thousands of POWs there).

But the level of attrition they sustained was horrific and it would have gotten only worse once all the bushes and trees started to grow proper foliage (which is great for ambushers) in April and May. They simply had to retreat.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi

You're taking two qualifiers that I assigned to different statements.

Images are not a reliable way of getting information on ambushes. There is no way to know if those losses were during ambushes or shortly after the initial advances. Moreover, a big reason the OSINT community had such an issue with cataloguing them is because it was often difficult to tell whose it was and whether it was already accounted for earlier.

They indeed sustained a high level of attrition. And yet, it was still a sustainable level of attrition. Russia is lacking soldiers that are needed to attack more than they lack equipment at this point in time.

>Russia is lacking soldiers that are needed to attack more than they lack equipment at this point in time.

I haven't seen any proof of that. There are rather reliable reports that large majority of stockpiled soviet-era weapons (tanks, BMPs...) is unusable in a short term due to large-scale corruption and lack of maintanence.

There is only evidence for the loss of 425 Russian tanks (following Oryx).

Russia has around 5000 post-soviet era T-90s.

There is no need for them to tap into their stockpile of Soviet era tanks. Even if they had to and only 10% of those stockpiles were usable short term, it would be enough to replenish their confirmed loses.

This is basically the dumbest possible take, bordering on Kremlin propaganda. Russia has failed to take even a single major city in Ukraine, after nearly all Western analysts expected them to take Kyiv within 2-3 days. The delays and losses Ukraine has inflicted on Russia have been historic, to the point where they have permanently reduced Russia's ability to wage foreign wars. Ukraine is currently launching attacks on strategic targets within Russian territory without sustaining ANY losses. Russia is absolutely getting their ass kicked, to the point where it brings into question any Russian defensive credibility, including the idea that they still have functional nuclear weapons.

So analysis by former Commanding General of the U.S. Army Special Forces Command https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_0a8603fd1b211315e9e4be9751... and facts stated by Dmitry Antonov https://simpleflying.com/antonov-employees-appeal-an-225-des... are Kremlin propaganda now?

>failed to take even a single major city in Ukraine

Yes, they only pulverized Mariupol and bomb others with impunity, including strategic targets like Lvivs Yavoriv base seemingly with no S-300 air cover. You have to take into account Russians dont seem to be interested in controlling the population, the goal at this point appears to be extermination. Everyone expected Ukraine to fail because there was still this prevailing conviction about some kind of competence in Russian ranks. Turned out small hit&run was enough to completely disrupt huge military convoy send on its mission like a headless chicken, all thanks to Ukrainian SF units with their training and freedom to take initiative. Russians seem to have started gaining some kind of cohesion in last two weeks. Switched from indiscriminately bombing random civilian targets to actually hitting some strategic assets from time to time now (fuel, logistics), retreated from failed Kyiv push, setup own artillery, started using uavs and jamming assets. Its uphill from here on.

>Ukraine is currently launching attacks on strategic targets within Russian territory

Singular attack, and Ukraine cleverly maintains plausible deniability.

>Russia is absolutely getting their ass kicked

Imo it doesnt matter who loses how much gear. Civilians are dying :( It was obvious around 15 that attack was imminent, yet Ukrainian gov slept at the wheel.

It has hardly failed. Ukraine is busy getting stomped.

The end goals and milestones of Russia seem mysterious right now though.

Seems pretty clear to me that Russia wants the east and the entire black sea coast to deny europe an easy alternative to Russian energy.

And yet this action has provoked precisely the opposite reaction - a desire across Europe to entirely cease dependence on Russian energy altogether.

That definitely wasn’t their initial goal.

What's the connection between the Black Sea coast and energy supplies to Europe?

LNG tankers, I'm guessing?

That is the end game for Russia - what level of destruction will Ukraine tolerate? Ukraine needs sea access vitally for ocean freight. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/3/why-capturing-ukrain...

What remaining access will Ukraine fight to the end for? Russia has access and can get by without it = just greedy. The UN/Turkey can close the Dardanelles to Russian ships. (already have forbidden russian warships exiting, but allow commerce) Can Turkey stand up to Russia plus the UN? Will Russia/China Veto any of this leaving Turkey alone? It has a higher GNP, but fewer people than Russia. One hopes NATO unity plus many others will make the sanction cut deeply. If China/India support Russia will they also be sanctioned = huge hurt for them and will that curb Russia?

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purcha...

The truth is Russia is bombarding from afar. Whenever their conscripts faced skilled and battle hardened vets they fled/folded/died. The magnitude of Russia's forces tell me they will, in time have a chance to stomp Ukraine - as long as they have any feet left!! Do you know Russia maintains an army cohort called sort of Battle Police to keep conscripts from desertion? The USA/UK have no such force or need. Russian conscripts know they are like dirt to the elites and only battle police make them advance - lesser of two evils is the conscript's choice.

The UK hasn't used conscripts in a conflict in which they were at serious risk of getting killed since 1951 (Korean War), I think, though I could be wrong. In any case, there have been no conscripts in the armed services after 1963. When did the USA last put conscripts into serious danger? Vietnam, 1975?

“The truth is Russia is bombarding from afar.”

I’ve been following this situation closely, and this most certainly is not the case outside of a few outliers.

The Nazi Azov battalion has impressed me with the ferocity of their fighting. Less so with their war crimes against prisoners.

All artillery and long range rocket attacks are from afar - you a Russian sympathiser?

Russia's "problem" is they aren't in a total war. If they were then Ukraine's military and population would both be devastated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com