110
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

Archive: [ https://archive.is/HwItY ]

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Questy@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

Perhaps provide some air superiority to back up those suggestions of force concentration?

[-] Sirosky@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago
[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago

they are now on it. It just takes over a year to train pilots, sadly

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Which is why it's shameful that they didn't start training programs last year.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

From scratch, sure, but surely am already trained pilot would take significantly less time to learn a new airframe?

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

It isn’t just about flying a plane.

You’ve got to be certified in each weapon the planes are supplied with. You’ve got to learn the doctrines, then shift to the doctrines, that the planes were built for.

Then you’ve got to resupply the planes. Maintain them. Fix them. Service them. Store them. Debug them. Keep them in the air.

There’s a massive logistical challenge to integrating F-16s into Ukraine.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

From scratch it would take several years. At least in my country, to train a pilot you have to go to the Military Air Force School to complete an 8 semester long career that won't necessarily grant you a position as a pilot. Of course, with constrained times of war, this can be achieved in less than 4 years, but 1 year seems like a stretch. Now, if you have a vast disposal of trained pilots, I guess you can make it in one year or even less, depending on several factors. The problem is I don't find stats about this case, and even if there are a lot of Ukrainian pilots ready to fly, they are probably not seasoned in combat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] authed@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Training is needed

[-] Blursty@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 year ago

U.S. Officials Say they Misallocated Ukraine’s Forces and Firepower

Title without the passive voice.

[-] ganksy@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Tell them behind closed doors not us, shithead!

[-] Alto@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

I'm going to go off on a limb and say they wouldn't be if it weren't already well known by the enemy

[-] ConstableJelly@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

For those who have only seen the headline:

Nearly three months into the counteroffensive, the Ukrainians may be taking the advice to heart, especially as casualties continue to mount and Russia still holds an edge in troops and equipment.

U.S. assessed Ukraine's counteroffensive strategy and made recommendations, and now Ukraine is adjusting its strategy accordingly. The headline makes it sound like an endemic issue. Some analysts think it's too little too late, but I wish them the best.

[-] mihor@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

So 'Bahmut holds' wasn't a viable strategy after all???

[-] lilcreacher@literature.cafe 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think its definitely too early to say whether or not any particular element of either Russia or Ukraine's strategy in the war has been 'viable' at this point in time. The ultimate long-term effects of either side's major strategic decisions are probably difficult to understand right now even for the ones who have been making them, let alone for outside observers such as ourselves.

We can at least acknowledge that Bakhmut was the culminating point of Russian offensive operations in the Donbas. Would it have been the culminating point of their offensive if Ukrainians didn't defend it so fiercely? Who can say. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces were heavily attrited in the battle there - will this benefit Russia or Ukraine more? Who can say. There are 'conventional wisdom' answers to both of these questions, but the nature of the fog of war is such that even small, seemingly unrelated developments can drastically alter the valence of what was previously established as strategically advantageous for one side or vice versa.

Even when institutions dedicated to the study of warfare attempt to analyze utilized strategy X versus counterfactual strategy Y from some episode of military history, the debates are often unending. So can't you see how cringe it is to claim as a layman that it should've been obvious to a given commander (and at runtime, too, despite the fact that you're making the criticism with the benefit of hindsight) that strategy Z would have been clearly superior to whatever it was they thought was best, back then?

The US is calling for the Somme

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
110 points (90.4% liked)

World News

32083 readers
1006 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS