The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has lasted for more than seven months. In this battle, both sides invested huge forces to participate in the war, and the funds consumed were unprecedented. However, judging from the current situation, it is hard to say who would be better. Ukraine has performed well recently with the support of the West and has achieved great victory in succession, but the price it has paid is also quite heavy. After months of consumption, Russia is undergoing strategic contraction. Two-thirds of the 300,000 soldiers mobilized in the later stage have been in place. Although its performance as the world's second military power is not satisfactory in the short term, I believe it will definitely have "big moves" in the future.
Although most people were not optimistic about Ukraine at the beginning of the war, after more than half a year of fierce battle, Ukraine really "sustained" it. It is already quite impressive to have such a record in the face of the powerful Russia. Of course, achieving the current situation is inseparable from the strong support of the West. If Ukraine deals with Russia alone, the country will probably fall completely within one month;
As for Russia? To be honest, it is a bit unexpected to make the war like this today. I wonder how glorious the Russian army was when the two Chechen Wars, the Russian-Germany War, the Crimean War and the military intervention in Syria ! Except for the first Chechen War, the rest of the battles were vigorous and decisive, and the results achieved were also very consistent with its identity as the second military power in the world.
But this time, perhaps Emperor Putin is old. Russia's situation is really a bit like the US military was trapped in the "quagmire" of the Vietnam War. It cannot be fought or withdrawn. Every day, a large amount of military spending is "burning", but the results have not improved. In addition to the all-round sanctions imposed by the West on Russia, if Russia wants to achieve rapid results in this war, there should be no other way to win quickly except for the nuclear weapon .
We cannot predict how this war will develop in the future, but one thing is certain, that is, through this large-scale war that has not been involved in the United States since the new century, most countries can learn a lot of experience;
From the end of the 20th century to the present, we have seen that most of the larger wars are led by the US military, such as Gulf War , Iraq War , Afghanistan War, etc. These wars have one common feature, that is, there is basically nothing in the army, or the army is not the dominant force. With its powerful sea and air force advantages, the United States used saturated attacks to directly crippled and destroyed opponents in the early stage of the war. After entering the field, the army was only responsible for some clearing and finishing work...
thus gave many countries an illusion that modern warfare is an air war or a war of long-range precision strike weapons. The army seems to be on the verge of "elimination". Without an army, it can still win battles. The theory of "the air force can defeat everything" has quietly become popular...
But people seem to have overlooked an important link. The opponents faced by the US military in these wars are all incompletely established troops. Except for the Iraqi army during the Gulf War, the opponents it faces in the other wars can basically be described as "straitors and roaming". The "army" has insufficient command, few heavy weapons, air defense systems are useless, and basically no air force...
The world's No. 1 military power to strike such an opponent naturally has no pressure. In order to quickly win at the lowest cost, air strikes and long-range precision strikes are the most effective means. Of course, the only disadvantage of these means is that they are more expensive, but what the United States does not lack the most is the US dollar.
"illusion" arises. We only see the beautiful attacks and fierce advancement of the US military on the front line, but we do not see the speed of its burning money. According to statistics, the United States spent US$116.6 billion on military expenses during the 7-month period of the Gulf War (the war time was 42 days), the Iraq War cost 1.01 trillion, and the Afghan War was 1 trillion...
Judging from this consumption, which country in the world can afford it?
So American-style war cannot represent modern warfare. It is just a "show" of high-tech equipment. The purpose is to use money to reduce casualties in soldiers as much as possible to reduce the pressure on domestic and foreign public opinion. Its reference significance is not very great.
But the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is different. This is a war that should be fought between normal countries when conflict breaks out at this moment;
Although Russia's military strength on paper is far better than Ukraine, it is entering other countries to fight and cannot use nuclear weapons. In addition, behind Ukraine there are "big bosses" who are continuing to transfusion blood. In this way, the troops and equipment of both sides in Ukraine are in a state of equal strength. This is a contest of similar strength.
In addition, although Ukraine no longer has a navy, the Russian navy seems to have not played any role in the war. Not only that, its own Black Sea Fleet flagship also "dead" Black Sea ...
In terms of the air force, Ukraine's own air force is not very strong, but its air defense capabilities are not weak. Russian fighter jets retreated outside the defense zone early after being "defeated" one after another to carry out strike missions outside the defense zone, and did not dare to rashly go deep into the front line, and the air force offset it.
The navy and air force have become auxiliary forces on the battlefield, and the army has become the decisive force on both sides. This combat situation has completely reversed the strategy of mainly sea and air and auxiliary forces that the US military has been playing around in the past...
Some people will say, it’s not right! How can modern wars fight like this? I am still carrying out land promotion. Isn’t this the way of playing in the World War II period?
In fact, this is not the case. Not every country has developed to the level of the United States. To fight an American-style high-tech war, two conditions must be met. One is to have weapons leading the world, and the other is to have enough national strength to support a high-tech war;
Russia can only meet one of the conditions. It has a lot of advanced weapons, but limited to its weak national strength, few and exquisite high-end weapons have never been able to appear on the battlefield;
and Ukraine do not meet both conditions. In this way, the battle between the two countries can only compete on land with heavy weapons, artillery and long-range strike weapons. The price of lack of money is to let a large number of soldiers go to the front line and exchange their lives for their achievements.
Therefore, American modern war is a "science fiction film" and is out of reach. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a "documentary film" and is a specific manifestation of wars between countries.
For this war, the United States with the combat power ceiling is actually constantly learning from it. After all, the opponents it faced before cannot be called "opponents". At best, it can only be regarded as a group of "mobs". In order to compete with the same large power in the future, its army is closely monitoring this "real war" that took place in Europe...
For this reason, based on the Russian-Ukrainian war, the US military has now summarized four experiences to make up for the shortcomings of neglecting army construction in the past, such as:
- first, Logistics, logistics, logistics
The lack of logistics support in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has caused the Russian army to lose many opportunities. The insufficient supply of fuel, ammunition and other materials seriously hindered the Russian army's advancement. In addition, the rear weapon capacity cannot keep up with the consumption of the war, which also led to the Russian army having to move out weapons from the last century for emergency use. The final result can only be a laughing stock;
In Ukraine, although the United States and other countries have helped, they found out after actual actions that their ammunition inventory is not very abundant. Even indirect participation in the war, they have exhausted their specific ammunition. If they participate in the war directly, the consequences will be unimaginable.
- Second, the strengthening of ground firepower
is different from the joint operations in the early stage of the war. In the late stage of the war, what the two sides really fight is to see who has stronger ground firepower. At present, Ukrainian artillery must fire at least 6,000 shells every day, while Russia is more than three times that of it;
When the fronts of both sides have basically stabilized, the remote fire mutual shooting has become a fixed "performance program" on the battlefield. At this time, it is a test of which artillery soldiers on both sides fight more accurately. Therefore, ground firepower not only needs to gain an advantage in quantity, but also an issue that cannot be ignored.
- Third, the development of ground heavy equipment
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is essentially a land decisive battle. tank and armored vehicle are the absolute main force of the battlefield. The "tank useless theory" will completely fail after this war. Therefore, promoting the construction of land equipment is still a very important link, and it will not be outdated in the next ten years.
- Fourth, there is a new aerial field in
Although there is no eye-catching air competition in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the application of drones has brought people to notice a new airspace, that is, at an altitude below 300 meters. This altitude is the main range of activities of medium and small drones and wandering ammunition. Faced with this emerging weapon and equipment, there are relatively few corresponding countermeasures, which is a blank area worth digging deep.
It seems that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a conventional war, but in fact there are many links worthy of attention from military powers. As a country that is always ready to fight, we should also draw experiences for ourselves and know ourselves and our enemy, so that we can win every battle!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-