Category Archives: defense policy

Force Ratios

Posted on by
Reply

But ratios of what? A simple ratio of three attacking soldiers vs 1 defending soldier is too narrow and dangerously misleading, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is demonstrating.

Soldier equivalents of a number of other factors apply, also, and “force ratios” of the following, at the least, must be included in developing the operational force ratio:

  • quality of soldier training
  • quality of commanders, officers, and NCOs
    • their ability to function in fluid, information-foggy environment
    • quality of intel available to them
  • quality and condition of equipment
  • technology of equipment
  • impact of other avenues of attack
    • cyber
    • space
    • propaganda
  • what’s being defended
    • home territory from invader
    • invader territory from counterattacking defender
  • who’s defending
    • attacked nation defenders
    • attacking nation now defending
    • attacker position on invaded territory
    • attacker position in attacking nation’s territory
  • who’s attacking
    • defending nation against attacker’s position in attacked nation
    • defending nation against attacker’s position in attacker’s nation

All of that disregards the nature of the terrain being defended/attacked, but terrain merely informs the level of required force ratio: 3:1 to 7:1, the upper bound of what’s nominally considered attackable or worth the cost to attack, or somewhere in between.

It may be that a 3:1 ratio of attackers to defenders is a valid minimum ratio for a successful attack. However, all of these factors have to be converted into their own weights on force-on-force—however hazily the estimated conversions might be—and included in the ratio calculations.

It’s especially critical, too, that cold-blooded, wholly objective estimates of the quality of one’s own soldiers vs the enemy’s be made. “The enemy is ten feet tall,” or “We are,” serve only to get friendly soldiers killed, and the attack likely defeated, regardless of the other factors incorporated into the final force-on-force estimate.

Another VA Failure

Posted on by
Reply

…in image form:

Each bureaucrat with some form of a medical certificate more interested in her checklist than in the patient in front of her.

This is yet another reason to disband the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA, and return all personnel to the private sector (not reassign them elsewhere in government). Instead, use the current and putative future VA budgets to provide vouchers for our veterans so they can seek their own care with the hospitals, clinics, and doctors of their choice and with far more responsive attention in a far more timely manner.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

I Sympathize

Posted on by
Reply

Ukraine is preparing to put a captured Russian soldier on trial for a variety of war crimes committed over the course of the Russian barbarian invasion of Ukraine, an invasion still in progress. The 21-yr-old soldier stands accused of

fir[ing] several shots from a Kalashnikov rifle at the head of an unarmed 62-year-old man, who died on the spot just a few dozen meters from his own home in the village of Chupakhivka in Ukraine’s Sumy region[.]

Ukraine Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova says the murder occurred on February 28. The soldier is a tank commander, which in the Russian army makes him a junior NCO.

The soldier absolutely stand trial for the crime, and I think the 10-15 years to life in prison should he be convicted is light. This is the sort of crime that should draw capital punishment.

However.

It occurs to me that before those who are no more than foot soldiers are tried for the war crimes they’re accused of committing, their officers—who created the environment within which their subordinates felt free to commit these atrocities—should be tried for their complicity in war crimes.

Unfortunately and especially in the present case, where so many of the Russian barbarian officers have evaded capture (or those few of them remaining have been killed in action), it will be hard to bring the foot soldiers’ officers in, try them, and if convicted, execute them.

Put this 21-yr-old on trial, certainly. But be sure he’s being tried for what he did, and punished suitably for it if convicted; do not use him as a scapegoat for not being able to get at the officers who allowed, if not actively encouraged, these atrocities.

Vladimir Putin’s May Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Read between the lines of Putin’s speech and attempted justification of his invasion of Ukraine.

Speaking to the nation from Red Square ahead of the traditional military parade here Monday, the Russian leader said the Kremlin had every indication that a clash with Ukraine, which he says is led by US-backed neo-Nazis, was inevitable, so Moscow took pre-emptive action.
“The danger was growing day by day, so Russia gave a pre-emptive response to the aggression. It was a forced, timely, and only correct decision, a decision made by the sovereign, strong, and independent country,” Mr Putin said. “We saw how the military infrastructure was being developed, how hundreds of foreign advisers began to work, regular deliveries of the most modern weapons from [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization] countries were occurring.”

And

The defense of the Motherland, when its fate was being decided, has always been sacred[.]

Ukraine, said Putin, with its population of 40 million and its military establishment of 197 thousand active and 900 thousand reserve personnel, was a threat to the existence of his Russia with its own population of more than 145 million and its own military establishment of 1 million active and 2 million reserve personnel—and all those nuclear weapons. Putin was forced, he said, to strike first before Ukraine could inflict its devastating and conquering blow.

What an amazing indictment by Putin of his nation’s military capability to protect the Motherland’s fate and defeat an invasion by a nation with barely a quarter of Russia’s population and whose total military barely matches the size of the Motherland’s active duty force.

What an amazing indictment by Putin of his own nation’s technological prowess and his own military’s most modern weapons already in being and still being produced as compared Ukraine’s military equipage and NATO’s.

Ooh—Count ‘Em

Posted on by
Reply

Germany has agreed to supply the Ukrainian army with self-propelled howitzers, the Panzerhaubitze 2000, which can fire a 155mm round 25-40 miles, depending on the round selected.

All seven of the howitzers.

And, in keeping with the German government’s practice of slow-walking all aid to Ukraine in the latter’s struggle to defend itself against the Russian barbarian invasion, Germany’s Defense Ministry

did not give a time frame for the delivery of the howitzers….

The weapons aren’t even operational; they’re being taken from a “pool” that has been set aside by the Defense Ministry for repairs. The weapons will be repaired over the next few weeks. Here’s an indication of the quality of German maintenance, too, via Deutsche Welle:

Germany has more than 100 of these howitzers, of which only 40 are currently ready for deployment[.]

A 40% combat ready rate is…suboptimal…except that Germany has been satisfied with that for some time.

For comparison purposes, a modern Russian Army self-propelled 152mm howitzer battery consists of 6 guns, and a modern US Army self-propelled 155mm howitzer battery also consists of 6 guns.

Seven howitzers. Chancellor Olaf Schulz shouldn’t strain his defense establishment so much just to make an insultingly puny contribution to Ukraine’s fight for its survival.