Kinophile Posted June 6, 2016 Author Share Posted June 6, 2016 5 hours ago, Haiduk said: No any info about works under missiles programs. It is top classified info. Not only weapons. We even couldn't buy engines for BTR-3/4 during two years. Germany and USA rejected to sell its because "this can inflict more casualties in the war". Only at the end of 2015 first Deutz and Mercedes engines arrived to us... We have not so big number of useful T-72 for deep upgrade to PT-91 level and T-72 never will not main in army, so for what to spend money, which critically need in other segments of defense program. Combined Ukrainian-Polish-Lithuanian brigade is creating now (recently its existed as battlion), but it is mostly for peacemakers operations and for maneuvers - both under NATO aegis and local. From Ukrainian side in this project participates battalion of 95th or 80th airmobile brigades, but of course in free time from the war... Good to know, thank you. Which brigades are considered crack/elite? It seems the UA has converted to a primarily brigade oriented structure, is this correct? What, in your opinion, would be the best English language source on the current Ukrainian Army? This is all fascinating information, AI hope I'm not being a pest! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, kinophile said: Good to know, thank you. Which brigades are considered crack/elite? It seems the UA has converted to a primarily brigade oriented structure, is this correct? What, in your opinion, would be the best English language source on the current Ukrainian Army? This is all fascinating information, AI hope I'm not being a pest! I think, no one whole brigade in the world can not be crack/elite :). As I wrote recently, most trained and motivated in UA army are VDV, Marines and special forces. But among them just some quantity of SpFor and some dozen of VDV contractors, whos already more then 1,5-2 years on front can be considered crack. Among ground forces most hardly fought 93th brigade - almost 18 months on front on hardest Donetsk direction. But anyway only the core of brigade - contractors and those mobilized, who after year of war have signed contract instead demobilisation can be really considered as veteran or even some part as crack, but its no more 5-10 %. Brigade structure exists in UKR army since 2004 year... if I do not mistake... Alas, no English source. Of course you can visit English page of our MoD: http://www.mil.gov.ua/en/, but there is short of realy interesrt information, also its contain about half of information, which give itself on Ukrainian page ). Possibly, web-designers too lazy ) Edited June 7, 2016 by Haiduk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 0 - regarding Putin. Noone here hates Russia i dont think. But the rebellions in Syria srarted because the state used extreme violence to end peaceful protests. Assad is a dictator.l Libya. Qaddafi was a brutal dictator. Thats quite a bit different than Russia invading Ukraine to ensure it didnt join NATO and to put them 'in line'. The Ukr govt was definitely not dictatorial or killing swathes of their own people. Thats the diferencr between the western and russian invasions. Second Putins a dictator. Mayve initially he was legitimately elected but lets assume Russia had a genuine honest to god election and Putin lost. Do you honestly think Putin would step down or not find a way around it ( like medvedev bc term limits?) I think Putin isnt gonna leave office unless he dies in it or is Ceauceascued out. @Codename Duchess You mentioned you play dcs. Pm me if you use pms. I wanna talk planes. What are your favs. What do you think of the FM? Edited June 7, 2016 by Sublime 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) I've almost finished a medium size, intense suburban UKR v RUS scenario. @Haiduk I'm trying to follow your note and avoid a WW2 style fight (in terns of unit proximity) but I'm unsure of typical Mech Inf Co. engagement areas. I'll pm to you if you're interested. Currently I'm drifting to the idea of a Ukrainian offensive that is limited in scope but has strong strategically mobile reserves standing by to rapidly exploit if the Separatists show signs of command and moral failure. This will give me a series of smaller, intense battles with a sudden, rapid escalation in force and distance in later battles. Edited June 7, 2016 by kinophile 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Steve, I don't understand your point on a rocket being unsuitable for surface-to-surface attack simply because it was originally intended for use air-to ground. Consider British and Canadian Land Mattress and US use of the HVAR for shore bombardment as cases in point. Sure, the Ukrainian field expedient MRLs aren't even in the Grad category when it comes to range and striking power, but to a force short of artillery and desperately in need of fire support at the lowest level (because of Russian EW and counterfire), to me, they make enormous sense. I guarantee you there are enough smart people in Ukraine to figure out the firing tables and computerize them. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 2 hours ago, John Kettler said: Steve, I don't understand your point on a rocket being unsuitable for surface-to-surface attack simply because it was originally intended for use air-to ground. Consider British and Canadian Land Mattress and US use of the HVAR for shore bombardment as cases in point. Sure, the Ukrainian field expedient MRLs aren't even in the Grad category when it comes to range and striking power, but to a force short of artillery and desperately in need of fire support at the lowest level (because of Russian EW and counterfire), to me, they make enormous sense. I guarantee you there are enough smart people in Ukraine to figure out the firing tables and computerize them. Regards, John Kettler Smart people can't make a hammer strain pasta or paint a house. Tools have their limitations and sometimes clever simply isn't good enough. An S-5 rocket has about a 2 mile direct flight range with an even burn motor. It is also doesn't have much mass, therefore it's unlikely to do well if the second portion of its flight is unpowered. How one gets that to fire up and come down anywhere useful in any meaningful way is not something I'd spend much time on if I were them. Again, as a direct fire weapon I'd not want to be on the receiving end. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 Two miles sounds about right for a Company level engagement (not that I know squat). If you're firing at structures it would be an effective suppressant. If they could find a way to make them airburst with timed/inertial fuses they could have another useful tool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 16 minutes ago, kinophile said: Two miles sounds about right for a Company level engagement (not that I know squat). It's not that simple 2 miles is presumed to be firing from above in a downward direction. That is what the rocket is designed to do. Firing it any other way involves violation of its design characteristics. Some of them can be compensated for, some of them can not. Think about it this way... if you have a 10kg weight and are on top of a 100m tall building, can you hit a 10m sized target within 10m of the base of the building? With some practice I think you could. But can you hit a 10m target at the same level as you 10m away? How about 5m away but with a 5m tall fence between you and the target? Not likely. Variables matter. Quote If you're firing at structures it would be an effective suppressant. If they could find a way to make them airburst with timed/inertial fuses they could have another useful tool. Yes, direct fire this thing would be pretty nasty. Er, provided there was NOTHING in the flight path that you care about. These rockets are very, very inaccurate even when being used as designed. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 Interesting. Definitely worth exploration to see just what can be adjusted, compensated for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 21 hours ago, kinophile said: I've almost finished a medium size, intense suburban UKR v RUS scenario. @Haiduk I'm trying to follow your note and avoid a WW2 style fight (in terns of unit proximity) but I'm unsure of typical Mech Inf Co. engagement areas. I'll pm to you if you're interested. Before war there were next values of areas for a comapny: Defense: 1500m of front and 1000 m in depth. Range between platoon strong points not less 300 m Offensive: 1000 m (or 500 m on a sector of breakthough) Blocking: 2000 m on close terrain, 5000 m on open tarrain But reality of war will force to change field manuals. For example, now 3rd battalion of 72th brigade holds 15 km of front instead prescribed 5km. Its weird, but after demobilsation of soldiers from most big wave only 30 % of persoonnel remained in battalion - so really about company holds 15 km of front... For example, company strong point of UKR forces (satellite photo, 2015) Edited June 8, 2016 by Haiduk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 Bloody hell. How can you have any tactical control over your AO with that kind of frontage? Aggressive patrolling and drones can do a lot but that's mental. By that scale a 4K CMBS map should really be a reinforced platoon gig! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Troop density, on any given day, is extremely low on both sides. Over the last year some towns have changed hands in platoon sized engagements. The densest concentrations of troops were the Ukrainian 2014 offensive and the Russian Federation counter offensive that followed. Even then the density wasn't high except in a few critical locations. Think about it this way. In the Donbas area there is maybe 100,000 forces of all types (including logistics) for both sides combined. For the sake of discussion let's say it's about 50k on each side. The front today is (very roughly) 300km. Even if 100% of the personnel from 100% of the forces of both sides were standing on the front line that is 115 people per KM of frontline for each side. That is not even a full company. Therefore, when you figure in defense in depth, reserves, logistics, command, units rotating, etc. you can see how the real number is more like 10-30 people per KM for each side. If even that. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 Very illuminating, thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krater Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Here is a partial list of units that have gone through Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine course at Yavoriv: Fearless Guardian I: 2nd Battalion, National Guard ? Battalion, National Guard ? Battalion, National Guard Fearless Guardian II: 1st Battalion, 93rd Mechanized Brigade 1st Battalion 72nd Mechanized Brigade 1st Battalion, 24th Mechanized Brigade 2nd Battalion, 25th Airborne Brigade ? Special Forces Battalion ? Battalion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 Interesting - no complete brigades.I guess FG III will bring in the 2nd Batt of those same brigades? Or keep working through 1st Batt of the rest of the combat engaged brigades? I can see how you'd want at least one battalion in each brigade to have western training, rather than squirrel them away into or solo brigades,. Especially if you're going for a ground-up rebuild of the entire ground combat forces mentality, tactics and potentially organization. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 The idea is this is a large scale "train the trainer" exercise. The battalions that are going through the exercises are supposed to go back to their parent units and spread the knowledge. By the time the other battalions come around for their shot at Western training (if ever) they should have a head start. If they don't wind up going through the training then at least they're better off with the peer-to-peer cross training than they would be without. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 Copy that. Makes sense - improve the overall standard rather than go for a few elite units that, if decimated,, leave the rest of your weaker units wide open. Also gives a general ethos of Western thinking throughout the force. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 It's kinda like the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. If Rock goes up against Scissors then it wins. But if it goes up against paper it loses. Against rock it's a tie. In a way Russia has the ability to play the Rock, but pretty much only the Rock. The West has the ability to play Paper or Scissors. Even if the West doesn't know this, and doesn't have the time to figure it out, odds are in its favor for a win. If it does know it, or figures it out, then the defeat will be even more swift and complete. Plus, the West also has Lizard and Spock to play Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 The Christian Science Monitor just put up an article August 29 looking at the reality/unreality of the Russian threat. Unfortunately, I can't get FF to Paste the link I copied, so anyone interested will have to go there directly. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 (edited) Steve, Enjoyed your pithy analysis, but full marks for invoking which made my head spin. Several times. Regards, John Kettler Edited August 30, 2016 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattori Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Out of curiosity, how dependent is each side on GPS and GLONASS? I think both sides could easily jam / spoof / meacone / insert bad timing or orbit data / destroy the satellites themselves if it came to a shooting war. I imagine it will get back to old school maps very quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) Was doing some research on the Hydra-70 rocket family when this showed up. It speaks exactly to the use of air-to-ground rockets in the surface-to-surface role. Turns out several countries have fielded artillery systems which do exactly that. Have skimmed the article article, which is quite good but haven't read the paper written in vain by a USMC major trying to get the Marines to adopt such a system. The article does, though, have a useful excerpt from that paper. www.combatreform.org/groundrockets.htm Regards, John Kettler Edited September 27, 2016 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.