Vanir Ausf B

RUSI released a lengthy report about the air war and Ukrainian AD needs. Below is the executive summary of the paper. There isn't really much new stuff in it, what's worth mentioning is that report emphasizes the need for supplying Ukraine with Western-build fighters.
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/russian-air-war-and-ukrainian-requirements-air-defence
 

The reaction to this has been...odd. 
The Quincy folks and some of the Congress members who signed that dumb letter are pointing at this news and taking credit for it. They've left unexplained how their announcement traveled back in time to force the White House to do something months ago. The all or nothing people are crying foul and think that this is a betrayal of the Ukrainian government. Neither take makes any sense at all. 
What the administration is doing in a very real way lowers the possibility of unchecked escalation and/or the Russian use of nukes in this war. It also allows the delivery of very clear messages directly to and from Russian leadership. All of that is *very good*. This is what competence looks like. Enjoy it while we have it!

Exactly.  I did not see fundamental “sucking”, which is the problem with this philosophical point of view - every video is Russians sucking.  I saw a mech RA outfit get totally shellacked by a combination of what I think were ATGM, UAS and really nasty accurate artillery - how they got there is unclear.  
Those two “low intelligence and problem solving skills guys” were likely already in a state of f#cked up, the lack of weapons is a hint, then getting a UAS grenade in the face pretty much guarantee they are pretty much zombies after that.  
This is not a sign of anything beyond the fact that HE to the face makes everyone have low intelligence and poor problem solving skills.  Having been under accurate mortar fire, I can say from personal experience all one has drills and muscle memory when the world starts exploding around you and we were nowhere near as bad off as those sods in the video.
Those clustered guys may be a symptom of poor training but I would not write off inexperience as it is human nature to huddle together in those situations, hard to reprogram that even in trained troops.

Dunno. There's definitely a hole there.

Dunno. There's definitely a hole there.

Or shock. I'd go with shock.

Russian Lantset loitering munition can be real headache for our troops. Lantsets have 1kg (Lantset-1) or 3 kg (Lantset-3) warhead depending on task. Warheads can be HE or HEAT.
Probably, first M109 damaged only, but obviously has taken out of action for long time
Rare video of attack on UKR naval forces with Lantset, due to their range it can be in Ochakiv-Mykolaiv area
 

Before we reach that stage, I think IFVs will specialise in anti-drone warfare. In a combined arms unit, the autocannons on IFV are not fundamental for the unit's attack power vs ground targets. They are nice-to-have kit, but both infantry and light AFVs can be engaged more effectively with tank guns. On the other hand, drone defence is becoming a life-or-death capabliity. So I think that we will see the next generation of IFVs with a bigger calibre autocannons (for altitude) and some kind of dumbed down radar or IR tracking equipment. 

On the contrary, I think. Latest generation hardware like MBTs and fighter jets, etc. are a very expensive (and comparably easy to track and restrict) and complex commodity. A Cold War era T72 doesn't do much good if the other side has Abrams.
Drones are cheap and far less complex and are produced already for the mass market. All the components for making them autonomous and connected are basically accessible to everyone as long as they have access to components for consumer electronics. Competitive chips are something of a bottleneck but not nearly as much as all the stuff in a modern MBT. A high tech military will have better equipment but generally, I think, the technology will make waging war more feasible for smaller budgets not less.

Interesting that the Ukrainians appear to see or hear the drone in time to run away (EDIT: in the FH70 video)
 

There are a remarkable number road casualties even in peacetime exercises. Twenty year old corporals that haven't slept in two or three days are not the world's best drivers.

Himars and Excalibur being applied systematically to Russian artillery.

The action the Ogledów covers is very specific to in and around Ogledow. There was a great deal of fighting in the whole sector but the campaign focuses on a few square km around Ogledów.
Numbers were hard to pin down as both sides do not tally. However the following extracts from the designer notes and their source I've listed below:
From the designer notes:
"One of these units, the 501st Heavy Tank Battalion, commanded by Major von Legat, was a source of German great expectations.  After being destroyed in fighting during the earlier stages of Operation Bagration, it had been reconstituted at Ohrdruf on 14th July 1944 and equipped with the new Tiger IIs. On the 5th August 1944, the 2nd and 3rd  companies totalling 31 Tiger IIs (the 1st company with an additional 14 Tiger IIs did not arrive at the front until the 12th August 1944) of the 501st entrained bound to join Army Group North Ukraine. Their combat debut proved very inauspicious, as after detraining, most suffered final drive breakdowns while on a 50 km road march. After a supreme effort by the mechanics twenty Tiger IIs were available for immediate combat. This mechanical unreliability was to plague the unit throughout its future combat operations ." 
‘Tigers in Combat I’ by Wolfgang Schneider
"For this operation 16th Panzer Division, with the 501st and 509th Heavy Tank battalions attached to it, was divided into two main kampfgruppen - Kpf.Gr “Bloemecke” (reinforced Pz.Grn.Rgt 64 – I Bat (mot) and II Bat (gep)); and Kpf.Gr “von Busse” (reinforced Pz.gren. Rgt. 79). "
Source ‘Fire Brigades: The Panzer Divisions 1943-1945’ by Kamen Nevenkin
"The 501st Heavy Tank Battalion (consisting of 2nd and 3rd companies) was now down to only eleven operational Tiger IIs out of the twenty it went into action with twelve hours before - due to on-going mechanical issues with the new vehicles.2 However this did not affect the morale of the Tiger crews of the 501st who were very confident that their new Tiger IIs would be more than a match for the Soviets in their lighter armoured and armed T-34s. "
Source: ‘Germany’s Tiger Tanks – Tiger I & Tiger II: Combat Tactics’ by Thomas L. Jentz
At this point I should stress and note that when reading through these accounts there are some discrepancies that can be troublesome to reconcile with other sources (although detailed German accounts of this action are scarce to non-existent it would appear). The key one is the date in the Battlefield.ru account is incorrect – this is then repeated in other versions/retellings of this action. To confirm - the action/ambush occurred on the 12th August 1944. This is confirmed in several Soviet sources, including Guards Junior Lieutenant Oskin’s commendation for ‘Hero of the Soviet Union’ which states that the date of the action he was famously involved in was the 12th August 1944. 
The reference you mention most likely pertains to this action on the 13 August 1944.
At 0900Hrs on the 13th August the 2nd TBn, the 2nd Tank Company of the 71st Independent Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, and the 289th Rifle Regiment from the 97th Guards Rifle Division3, began moving toward ZARAZ (just over 1km north west of OGLEDOW). King Tigers which were positioned west of Ogledów, blocked the attacking infantry with gunfire. A platoon of JS-2 tanks, led by Lieutenant Klimienkov, advanced and joined in the battle. Soon one of the German tanks was on fire, and another one was knocked out. The infantry, without opposition, then moved into Ogledów, where tanks of the 3rd TBn were already eliminating the remaining Germans.
Later in the day seven Tiger IIs moved in from the direction of Mokre. An IS-2 belonging to Guards Senior Lieutenant Udalov opened fire at 800 meters, destroying two Tiger IIs, one of which also caught fire. The German tanks retreated, regrouped, and advanced on PONIK. Lieutenant Belyakov's IS-2 was in ambush in that direction. Opening fire at the column from 1000 meters, he set fire to one Tiger II. The rest turned back.
Thats most of what i found. As I said reconciling numbers of tanks etc at specific times and places was nigh impossible. So educated guesses were made where exact/differing numbers were given.
Hope this helps?
Cheery!
 

Russia started to use super-long range air-to-air missiles R-37/R-37M. Theese misiles have claimed range up to 398 km (but more reliable is 300 km). R-37 can be launched from MiG-31BM heavy interceptor, R-37M - from Su-35S and Su-57. Missiles likely get initial targeting from A-50 AWACS
Allegedly already two UKR jets can be shot down with theese missiles. One of more probable victims - last shot down of Su-24M, which was damaged over Donbas and fell in Poltava oblast. Also likely was shot down one MiG-29 HARM carrier. One missile was spotetd over western Ukraine, but result unknown 
MiG-31 now often take off from territory of Belarus
R-37 in flight over westren Ukraine

 
 

Oh, theese 1941 vibes 😆
Kharkiv front - UKR trophy BMP-3 tows a turret of another BMP-3. Cool "white cross" mark on sidehull - 100 % mockery and humilitation )))
 

Is it just me or that about the best camo scheme I have ever seen on a tank?

Ok let’s get some knowledge on this whole Wagner Line thing.  I will caveat that 1) I am not even sure a complex obstacle belt will work against how the UA has been fighting this war and 2) I have no idea how long this Wagner line is, or whether it ties into natural obstacles nor what the fire plans are around it.
That said, be very wary of the internet.  I see a lot of people talking about stuff they have no idea about, particularly in the “Russia sux camp”.  I do not go into my professional background too much for many reasons but I will say that one of my military incarcerations over a 34 year career is a military engineer, so take that into account if you like.
First, I doubt the veracity of the styrofoam claim very much.  Why?  Because it would take more time and resources to make a fake dragons tooth than to simply pour some concrete over steel bars.  I have heard nothing about Russia suffering a concrete shortage and this whole styrofoam theory sound like complete BS.
Second, efficacy of the Wagner line dragons teeth.  Dragons teeth need not be fixed or footed, particularly not the pyramidal ones I am seeing in this pictures.  They are designed to roll and catch the ground on their points as they do.  In doing so they can either belly up a tracked vehicle or de-track it.  Either way they act as caltrops for tracked IFVs and armor, looking for mobility kills but these are just the appetizer.
Third, these are clearly part of a complex obstacle.  The sorts of obstacles are designed to pull combat engineering and key armoured resources forward and expose them the fires.  If you can kill them then bull-rushing such a complex obstacle will likely yield in and around 70-80% casualties.  It isn’t how large the dragons teeth are, or how much they weigh, it is their placement.  I have heard a lot of “well we can just go in and tow them out” or “bring in a dozer and simply push them”.  Sure, but you are doing that in the middle of a 400m deep minefield while having ATGMs and artillery dropped on your head.  In fact the dragons teeth I have seen in that double row are likely the horizontal safelane markers as well.  As you would expect dismounting in the middle of a minefield with crowbars and chains is a good way to turn trained sappers into names on a memorial.
Finally, stuff like dragons teeth are hell on mine plows and rollers.  The get in between them and mess up the tank.  So this means engineers have to bring up technical vehicles like dozer tanks..which are very rare on the battlefield.  I have seen pics of these dragons teeth next to railways and embankments, which is really smart as that makes the mechanical clearing job that much harder.  About the only expedient way for this is explosive clearing - which I am not sure the UA even have - dragons teeth then should be fixed to avoid being blown aside.  But when combined with an AT ditch and some decent sighting that can even stump an explosive breach.
So no, there is nothing wrong with those Dragons Teeth as is at least as far as I can see from a picture, maybe not the most awesome I have ever seen but as part of a larger complex obstacle they will do exactly what they were designed to so long as that obstacle is covered by fire and observation.  The Russians are going to need about 100kms of these in a triple belt with KZs pre-sighted to get the effect I think they are looking for, which I do not think they can do and shame on the UA if they give them time and space to do this.
Remember that diagram I did up a while back, look both left towards effect and right towards capability when seeing stuff like this and always keep in mind the entire picture.  And avoid groups who are just seeing what they want to see at this point.

Pretty intense recovering a wounded comrade under fire
 

Ok, you keep mentioning this.  Moving several hundred thousand troops anywhere on an offence, even shoddily is incredibly hard.  You are really undersubscribing the difficulty of this under ideal conditions, now compounded by the UA who can see that entire line of advance back to the border from space.  Further the UA has precision fires and ATGM systems that are fire and forget out to 3+km hitting with 90% accuracy.  The fact the Russians got as far as they did should not be tossed aside so easily.  
You would have to back this up.  I have never heard anyone thinking this, nor the UA having the luxury to pull this off while being invaded.  What I saw was the UA adapting quickly with what they had and were likely surprised by the outcome as well.  That is one helluva assessment and I would need to see some facts before I bought off on it.  Have they learned how to exploit RA weakness over time, definitely.  But the idea that they specifically and deliberately tailored their operational and tactical approaches before the war because they knew exactly where the Russian suck is a reach with the info we have.
And here we fully disagree.  Would we have done better, likely.  Would it have been easy or would our strategic objectives be guaranteed..I am not sure at all for all the reasons I listed before.  Our logistics are just as vulnerable, for example how does one secure a 5km wide corridor for 100kms? Against dismounted infantry?  How does one hide mass and ours is just a big and hot as Russia’s.  In Iraq insurgents shut down US operational logistics with IEDs for days at a time, here we are talking an opponent with next-gen ATGMs and C4ISR - we would have to bake space to take out their assets, knocking ours out at the same time. UAVs everywhere, hell ISIS drove us nuts with Amazon drones and they  were nowhere near this level.  AD, we needed full stacks of SEAD for places like Libya let alone an opponent with next gen MANPADS plugged into a C4ISR system the UA have.  No, I am sorry but to say “we would be fine and the UA only won because Russia sucks” smacks of western hubris which is exactly what the European powers did with the lessons they observed in the wars leading up to WW1.
I could go on at length.  And even with setting pre-conditions and actually conducting joint targeting I am not convinced the west would have simply rolled through against an opponent armed, supported and fighting like the Ukrainians.  In fact we likely would have stuck ardently to our doctrine which would have gotten us into a lot of trouble when we also ran out of gas, let alone when the body count escalated.
 See western bias and hubris above.
I also do not think Russia would have won this if they “sucked less” because no one (or at least very few) predicted the impact the new realities of the modern battlefield would have.
I argue that while we fully agree on the Russian qualitative assessment, the outcomes do not lead to it being determinative.  Make the Russians better at combined arms, even joint fires and they they might have lost slower but they were not going to achieve their objectives because their entire system was built for a battlefield that does not exists anymore - giving them a faster horse is not going to make a difference against a bird in a vertical race.  Make the UA worse by taking away the advantages they had and their success does some into question, as it was back in 2014.  Those two factors alone point to the determinative factor as the performance of the UA in a modern environment driven largely by technological change and not the Russian military sucking (which again was definitely contributing).
Hell we can test some of this in CM right now for that matter - fight to emulate a proxy war with someone backed with China.  We can’t directly attack Chinese C4ISR and they have outfitted our opponent with all the bells and whistles (UAS, deep strike, PGMs and AD).  Let one side fight all modern combat armsy just like out doctrine says, and let then other fight like the UA, now that would be an interesting experiment.