BigDog944

You guys remember that quote from the UA solider in the field early on in this thing?  "I can't believe how f#cking stupid they are?"
I keep coming back to this at a strategic level.  I have gone on at length that the Western Strategic Centre of Gravity (CoG) is unity and resolve, if that falters this could all end badly.  So, Russia being a sophisticated nation and a master of the art of strategic narrative would try and take the high road with respect to ROEs in this war. To demonstrate that they will play by the rules even if the Nazi-whatever-the-hell-Putin-was-going-on-abouts are the true villains.  This play could plant a small seed of doubt that if nurtured could erode the Allied CoG - "look this is an Eastern European border skrimish" etc
Or....
Toss missiles around like a drunken frat boy demonstrating that he can both hurl empty beer bottles and throw up on himself simultaneously.  Now maybe Russia is full-on "no body likes me, everybody hates me, so I am gonna eat worms...and commit egregious war crimes anyway."  But all of this is actually reinforcing their opponents strategic center of gravity...it is shoring up the resolve of the West.  A dead soldier is supposed to happen, a dead little girl with blue running shoes is not.  Russia's inability to "get with the program" is frankly baffling.  
Collateral damage happens, it is the tragic truth of warfare since the beginning; however, nations are judged on how hard they work to avoid it.  And as far as I can tell right now Russia hasn't tried at all.  This on top of the pretty obvious war crimes that happened already in this war is literally guaranteeing that 1) more weapons, money and munitions keep flowing from the West, and 2) there is no renormalization after this...so enjoy being a rump state of China...seriously, start teaching your kids Mandarin.  
I can't believe how f#cking stupid they are, indeed.

Take some time to think about what you just wished for please, for your own sake.

Take some time to think about what you just wished for please, for your own sake.

Take some time to think about what you just wished for please, for your own sake.

Ukraine means 'center of the country / inside the country' (Kraina = country, U = in) and basically meant the very core area of Ruthenia initially. So Ukrainians are people living in and around the Kyiv area, as opposed to the rest living in the newly colonized lands.
When German (and other European) outcast dynasties that usurped power in Muscovy decided to falsify history in early 18th century and invent "Russia" - they had to steal the history from somewhere - so suddenly Kyiv, the center of whole Eastern Slavic culture became "borderlands" and swampy, remote Moscow with its unwelcoming climate and badlands where no crops grow became the center of the world.
And it's why for the past 300 years it's a war of extermination. If Kyiv exists and prospers - it means Russia has no historical glue to hold its occupied peoples together.
Stealing history to invent an empire isn't even a new thing, if you remember it's what Germanic tribes did, when they captured decaying Rome - they suddenly proclaimed themselves to be the actual, genuine Roman Empire, even though Romans have been at war with them for centuries.
Kyiv to Russia is what Rome is to (Holy) Roman Empire. If it's not under control - then why are you even calling your state that?

wake up to 3 more pages on this thread almost all of which I could ignore as it is all irrelevant.  All caught up and it is only 6:30 am!  @LongLeftFlankthanks for bringing this back to topic. 😎

More artillery:
A thread from Dmitry, guy who gives us all those interesting translations. He subjectively remarks about general trends he noticed in materials he has been reading/ listening to lately:
And something really bleeping scary:
 

On the slightly off-topic of war videos and entertainment; As I have spent quite a few hours of my life providing ISR and real-time targeting I can say personally that you get used to it pretty quick. I distinctly remember watching my first strike (against ISIS in Iraq, 2015) and being filled with excitement - - finally getting to strike back at these people who were tearing open any form of civilized society and attempting to push the area back into the dark ages. I recall that it really didn't look any different than a video game, which because you are watching it through a monitor, really does make sense. Then I saw my first mass civil casualty event... I really didn't care about watching them get smacked after that. Still don't.

Personally, watching the Russians get hit brings up much the same feelings. It's not a joke, it is real, but so is the war. You want Ukraine to win it? Then they need to kill invaders, and kill them in large numbers. This is the reality of it. Nothing more, nothing less. I'd do it myself if I could, and I don't mean that lightly. Death comes to us all, and killing in war is just that, delivering death for a specific reason or desired outcome. Where I will say that I have ABSOLUTELY no time for is torture and unnecessary violence. If you are going to kill anything you kill it as cleanly and as efficiently as possible - people who enjoy torture or employ it are beyond me (death will happen in war, if you are going to kill someone do it, but to cause pain unnecessarily for your own pleasure is twisted).

All this being said, I find it difficult to watch videos of Ukrainians getting hit because I want them to survive and WIN - yet it also serves as a reminder that the cost is real - not that the cost isn't worth the fight (as much as I can say that without being there myself), but it is real. 
(I am also the kind of wargamer that feels bad when he losses pixel troops unnecessarily, they are my responsibility to use wisely)

So ... I was thinking the other day ... if only there was a war game that had a lot of the equipment and forces used in the current conflict/special military operation in which you could build maps and stuff ...
Map size 4,800m wide by 3,664m deep
Topo overlay

Satellite overlay

CM overhead ...

Where it is in Ukraine
Chervone Overlay.kmz
A couple of comparisons ...


The Combat Mission Black Sea map file ...
Chervone.btt
Just a map folks so no you can't do a QB on it or play it unless you actually click the editor button and add forces and plans etc.  Will this be a scenario one day ... hopefully.
I was prompted to make it because it looked like a BTG or two were going to roll south towards Barvinkove having rolled into Velyka Komyshuvakha towards the end of April and I though it would be worth seeing how it looked in Combat Mission and whether a scenario or two could be built around it - there's definitely meat there for sure so hopefully I can put something together.  If I do so it will be the subject of a separate thread.

Hahaha!  Bye troll.

Great article by Timothy Snyder:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/essay/the-war-in-ukraine-is-a-colonial-war?mbid=social_twitter&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_brand=tny

I'm of the mind that a formal declaration of war opens the door to the use of Russian tactical nukes. Putin must know that he needs to keep his escalation options open so is probably working towards clearing whatever legal hurdles may be in the way right now.
I don't know what this will mean in terms of where this war will go, but if there is a real danger of nukes flying, I wonder if that will bring a full western air defence/no fly zone into play over Ukraine.

I'm of the mind that a formal declaration of war opens the door to the use of Russian tactical nukes. Putin must know that he needs to keep his escalation options open so is probably working towards clearing whatever legal hurdles may be in the way right now.
I don't know what this will mean in terms of where this war will go, but if there is a real danger of nukes flying, I wonder if that will bring a full western air defence/no fly zone into play over Ukraine.

This is the video game ARMA, as stated in the title of the video.

And that would be why we built this little chapel in the middle of all this, to try and navigate as true as course as we can.  So far I gotta say our record is not bad...once we got past the whole Ukrainian Bio Black Sites/the CIA can hear me through my fillings, unpleasantness. 

This is the video game ARMA, as stated in the title of the video.

Summary about last two days  of most hot place - Izium area.
Many of Russian BTGs, concentrated on spearhead are BTG, based on tank battalions. But instead one "big steam roller push", Russians each day are attacking with several "small steam rollers" in different directions, trying to penetrate our defense. Sometime our troops conduct own counter-attacks, so as told in twitter one soldier, terrain in many places covered with knoked out and abandoned vehicles of both sides. Russians also, understanding hazard of UKR mobile AT-teams, inolved more SOF and recon forces for hunting on them. Especially Russians actively conduct own search in night time. 
Most fierce fights were on eastern bank of Oskil river. Three days ago Russians captured Lozove village and attacked our troops in neighbour villages Rubtsi and Yatskivka. Russians use own standart tactic of "burned earth". They just hammered villages with artillery and MLRS, then tanks attack and shot out remained houses, if they encountered strong resistance, they withdraw and artillery strike the village again. So, the same procedure Russians used on latter two villages. As result they could push off our troops from ruines of Rubtsi, Yatskivka also burns, but situation there still unclear.
Also Russian conducted attacks on Dovhen'ke village - the key to Izium - Sloviansk road, but without success
Ukrainian civil volunteer Roman Donik, which supply 92ns and 93rd brigades wrote about clashes in area south from Izium. He pointed Russian aviation increased quantity of sorties, though for yesterday this also increased their losses. Donik claimed many shot down manned aerial targets, but visually confirmed only two-seats jet. Also he described two clashes - first was probably 2-3 days ago in unpointed place. Russians atatcked with company tactical group of 6 tanks and 10 BMPs after three hours of fight they withdrew having losses 3 tanks and 1 BMP. Today he described Russian attack of presumably 64th motor-rifle brigade on positions of 93rd brigade near Virnopillia village with the same force - comany tactical groop - 10 light armor and tanks. Result - enemy repelled, 3 tanks hit/abandoned, 3 light armor destroyed (I think, 1 BTR and 2 trucks more correctly if his photos corresponded to this episode) - akd alredy posted these photos
Also some of OSINT source issued photos of Russian losses in Brazhivka next to east from Virmopillia - about dozen of armor for small village. But our says Russians are throw new and new tanks in the battle instead burned, so UKR troops forced to withdraw from village to willage after 1-2 days of fight, despite Russians pay high price for own achievments
  
 

So this is a very common misconception.  A ground force is like a ship, simply having in the field erodes it over time, simple interaction with the environment causes wear and tear.  Troops get sick and hurt.  Morale wanes over time as living in a hole like an animal sucks.  Equipment also needs constant maintenance and spare parts, it also gets damaged in accidents etc. 
So yes, simply taking an unit out into the wild and parking it will begin a process of slow attrition over time.  Attrition that will need resupply, refit and rotation.  Add in actual combat and that process speeds up dramatically.
So basically any army in the field is like a bag of water with a hole in it.  How big that hole is depends on all sorts of factors, including combat.  At the top of the bag is how quickly one can pour resources back into the bag. [aside: for those paying attention, yes, all military forces are living examples of the Theseus paradox].
So the question of "how long" is actually a combination of the front end and back end.  Right now that hole is pretty big and the water coming in is not matching, I am not sure if Russia can get a matching back-end to be honest as these are not simple things to replace.  However, this is also tied up with complicated concepts of power I outlined in that other post. 

I'm ok. I just too tired about all these news monitoring, so I havn't enough energy to write here. Today I tried to depart my wife from the city to her parents in more calm Cherkasy oblast, but we can't reach to railway station. Municipal transport stopped on the left bank of Kyiv, though on the right it works like and subway. 
All day from my balcony, wich exits to Obolon' and Vyshhorod periodically heard a sounds of shellings. Now I heard outcoming shots of our 2S7 Pion guns, located in 5 km from my house close to city limit. They fire somewhere to the west, where Russian troops concentrates to attack on the city. All day there were periodycal clashes on the line Irpin'-Bucha-Vorzel-Hostomel. There was attempt of Russian tank attack from Chernobyl zone through Ivankiv on Kyiv, but because of we had a time to demolish the bridges through the Teterev river, they halted. 

Great news! The bomb shelter under Drama Theater in Mariupol survived the hit of 500 kg bomb. Now the rubbles removing have started to reach the entrance of shelter. There is still unknow about possible casualties among people which were inside the buiding and out of shelter. 

Cohen is a smart writer, but very conservative. His comments on the Poland plane program is a great example. First it was an obvious play by Poland to use the war to get a bunch of free kit, not sure why more people havn't commented on that part. 26 F-16 @ $18mil ea. is damn near $300mil in weapons transfers, half the amount the US has authorized to spend on Ukraine aid. And the transfer ultimately weakens NATO in the short term as it moves airframes out of NATO control and into Ukrainian, until either a new batch of F-16s is transferred in from the US or another base (escalating US position in Europe) or new planes are built and shipped over in the normal fashion. Second, we have ZERO clue what the back channel discussions with Russia are over escalation. Maybe they threatened to hit the Polish airfield where the transfer would occur? Or retaliate in some other way? Cohen is quick to blame the NSC for this issue but we simply have no idea whats happening behind the scenes. In fact he downplays repeatedly the risk the US runs in playing this situation badly. What happens if there is another chemical weapons 'red line' like with Syria? Or if more direct aid triggers a Russian strike on a NATO country? What if a US plane, in their eagerness to gather more ISR data, is shot down over Ukraine? Its impossible to predict the outcome of a NATO member intentionally or accidentally become involved in the conflict. Maybe the Russian army would be broken. Maybe Moscow and Washington turn in to radioactive craters. Who knows! Cohen knows this, how could he not, but choses to use this opportunity not to grapple with the realities of what hes saying, but to score some cheap political points. 
Which is ironic because I do agree with his ultimate assessment, that the US should become more deeply involved. That they should be more risky re: escalation. The US should draw a chemical weapons red line, and if Putin crosses it they should erase the Russian army from existence. But I also recognize this is a dangerous course of action, the results of which are unpredictable and almost certainly would be unpopular at home and abroad. Direct US involvement in the conflict would probably crush the anti-war dissident movement in Russia, for example. I judge that Russia is on the verge of collapse, they're weak and you should always strike at weakness. But this risks a much wider war in Eastern Europe, one which not every NATO nation might want to fight, and which radically increases the possibility of nuclear escalation. I am not, for example, certain that Putin wouldn't use nukes to save the DR/LR or Crimea from a US counterattack. Somehow Cohen seems to be, maybe hes talked directly with Vlad on the issue. 

Why are you here? there are plenty of other places you could be that would love this stuff.  This isn't one of them.

TL;DR: Another thread derailed by the usual suspects.

Kevinkin - fair question, but not quite right about how it worked in WWI. Yes you knew where the enemy trenches were. But that wasn't the same as knowing where his infantry was. There were way more than enough trenches, three layers deep, with dugouts, communications trenches to let reserves move about without exposing themselves above ground, and similar. But also, the defensive schemes had just had forever to set up, and create the coordination and integration that makes movement vital. The first of the haikus begins with, if we can win the war from shooting from right here, we probably should. If you went over the top vs a manned WWI defense you gave the enemy that. They didn't need to move to adapt to get good coordination of their various weapons, they set them up coordinated, three months ago. (Exaggerated for clarity).

But this is still a simplification of WWI. Early manned front line trenchlines were countered by heavy artillery, and that counter was entireky successful. The Germans fielded parks of 300 210mm howitzers for Verdun, for example, and artillery firepower that heavy could and did just execute any French infantry formation that tried to man front line trenches against them.

There is a counter to this method, though, one everyone backed into but that the Germans perfected by 1917. The denuded front or strongpoint based defense was precisely a counter to heavy artillery prep fires. It worked by using depth, driving the defender density low - just a few fortified machinegunners and registered artillery, plus of course wire obstacles, for the forward parts of the defense. Then the bulk of the defenders, who lived 40 feet below ground in artillery proof dugouts when not needed - manned parts of the rearward trenches when a major attack was on. The surrounding areas were covered by fire, and then local counterattacks insude the trench system fought any intruders that made it that far. With grenades, bombing up the communication trenches, and similar tactics, not going over the top, themselves. This defense in depth scheme precisely left the defenders unlocated somewhere in the full depth of the trench system, at the time any artillery prep had to be fired. Infantry artillery communication was bad enough that reactive fire could not be placed on these infantry reserves after they were encountered. The brawl between reserves and best penetrating attackers was a frankly attrition, even exchange thing. But the attackers had to pay a toll to get there through the defender MGs and barrages into no mans land, the defenders had better local intel from their stance and outposts, and their reserves and ammo and such got to reach those fights through their communication trenches, instead of above ground ir across the moonscape between the lines.

The defenders thus had a better time to front than the attackers, and safer approach and withdrawal than the attackers had. After the shift from the manned front trench to the defense in depth scheme, mind.

Hutier or infiltration tactics were developed after that dialectic had already taken the steps above. If the enemy manned his front trenches, they were not needed - just wheel up the 210s and murder the poor sods. The idea of the infiltration attack system was first off to forgo a big opening barrage that announced a major attack - prep fire, if used at all, was kept to 30 minutes or less, and usually more like 15 - but its intended target was a defense system sheltering from long term artillery threat by usng dugouts and reserve positions.

Then the idea is first, pick low visibility conditions like night or fog, and - in WWI you could do this - reduce visibility still further by firing gas, so that everyone had to fight in their masks. Push forward patrols by stealth, economy of force fashion, to find undefended routes. Diversions by firing and a local barrage laid here or there could try to focus the defenders on sectors besides the ones these pathfinder teams were infiltrating. Then the storming parties follow the pathfinders in narrow columns, to trace their steps, maintain control and direction, and present as narriw an "edge" as possible to gaps in the enemy defense. If any of the path finders were checked, the parties behind them followed others instead. Then they take out enemy outposts to widen gaps, and race as deep as they can afterward, before the alarm spreads and the enemy can react. The result was again a brawl with the enemy reserves inside his trench system, but that brawl could be started under more favorable conditions of local surprise, enemy confusion, and limited visibility, and all without paying much or any toll to defending MGs and barrages in no mans land before that brawl.

This worked well tactically. It produced break ins and break throughs. Those just didn't prive strategically decisive, because on a larger operational scale, the defender still had a better time to front than the attacker. Defending divisions *railed* to the break in sector. Attacking artillery had to be manhandled across the blasted moonscape to have combined arms again for the follow up, once the attackers gained 15 miles or so. Shells for that artillery had to be moved by horses, which don't like barrage zones very much. Or wait for the construction of narrow gauge rail extensions to haul meaningful numbers of shells. If the artillery was not brought up, the defenders coukd revert to the manned front line trench - even a hasty one - 15 miles behind the previous front line. The attacker options were then to attack with poor combined arms, inefficiently in exchange loss terms, to try to maintain op tempo - or to wait for the guns to catch up, but give the defender time to rail in more infantry, dig deeper and second line trenches, bring in their own artillery and shells, launch local counterattacks, etc. As a result, the attacjers would have to pause, then do it all again.

Those deeper relationships are the reason infiltration tactics, while they worked as intended and were tactically very successful, could not be translated into strategic results, under WWI conditions. They just took their place as tactical means in a still fundamentally attrition struggle, with defender dominance, with heavy shells and infantry bodies being exchanged off until one side or the other couldn't take it anymore.

In WWII, there are better comms to put down reactive fire on located enemies, armor to carry concetrated power through hus defended zone, trucks to move guns and shells, across more intact terrain and shallower defensive works because no one had years to dig deeper in the same spot, etc. And the sane tactics coukd therefore achieve at least operational results. At the highest level, it was *still* a war of attrition. Depth and reserves and mobility used reactively by such reserves could tame break through, and leave an attrition brawl again. But it was all a lot closer, more promising for the attacker, than the conditions seen in WWI after gaining the first 10 or 15 miles.

I was hoping to address this in the post-mortem, but since you've put it to an issue ("Why does it seem like ATGs are ineffective?")...
I'm not sure generally if you've found ATGs to be ineffective, but I have to disagree with the presumption that they are. There's a lot of mistakes that have been made by my enemy here with regards to his ATGs that is less a reflection of the equipment than it is how he was using them. Now, I'm not denying they were in clever positions (most were), nor that he wasn't being dynamic with them (shifting them even locally) . However, he broke a lot of basic rules that I use to guide my own usage of ATGs: 
Poor fire discipline. Think back, how many ATGs knocked out were done so bloodlessly because Emory so far has opened fire with them at excessive ranges (1.1km!) or for apparently no reason at all. With PAK-40s I generally set a target armor arc no greater than 500m. Evidently he either did not do that, or threw that out the window to engage prematurely. His PaK fronts were not in true contact with any supporting infantry. I think you're probably referring to that PaK section I knocked out on my right. I was able to advance on their flank with armor and engage them. Given how frustratingly well he's handled his Panzerschrecks, even lacing an ATG platoon with a single platoon of Infantry or a HMG section probably would've either resulted in the loss of several Shermans, or a sharp rebuff. I've been able to generally isolate his PaK guns; and its largely his own fault. The flip-side of course is that you'd be creating a juicer target for artillery but....you have to break eggs to make omelettes.  If I was in his shoes, I would've myself taken largely his load-out, with perhaps less a company but with a small mobile reserve of StuGs. The two PaK platoons were well placed, but unprotected and poorly handled compared to everything else he had. When you stall out trying to pick apart a PaK-front, you make yourself insanely vulnerable to artillery or counterattacks. He's dismounted, so he wasn't too capable of the latter, but even a handful of TRPs could've ruined my day. Couple them even with a handful of mines. If you can't physically protect your PaK-Front with a corresponding unit of infantry, create safety distance artificially if possible. AP mines only cost 150 for ten, for example.  No prime-movers? Even an Opel Blitz would've created a far more dynamic situation for me, I think. Having just survived a PBEM of "Breaking the Panzers", I put my victory almost completely on my ability to hold my fire with 6pdrs, separate infantry and armor via artillery, and be able to displace them via prime-movers (in this case, Llyods) in between attacks.