db_zero

To add to this-the US has squadrons specifically designed to do this task and train extensively to do SEAD. CAS is also another specialty the US has dedicated resources assigned. There is a pipeline for personnel and a very rigorous selection process for personnel who are going to be calling in air support. There is a shortage and the military is offering substantial bonuses to fill slots. 
Really a lot of the "back-end" specialties requires resources and highly skilled personnel to make it work. That requires motivated and educated people to make it all work. Setting up a secured computer network, communication network and other non-combat, but vital jobs is not for the non motivated and non educated or trainable sort of people.
The Russians with their conscripted army is not up to the tasks and they probably spent too much time, money and effort on the teeth of their military and not enough on the non glamorous, but vital tail element.

Lets look at what we do know:
1. The Russian military so far has demonstrated to be lacking in many if not most areas. We'll have to see if they have rectified their shortcoming in further operations.
2. The Ukrainian military has demonstrated remarkable capabilities and most units are now combat experienced. The overall effectiveness and efficiency of Ukraines military is arguably increasing.
3. The Ukrainian armored formations and Russian armored formations are roughly equally equipped, but in terms of performance and efficiency, the Ukrainians are better. So in effect I would rate them as more than a match compared to Russia.
Now we decide to give Ukraine more advanced tanks-M1's, Leopard 2. Even if its 6 months 12 months, what does that do? You've now transformed the Ukrainian armored formations into a significant over match compared to Russia, that is now capable of undertaking rapid and violent offensive actions into regions already occupied by Russia and if you take the worst case (something that planners for better or worse always do), Russia itself.
How do you react if your Russia? One possible reaction is to start basing nuclear weapons in the Crimea and Donbass. Your conventional forces that you know can't match Ukraine with its new found offensive weapons become just a trip wire. You justify basing nukes based on "NATO hostile offensive arming of a mortal threat"
These are the kinds of things I would bet are now being debated behinds the scenes.
How many M1s do we give to Ukraine? Do we insist on limits to how they might be employed? How would we enforce any violation of said restrictions? Do we allow them to be used in offensive operations to retake past lost territory and what are possible consequences.
We've seen what tanks like M1s are capable of doing. Russia does not have anti-armor systems like the Javelin.
Poland will be getting M1s, but there is a buffer between Poland and Russia and Ukraine is a different situation.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic to anyone. Just trying to see the possible good and bad of taking such actions.
To this point the West has been reacting to events in Ukraine. Many are now saying the West needs to define its future policies and actions.
I'm sure the subjects of M1s is just one of the few systems being hotly debated behind the scenes. MLRS being sent has been mentioned. Do we start sending more advanced IFVs that alongside M1s will transform Ukrainian armored formation into even more powerful offensive formations and what will the consequences of that move be?

We have a difference of opinion here. I would like to see M1s sent, but I'm leery of what the outcome could be. As much as I would love to see M1s utterly crushing the Russian army with M1's, how Putin would react is open to question and once the nuclear rubicon is crossed there is no going back.
As painful and costly it is to watch a slow bleed out has a twisted logic of its own.
We're dealing with Putin who is paranoid. Its one thing to have your army stopped with defensively oriented weapons.
Its another if they are suddenly armed with offensively oriented weapons that suddenly crush your army and in your mind can then switch to an offensive mode and retake the entire Donbass and Crimea and possibly invade Russia itself.
We may say we would never permit that to happen, but to a paranoid dictator and people that have been invaded many times it may be seen differently. 

As crazy as it sounds there are still lines not to be crossed in the world of geopolitics.
It's weird and doesn't make sense to a lot of people, but it is what it is.
Another factor is Javelins, Matadors, PF3 and Stingers are considered defensively oriented weapons.
Tanks on the other hand are considered offensive weapons.

Lets look at what we do know:
1. The Russian military so far has demonstrated to be lacking in many if not most areas. We'll have to see if they have rectified their shortcoming in further operations.
2. The Ukrainian military has demonstrated remarkable capabilities and most units are now combat experienced. The overall effectiveness and efficiency of Ukraines military is arguably increasing.
3. The Ukrainian armored formations and Russian armored formations are roughly equally equipped, but in terms of performance and efficiency, the Ukrainians are better. So in effect I would rate them as more than a match compared to Russia.
Now we decide to give Ukraine more advanced tanks-M1's, Leopard 2. Even if its 6 months 12 months, what does that do? You've now transformed the Ukrainian armored formations into a significant over match compared to Russia, that is now capable of undertaking rapid and violent offensive actions into regions already occupied by Russia and if you take the worst case (something that planners for better or worse always do), Russia itself.
How do you react if your Russia? One possible reaction is to start basing nuclear weapons in the Crimea and Donbass. Your conventional forces that you know can't match Ukraine with its new found offensive weapons become just a trip wire. You justify basing nukes based on "NATO hostile offensive arming of a mortal threat"
These are the kinds of things I would bet are now being debated behinds the scenes.
How many M1s do we give to Ukraine? Do we insist on limits to how they might be employed? How would we enforce any violation of said restrictions? Do we allow them to be used in offensive operations to retake past lost territory and what are possible consequences.
We've seen what tanks like M1s are capable of doing. Russia does not have anti-armor systems like the Javelin.
Poland will be getting M1s, but there is a buffer between Poland and Russia and Ukraine is a different situation.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic to anyone. Just trying to see the possible good and bad of taking such actions.
To this point the West has been reacting to events in Ukraine. Many are now saying the West needs to define its future policies and actions.
I'm sure the subjects of M1s is just one of the few systems being hotly debated behind the scenes. MLRS being sent has been mentioned. Do we start sending more advanced IFVs that alongside M1s will transform Ukrainian armored formation into even more powerful offensive formations and what will the consequences of that move be?

Don't know if this has already been posted:
https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/
With a new offensive underway, will the Russian learn from previous mistake and increase the logistical sustainment model?

As crazy as it sounds there are still lines not to be crossed in the world of geopolitics.
It's weird and doesn't make sense to a lot of people, but it is what it is.
Another factor is Javelins, Matadors, PF3 and Stingers are considered defensively oriented weapons.
Tanks on the other hand are considered offensive weapons.

Pretty costly and has limited arcs of coverage. Seemed to have worked pretty well against RPGs in actual use, but also dangerous to nearby infantry.
That's another disadvantage of many APS systems. Any friendly infantry nearby is at risk.

On paper the Leopard1s appear hopelessly outdated and of limited use, but so were the Sherman’s used by the Israelis up until the 70s.
The people manning them mattered more than the specs on paper.

On paper the Leopard1s appear hopelessly outdated and of limited use, but so were the Sherman’s used by the Israelis up until the 70s.
The people manning them mattered more than the specs on paper.

Took me a while to get down. I set the Moskva 60 nm South of Odessa as reported. I then placed 3 Bayraktar drones near the Moskva. I had a Klub-M-Tel ground based SSM (only Russian based one I could find for Ukraine).
I has a NATO AWACS operating from NATO territory feeding intel data.
I fired the Klub SSMs at the Moskva using Engage Target Auto modeand when the entered the air search range of the Moskva I would move the Bayraktars over the Moskva and harassed it and I got hits. Seems like I had to be on top of the Moskva to get this to work. Below is a shot from one of my earlier unsuccessful attempts.
Klub-M-Tel does seem to have an attack profile different than what was actually used. I'll try Harpoons later.

According to DefenseNews it is 155mm towed artillery. An interesting bit in the article, but not too surprising, is the disclosure that the UA has officers in the US receiving training - I expect more of the same near the Ukraine border.
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/04/13/us-unveils-800-million-in-weapons-and-equipment-plus-training-for-ukraine/
 

My impression is that those 18 guns and ammo are really a token force that won't have too much overall impact on the situation on the ground. 40000 is more than 2000 rounds per gun, this sound really excessive, unless you do WW1 style preparatory barrages.
What I think those guns really are is a first step toward UA moving to NATO calibers. 152mm rounds supply will dry up at some point. Already Slovakia sent (or will send) some of SP Zuzana howitzers, and more NATO 155 guns will follow. There were talks about buying some PzH 2000 from Rheinmetall  stocks- this might be possible if German government finally gets it's act together; maybe Lithuania will be willing to part with their too. Those would introduce a radical change in capability for UA army, those are first class even compared to newer designs. Ultimately though, the only NATO army that has significant stocks of mothballed artillery is the US army and if this war is prolonged, Ukraine will have to look there for equipment.
In the meantime 122 mm rocket (RM70 and BM21) and tube artillery (Polish 2S1) is making its way to Ukraine as we speak. There are considerable stocks of those available in Eastern European NATO armies. Poland had 13 modernized battalions of 2S1 at one point, we could part with considerable part of these I think.
What is interesting to me is that IIRC apart from these 18 155 guns from the last US arms package, it was mentioned that other long range system was to be delivered. I can only assume that it means HIMARS or M270. Those coupled with GMLRS rockets would be a complete game changer in artillery war I think.
Let's see what happens, situation seems to be developing really quickly and it looks like more and more weapon systems seem to be on the table again.
Actually I don't think it was stated explicite what guns were to be delivered. My bet were M198 or M777, as those are easier to airlift. Video with M109s on rail cars in Poland showed equipment moving to the Baltics I think.

Was there an update? The videos and such were stating they were M109 155 SP arty? Just curious as I think we were all under the impression that they were SP and not towed.

Question to anyone who might know or have an idea...
Playing around in CMO and some of EW (electronic warfare) aircraft have effects that extend quite a distance. It looks possible to remain in friendly/neutral territory or in international waters, turn on the EW warfare gear and affect unfriendly nations radar/SAM guidance, ship radars and so on miles away.
Its was reported a few weeks ago that the US deployed a squadron of F-18 Growlers to Europe. These have an offensive ECM load out that has quite a range of effects when used. It appears they could easily stay in NATO territory, turn on the ECM and the effects would easily extend into Ukraine.
Over international water they could easily have effects on any ships within their ECM gears range.
I've heard of some reports the Russians may be jamming GPS.
What is the international law in regards to this sort of activity-if any? In peacetime and during conflict. Is interfering with a combatants use of the electromagnetic spectrum considered an act of war like blockading? Or is it something along the line of providing weapons and supplies, but not actively taking part in a conflict? Don’t see anything on this seems like a grey area.
I've heard of people losing TV reception and other effects to electronics when presumably military exercises were happening and jamming aircraft  presumably turned their gear on.

Took me a while to get down. I set the Moskva 60 nm South of Odessa as reported. I then placed 3 Bayraktar drones near the Moskva. I had a Klub-M-Tel ground based SSM (only Russian based one I could find for Ukraine).
I has a NATO AWACS operating from NATO territory feeding intel data.
I fired the Klub SSMs at the Moskva using Engage Target Auto modeand when the entered the air search range of the Moskva I would move the Bayraktars over the Moskva and harassed it and I got hits. Seems like I had to be on top of the Moskva to get this to work. Below is a shot from one of my earlier unsuccessful attempts.
Klub-M-Tel does seem to have an attack profile different than what was actually used. I'll try Harpoons later.

Took me a while to get down. I set the Moskva 60 nm South of Odessa as reported. I then placed 3 Bayraktar drones near the Moskva. I had a Klub-M-Tel ground based SSM (only Russian based one I could find for Ukraine).
I has a NATO AWACS operating from NATO territory feeding intel data.
I fired the Klub SSMs at the Moskva using Engage Target Auto modeand when the entered the air search range of the Moskva I would move the Bayraktars over the Moskva and harassed it and I got hits. Seems like I had to be on top of the Moskva to get this to work. Below is a shot from one of my earlier unsuccessful attempts.
Klub-M-Tel does seem to have an attack profile different than what was actually used. I'll try Harpoons later.

Ok, so apologize for what will be a longish post, even for me.  So welcome to The Capt's terrain analysis for the possible upcoming fight between Izyum and Donetsk.  Basically I wanted to get a view of the terrain this next major fight is squaring  off over and try and pull some deductions from that.  
So here is what I did.  I booked an MS Flight Simulator (MSFS) flight from Donetsk to Kharkiv roughly along this google maps line:

For reference you can see the ISW map of where this next great Russian offensive is spooling up:

They buried Donetsk under the legend but this is the area of concern.  So I did not use live weather as it is pissing rain there right now and based on what I am seeing it is a big reason the Russian have not started anything.  I flew at 1000 feet up but employed the drone feature to get down and grab a birds eye view.  Overall I would summarize the terrain in military terms as such:
On the 8th day, while recovering from a hangover God looked upon the earth and said to himself "You know these shaved apes are going to go at each other the second I turn my back so I may as well make it interesting.  Let there be tank country!"



These shots are just south - southwest of Izyum.  So on the surface you can immediately see a lot of room for manoeuvre tailor made for armored warfare.  I mean I can see frontages of kms just aching for big ol tank formations to come charging through with all sorts of room for bypassing, flanking and all that good stuff.  But then go a bit deeper:

So if you take a look at that last one, check out the VFR map in the upper right.  There are a lot of water features distributed all over this area and in the spring they are going to be deep and muddy.  Little lakes and rivers just about everywhere that amphib IFVs can probably bounce but tanks, arty and logistics are going to have trouble with.  So what?  Target the engineering stuff with all them fancy switchblades, then arty, then C2...we will get to logistics.  Next how about all them rectangles:
 Yep, a lot of these little and big squares all over the place...damn Ukrainian real estate laws.  For armored warfare these are going to be a problem.  Easy button answer...arty them all!  Well no one on earth has enough arty for that as these things are everywhere.  Each one a short range tank hunting dream, with ready made tractor trails to boot off on once you have fired off a couple NLAWS and are falling back to the next one to re-set.  These thing will soak up attacking infantry to sweep and will slow things down a lot.  Oh wait there is more:
These are not CM3 previews (but we can dream) but in MSFS you can drop right down to eye-level and wow.  First off this area is not flat. "Undulating" is the term we would use, with lots of small hills and ridges, all of which give some sightlines we normally only see in a desert.  So if I had a smart, fire and forget ATGM system with a listed range of 4.0km and was trying to sell it, these are the marketing shots I would take.  I found these everywhere along the route but more so towards the south end of the likely Russian advance (or North from Donetsk but that is all trench country from the last war, so not likely). 
Ok so what? 
- First off if this thing goes off it will be a conventional battle for the history books.  I mean the next one with this sort of potential is likely Armageddon itself.  We have a near perfect storm of mass meets mass forming up.  The collision on this has potential to be heard around the world. 
- Second, this will be a major exam for conventional armored warfare.  "End of Tanks: No They Are Not" may very well be settled in this one.  You cannot really find much better terrain for armored warfare on one hand.  While on the other, this is also excellent terrain for an mobile defence.  The Russians should be able to create a break out with overwhelming mass here, if they play it right.  While at the same time between prepared defenses and a combination of short and very long sightlines the Ukrainian defence should be able to stop them cold - that is an epic collision in the making. 
- Third, so much of this will hinge on C4ISR it is looking more like an aerial dogfight than a traditional land-battle.   The side that can see first at the tactical level will likely hit and win first.  We should see more exchanges like were seen in the Nagorno-Karabahk which were very long range and then working in for the dirty work.  
- Fourth, the Russian offence is going to have to evolve.  They cannot bring their last fight to this one.  They will need to rethink C4ISR collection and sharing, logistical planning - pushing a lot more forward faster, and targeting.  The UA can keep doing what it was to be honest but it had better have made use of this pregnant pause to put in a lot of AT minefields that tie those water obstacles and rectangles together, they had the time and I can only hope they have the resources; this country is set up for nightmare defensive belts.
- Fifth, this will also be an exam for artillery, ATGMs, self-loitering and unmanned systems.  This will show what they can really do together, primarily in the defense but let's not forget the offence as well.  There are sightlines that can make full use of the ranges these systems can come bring to bear.  Honestly if I were the UA, I would stick with hybrid at the front end, and then wait for my moment for a conventional c-attack because it could be a bone crusher.  Given enough gas, a UA formation could drive right into the Russian rear areas and cry-freakin-havok back there looking at this terrain.
- Sixth, the awkward conversation about airpower.  This is perfect CAS country, the Russian's need it, the UA needs to deny it. With full on air superiority this country would be a challenge for an attacker, without it we could be looking at a nightmare. 
Finally, I would close by saying that I also get the sense that this is perfect terrain for an operational trap - it is what I would do.  

#1 - Resist Russian main axis of advance...but just enough to attrit but give them hope.  I would use obstacles to keep them on those axis and help channel them to what they want.

#2 - Oh look at how happy they Russian are, they have their great pincer BUT do not give them time for reorientation or to dig in, or they could use this country against you.
#3- Bil Hardenberger.  That old bastard has snap the jaws closed on me more times than I care to remember.  This country is made for a conventional c-attack to cut that corridor up and off.#4 - Feeding time.
This terrain supports this and the Russians have given the UA a lot of time to set it up.  Higher risk but the payoff is intense. 
Just spit-balling here and I have every confidence they UA commanders on the ground have a grip on this but for a defender that 1) knows what they are doing, 2) are well resourced and 3) have the time to prepare, this could make for a textbook defence that could be turned into something else.

Nothing I know of at the moment that simulates modern Naval/Air combat like Harpoon/CMO.
There is IKE for CMO, but I haven’t tried it yet and it not seemlessly integrated into CMO.

It’s going to be an interesting balancing act. Governments running massive deficits, raising interest rates from basically zero to combat out of control inflation, while increasing defense spending, subsidizing industries and feeding the rest of the world to keep the pot from boiling over.
The global safe haven and holder of the global reserve currency the USD has a Fed that has signaled it will raise rates aggressively to combat inflation and will unload 95 billion a month in MBS off its books for the foreseeable future.
Its going to get interesting…

There may be more to it. I’m not the expert on the subject but I follow it a bit as I’m an investor in many markets.
Wheat is sold in the futures markets and and supply disruptions causes prices to increase and that’s the issue. Many people are living day to day and can barely get by so any increase in prices means they can’t afford it or have to get by on less.
Also the price of fertilizer has gone through the roof and farmers will have to pass the cost down to consumers. Farmers in some areas may plant less due to the sharp increase in fertilizer costs. The war has caused a disruption to the supply of potash.
India may have a great harvest but will they be able to get the wheat to where it’s needed? The whole supply chain and shipping issues may come into play.
There is also some concerns about the ability of FCI to store all the excess wheat.

There are just so many variables and when you factor in the random dice and other factors you come up with all sorts of results.
 
 
 

I about to say the major flaw in CMO is lack of integrated multi-player. Playing against another human is what would take it to the level of Combat Mission-that’s what sets CM apart. No AI can match another human.
I get bored with CMO after a while because I can predict what it’s going to do…
There is some PBEM out for it but I haven’t tried it yet and there is little on the matrix site so seems like it’s not officially supported.
I’ve asked for wego and MP features but in surveys seems like most players are more interested in the “chrome” stuff.

I about to say the major flaw in CMO is lack of integrated multi-player. Playing against another human is what would take it to the level of Combat Mission-that’s what sets CM apart. No AI can match another human.
I get bored with CMO after a while because I can predict what it’s going to do…
There is some PBEM out for it but I haven’t tried it yet and there is little on the matrix site so seems like it’s not officially supported.
I’ve asked for wego and MP features but in surveys seems like most players are more interested in the “chrome” stuff.

I’d prefer it was not even on the table, but Putin has raised the issue and sticking your head in the sand and pretending it will go away is the exact same mistake the West made in dealing with Putin in the past. Even Zelinsky didn’t think Putin was actually going to send in troops.
Now we have large segments of the US in favor of a No Fly Zone and it was argued that most don’t even know what a no fly zone actually entails-a willingness to engage Russians over Ukraine and attacking ADA sites in Russia.
You bring up nukes and now the response by many is “well most will probably be duds”
There’s been a lot of Putin won’t do this or probably won’t do that which has proved to be incorrect.
You go on TV and you see retired generals advocating more aggressive actions and policies that could easily lead to escalation.
Back in 1950 the War in Korea which started out poorly suddenly changed. So did our posture and McArthur said China is nothing to be worried about…