Centurian52

Man that is pretty Rube Goldberg.  So how is this going to somehow convince MoD to get back in line, seems a bit stretched?  Also, so which is it?  “Putin has iron clad control of the military so Prig is boxed in” or “The military keeps pushing out of lines so Putin is using Prig and Wagner as a counter-ploy?”
I mean I have heard both narratives on this.  If Putin has iron clad control of the military then simply order them to give over the ammo.  If he does not have iron clad control of the military getting a merc to publicly shame them could just as easily blow up in faces.  Even internally this makes Putin look weak - especially against the military, which may or may not be out of line. Anyone think that Putin is not a master-chess player after all?  Maybe he is actually just flailing here trying to keep everyone happy and his control is maybe not as tight as we thought?
 

Having seen the video, my takeaway is that hypersonic weapons aren't as useful to the US as they are to our adversaries. Hypersonic weapons are really only useful against a fairly narrow range of targets. In order to be worth targeting with hypersonic weapons a platform needs to be important enough to be worth expending extremely expensive ordinance, time sensitive enough to require ordinance that will reach it quickly, and well protected enough against conventional ordinance to require weapons that can penetrate those defenses. We have platforms that perfectly fit the description of a good target for hypersonic weapons (carriers), while our adversaries don't have many juicy targets. So hypersonic weapons neatly fit our adversaries' needs, but they don't fit our own needs as much. It's more urgent for us to develop defenses against hypersonic weapons than it is for us to develop the weapons themselves.

Having seen the video, my takeaway is that hypersonic weapons aren't as useful to the US as they are to our adversaries. Hypersonic weapons are really only useful against a fairly narrow range of targets. In order to be worth targeting with hypersonic weapons a platform needs to be important enough to be worth expending extremely expensive ordinance, time sensitive enough to require ordinance that will reach it quickly, and well protected enough against conventional ordinance to require weapons that can penetrate those defenses. We have platforms that perfectly fit the description of a good target for hypersonic weapons (carriers), while our adversaries don't have many juicy targets. So hypersonic weapons neatly fit our adversaries' needs, but they don't fit our own needs as much. It's more urgent for us to develop defenses against hypersonic weapons than it is for us to develop the weapons themselves.

Ground conditions:
...probably Donbas
... probably Zaporizhzhia oblast
 

Having seen the video, my takeaway is that hypersonic weapons aren't as useful to the US as they are to our adversaries. Hypersonic weapons are really only useful against a fairly narrow range of targets. In order to be worth targeting with hypersonic weapons a platform needs to be important enough to be worth expending extremely expensive ordinance, time sensitive enough to require ordinance that will reach it quickly, and well protected enough against conventional ordinance to require weapons that can penetrate those defenses. We have platforms that perfectly fit the description of a good target for hypersonic weapons (carriers), while our adversaries don't have many juicy targets. So hypersonic weapons neatly fit our adversaries' needs, but they don't fit our own needs as much. It's more urgent for us to develop defenses against hypersonic weapons than it is for us to develop the weapons themselves.

For those who follow the misadventures of Z propagandists, Gonzalo Lira got himself in Ukrainian custody, good riddance 
 

Having seen the video, my takeaway is that hypersonic weapons aren't as useful to the US as they are to our adversaries. Hypersonic weapons are really only useful against a fairly narrow range of targets. In order to be worth targeting with hypersonic weapons a platform needs to be important enough to be worth expending extremely expensive ordinance, time sensitive enough to require ordinance that will reach it quickly, and well protected enough against conventional ordinance to require weapons that can penetrate those defenses. We have platforms that perfectly fit the description of a good target for hypersonic weapons (carriers), while our adversaries don't have many juicy targets. So hypersonic weapons neatly fit our adversaries' needs, but they don't fit our own needs as much. It's more urgent for us to develop defenses against hypersonic weapons than it is for us to develop the weapons themselves.

Unless he convinces some Army leadership it might be a good idea to throw in with him.  The thing with these crappy autocratic klepto-crime syndicate-type governments is that once the boss looks weak the hyenas start coming out of the trees.
Now not saying "this is it", but this is what "it" would start to look like.  My faith in one potato head dictator able to hold this all together is fading rapidly.  In fact that whole Drone-Kremlin thing could just as easily be an inside job to shake the fortress.  Now if that was a UA op to widen a bunch of internal cracks; we are talking a ballgame.
We have commented that this looks like positioning for endgame, but I am starting to wonder, which game?  At some point the dogs in the reservoir start to turn on each other...the only question is when does the water get high enough? 

If you think of the war in Ukraine as a war for power in Moscow, it's a lot simpler to parse these guys.

Brit AT weapons: 
 
H 

And the bombing of Taranto. That did cause serious damage to the Italian fleet, but just as importantly the Italians reacted by rebasing their ships further away from where most of the action was happening, reducing the whole fleet's responsiveness.

If anything it would have been the inexperienced crews doing that. In fact of all the measures taken to reduce catastrophic ammunition explosions in Shermans during WW2, preventing crews from cramming spare ammunition into every corner was by far the most effective. Cramming lots of spare ammunition into a tank has always proven to be a bad idea.

The Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 do it that way as well for the main ammo storage. Only they have extra racks for ammo in the hull as well. The hull ammo storage doesn't have the same protections as the turret ammo (no blast doors, no blowout panels). My own opinion is that the hull ammo racks in these tanks should probably never be used, and I'm betting anyone who uses these tanks in a conventional war will eventually come to the same conclusion. So long as the hull ammo storage is never used these tanks are just as safe as the Abrams, but I think the Abrams is better for not even having hull ammo storage as a potentially tempting option.

The Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 do it that way as well for the main ammo storage. Only they have extra racks for ammo in the hull as well. The hull ammo storage doesn't have the same protections as the turret ammo (no blast doors, no blowout panels). My own opinion is that the hull ammo racks in these tanks should probably never be used, and I'm betting anyone who uses these tanks in a conventional war will eventually come to the same conclusion. So long as the hull ammo storage is never used these tanks are just as safe as the Abrams, but I think the Abrams is better for not even having hull ammo storage as a potentially tempting option.

See that's part of why I'm not convinced this was Putin's doing. There is no reason he would be afraid of killing some of his own people in order to get the rest riled up against Ukraine. But this attack seemed specifically designed to not kill anyone.

My wild guess is that this is an affiliated but essentially independent Ukrainian operation. Kyiv would always want deniability for the obvious benefits we can see in the furious finger pointing that's going on. And the goal is to demonstrate to Russians that the war is going south, fast, which is not going to be a goad for conscription in any way. 
To your point about the last Czar above...I asked a Russian origin journalist I know on the day the war started what they thought would happen ultimately. The response: "Nicholas II?". 

Is that in Ukraine?  And the ground is dry?  Too bad not that dry in the east.  But just look at that beauty!  I looooooove me some Leo2!
 

Ok, pre-Alpha disclaimer so details are subject to change but this is the first map in the Canadian campaign "On the Weser" - got big plans for this one. A Pete Wenman original:

Just southwest of a little town called Boffzen and south of Hoxter (From Google Earth):

Blow up of Canadian AO with rough zone of this map:

I was about to say no, we've already got German countryside. But then I remembered, this is different German countryside. What we've got right now is the Fulda Gap. This is the North German Plain. So I wouldn't mind taking a peek at the new ground we'll be fighting over.

As opposed to the plan they initially had to liquidate the entire Ukrainian leadership?  Russia would always have loved to kill Zelensky, they just aren't capable of it.  I think we are all still too gullible when it comes to Russian threats to escalate. They don't actually have any credible capability to escalate.  They can lob a few more bombs at civilians, maybe try to increase their mobilization numbers, but that is about it.  Nukes and other WMDs aren't credible.  Their only significant ally, China, isn't going to abide that.
Who planned the drone mission?  No idea.  Not sure I even really care.  Just waiting for the counter offensive to start.

Unsurprisingly, the baddest tanks in UA disposal were used to equip the baddest armored formation:
 

So just so we are clear here. A drone attack that hurt no one but Putin's ego during a time of war that may or may not have even been launched by Ukraine, is a horrible terrorist attack . However, Russia killing 20+ Ukrainian civilians near Kherson today is just business as usual according to Russia.
This is why I'm for sending Ukraine F-16s and ATACMS.

As a journalist of my acquaintance put it "What are the going to do? Invade Ukraine?".

heh, wasn't Russia's original plan for the invasion to eliminate Zelensky in that first 3 days?  Oh but NOW they are serious!  Morons.

A lot fewer LOCs going to Crimea than there were going to Kherson though, assuming that Ukraine has reached the Sea of Azov in this scenario. It's just that the one remaining GLOC is a lot harder to hit because it's much further away. If you have something that can hit it then you don't need to hit it with as much, because while it is a very big bridge, it is still just one bridge. At Kherson, not only where there multiple pre-existing bridges, but it was possible for the Russians to constantly set up new pontoon bridges. So the Ukrainians had to keep up a constant pace of strikes every time the Russians set up another pontoon. I honestly don't see the Russians setting up a pontoon bridge across the Kerch strait.
I don't see a viable way to prevent the Russians from continuing to bring supplies in by sea (striking Port Kavkaz might at least make it a bit harder for them to sealift supplies by the shortest route). But I don't think they can get the same throughput by bringing supplies in that way as they could get over the Kerch bridge.