Jump to content

How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?


Probus

Recommended Posts

I think it is pretty safe to assume that the attacks on Russia's supply capacity is having an effect, even if only locally.  From what I've seen of Russian military organization, tracing back into Soviet days, is that logistics lack redundancy.  Taking out one or two trucks might be enough to create at least some hassle (more trips to do the same thing), but zapping an entire supply unit probably means whomever they were supplying is going to come up short until another unit's supply system can compensate.  Degrade two or more in one area at one time?  Much bigger problems.

Remember, even if Russia has extra vehicles and crews, it takes time to get them positioned and functioning.  If the entire unit is wiped out, even worse.  Days if not weeks to undo the disruption.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, womble said:

I, without any actual experience of the matter, would think that there would be a fair degree of commonality between the equipment of the two sides, even identical equipment being used in some cases. But aye, they're going to struggle with the "best" (not for export) stuff, at least.

It's been suggested that the first-phase goals of the Russian attack were meant to be achieved with minimal damage to civilian infrastructure (hence internet and other basic utilities not being flatlined). And the minimalist (and potentially fatally incomplete) approach to suppression of AD and air force seems to me to be a good indicator that the Russians were

  1. planning to be very swift about bringing the matter to a conclusion and/or
  2. somewhat optimistic in their estimation of their effectiveness/Ukrainian resilience.

Absolutely, if it matches what is in the UA inventory then it is a total win because they already have the logistics in place.  I am sure things like T72s and maybe even T80s they can keep going much longer.  Some of the more exotic stuff will be much harder.

Re: Air, missile strategy, ya that is what we in the business call "half-assed".  Likely built on a lot of really shaky assumptions, built on top of other shaky assumptions.  If you wanna minimize civilian infrastructure damage, then you go PGM, non-kinetic (isn't Russia supposed to be this cyber god?) or really work hard on your target lists and ROEs.  What you do not do is go "s'ok, they will fold like a three legged goat by Sat morning anyway so let's not overdo it."  

Now they are likely to have to do a lot more damage to civilian infrastructure to pull this our of the fire then they would have in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't want to critique brave souls like those in the video, but I'd have the thrower in the back seat and hit them coming from the opposite direction.  Less likely to get shot upon departure.

Steve

S'ok, insurgency provides a steep learning curve but people get really good at it really fast.  Largely because them that figure it out don't die, Darwin is one helluva drill Sgt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with driving casually past Russians and throwing molotov cocktails at them is that very quickly, those soldiers will stop being patient with civilians and start to fire on every passing vehicle.

Just like the US troops in Iraq quickly started to look at approaching cars in a very different way than at home.

I think the days of brave Ukrainian civilians standing up to tanks peacefully could be coming to an end soon.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

The problem with driving casually past Russians and throwing molotiv cocktails at them is that very quickly, those soldiers will stop being patient with civilians and start to fire on every passing vehicle.

Another disadvantage of Russia's BMG concept is that the units don't necessarily know each other as well as they would in a Western force.  They also most likely do not have the same degree of communications between units as in the West.  Which means, lessons learned by one unit probably takes longer to be passed around army wide compared to the West.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Another disadvantage of Russia's BMG concept is that the units don't necessarily know each other as well as they would in a Western force.  They also most likely do not have the same degree of communications between units as in the West.  Which means, lessons learned by one unit probably takes longer to be passed around army wide compared to the West.

Steve

Surely they receive order from somewhere? Very quickly, there could be a "be wary of firebomb attacks from civilians" message coming down from above.

Also, the individual unit might respond to an attack like that.. What would a US platoon do if some passing car threw a firebomb or a grenade at them? I'm guessing they'd fire back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

The problem with driving casually past Russians and throwing molotiv cocktails at them is that very quickly, those soldiers will stop being patient with civilians and start to fire on every passing vehicle.

So if we wanna talk insurgencies...heh, well 20 years has built a whole bunch of experts with a ton of experience here in the west on that one.  From an insurgency point of view, that is exactly what you want.  A military force that is heavy handed because it feels isolated and threatened from all sides is creating more insurgents with every action.  This is a race to the bottom that formed militaries cannot win without a genocidal level of effort (and history if full of them that tried).

Then insurgents will evolve to IEDs, and the Ukrainians have access to western SOF who won't mess around with jugs of homemade crap, no we are talking EFPs that are going to make any movement a living hell.  Oh, the dark and dirty road of insurgency is just starting, worse it will likely widen the fight as terrorist actions inside Russia are also likely.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cpl Steiner said:

I saw a US Media reporter say that two journalists were killed when armed civilians shot up their car believing them to be saboteurs - so, yes. [Edit] Not probably the "bad things" you had in mind but untrained civilians with AKs and fear of spies and saboteurs in their midst is a bad combination.

Gee, do you think that the reports of Russian “Special Operatives” putting on Ukraine uniforms, and driving Ukraine vehicles to infiltrate UKR cities and such contributed to that at all? Of course that will tend to create a panic situation and reaction of the population. It happens in every conflict where media reporters decide they want to take that risk in order to be “you heard it first here.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia warns countries sending weapons to Ukraine, reports Reuters.

Countries that supply Ukraine with lethal weapons "will be held accountable" if used against Russian troops. It writes the Russian Foreign Ministry in a statement, reports the news agency Interfax.

Exactly what this means they do not specify.

The warning also applies to those who send fuel.

"The actions of the European Union will not be left without a tough answer," the Foreign Ministry wrote according to the news agency.

 

Link: МИД РФ пообещал ЕС жесткий ответ за роль Евросоюза в событиях на Украине (interfax.ru) Russian, use google translate

 

Could the tough answer be more retreating Russian troops? Or more burning Russian armored vehicles?

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So if we wanna talk insurgencies...heh, well 20 years has built a whole bunch of experts with a ton of experience here in the west on that one.  From an insurgency point of view, that is exactly what you want.  A military force that is heavy handed because it feels isolated and threatened from all sides is creating more insurgents with every action.  This is a race to the bottom that formed militaries cannot win without a genocidal level of effort (and history if full of them that tried).

I wonder what advice the US and former ISAF partners are providing to Ukrainian planners right now. Here was our 'Dos and Don'ts' of Counterinsurgency. Here how the Afhgans and Iraqis circumvented and frustrated our efforts. Heres what you should do and how we think the Russians will respond. 

Also watch out, were all libel to be criminals soon!

Scary. 

but also:

 

Edited by BeondTheGrave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one last thought that has been bugging me, UA's likely greatest asset right now is the ISR being provided by the west.  To the point that I am becoming convinced that the UA might have information superiority right now, especially if the US machine has thrown its full weight behind this.

If the US is sharing all the "INTs" along with hi resolution satellite, UA commanders probably have a better idea of the battlespace than Russian ones.  Let alone if there is a cyber war happening in the background.  This is probably one of the biggest advantages the Ukrainians could have in this fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyond this conflict, Russia will spend a very long time without anybody fearing a conventional war with them.  Before this war they spent a lot of time doing things to convince the world they were stronger than they in fact were.  Now that everybody has seen they really are as weak as they are, it's going to be tough for Russia to get people to take them seriously again.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

Beyond this conflict, Russia will spend a very long time without anybody fearing a conventional war with them.  Before this war they spent a lot of time doing things to convince the world they were stronger than they in fact were.  Now that everybody has seen they really are as weak as they are, it's going to be tough for Russia to get people to take them seriously again.

Steve

Ouch.  That is some hard truth right there.  This and the west is likely going to rally around NATO hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Beyond this conflict, Russia will spend a very long time without anybody fearing a conventional war with them.  Before this war they spent a lot of time doing things to convince the world they were stronger than they in fact were.  Now that everybody has seen they really are as weak as they are, it's going to be tough for Russia to get people to take them seriously again.

Steve

Yep, and as more tanks are sent to be destroyed on Ukraine, the lesser is the threat (conventionally speaking) to NATO countries, and the more aggresive the EU and NATO can get with sanctions and with weapon deliveries to the ukranians. The russians would be wise to accept whatever peace agreement (as long as it allows them to save face to their public) the Ukranians are giving them, and not allow this to keep spiriling down into disaster.

Edited by CHEqTRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Russia warns countries sending weapons to Ukraine, reports Reuters.

Countries that supply Ukraine with lethal weapons "will be held accountable" if used against Russian troops. It writes the Russian Foreign Ministry in a statement, reports the news agency Interfax.

Exactly what this means they do not specify.

The warning also applies to those who send fuel.

"The actions of the European Union will not be left without a tough answer," the Foreign Ministry wrote according to the news agency.

 

Link: МИД РФ пообещал ЕС жесткий ответ за роль Евросоюза в событиях на Украине (interfax.ru) Russian, use google translate

 

Could the tough answer be more retreating Russian troops? Or more burning Russian armored vehicles?

We can only hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CHEqTRO said:

Yep, and as more tanks are sent to be destroyed on Ukraine, the lesser is the threat (conventionally speaking) to NATO countries, and the more aggresive the EU and NATO can get with sanctions and with weapon deliveries to the ukranians. The russians would be wise to accept whatever peace agreement the Ukranians are giving them, and not allow this to keep spiriling down into disaster.

At some point during Desert Storm/Shield Russia pushed hard to get the war to stop.  Analysts were saying that the main reason for that was the images of all that Soviet weaponry being totally useless against Coalition forces was really bad for their arms export business.  Not too surprising to see a lot of countries shift over to Western built systems in the years that followed..

I doubt anybody in the Russian government is thinking of this right now while in crisis mode, but at some point they probably will.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said:

Yep, and as more tanks are sent to be destroyed on Ukraine, the lesser is the threat (conventionally speaking) to NATO countries, and the more aggresive the EU and NATO can get with sanctions and with weapon deliveries to the ukranians. The russians would be wise to accept whatever peace agreement the Ukranians are giving them, and not allow this to keep spiriling down into disaster.

Don't the Russians have something like 31.000 tanks and other armored vehicles? 

Edited by Aragorn2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...