How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, but then why this special thing about artillerymen?

The massively increased indiscriminate bombardment of civilians. Again the fly wheel of barbarity just starts spinning faster and faster. It will end with Ukrainian girls blowing themselves up at checkpoints, and vengeful/deranged phd students cooking tailored viruses in basement labs.  Or we send a few cruise missiles and this excuse for an army breaks and runs. I like the second option.

[Phantom Captain]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

in the instance where the post that started this particular topic occurred, the town was still in Ukrainian hands.  You can call it what you want but it is still murder.  They could very simply have arrested him, turned him over to legitimate authorities... who could then execute him.  extrajudicial killings where your authorities are still exercising control is just a bad idea.

Ok, I agree with this.  You are right.  But I totally understand the rage and the want of vigilante justice in and of itself.  Especially when it comes to traitors.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[chuckdyke]

4 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

Yes, with BOTH Russia and the USA signing an agreement to protect Ukraine from the aggression of a foreign invader. I assume that Russia feels since “Ukraine is historically and culturally part of Russia,” that they don’t qualify them as a “foreign invader.” Why the U.S. doesn’t “put boots on the ground” to satisfy it’s pledge is beyond me. I served the U.S. for more than thirty years in different capacities, and I must say that I’m disgusted that the U.S. Government has again shown that it cannot be trusted to keep it’s promises and commitments that it makes to defend others.

I don't mention any names, but an ex dissident president thinks that Putin is a smart guy and still enjoys considerable support. Anywhere else he would be behind lock and key. Putin is sinister but he is not stupid. 

[Vet 0369]

35 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The only way to counter small drones is with a laser. Guns don't have the range to prevent them from calling fires on you, and missiles are so  expensive that using them is just another way to lose the war. I guess there will be lot of drones hunting other drones, too. But I think that takes to long tp prevent the enemy getting valuable intelligence/fire direction information. If wasn't a we don't care what it cost area of work last week, it sure as bleep will be by Monday.

 

I don’t know about this. My opponent’s Tunguskas didn’t seem to have any trouble taking out my drones in CMBS.

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

in the instance where the post that started this particular topic occurred, the town was still in Ukrainian hands.  You can call it what you want but it is still murder.  They could very simply have arrested him, turned him over to legitimate authorities... who could then execute him.  extrajudicial killings where your authorities are still exercising control is just a bad idea.

 

Just now, Vet 0369 said:

I don’t know about this. My opponent’s Tunguskas didn’t seem to have any trouble taking out my drones in CMBS.

i don't think drones, and AA fire are best modeled parts of CMBS...

[dan/california]

Just now, dan/california said:

 

i don't think drones, and AA fire are best modeled parts of CMBS...

And if was correct when written it is the part that went out of date the quickest.

[BeondTheGrave]

15 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

If one look at any campaign where air power has been extensively used you'll only see significant results in those three areas, almost never significantly nullifying adversary combat power in a direct way, but contributing to its steady erosion.

How would you position '91 in this framework? Its a really interesting way to look at air power, though I can see how this analysis would run against the 'RMA' gospel of the early RMA era. Then again those mid 90s PGM enthusiasts were always a bit.... weird.  

Anyway combing what youve said with the Capt it does paint the picture of essentially a shared air space. How do you keep drones from conducting ISR at a low altitude, unless you have good purpose built systems for it? ISR advantages open up the possibility for interdiction. And exclusion (accurate simplification of your third group?) is basically impossible in an absolute sense. Seems to me then like the solution is to fight dispersed and decentralized so that no one attack can KO your operational momentum. Sort of like in the early-nuclear pentatomic era or the shift to battalion task forces in the 60s and 70s. "Disperse to live, concentrate to fight" was the motto. Except that dispersed action leaves you vulnerable to counter attacks in other domains like on the ground. It also seems like Russian C2 remains as centralized and hierarchical as ever, which may go a ways in explain why the Russian army preformed so badly during the maneuver phase of this war. 

Anyway a lot to think about here, good information. NGL these forums are often one of the best places for doctrine and theory discussion online I've found. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by BeondTheGrave

[Vet 0369]

22 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

Would a nuclear winter solve global warming?

Probably. Another benefit might be reduction of carbon from producing electricity. You wouldn’t need lights at night because everything would be glowing!

[BletchleyGeek]

3 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

How would you position '91 in this framework? Its a really interesting way to look at air power, though I can see how this analysis would run against the 'RMA' gospel of the early RMA era. Then again those mid 90s PGM enthusiasts were always a bit.... weird.  

Will get back to you over private convo - this thread is already hard to make sense as it is!

[Vacillator]

4 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

NGL these forums are often one of the best places for doctrine and theory discussion online I've found. 

Plus I think I see 'news' here about a day before I see it on the BBC.  Other news outlets are of course available.

[LongLeftFlank]

21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

If it walks like a duck…

I have seen a few of these “wait these crafty Russians are using some obscure 1930s doctrine, that is why we are seeing this sh$tshow”.  First off, they may be using Cold War tactical doctrine for C2 but they are no where near operational doctrine.  The Soviets worked in the objectives-waves style of operational manoeuvre and that is not what we are seeing here at all.  They have shifted axis in some places but in Soviet doctrine that was supposed to take hours not a week. 

If they are going to go with “dumb-tactical mass/ genius operational manoeuvre” then where is that second one?  I seen plodding and painful operational manoeuvre at play here, stalls and zero coordination between formations.  They are starting to try and fill in gaps but way too late.  Any Ukrainian forces in thirds pockets have had a week to either block or get out.  The idea that their mass has tempo that is outstripping their opponent is laughable at this point.  No they are in a prom-night sweaty awkward grope of a land war right now with a frat house wrecker party (music by Huskavarna chainsaws) as their back up plan. 

I truly hope you're right and that the Russians will run out of, well, everything, long before they can execute The Plan.

But the consequences of being wrong are the loss of nearly all Ukraine east of the Dniepr, whether or not the UA forces escape.  Land which will be a lot harder to win back once the war of movement stops. So please indulge me, I'm going to quote this guy's feed some more as he is making some sense to me....

Encirclements are actually excellent when you don't want a lot of casualties: they neutralize enemy forces but don't require you to destroy them.

[As] it's a hard point to understand from just looking at a map, it's worth going into what an encirclement entails....

At the operational level, any modern army is going to be entirely road-bound—especially in muddy conditions like we're seeing.

This really limits the extent of an army's dispositions in the first place. It also means that "encircling" them requires occupying a relatively limited number of areas in force, with patrols in between.

The real value of encirclement is that the forces within are cut off: no resupply of fuel, ammo, or food. This lets the attacking force follow up with a series of attacks and smaller encirclements while enjoying complete overmatch.

The first targets of Russian air and long-range fires will be the HQs and comms. We should start seeing a lot more jamming too, after which individual positions will be surrounded and overwhelmed. This is a slow, firepower-intensive process that is similar to a siege in many ways. Far more soldiers are likely to surrender than be killed in combat.

Breaking out of encirclements is usually costly no matter what, but beats the alternative.

The fact that the LPR/DPR were actually able to break out does suggest that Ukraine's Donbas forces were pretty substantially degraded/withdrawn at some point since the beginning of the operation. 

Assuming roughly half of the Russians' 200k are in the south and that there are still ~45k Ukrainians in the Donbas (many have very likely been withdrawn), this will be a lengthy but feasible process for the Russians.

BUT—and this is important—they haven't been encircled yet.

Execution, on the other hand has been a lot worse, reflected in the poor state of readiness—THAT is where the miscommunications came into play.

 

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

Ok, I agree with this.  You are right.  But I totally understand the rage and the want of vigilante justice in and of itself.  Especially when it comes to traitors.

oh don't get me wrong, I do understand and I sympathize.  I just think for Ukraine it is also a political act to show that the gov't is still exercising authority. It maintains the moral high ground and shows despite the coloring on the map the various talking heads are showing that Ukraine is still exercising authority and dispensing justice as a sovereign state.

As to that other discussion of the Russian artillery groups.  As far as I am concerned it is no different than lasing them for a JDAM.  Send em to hell. the Spec Ops groups are there for one purpose, to eliminate the threat.  They aren't in a position to take prisoners and those arty crews could just go man another arty piece. That is assuming the Russian could get replacements there... 

[TheVulture]

 

 

[dan/california]

http://deryugina.com/a-view-from-russian-academia/

A post by a Russian Academic about what is happening inside Russia. Good read, complicated situation.

[dan/california]

This guy isn't giving Russians tea and cake...

[LongLeftFlank]

This 'military' thread has taken a rather bloodthirsty turn of late, hasn't it? Could we possibly get back to the operations and tactics, other than terror bombardments and Leviticus?

1. Once both sides declare no quarter, the (unarmed) civilians in occupied lands fare the worst. Those would be Ukrainians.

2. Anyhoo, once the firebases are set up, they will have ample perimeter security. Even RA conscripts can handle that. The cutthroat commandos might be better served whacking the ammo supplies (that's what the Viet Cong and Iraqi resistance found).

[GAZ NZ]

How are supplies getting in from the EU? 

Why are the Russians unable to take out the AA? 

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

The only way to counter small drones is with a laser. Guns don't have the range to prevent them from calling fires on you, and missiles are so  expensive that using them is just another way to lose the war. I guess there will be lot of drones hunting other drones, too. But I think that takes to long tp prevent the enemy getting valuable intelligence/fire direction information. If wasn't a we don't care what it cost area of work last week, it sure as bleep will be by Monday.

 

In October the US deployed it's first laser AD systems mounted on Stykers.  They are in the Baltics and are operational, not experimental.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, but then why this special thing about artillerymen?

Haiduk already addressed this, but at the moment the biggest problem Ukraine faces is Russian forces destroying civilian infrastructure and causing civilian casualties.  Ukraine has no real good way to counter battery fire against all of those positions.  If you had special forces strike teams, that are trained to rove way into the rear, wouldn't you be targeting artillery positions?  I know I sure as Hell would be.  They'd be easy pickings for SF types if they weren't reinforced with a heavy escort of light infantry.  Which is not normal practice and almost certainly isn't what Russia is doing these days.

It's a good plan for SF use.  I wish them good luck and successful hunting.

Steve

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

In October the US deployed it's first laser AD systems mounted on Stykers.  They are in the Baltics and are operational, not experimental.

Steve

Thus begins an a tech spiral just like the one that has been driving tank guns, and tank armor for a hundred years. Drone suppression will be its own MOS if it isn't already. I thought I remembered something about the Marines at least testing something. Any idea of how many targets it can engage per minute? I mean the Russians can't seem to pay for gas, but someone competent will show up with eighteen wheeler loads of little flying day wreckers eventually.

[Phantom Captain]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Haiduk already addressed this, but at the moment the biggest problem Ukraine faces is Russian forces destroying civilian infrastructure and causing civilian casualties.  Ukraine has no real good way to counter battery fire against all of those positions.  If you had special forces strike teams, that are trained to rove way into the rear, wouldn't you be targeting artillery positions?  I know I sure as Hell would be.  They'd be easy pickings for SF types if they weren't reinforced with a heavy escort of light infantry.  Which is not normal practice and almost certainly isn't what Russia is doing these days.

It's a good plan for SF use.  I wish them good luck and successful hunting.

Steve

I would think, but am not sure, that the Ukraine SF would have night vision equipment?  If not, I would hope we are sending.

@Haiduk 

[Battlefront.com]

42 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

This 'military' thread has taken a rather bloodthirsty turn of late, hasn't it? Could we possibly get back to the operations and tactics, other than terror bombardments and Leviticus?

1. Once both sides declare no quarter, the (unarmed) civilians in occupied lands fare the worst. Those would be Ukrainians.

Agreed, and thankfully that's not been put on the table yet.

42 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

2. Anyhoo, once the firebases are set up, they will have ample perimeter security. Even RA conscripts can handle that. The cutthroat commandos might be better served whacking the ammo supplies (that's what the Viet Cong and Iraqi resistance found).

This I disagree with.  For the most part the Russian supply lines are fairly short and the original Russian plan likely had no provisions for establishing supply centers within Ukraine in the short term.  This likely means there isn't much to hit except for a few trucks here and there.  In the big scheme of things this won't do much for the war effort. 

On the other hand, each artillery battery technically is capable of killing hundreds of civilians over the course of a fairly short period of time.  They are also more difficult to replace.  Therefore, destroying artillery translates into directly saving lives as well as meaningfully degrading the enemy's capacity to wage war.

Traditionally the only other thing on the battlefield worth concentrating on more than artillery would be command and control operations.  However, in this case the Russians seem to be having difficulty controlling and coordinating their forces anyway.  Soooooo... I'd concentrate on the artillery for the short term.

Oh, and as I said I doubt an artillery unit has pickets of sufficient number or quality to stand up to a SF attack, especially if done at night.  Most of the Russian artillery these days is mobile and they don't have a lot of tag-along security from what I can tell.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

I would think, but am not sure, that the Ukraine SF would have night vision equipment?  If not, I would hope we are sending.

@Haiduk 

Yes, they probably have plenty of it.  Remember that for 8 years they've been fighting a war that lends itself to special forces.  In fact, earlier on they had quite a few successes blowing up stuff behind the DPR lines in particular.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Thus begins an a tech spiral just like the one that has been driving tank guns, and tank armor for a hundred years. Drone suppression will be its own MOS if it isn't already. I thought I remembered something about the Marines at least testing something. Any idea of how many targets it can engage per minute? I mean the Russians can't seem to pay for gas, but someone competent will show up with eighteen wheeler loads of little flying day wreckers eventually.

Drone swarms is something that hasn't been deployed into combat yet.  That will change for sure.

I don't know the technical specs on the Stryker based system, but I do know it has an onboard generator to keep a battery bank charged.  Which means as long as it has diesel it has "ammo".  I don't know if it can draw power straight from the generator or not, but if it can then the biggest limiting factor on RoF will be cooling down time.

Steve

[dan/california]

58 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

This 'military' thread has taken a rather bloodthirsty turn of late, hasn't it? Could we possibly get back to the operations and tactics, other than terror bombardments and Leviticus?

1. Once both sides declare no quarter, the (unarmed) civilians in occupied lands fare the worst. Those would be Ukrainians.

2. Anyhoo, once the firebases are set up, they will have ample perimeter security. Even RA conscripts can handle that. The cutthroat commandos might be better served whacking the ammo supplies (that's what the Viet Cong and Iraqi resistance found).

I think we aren't giving suicide drone/loitering munitions enough credit, if the insurgents have enough of those a fire base is just a killing field in the absence of some way to defend against them.