How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[BeondTheGrave]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Taking out air defenses is not easy work.  It requires multiple types of capabilities being used concurrently AND sustained over as much time as it takes to get suppression.  There's some good articles written by experts that state that Russia has a) no practical experience with such operations and b) is not trained for it.  There is also speculation that they lack sufficient radar seeking munitions to get the job done.

There are places out there that will do custom patches in quantity with only a few days turn around time.  This stuff is all automated now.  Just scan in the design, tweak a few things, and hit PRINT.  It's equivalent of 3D printing or CNC mill.

Steve

Just to echo this, DEAD is pretty damn hard. SEAD is tough enough, but DEAD is very difficult. The US has been training on S/DEAD for decades starting with Vietnam and has based its theories off both its own practice as well as some of the other most experienced AFs in the world (Israel, for one) The US also maintains, IMO, one of the best Air combat training facilities in the world in Nevada. 

The challenge with both D&SEAD is just how decentralized and mobile modern AD assets are. Its the launchers, often multiple, but also a radar, a command center, reloads nearby, etc. etc. etc. all of which can just pull up stakes every day and transition to another locale. Any smart AD commander is also turning on and off their search radars, relying on hidden assets, layering their defenses, creating SEAD traps (North Vietnam got very good at using one SA-2 to bait out a Wild Weasel strike, then clobbering them with others). Picking apart a static defensive system thats managed poorly isn't too hard, assuming you have the technology. Big if. But as soon as they start playing shell games with radars and launch sites? You need excellent surveillance technology, target reconnaissance, Pre and post strike BDA, and overall a good understanding of what the other side is up to. So, as others have pointed out, exactly what Russia has been struggling with. 

You really also cant do 'half' the job with SEAD. The best you can do, and this is something the US trained for in the CW era, was to black out a portion of the network to slip in a strike package. Even thats risky, and only offers a short opportunity. Something like like Desert Storm was only possible thanks to A) user error and B ) very excellent US planning and intel. At the other end of the spectrum, the Israelis only destroyed the Egyptian SAM network once they had pushed across the Suez and were able to attack them directly with tanks. This caused a worming domino effect that let the IAF widen the whole and destroy the rest of the network. And the US only really pushed the North Vietnamese SAM grid to the breaking point because they ran out of missiles. What is different between the three? In one the attacking side lacked deep penetration intelligence, technology, and training on how to pick apart an AD network. They had to rely on other, more conventional, means to beat them. Means which the Russians cant really count on, unless they want to try and deplete Ukraine's stock of S-300s by flying Bears over them. 

[Phantom Captain]

7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Four or even five Russian tanks bogged dead and abandoned

T-80s too.

Was it the 4th Guards that was T-80 heavy?

Edit: I see the oak leaves now on the last pic.  That's Russian "Elite" for ya!

 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[akd]

14 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

T-80s too.

Was it the 4th Guards that was T-80 heavy?

Edit: I see the oak leaves now on the last pic.

 

 

4th Guards Tank Division is the only unit that operates T-80U, I believe.

Edited March 14, 2022 by akd

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, akd said:

4th Guards Tank is the only unit that operates T-80U, I believe.

And 1st Guards Tank is operating T-90s, correct?

Steve

[akd]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And 1st Guards Tank is operating T-90s, correct?

Steve

1st Guards Tank Army? 4th Guards Tank Division is part of it, but 1 GTA does also have some T-90s (in 27 GMRB for sure).

Edited March 14, 2022 by akd

[John Kettler]

sburke,

Melnichenko's Yacht A is one of the most hideous vessels I've ever seen,  maybe the most hideous.  Characterized it as the illegitimate offspring of of an incompetent blacksmith and a ship designer with no sense of beauty. The other seizures pictured are lovely vessels.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Haiduk]

UKR T-64BV probably after 125 mm HE hit in the turret. Looks like crew abandoned the tank

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

15 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm reminded of WW2 stories about how whole units of Soviet tanks would be reported "lost in swamps".

About the swamp... I don't know why the driver did it. This is 2nd Guard "Tamanskaya" motor-rifle division. Elite...

[The_Capt]

56 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Sure you see columns of armored vehicles getting blown to hell, tanks knocked out in twos and threes, but its possible that the losses are not yet significant. I'm hearing ~6-7% casualties for the total attacking force so far, assuming even our estimates are correct?

I would hazard about double those percentages by now, so 12-14% of the attacking force.  Lowball estimates by the US are say 3000 KIA, so add another 9000 WIA, MIA or whatever (1:3 is not crazy), so the Ukrainian estimate of 12k total out of battle is not too far out to lunch to be honest.  If the Russians invaded with 110k, that takes them over 10% losses overall.

Major equipment such as tanks seem to echo this.  If they brought in 120 BTG that is, on paper, 1200 MBTs but let’s say they had double that with armor heavy formations and reserves, so 2400 - about 25% of the total fleet.  Well oryx.com is showing about 213 MBTs as seen on OS media, which is coming up on 9%, numbers are likely higher as not every tank gets a twitter shot.  IFVs and APCs also run in at around 388 out of 3600, so are doing worse than tanks (11% ish)

Logistical vehicles, could be in even worse shape as they are showing almost 411 lost which over the holdings of a CAA and these likely get less airtime.  Engineer stuff and arty also is taking a pounding.

So if I were to guess I would say losses in frontline units are somewhere between 10-20% right now, which is on the border of ineffective (normally viewed as 70% as one cannot tactically maneuver without risk and any reserves are spent)  and are needing re-org, which might be actually happening, hence the pregnant pause.  Or the Russians are coming up on spent entirely and are looking for an exit door.  

[John Kettler]

4 hours ago, akd said:

Rus/DPR T-72B (I think) fighting in Volnovakha:

 

Five main gun shots and no apparent return fire effects--to the tank or surrounds, though I did hear two loud sounds possibly indicative of return fire. Talk about an empty battlefield!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Taranis]

12 minutes ago, akd said:

1st Guards Tank Army? 4th Guards Tank Division is part of it, but 1 GTA does also have some T-90s (in 27 GMRB for sure).

Fully agree.
 

20 minutes ago, akd said:

4th Guards Tank Division is the only unit that operates T-80U, I believe.

Agree too. Other units using T-80 are T-80BV and BVM variants not U variant.

 

22 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

Edit: I see the oak leaves now on the last pic.  That's Russian "Elite" for ya!

Yes, an heritage from the ww2's 4 GTK !

 

 

[John Kettler]

4 hours ago, dan/california said:

https://www.ft.com/content/52ea7aab-f8d1-46b6-9d66-18545c5ef9b9

 

Putin has had to ask the Chinese for help. Not clear what he asked for, or when he might get it. I don't have subscription to read the whole article.

 

dan/california,

The Chinese should send rice--lots of spoiled rice, resist complaints from the Russians, then admit after the war ends there was a mix up and apologize. That is exactly the kind of thing the Chinese would do, allowing them to say, "Hey we sent food, we tried to help, but there was a problem. We're fixing it now."

Regards,

John Kettler

[kraze]

1 hour ago, womble said:

So, we know that they didn't put in the hard yards of AD reduction in the beginning, cos they "didn't think they'd need it" in the fantasy land they planned the operation in. So why haven't they been busy doing those "necessary chores" in parallel with their ground operations in the following 3 weeks? Is it because that sort of reduction requires a "surprise start" that they failed at? Or do they just lack the capability to do it? Or would it just cost them too many irreplaceable air assets?

The fact that they lost about 70 combat planes in 3 weeks and now have to pull in more from eastern airbases should tell you something about how well they are going on about suppressing that AD.

Especially now that they are out of precise cruise missiles - getting rid of the 'AD problem' is even harder, if not impossible.

Edited March 14, 2022 by kraze

[Battlefront.com]

Adding to the Russian bridging discussion, it was announced today that the commander of an engineer brigade, Colonel Sergei Porokhnya, was killed.  Yet another piece of evidence as to how dangerous the rear is to Russian forces:

https://inforesist-org.translate.goog/v-ukraine-likvidirovan-komandir-inzhenernoj-brigady-rf/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Steve

[John Kettler]

5 hours ago, Ultradave said:

I saw a number 2 days ago that among all the AFV, personnel and aircraft losses Ukraine claimed destroying over 100 fuel tanker trucks and some huge number of just “trucks”. 
 

The impact of those losses, even if exaggerated, is far, far greater than just the word “trucks”. 

Ultradave,

Fuel truck losses alone amount to 33 BTG fuel fills lost. Ouch! In the "just trucks" category, what I'm seeing in the TB2 strike video is selective targeting of trucks resulting in stupendous secondaries, which tells me these are ammo trucks being hit. Believe the Ukrainians know what Russian ammo trucks look like. Also of note is that Ukrainian Navy TB2s (they had 6 and may've gotten more since) are now being officially listed on their strike videos against Russian ground forces.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited March 14, 2022 by John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I would hazard about double those percentages by now, so 12-14% of the attacking force.  Lowball estimates by the US are say 3000 KIA, so add another 9000 WIA, MIA or whatever (1:3 is not crazy), so the Ukrainian estimate of 12k total out of battle is not too far out to lunch to be honest.  If the Russians invaded with 110k, that takes them over 10% losses overall.

Just thought of another thing to consider.  Loss ration of 1:1 Defender:Attacker from historical or predicted examples is only applicable to situations where the attacker won.  At the initial part of the attack the losses are likely MUCH higher for the attacker until the defender starts getting routed out of their positions.  At which point the defender tends to take massive casualties.  In the end it *might* average out to 1:1, but you'd not expect to see that at the very beginning.

And of course we have to keep in mind that these rules of thumb are useless in modern warfare.  The loss ratio for the Coalition forces in 2003 compared to Iraq was something like, what, 1:1000?

Steve

[Haiduk]

Today in the forests near Kyiv.... Probably Brovary direction, where heavy fight was today, but maybe NW direction too. Pay attantion, on the photo destroyed BMP with Z marking. Reportedly this is 37th motor-rifle brigade, probably moved here from other direction. To this time only V markins were in NW and O markings from the E.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[womble]

1 minute ago, kraze said:

The fact that they lost about 70 combat planes in 3 weeks should tell you something about how well they are going on about suppressing that AD.

And now that they are out of precise cruise missiles - getting rid of the 'AD problem' is even harder, if not impossible.

I remember someone (possibly Steve) saying early on that even taking fairly heavy losses in reducing the UKR AD system to marginal effectiveness would be worth the cost. But it certainly appears that they haven't taken the losses for any decisive result.

So, if the political will existed, and the calculus of risk indicated a favourable, non-escalatory outcome, would the West be able to do much better against what the Russians have deployed to cover the case of a no-fly zone being declared? Or are their AD arrangements as much of a clowncar as their logistics? It's evident that the hardware works in competent UKR hands...

[GAZ NZ]

Watch " Ukraine War - Drone Shows Intense Close Combat Between Ukrainian & Russian Troops In Kherson" on YouTube

 

https://youtu.be/y1dXAs2ybIU

 

Best viewed on large HD TV for full view

Drone footage is amazing 

Edited March 14, 2022 by GAZ NZ

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Aside from Russia's obvious credibility problem in terms of accurate information, there is also the curious fact that the country best known for disinformation and propaganda hasn't done much to try and spin a story that Ukraine is losing and that Russia will soon be triumphant.  Now why might that be?  Because the war is going to badly that even the Kremlin spinmasters are having trouble working with what they have?

Steve

Edward Snowden has posted exactly twice since 2/21. That isn't because Russian plans worked out.

[Haiduk]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Adding to the Russian bridging discussion, it was announced today that the commander of an engineer brigade, Colonel Sergei Porokhnya, was killed.  Yet another piece of evidence as to how dangerous the rear is to Russian forces:

https://inforesist-org.translate.goog/v-ukraine-likvidirovan-komandir-inzhenernoj-brigady-rf/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Steve

I have a graphic photo of killed Russian officer and his passport, and claimed he was chief of staff deputy of 103rd missile brigade (Iskander-M). If this true, maybe information about wiped out Iskander battalion (four vehicles) is not so fantastic.  

[Fenris]

Something for the russian general staff to study

[kraze]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Adding to the Russian bridging discussion, it was announced today that the commander of an engineer brigade, Colonel Sergei Porokhnya, was killed.  Yet another piece of evidence as to how dangerous the rear is to Russian forces:

https://inforesist-org.translate.goog/v-ukraine-likvidirovan-komandir-inzhenernoj-brigady-rf/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Steve

 

Today in the south, in a rural area around Mykolaiv, 3 dead russian soldiers were found in the woods by our troops. They were robbed of their guns, just heavier weapons like RPGs left.

Which probably means that it most likely was a hit by the "non-combatants" - as RPGs wouldn't be something a soldier travelling with a large group would leave - but still would be too heavy for a civilian group to carry around fast and unnoticed, not to mention going with it against armored targets which requires some training.

[Haiduk]

1 minute ago, kraze said:

 

Today in the south, in a rural area around Mykolaiv, 3 dead russian soldiers were found in the woods by our troops. They were robbed of their guns, just heavier weapons like RPGs left.

Which probably means that it most likely was a hit by the "non-combatants" - as RPGs wouldn't be something a soldier travelling with a large group would leave - but still would be too heavy for a civilian group to carry around fast and unnoticed, not to mention going with it against armored targets which requires some training.

I watched a video with 3 other captured near Mykolaiv, also "found in woods". But they were not Russians, but mobilized citizens of Makiivka, under control of DNR. They told they were mobilized on 24th Feb in 127th regiment (??? there is no such unit in Russian army, so this is new formed DNR unit) and moved to Kherson oblast and further to Mykolaiv for maintaining road security

[John Kettler]

3 hours ago, Cobetco said:

Like, I know its a suicide drone, but that body casing looks like its practically cardboard. I wonder how many of these get destroyed in shipping, or damaged by a little bit of rain.

Cobetco,

The safe bet would be EPS (Expanded Polystyrene), which is highly common for RC aircraft these days, especially the electrically powered ones. That corrugated look you see on the nose of the one shown is exactly what EPS does when it hits something solid at speed. My wargame tabletop is made of EPS, and I've also made scale fortifications from it. It compresses and doesn't come back from that crushing. Would be astounded if these kamikaze drones were made of cardboard. Brother Ed is big into electric RC model planes, and I've seen firsthand how they're constructed. Beginner models I've seen have all been EPS.

Regards,

John Kettler