How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

Two TOR-M1 destroyed by IEDs 

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Cool!  Let us know how it goes.

The primary premise of my counter attack scenario is that the Russians aren't going to respond well to being shot at from the rear.  Soldiers don't tend to like this under any circumstances, but ones that are not happy with their lot in life tend to be even less so.

The overall concept is to kick enough Russians in the teeth in enough places that word gets around and further erodes the will to fight.  Collapse is not that far away from that point.

Steve

To be more accurate, you'd be kicking them in the back of the knees, then donkey punch the back of their heads, THEN doorcrash their dentals.m

But I'm just being pedantic

[akd]

Hi-res version of the Mariupol BTR-4 engagement:

https://giant.gfycat.com/HiddenDapperFishingcat.mp4

Can clearly see that the tank is T-72B3M and see Relikt ERA side hull panels detonating / burning.  Still not 100% sure what the third target engaged is, but probably another BTR-82A:

Edited March 20, 2022 by akd

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Pilots, sure.

But infantry officer losses would give us a good indication of actually UKR mudhumper losses as well as how "forward" middle tier officers are.

Where should we start?

While it would be interesting to see, I don't think it matters much in terms of evaluating impact.  The volume of senior level commanders lost by the Russians is going to to affect them more negatively than the Ukrainians for a couple of reasons.  First, if a Ukrainian leader is killed there's going to be an immediate and VERY willing replacement.  I don't think this can be counted on for the Russian side.  Second, when you're on the attack you are not supposed to lose senior commanders at all, not to mention in large quantities.  Third, the Russians are already having problems with coordination of forces, Ukraine is not (or at least not as meaningfully).  When we see a General or a Colonel killed, we can pretty much guess that their HQs are physically smashed and additional staff out of commission.

Steve

[kraze]

In case you were wondering

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I know about the death in the combat in Luhansk oblast of colonel Valeriy Gudz', I don't know his duty, until 2020 he was a commander of 24th mech.brigade. He was lost 13th of March.

Commander of Azov also killed in action last week.  I do not know his rank, but Colonel is probably correct.

Steve

[womble]

In terms of the application of UKA heavy assets to the reduction of Russians "dug in", what does that look like, operationally? There are still reserves of UKA arty, SP and towed and rocket, I gather; what chance of Russian positions being hardened enough to withstand that sort of punishment, and what chance of those tubes surviving Russian counterstrikes from the air and counterbattery fire?

The Ukrainians would, as Steve has said, have all the time in the world to choose the best place(s) to strike and prepare nasty AA traps to bushwhack any aerial responses to bombardment. Russian artillery would have to be displacing often to avoid getting caught by the pervasive light infantry, and if the information war is as lopsided as it seems, UKR counter-counterbattery plans could be in place, as they have the initiative in breaking into the Russian static positions and can concentrate their efforts.

Some UKR assaults could be dissuaded by digging into urban positions, but positions set up to protect supply lines can't all be in towns.

It seems to me that going static is just going to be a matter of digging their own graves, for the Russians.

[dan/california]

It is one thing to have your fire base mortared occasionally. Being MRLed by people who can shoot straight is a totally different thing.

[akd]

Destroyed BMP-3 (I think) in eastern Mariupol:

BTR-82A near center of the city on western side:

 

[dan/california]

It really is WW1 level stupid, "Lets charge the ATGMs again, the Czar swore it would work this time". Or not.

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by dan/california
spelling

[Kinophile]

25 minutes ago, akd said:

Hi-res version of the Mariupol BTR-4 engagement:

https://giant.gfycat.com/HiddenDapperFishingcat.mp4

Can clearly see that the tank is T-72B3M and see Relikt ERA side hull panels detonating / burning.  Still not 100% sure what the third target engaged is, but probably another BTR-82A:

Look at that infantry/armor coordination. The Ukies are right up there, going at it.

[Haiduk]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Commander of Azov also killed in action last week.  I do not know his rank, but Colonel is probably correct.

Steve

No, I can't find this information, but I'm recalling, he was either platoon or company commander. Commander of "Azov" mayor Denys Prokopenko ("Redis") and his deputy Sviatoslav Palamar ("Kalyna") both are ok. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, womble said:

In terms of the application of UKA heavy assets to the reduction of Russians "dug in", what does that look like, operationally? There are still reserves of UKA arty, SP and towed and rocket, I gather; what chance of Russian positions being hardened enough to withstand that sort of punishment, and what chance of those tubes surviving Russian counterstrikes from the air and counterbattery fire?

The Ukrainians would, as Steve has said, have all the time in the world to choose the best place(s) to strike and prepare nasty AA traps to bushwhack any aerial responses to bombardment. Russian artillery would have to be displacing often to avoid getting caught by the pervasive light infantry, and if the information war is as lopsided as it seems, UKR counter-counterbattery plans could be in place, as they have the initiative in breaking into the Russian static positions and can concentrate their efforts.

Some UKR assaults could be dissuaded by digging into urban positions, but positions set up to protect supply lines can't all be in towns.

It seems to me that going static is just going to be a matter of digging their own graves, for the Russians.

This gets into a larger discussion about the new vulnerabilities to artillery units thanks to drones and flexible communications options.  Something we're planning on exploring with CM2 sooner rather than later.

That bigger topic aside for now, the idea would be for Ukraine to keep it's artillery assets out of range until it a ground attack was ready.  Up to the second intel on positions from drones would keep an eye on them while the artillery got into range.  As soon as they got to a firing position, they'd fire at exactly where the enemy assets are RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT.  Then withdraw out of range again.

In my planning the attacks would be so localized that you could be pretty much assured of taking out whatever would be most important for that sector of front.  Any remaining Russian artillery would have to scramble to get good targeting information.  The light infantry nature of the attack would be more difficult to identify.  Even when a target was acquired it might be too late as the impact of the Ukrainian attack might have already achieved it's primary purpose... freaking out the defending Russians.

If we think of this in CM terms, the Ukrainian Victory Conditions are more about getting the Russian units to pull back more than to destroy them.  Because any amount of retreat by Russian forces offers the chance of triggering larger shifting of forces, which in turn increases the chances of collapse for a given sector or even force wide.

I am not saying that the light infantry platoons are cannon fodder.  Not true at all.  I'm saying that the strategy has a chance of ending the war quicker and with overall less casualties.  Sucks if you're in one of the light infantry platoons that gets clobbered by Russian artillery, but this is war and war tends to be messy like that.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

No, I can't find this information, but I'm recalling, he was either platoon or company commander. Commander of "Azov" mayor Denys Prokopenko ("Redis") and his deputy Sviatoslav Palamar ("Kalyna") both are ok. 

Probably a translation error then?  I have seen many examples of Ukrainian/Russian translations into English that aren't correct.  It is not helped by the fact that many things are being repeated by civilians without a military vocabulary.  "Tank"

The information was said to have been put out by Azov.  If not a translation error it could be disinformation that got through the Ukrainian filters.  At the time I ruled that out, but maybe...

Steve

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This gets into a larger discussion about the new vulnerabilities to artillery units thanks to drones and flexible communications options.  Something we're planning on exploring with CM2 sooner rather than later.

That bigger topic aside for now, the idea would be for Ukraine to keep it's artillery assets out of range until it a ground attack was ready.  Up to the second intel on positions from drones would keep an eye on them while the artillery got into range.  As soon as they got to a firing position, they'd fire at exactly where the enemy assets are RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT.  Then withdraw out of range again.

In my planning the attacks would be so localized that you could be pretty much assured of taking out whatever would be most important for that sector of front.  Any remaining Russian artillery would have to scramble to get good targeting information.  The light infantry nature of the attack would be more difficult to identify.  Even when a target was acquired it might be too late as the impact of the Ukrainian attack might have already achieved it's primary purpose... freaking out the defending Russians.

If we think of this in CM terms, the Ukrainian Victory Conditions are more about getting the Russian units to pull back more than to destroy them.  Because any amount of retreat by Russian forces offers the chance of triggering larger shifting of forces, which in turn increases the chances of collapse for a given sector or even force wide.

I am not saying that the light infantry platoons are cannon fodder.  Not true at all.  I'm saying that the strategy has a chance of ending the war quicker and with overall less casualties.  Sucks if you're in one of the light infantry platoons that gets clobbered by Russian artillery, but this is war and war tends to be messy like that.

Steve

I am not even sure the Russians have enough superiority of fire to go static in the first place. I realize we are only seeing the successes mostly. But I am not sure you can dig in deep enough to withstand accurate, drone directed 152mm fire. If the Russians are static the Ukrainians can just keep maneuvering for local superiority of fires until the Russian line is more wrecked than their supply convoys

[Battlefront.com]

We all know that Putin cares as much about Russia and Russians as Hitler did Germany and Germans.  That is why Putin is not likely concerned about the continued "brain drain" of technical specialists, entrepreneurs, artists, etc. that are leaving to go to any country that isn't Russia.  This is going to harm Russia in all ways for DECADES.

 

[akd]

Nice to see us sending some confusing, escalatory threats back the other way (without threatening escalation outside of Ukraine).

Edited March 20, 2022 by akd

[Battlefront.com]

On the bright side, nobody died.  On the negative side, nobody should have to clean up this sort of mess from their kitchen.

 

[womble]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

I am not sure you can dig in deep enough to withstand accurate, drone directed 152mm fire.

Enough reinforced concrete in your bunker roof and you probably can, but that's going to be the exception rather than the rule, and the UKA will just leave the heavy revetments to starve/pull back once their supporting, lighter-protected positions are reduced.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, akd said:

Nice to see us sending some confusing, escalatory messages back the other way (without threatening escalation outside of Ukraine).

The Eastern Europeans clearly can't sit and watch the siege of Mariupol anymore!

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I am not even sure the Russians have enough superiority of fire to go static in the first place. I realize we are only seeing the successes mostly. But I am not sure you can dig in deep enough to withstand accurate, drone directed 152mm fire. If the Russians are static the Ukrainians can just keep maneuvering for local superiority of fires until the Russian line is more wrecked than their supply convoys

Someone asked about this a few pages ago.  The answer is that for vehicles to withstand artillery/rocket strikes you'd have to bury them so deeply that they wouldn't be effective any more.

A tank or Buk or whatever that is 1/2 buried is better than sitting on the ground, but practically speaking I don't think it will matter that much.  A net reduction in losses by even 75% per strike still means 25% lost.  That is not sustainable.

Steve

[Hapless]

ISW update it out: https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20
 

The two stand out bits to me:
"The Ukrainian General Staff reported for the first time that the Kremlin is preparing its population for a “long war” in Ukraine and implementing increasingly draconian mobilization measures."
and
"Russian forces face mounting casualties among officers and increasingly frequent desertion and insubordination."

I feel like those two things constitute a death spiral...

[The_MonkeyKing]

6 minutes ago, Hapless said:

ISW update it out: https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20
 

The two stand out bits to me:
"The Ukrainian General Staff reported for the first time that the Kremlin is preparing its population for a “long war” in Ukraine and implementing increasingly draconian mobilization measures."
and
"Russian forces face mounting casualties among officers and increasingly frequent desertion and insubordination."

I feel like those two things constitute a death spiral...

What stands out to me is how much ISW is using Ukraine official sources.

Must be that they have proved themselves to be reliable.

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, akd said:

Nice to see us sending some confusing, escalatory messages back the other way (without threatening escalation outside of Ukraine).

I read more about the dialog exchange and it is pretty damned near perfectly done.  This has got to have the Kremlin upset, but not knowing how upset they should be.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

What stands out to me is how much ISW is using Ukraine official sources.

Must be that they have proved themselves to be reliable.

Over the years the Ukrainian official communications channels have been found to be largely credible.  When they report something it is more likely than not accurate.  As can be expected, the problem with Ukrainian government sources is they are not likely to report bad news.  And when they do, it tends to be without detail and with softening language.

So far I've seen nothing out of the official Ukrainian sources that has turned out to be wrong in any significant way.  When they say they hold something they have it.  When they say they attacked something there's usually ample evidence of it being true.

Steve