How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'm interested to know what Russia's Regiments looked like as they moved into Ukraine and how they look today.  Most sources I've read have mentioned how understrength they were going in.  In part because conscript problem, partly because they were still largely at their peace time strength.

What I'm wondering about is when we see X Rgt on a map, are we talking about 1, 2, or 3 more-or-less full BTGs.  And secondly, how many men are in each BTG? 

It's been very difficult to get a sense of reality vs. theory.

Thanks!

Steve

 

 

That is what has been lacking utterly. I see lots of maps, and lots of symbols, But I can't for the life of me figure out what the Russians actually have in terms of men per mile of front, or how big the fist they are trying to assemble is. Will they have to deplete their front lines so much that the Ukrainians can slip through and assault their logistics at will to assemble a meaningful offensive? Because if that is so their offensive isn't going to be meaningful for long.

[Aragorn2002]

8 hours ago, Kraft said:

There are prediction models from economists that say it would not at all result in the catastrophic way this is always painted in.

As I remember, SWIFT & Co was also called atomic bomb of finance, that would bring doom to all stocks and cause instant economic recession,.. yet here we are. 

I agree. Somehow politicians always find the money to keep things going and the EU is developing plans to split the costs between it's member states. Apart from that the EU is not going to survive this century. Not in it's present state anyway. 

[Zeleban]

3 hours ago, chris talpas said:

Видеозапись недавно освобожденного села Романовка. Представлены физические разрушения в человеческом масштабе. Глядя на степень разрушения, это почти напоминает путь обломков. из большого твистера. Я даже не могу себе представить масштабы ущерба, нанесенного украинской инфраструктуре, не говоря уже о человеческих страданиях.

 

Romanivka was not captured by Russian troops. Throughout the battle for Kyiv, a humanitarian corridor was organized there, which allowed the evacuation of civilians from Irpin Bucha and Gostomel. I myself evacuated along this route on 03/05/22, when the Russians entered Irpin and street fighting began. This route was under heavy artillery fire for about 3 weeks.

[dan/california]

If the game has taught me anything, it is that a mech company can only cover so much ground, and so much isn't a whole lot unless it is pan flat desert. 

[Holien]

ITV news last night lead on this 

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-04-11/three-war-crimes-in-bucha-which-reflect-russias-senseless-murders-in-ukraine

A powerful well researched report, very difficult to watch. 

It takes time to create these reports and the world will get to see what Russia has brought upon Ukraine. 

So while I get some folk taking pot shots at the media we do have to understand that complex issues take time to explain. 

[chuckdyke]

Putin ‘purges’ 150 FSB agents in response to Russia’s botched war with Ukraine | News | The Times

 

[Taranis]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Purely FWIW, Viktor Suvorov's memoir "Aquarium" describes the late 1960s Red Army battalion structure as follows:

To an outsider, all companies in a Soviet division or regiment look exactly the same.

1. But no! In each battalion, the first company is indeed the first. Whatever good soldiers may be in the battalion, and all the best kit, the battalion commander collects in the first company. And if there is a shortage of officers, then a fresh replacement is sure to be given to the first company. Because the first company always attacks on the main axis of the battalion. It is the first to attack the enemy head to head. And on that first move depends the outcome of the battle.

2. The second company in any battalion is mediocre. The officers in the second company are without any special distinction, like me, and the soldiers too. But every second company has additional intelligence training. It's kind of like a secondary profession. First of all, it is still a combat company, but if necessary, it can conduct reconnaissance on behalf of its battalion, and perhaps serve the needs of the regiment too, replacing or supplementing the special  reconnaissance unit.

3. In the Soviet Army there are 2,400 motorized rifle battalions. And in each of them the third company, is not only third in number. Third companies get those who did not get into the first or second companies: very young, inexperienced officers, or overaged and hopeless ones. The manpower in the third companies is not always sufficient. Moreover, in the home territory of the Soviet Union, the third companies are without the overwhelming majority of their soldiers. Their  combat equipment is kept in mothballs. If war breaks out, thousands of these companies will be supplemented by reservists and then quickly raised to the level of conventional combat units.

In this system there is a profound logic: adding reservists to an existing division is a thousand times better than forming new divisions entirely from reservists.

....So for all that 'combined arms' happy talk, the essence of the BTG concept may in fact be a very old expedient of cannibalizing all the available talent and kit out of understrength parent regiments in order to stand up a "First Battalion" that is (theoretically) equipped to conduct 21st century warfare. 

But perhaps with the exception of a few Praetorian formations, there isn't enough to fit out 2 such kampfgruppen.  Once the BTG is savaged, that could be pretty much it for the entire regiment's striking power.  Everyone else is a second rater or newb who didn't make the travel team....

Just a theory here, don't know how it tracks with observed events.

P.S.  I found a Russian cover of Знают Все, although it's mediocre: the singer is more Rammstein than Leonard C, and the backup is canned twangy country not balalaikas. There's definitely a gap to fill out there.

In a certain way, it was also the soviet army spirit of ww2. Soviet armies prefered having weaken units but lots of them for keeping the level of support. A battalion in 1944 was rarely often more than a company. While Germans prefered merging units or disolved one for completing an other

Edited April 12, 2022 by Taranis

[LongLeftFlank]

4 minutes ago, Taranis said:

In a certain way, it was also the soviet army spirit of ww2. Soviet armies prefered having weaken units but lots of them for keeping the level of support. A battalion in 1944 was rarely often more than a company

Yup, and if you're a peacetime commander starved for resources and talent, you can at least check some 'readiness' boxes and earn your next promo.

On the happy assumption that should the 'balloon go up' you'll be able to fill out the force, with veteran cadre showing the newcomers the ropes.  Eventually....

Edited April 12, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[dan/california]

And behold, actual information!

[Taranis]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'm interested to know what Russia's Regiments looked like as they moved into Ukraine and how they look today.  Most sources I've read have mentioned how understrength they were going in.  In part because conscript problem, partly because they were still largely at their peace time strength.

What I'm wondering about is when we see X Rgt on a map, are we talking about 1, 2, or 3 more-or-less full BTGs.  And secondly, how many men are in each BTG? 

It's been very difficult to get a sense of reality vs. theory.

Thanks!

Steve

 

There is sometimes a number of BTG deployed per unit (when clicking on it) on this website :
https://www.uawardata.com/

[chuckdyke]

Here is another interesting video of the Austrian channel of which I have a subscription. The auto translate is ok. 

 

[Der Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, Kraft said:

There are prediction models from economists that say it would not at all result in the catastrophic way this is always painted in.

As I remember, SWIFT & Co was also called atomic bomb of finance, that would bring doom to all stocks and cause instant economic recession,.. yet here we are. 

Like I said before, it's not just costs on a macroeconomic level, but industrial supply chains that are going to be cut off.

Having a European economy without BASF is kinda difficult.

[kraze]

10 hours ago, womble said:

* Whatever the truth about them, Azov have an inconvenient reputation. I don't know anything, other than reports of the reputation have reached even me...

You mean russian claims about Azov that certain press was so happy to jump on so things wouldn't seem uncomfortably one-sided.

Because the only nazis on Ukrainian territory that do any kind of ethnic cleansing aren't the ones wearing yellow and blue.

[kraze]

10 hours ago, Kraft said:

There are prediction models from economists that say it would not at all result in the catastrophic way this is always painted in.

As I remember, SWIFT & Co was also called atomic bomb of finance, that would bring doom to all stocks and cause instant economic recession,.. yet here we are. 

Because Russia was never taken off SWIFT.

What happened was a typical half-measure 3 weeks into the warcrimes so Ukraine would just STFU about it.

2 largest, most important russian state banks still operate using SWIFT. That means all other banks just use those as proxies and nothing really changed except for paperwork.

Edited April 12, 2022 by kraze

[Machor]

Surprisingly 'sophisticated' reporting by the Beeb:

"Ukraine conflict: Why is Russia losing so many tanks?"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61021388

"Nowadays, the Russian army operates through Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs), which are self-contained combat units made up of tanks, infantry and artillery.

The precise composition of these units may vary, but generally they comprise a large number of armoured vehicles but relatively few infantry troops.

"Russia has relatively few troops to call on," says Phillips O'Brien, a professor of strategic studies at St Andrews University, "so BTGs are a way of creating a fighting unit with lots of punch.

"They're designed to attack quickly with lots of firepower. However, they have very little protection in terms of infantry personnel to escort them and to retaliate if the armoured column comes under attack," he says.

"That makes the Russian army like a boxer who has a great right hook and a glass jaw.""

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

(7) This shows up big in the lack of effective infantry support. BTG infantry cannot prevent Ukrainian mechanized and light infantry anti-tank hunter/killer teams from attriting their AFV, IFV, and SP artillery. This is the primary job of infantry in tank units.

Isn't this a bit of outdated thinking though?

In WW2, an infantry screen could prevent enemies from using magnetic mines or bazookas/panzerfäuste at quite close ranges, but with modern infantry anti-tank weapons hitting at several km range, you'd need a very big infantry perimeter and also to keep your tanks so far back they are essentially out of the fight.

Also, lots of tanks/AFVs I see in the videos are being knocked out by drones, aircraft, and artillery.

[chuckdyke]

9 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

tanks so far back they are essentially out of the fight.

Waiting for the next generation of tanks, it is a never-ending story. 

[LongLeftFlank]

38 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Isn't this a bit of outdated thinking though?

In WW2, an infantry screen could prevent enemies from using magnetic mines or bazookas/panzerfäuste at quite close ranges, but with modern infantry anti-tank weapons hitting at several km range, you'd need a very big infantry perimeter and also to keep your tanks so far back they are essentially out of the fight.

I don't know. It's different dimensionally, sure, but it's still a very primal matter of sending your hunters out into the bush to find their hunters and either repelling/killing them, or calling in support fires that do so. Laying ambushes and mines, sniping, those are all deadly games two sides can play.

And ranged anti-infantry squad firepower has also increased a fair bit beyond the LMGs and 60mm of yore. Not just talking about crazy expensive missiles either.

Haven't pulled out CMSF in a while, but I believe that proves out.

Edited April 12, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Der Zeitgeist]

12 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Can you guys just wait and see if this actually gets confirmed before calling for WW3?

So far, all we have is a statement by Azov, nothing more.

Yeah, like I said...

 

[Aragorn2002]

47 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I don't know. It's different dimensionally, sure, but it's still a very primal matter of sending your hunters out into the bush to find their hunters and either repelling/killing them, or calling in support fires that do so. Laying ambushes and mines, sniping, those are all deadly games two sides can play.

And ranged anti-infantry squad firepower has also increased a fair bit beyond the LMGs and 60mm of yore. Not just talking about crazy expensive missiles either.

Haven't pulled out CMSF in a while, but I believe that proves out.

Besides the introduction of the drone gives the escorting infantry in a BTG an edge in protecting the tanks. Not in the case of Russia, which arms are apparently hardly combined in combat, but for sure in the case of the more advanced NATO armies. For example the German system Panzergrenadier.

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/latest_news/index_26880.php

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[TheVulture]

Russian authorities are saying that a railway bridge in Schebekyno (southern suburb of Belgorod) has been 'damaged' (initial report said 'destroyed' a few hours earlier,but initial announcements like that are often wrong, so take your pick which you believe).

Looks like Ukraine's Special Ops (or 'terrorists' as Russia would have it) are active.

[TheVulture]

US air force command reporting a Russia airplane shot down on the border between Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk oblasts this morning

https://t.me/kpszsu/886

 

[LongLeftFlank]

36 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Besides the introduction of the drone gives the escorting infantry an edge in protecting the tanks. Not in the case of Russia, which arms are apparently hardly combined in combat, but for sure in the case of the more advanced NATO armies.

Agreed. With the caveat that the Russian kids who end up in the poor bloody infantry are likely the very bottom of the barrel, too dumb to be trainable even as BTR crewmen! [NOTE: I probably just insulted everyone on this board with a Combat Infantry badge lol. In actual infantry combat, these 'dumb' kids would utterly murder my overeducated arse. I knew it, which is why I never enlisted.]

The RA ranks seem to be heavily country lads and non-Slavs who -- as hard as it may be to believe for us parents of teens, lol! -- don't grow up glued to screens since many grew up in clapboard shacks in the nonwired hinterlands.

....Ergo, how well are these grunts gonna be able to operate (and maintain) drones? (out in the fields, far from their bases) 

[EDIT: it is possible to overstate this of course; it would be a very rare bumpkin who had gone to school without at least seeing a screen or two. But I'd guess your average Ukie infantryman has a good bit more Stugna-savvy in him / her than your average Ivan (or Mahmud)....]

Again, Galeev. Sorry to overquote him, but he gets to the point. And has great visuals:

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by LongLeftFlank
if you get in a hole, first rule is: stop digging....

[panzermartin]

It's not a russian specific the conscription of poor, uneducated guys with no dads money. For many armies around the world this is the case I think.  Western countries just have the luxury of paying more their unfortunate sons. 

While Russia is relying on the bottom of the barrel as you say , Ukraine has embattled the best they have as they are defending their homeland, many educated young men, volunteers etc. It's no surprise they did so well in the ambush warfare and high tech stuff. 

[Bulletpoint]

13 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

It's not a russian specific the conscription of poor, uneducated guys with no dads money. For many armies around the world this is the case I think.  Western countries just have the luxury of paying more their unfortunate sons. 

There's also a big difference between hiring people to risk their lives, and then providing them with the best gear possible and doing everything to minimise casualties and bring them back alive, compared to just throwing soldiers away like ammunition to be spent.