How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kraze]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Note, they had to kill soldiers. Not arrest, browbeat or cajole. To end the mutiny they had to fight the soldiers. At some point the soldiers will fight back, properly, and the Chechens will cease to be useful battlefield enforcers.

Those soldiers are rapists, looters and murderers themselves. It's obvious that in russian army killing is the only thing that has any persuasive weight.

[Taranis]

21 minutes ago, kraze said:

Those soldiers are rapists, looters and murderers themselves. It's obvious that in russian army killing is the only thing that has any persuasive weight.

I totally agree with you and unfortunately I don't see how we can denazify Russia? Invasion is not an option IMHO. It should come from their own redemption but they are so in their "own world" and convinced that they are in their rights that I don't see how it could happen. Even with a military defeat and heavy losses. Afghanistan and Chechnya have not changed their way of thinking. A change in regime will not change it either. Germany was ruined and occupied (vae victis) but apart from economic and political ruin, I see no such thing in Russia.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Taranis

[Taranis]

I guess the best we can hope for is Russian isolation. Ukraine would join NATO and the formation of a huge Western bloc that will resolve all future Russian expansionist pretensions before they even begin because will never have the capability. But it will not be possible to solve the problem in the very heart of Russia (too risky). I hope I am wrong and that an awakening of the Russian population will take place but honestly I do not believe it

[TheVulture]

20 minutes ago, kraze said:

There is a phone call intercept where a son tries to explain to his mother that they are killing civilians and children and his mother says "no, stop it, you are killing nazis".

I was listening to a depressing video this morning from a woman who runs Russian language courses on youtube (she left Russia some years ago). She did a PhD in Russian propaganda in the Russo-Japanese war, so studying how Russian propaganda works is kind of her thing.

There was a lot about how Russia has been sidelining and intimidating (and murdering) any semblance of free press and how Russian TV has, in the last 8 years, basically removed any entertainment, so it is now basically propaganda for 23 hours of each day. If you've got the TV on in the background while doing something else, then you get a constant stream of aggressive propaganda.

So she describing the Russian propaganda position (which probably won't be news to most of us):

* Ukraine and Russia are one people and Russians have a duty to protect their Ukrainian cousins

* Maidain in 2014 was an evil Nazi takeover that has destroyed Ukraine and effectively enslaved the Ukrainian population

* Russia is therefore fighting to free Ukrainians and is being welcomed as liberators

(Then there is a whole load of re-writing history about how the Soviet Union stood alone against Nazi Germany, eventually defeating them, while the west didn't care and didn't help the brave Russian people).

You can see why people being fed a non-stop diet of this stuff and being actively denied access to any inconvenient facts that contradict it might end up supporting this war.

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, Taranis said:

I guess the best we can hope for is Russian isolation. Ukraine would join NATO and the formation of a huge Western bloc that will resolve all future Russian expansionist pretensions before they even begin because will never have the capability. But it will not be possible to solve the problem in the very heart of Russia (too risky). I hope I am wrong and that an awakening of the Russian population will take place but honestly I do not believe it

I hope that Belarus, Moldova and Georgia will be able to break free from the yoke too. Russia won't have anybody to bully anymore, let them stew in their own sauce.

[kraze]

32 minutes ago, Taranis said:

I totally agree with you and unfortunately I don't see how we can denazify Russia? Invasion is not an option IMHO. It should come from their own redemption but they are so in their "own world" and convinced that they are in their rights that I don't see how it could happen. Even with a military defeat and heavy losses. Afghanistan and Chechnya have not changed their way of thinking. A change in regime will not change it either. Germany was ruined and occupied (vae victis) but apart from economic and political ruin, I see no such thing in Russia.

I don't think denazifying russians is a realistic goal. Too high a price and they are too far gone.

The only real thing that can be done is if Ukraine completely isolates itself from them (in every way possible - I'd forbid entry into the country for the next 10 years to all) and gets vastly superior armaments so that price of invasion will be unbearable. And ideally join NATO.

[kraze]

41 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

I was listening to a depressing video this morning from a woman who runs Russian language courses on youtube (she left Russia some years ago). She did a PhD in Russian propaganda in the Russo-Japanese war, so studying how Russian propaganda works is kind of her thing.

There was a lot about how Russia has been sidelining and intimidating (and murdering) any semblance of free press and how Russian TV has, in the last 8 years, basically removed any entertainment, so it is now basically propaganda for 23 hours of each day. If you've got the TV on in the background while doing something else, then you get a constant stream of aggressive propaganda.

So she describing the Russian propaganda position (which probably won't be news to most of us):

* Ukraine and Russia are one people and Russians have a duty to protect their Ukrainian cousins

* Maidain in 2014 was an evil Nazi takeover that has destroyed Ukraine and effectively enslaved the Ukrainian population

* Russia is therefore fighting to free Ukrainians and is being welcomed as liberators

(Then there is a whole load of re-writing history about how the Soviet Union stood alone against Nazi Germany, eventually defeating them, while the west didn't care and didn't help the brave Russian people).

You can see why people being fed a non-stop diet of this stuff and being actively denied access to any inconvenient facts that contradict it might end up supporting this war.

Yeah, but them being ok with rape, looting and civilian murder can't be explained by "liberation". Remember there was no TV in USSR just 60 years ago. Propaganda is just a convenient excuse for crimes they commit.

[Taranis]

39 minutes ago, Huba said:

I hope that Belarus, Moldova and Georgia will be able to break free from the yoke too. Russia won't have anybody to bully anymore, let them stew in their own sauce.

 

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

I don't think denazifying russians is a realistic goal. Too high a price and they are too far gone.

The only real thing that can be done is if Ukraine completely isolates itself from them (in every way possible - I'd forbid entry into the country for the next 10 years to all) and gets vastly superior armaments so that price of invasion will be unbearable. And ideally join NATO.

No likes left  . Totally agree with both of you. It's still reassuring to be with people who see things the same way thanks to this topic unlike all these stupidities that we can see on other social networks or on general media. Thanks to everyone again !

[SteelRain]

17 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

This is such a f... disgrace. 

Ukrainians should just drive over to Rheinmetall with flatbed trucks and take the stuff.

I did that virtually for you^^

quick and dirty setup meeting engagement in Steel Beasts 4.0:

Leo1a5 with 105mm DM63 vs a T90S m2005 with 3BM42M (every 125mm APFSDS should be enough for the Leo1...)

visibility 3000m

first round frontal kill at 2940m with a DM63.

I achieved multiple frontal first round kills between 2500 and 2900m.

As soon as the T90 ist angled it gets easier + some terrain for an ambush and we can have a turret highjump contest.

So i think the Leo 1 could work but you need experienced crews. Maybe we can send some retired leo1 crews from all over europe on a vacation

Edited April 20, 2022 by SteelRain

[Der Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, SteelRain said:

I did that virtually for you^^

quick and dirty setup meeting engagement in Steel Beasts 4.0:

Leo1a5 with 105mm DM63 vs a T90MS with 3BM42M (every 125mm APFSDS should be enough for the Leo1...)

visibility 3000m

first round frontal kill at 2940m with a DM63.

I achieved multiple frontal first round kills between 2500 and 2900m.

As soon as the T90 ist angled it gets easier + some terrain for an ambush and we can have a turret highjump contest.

So i think the Leo 1 could work but you need experienced crews. Maybe we can send some retired leo1 crews from all over europe on a vacation

Interesting, thanks! 

I never really got why the 105mm gun was supposed to be a problem for Ukraine. Combat ranges probably aren't all that long anyway, and even slightly older western APFSDS rounds might be better than whatever Ukraine and Russia are currently using. I saw some picture analysis from a Russian tank in Ukraine that had Sabot rounds from the late 70s or something. 

[DesertFox]

2 minutes ago, SteelRain said:

I did that virtually for you^^

You could test basically the same in CM:SF2 using canadian Leo1-CM2s or in CM:CW using M60s or the M1-Abrams with L7 gun. The 105mm-L7 is capable enough to wipe every russian tank at least up to 3000metres. Depending on T-modell even at 4 or 5 klicks.

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Simple answer is I don't know.  The consistent figure across the reporting is 22 x BTGs up there.  Both Jomini and UAWar appear consistent about the formations up there.  A lot I think depends on which 22 x BTGs are being counted - if you track from Verbivka to Sievierdonetsk you arrive at 22 x BTGs.  If you look at the formations and work on the widely held view that that a regiment/brigade is capable of generating 1-2 BTGs then the 8 x regts/bdes in the area Verbivka-Pidlyman translates into eight to 16 x BTGs maximum there.  Given the information that people are working from I would say that what we're seeing on the UAWar overlay is as accurate is its going to get accepting that the numbers are going to be out by one or two here or there.

Given that Russia seems to be trying to expand that bridgehead to the west and concurrently push south to Dibrovne and Slovyansk it is trying to do too much with too little and dissipating its combat power.  Whatever launches out of Izyum seems doomed to fail unless the Ukrainian Army up there decides to have a 'let's fight like Russia day.'

Yes, that is my sense as well.  The Russian operational trend appears consistently to try and do too much with too little.  Given the "typical" BTG construct:

(Seen these pictures everywhere)

According to the old frontage rules, this outfit could likely cover a 3 km frontage in the old 2 up, one back formation.  The MLRS and I assume UAV support allows it to strike really deeply, it has some flank security and AD so is somewhat self contained (except recon but I will get to that).

So with 16 BTGs, assuming they hold 1/3 in reserve means about 11 BTG up front, which translates to about 33, say 35 kms frontage. A rough eyeball of the Russian start line up there:

Is roughly twice that frontage...at the start line.  That frontage will expand in the advance, not even taking into account attrition.  So either the Russians are using a very different force-to-frontage metric and giving that BTG a 7-10km front which is a lot to ask of 800-1000 pers unless you have got some next-gen ISR and precision lethality.

Which leads me to the next big question?  Where is the Russian recon?  I have been looking around and in all this discussion I have not seen anything on how or where the Russian recon screens are laid down.  There are no dedicated recon units in the BTG (unless I am missing them), I have to assume that the recon is held at formation.  Given the environment that is not a small ask, to screen a 70+km frontage out to 10-20 kms.  This is made worse as the UA method has put eyes with teeth everywhere so you would need detailed/close recon at least out to 4-5km in front of lead BTG elements (the range of the Javelin being 4+km) to even stand a chance.

For historical reference:

So that is a 10-25km frontage for an old MRD, with a recon screen out 50km in front.  That MRD has 9 MRBs and 3 TBs with an entire TR in reserve (so 3 more TBs), for a total of 15 Bn-sized units...for 10-25km.  And there would be another MRD behind it.  To do what the Russians are proposing, in old Soviet terms would require 3-5 full up MRDs, an entire CAA at full strength.

I get frontages have expanded with modern ISR and weaponry (or maybe they haven't on the advance) but this is asking a lot of fresh troops, let alone already mauled ones.  Am I missing something?

Edited April 20, 2022 by The_Capt

[LongLeftFlank]

This thread is truly superb, (assuming it's accurate). It retraces the recent battles around Kreminna since 6 April, placing some of the imagery we've been seeing in context:

18 April

 

 

 

[Huba]

18 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Interesting, thanks! 

I never really got why the 105mm gun was supposed to be a problem for Ukraine. Combat ranges probably aren't all that long anyway, and even slightly older western APFSDS rounds might be better than whatever Ukraine and Russia are currently using. I saw some picture analysis from a Russian tank in Ukraine that had Sabot rounds from the late 70s or something. 

On top of that you get HESH against all the BMPs, BTRs etc, and that's just brutal.

[Der Zeitgeist]

Now we're talking.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

How Hot Is Ukraine Gonna Get?

Shieldmaiden.

 

 

[BeondTheGrave]

6 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Note, they had to kill soldiers. Not arrest, browbeat or cajole. To end the mutiny they had to fight the soldiers. At some point the soldiers will fight back, properly, and the Chechens will cease to be useful battlefield enforcers.

Good to see Kadyrov's forces finally getting into the action.....

[BeondTheGrave]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Yes, that is my sense as well.  The Russian operational trend appears consistently to try and do too much with too little.  Given the "typical" BTG construct:

(Seen these pictures everywhere)

According to the old frontage rules, this outfit could likely cover a 3 km frontage in the old 2 up, one back formation.  The MLRS and I assume UAV support allows it to strike really deeply, it has some flank security and AD so is somewhat self contained (except recon but I will get to that).

So with 16 BTGs, assuming they hold 1/3 in reserve means about 11 BTG up front, which translates to about 33, say 35 kms frontage. A rough eyeball of the Russian start line up there:

Is roughly twice that frontage...at the start line.  That frontage will expand in the advance, not even taking into account attrition.  So either the Russians are using a very different force-to-frontage metric and giving that BTG a 7-10km front which is a lot to ask of 800-1000 pers unless you have got some next-gen ISR and precision lethality.

Which leads me to the next big question?  Where is the Russian recon?  I have been looking around and in all this discussion I have not seen anything on how or where the Russian recon screens are laid down.  There are no dedicated recon units in the BTG (unless I am missing them), I have to assume that the recon is held at formation.  Given the environment that is not a small ask, to screen a 70+km frontage out to 10-20 kms.  This is made worse as the UA method has put eyes with teeth everywhere so you would need detailed/close recon at least out to 4-5km in front of lead BTG elements (the range of the Javelin being 4+km) to even stand a chance.

For historical reference:

So that is a 10-25km frontage for an old MRD, with a recon screen out 50km in front.  That MRD has 9 MRBs and 3 TBs with an entire TR in reserve (so 3 more TBs), for a total of 15 Bn-sized units...for 10-25km.  And there would be another MRD behind it.  To do what the Russians are proposing, in old Soviet terms would require 3-5 full up MRDs, an entire CAA at full strength.

I get frontages have expanded with modern ISR and weaponry (or maybe they haven't on the advance) but this is asking a lot of fresh troops, let alone already mauled ones.  Am I missing something?

I dont think youre missing much here, seems pretty bleak. And this is just on the attack axis, any reasonable frontage calculations seem to me to suggest that Russia is looking even worse outside of this one axis. I suspect this is a part of why Ukrainian counterattacks have been so successful, too little manpower too much territory means its always possible to slip a squad of guys into a rear area. Potentially how the UASOF are getting into Russian command posts as well? 

But regarding this specific attack my personal assumption had been that basically Russia was going to sell out flank security and potentially even recon for mass at the point of the spear. Imagine concentrating eight (six up two back) BTGs along your main axis of advance, then stretching three BTGs across all hell and creation trying to screen the flank. I would guess that the initial attack by the mass would do well enough, push forward and capture the next town. Eventually though UA pressure on the flanks would get through and throw sand in the gears and grind the attack down to a quick halt. This is personally my expectation for the great 'Donbass Offensive.' Russia captures a couple more towns, takes some impressive losses, and then calls it off at the first phase line because, well, they have no choice. 

My wargaming what-if for this war is quickly becoming "How would things have changed if the Russian army had retained a stronger Regimental system and not the BTG." Seems like a combined arms (combined function) Regiment would be in keeping with Russian warfighting practice, its numerical strength, and its lack of command flexibility. 

[Huba]

DW reporter crushes SPD MP about the heavy weapons for Ukraine. Rather sad spectacle:

Edit: this is example how free media should work - DW is a state owned company, but you really couldn't tell from the way this interview was done.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Huba

[Haiduk]

14 hours ago, akd said:

@sburke @Kinophile

 

@Haiduk, do we know which unit he commanded?

@sburke @Kinophile

There is no point to include him in list, this is our local criminal scum, not Russian. He participated in the war since 2014. Promoted to "lt.colonel" by LPR "authorities". He was a commander of 11th territorial defense battalion "Ataman" of LPR, which consists mostly of local and Russian Don cossacks. Killed on 18th of April in the battle for Kreminna.

[Bil Hardenberger]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Yes, that is my sense as well.  The Russian operational trend appears consistently to try and do too much with too little.  Given the "typical" BTG construct:

(Seen these pictures everywhere)

According to the old frontage rules, this outfit could likely cover a 3 km frontage in the old 2 up, one back formation.  The MLRS and I assume UAV support allows it to strike really deeply, it has some flank security and AD so is somewhat self contained (except recon but I will get to that).

So with 16 BTGs, assuming they hold 1/3 in reserve means about 11 BTG up front, which translates to about 33, say 35 kms frontage. A rough eyeball of the Russian start line up there:

Is roughly twice that frontage...at the start line.  That frontage will expand in the advance, not even taking into account attrition.  So either the Russians are using a very different force-to-frontage metric and giving that BTG a 7-10km front which is a lot to ask of 800-1000 pers unless you have got some next-gen ISR and precision lethality.

Which leads me to the next big question?  Where is the Russian recon?  I have been looking around and in all this discussion I have not seen anything on how or where the Russian recon screens are laid down.  There are no dedicated recon units in the BTG (unless I am missing them), I have to assume that the recon is held at formation.  Given the environment that is not a small ask, to screen a 70+km frontage out to 10-20 kms.  This is made worse as the UA method has put eyes with teeth everywhere so you would need detailed/close recon at least out to 4-5km in front of lead BTG elements (the range of the Javelin being 4+km) to even stand a chance.

For historical reference:

So that is a 10-25km frontage for an old MRD, with a recon screen out 50km in front.  That MRD has 9 MRBs and 3 TBs with an entire TR in reserve (so 3 more TBs), for a total of 15 Bn-sized units...for 10-25km.  And there would be another MRD behind it.  To do what the Russians are proposing, in old Soviet terms would require 3-5 full up MRDs, an entire CAA at full strength.

I get frontages have expanded with modern ISR and weaponry (or maybe they haven't on the advance) but this is asking a lot of fresh troops, let alone already mauled ones.  Am I missing something?

They have  Recon Company in their BTGs... supposed to anyway.  Should be a BRM and BTRs or BRDMs... in your illustration in the second column I think the BTR company with the BRM is the Recon Company.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Bil Hardenberger

[DesertFox]

Not bad, not bad...

 

 

[The_Capt]

42 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

My wargaming what-if for this war is quickly becoming "How would things have changed if the Russian army had retained a stronger Regimental system and not the BTG." Seems like a combined arms (combined function) Regiment would be in keeping with Russian warfighting practice, its numerical strength, and its lack of command flexibility. 

I think maybe the Russians were reaching for some western concepts here but wound up with an unholy compromise.  Decentralized and dispersed, highly empowered tactical units are theoretically capable of rapid exploitation and accelerating decision cycles but they come with significant costs.  They need a lot of ISR support and integral enablers.  They also cannot avoid the realities of a long logistical tail, or you employ them as one-shot fire-and-forget but have a whole bunch more in the operational magazine. 

Further, this also greatly increases the load on the operational level to make sense of what all these tactical units are doing and provide clear and concise task command when needed (everyone forgets this in the warm liberal glow of "do whatever feels good" mission command - which is not that either].   That is a lot of C4 architecture to plug everything into and a significant training bill to make sure everyone knows what they are doing. 

It is like the Russians built an impression of this but did not understand how all the parts fit together.  That, or they were shooting for something else entirely and I am not seeing it.

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

They have  Recon Company in their BTGs... supposed to anyway.  Should be a BMR and BTRs or BRDMs... in your illustration in the second column I think the BTR company with the BMR is the Recon Company.

Is that what those 6-9 BTR looking things are north of the AT Company?  Ok, that makes a bit more sense, I assume they have radars and UAVs in that little cluster.  So the BTG has close recon support, it is the Russian formation recon that I am not clear on, nor have we seen a lot of "recon battle" in this fight, or at least I have not noted it.

[Der Zeitgeist]

32 minutes ago, Huba said:

DW reporter crushes SPD MP about the heavy weapons for Ukraine. Rather sad spectacle:

Edit: this is example how free media should work - DW is a state owned company, but you really couldn't tell from the way this interview was done.

Ralf Stegner is always a sad spectacle.  He does speak very good English though, didn't expect that.

What's notable is the style of the interview by the (I guess) British-trained journalist. We wouldn't have a questioning quite as thorough as that on regular German TV.