How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

10 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Each BTG both and UKR and RUS is composing for own task. All what you see in open sources as "typical structure" is just paper BTG. Of cource, real BTG can match on 100 % with "typical", but can have two companies instead three, artillery battalion instead battery etc. 

So, all BTGs in CM - UKR and RUS are "typical"

I don't know how it is now, but in 2014 each UKR brigade could establish only one, rare two BTG. Russian brigades and regiments could establish three BTGs.

Sounds like the german system at Brig level which doesnt form static BTGs but cross-attaches Coys from Pz and PzGren to Btls depentent on the task at hand resulting in Btl (-), Btl(+/-) or Btl(+) structures.  Usually a Brigade has 4 Sabre Btls. A PzBrig has 3 PzBtl and 1 PzGrenBtl, a PzGrenBrig has 3 PzGrenBtl and 1 PzBtl.

Dependent on the task at hand usually 1 Btl is held in Brig.reserve and the 3 remaining Btls are organized according to the task given by Brig and terrain (Delay, Defense, Attack, Recce in force).

So from a Btl. with 4 PzGren Coy, a PzCoy, PzAAPlt, PzPiPlt and PzJgPlt as a PzGrenBtl(+) to a Btl. with only 3 PzCoy as a PzBtl(-) kept in Brigreserve everything can happen and change from one day to the other.

[Battlefront.com]

40 minutes ago, Huba said:

Reportedly more explosions in Moldova. It's getting interesting:

And here's Strelkov's opinion on what's happening:

If you non-Americans need me to explain why I'm getting out some popcorn, I will be happy to help you understand the concept

Before the war started the people who figured Russia would be defeated, or at least bogged down like Afghanistan, viewed a couple of key spots that would likely come under pressure to change hands.  This is one of the most obvious.  Transnistria as it is EXTREMELY isolated from Russia, has a fairly small defense force, and is occupying the territory of a (for now) mostly anti-Russian government.

The thing is... it's complicated.  Girkin is, of course, speaking out his Russian butthole about Romanian military operating in Moldovan uniforms and preparing for a takeover.  That's just the usual crap one might expect from a dodgy character like him.

There's also some rumors that what Russia is trying to do is create a situation where Russian forces in Transnistria would invade Moldova.  That would likely not end well for the independence of Transnistria as I don't think Russia could pull it off long term and when the dust settled there would be a unified Moldova.

So... I for one still don't know what is going on here, but we can be assured that whatever it is there's a direct tie to Russia's war in Ukraine.

Steve

[Ultradave]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Izium axis, Stugna-P crew hit 4 targets for 3 minutes like on the firing range. Russan spotting capabilities = 0. though, it seemed to me one BMP (?) made several shots "somewhere"

It's noteworhy, the operator commands in pure Russian language

PS. Flight time is about 11 second - the range to the targets is about 2200 m

 

 

Very clear example of the aiming technique. Thanks @Haiduk

[Machor]

The employment of the UR-77 in urban combat appears to be becoming common, seen here in Rubizhne:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the UR-77, with footage from its novel use in Syria:

Reminds me of the 'Stuka-zu-Fuss', seen here in the Warsaw Uprising:

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Not sure how this works clearing mines.

In the broadest terms, from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine-clearing_line_charge) :

"the basic design is for many explosive charges connected on a line to be projected onto the minefield. The charges explode, detonating any buried mines, thus clearing a path for infantry to cross. The system may either be human-portable or vehicle-mounted. The systems do not guarantee clearance of all types of mines."

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If you non-Americans need me to explain why I'm getting out some popcorn, I will be happy to help you understand the concept

Before the war started the people who figured Russia would be defeated, or at least bogged down like Afghanistan, viewed a couple of key spots that would likely come under pressure to change hands.  This is one of the most obvious.  Transnistria as it is EXTREMELY isolated from Russia, has a fairly small defense force, and is occupying the territory of a (for now) mostly anti-Russian government.

The thing is... it's complicated.  Girkin is, of course, speaking out his Russian butthole about Romanian military operating in Moldovan uniforms and preparing for a takeover.  That's just the usual crap one might expect from a dodgy character like him.

There's also some rumors that what Russia is trying to do is create a situation where Russian forces in Transnistria would invade Moldova.  That would likely not end well for the independence of Transnistria as I don't think Russia could pull it off long term and when the dust settled there would be a unified Moldova.

So... I for one still don't know what is going on here, but we can be assured that whatever it is there's a direct tie to Russia's war in Ukraine.

Steve

Sure Girkin is Russian style paranoid and it shows. OTOH, if I put my own tinfoil hat on, the unofficial NATO summit tomorrow coincidences with what's going on quite nicely. I'm getting the popcorn too

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Sounds like the german system at Brig level which doesnt form static BTGs but cross-attaches Coys from Pz and PzGren to Btls depentent on the task at hand resulting in Btl (-), Btl(+/-) or Btl(+) structures. 

This is standard NATO practice.  From what I can tell Russia tried to mimic this, but like all things Russian did it half arsed with an emphasis on things which made it look equivalent to NATO rather than tackling the things that could make it a reality.

The major difference is that in a NATO brigade each Battalion is at full strength and capabilities.  I know this varies greatly within NATO, but that is the basic concept and for sure that is what the United States does.  When going to war this means cross attaching units within the Brigade, and with external units, to create "Task Forces" for a specific purpose.  One or two can be committed to combat with the balance standing back as a reserve.  In the event that a Battalion TF got hammered it would fall back, re task elements to the reserve battalion, and sit out of combat to rest and refit.

With the Russian concept it seems that it is similar, but that they wait MUCH LONGER to withdraw a BTG and instead feed it replacements from the other BTGs to keep it operational.  At least this is the traditional Soviet practice and with the shortages of equipment and personnel it makes sense.  Though I am sure there's no one way it's done.

I have been assuming all along that Ukrainian Brigades are similar in concept to NATO doctrine as it has been restructuring itself over the past 8 years to look more like a NATO force than a modified Soviet one.  But really, I don't know.

Steve

[BeondTheGrave]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I have been assuming all along that Ukrainian Brigades are similar in concept to NATO doctrine as it has been restructuring itself over the past 8 years to look more like a NATO force than a modified Soviet one.  But really, I don't know.

This has been the US/GER concept since at least the 1970s, maybe earlier? Not sure on that. 

But the general idea of creating Battalion Scale TFs by swapping a coy (TOE in CMCW seems to put it at 2 Coys for TFs? But I had thought US Battalions were triangular, plus extras? Not saying that their research is wrong just that I'm not familiar with it. Always been curious tbh) between different units in the brigade. So 2-4 Armor TF may keep 2 armor Coys of its own, but then task force with A/1-76 Mech, which would get the spare Coy from 2-4. Then either one or more of the battalion TFs would get extra non-organic goodies from Brigade HQ based on mission and need. This is the basic structure as laid out in the old Active Defense FMs. Surely there were more variations than just the old armor/inf swap, like creating a 'heavy' battalion by surging resources to it. But this is what I have read. 

The concept of the battalion TF organizationally isn't all that new, its making the BCT the cornerstone maneuver force of the army. As I recall the US Army committed to this path under the Bush admin, while the rest of NATO followed after. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by BeondTheGrave

[Kinophile]

@BeondTheGrave you're saying BTG in relation to US Army, but shouldn't that be BCT?

Hmm. I think I need to read up a bit to understand some key NATO concepts.

Considering how drastically UA changed after 2015 incorporating NATO concepts in a Ukrainian context, I'll be very interested to see what the realities of this modern war does to UA force structuring - and if there's a feedback loop back into NATO.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Kinophile

[billbindc]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If you non-Americans need me to explain why I'm getting out some popcorn, I will be happy to help you understand the concept

Before the war started the people who figured Russia would be defeated, or at least bogged down like Afghanistan, viewed a couple of key spots that would likely come under pressure to change hands.  This is one of the most obvious.  Transnistria as it is EXTREMELY isolated from Russia, has a fairly small defense force, and is occupying the territory of a (for now) mostly anti-Russian government.

The thing is... it's complicated.  Girkin is, of course, speaking out his Russian butthole about Romanian military operating in Moldovan uniforms and preparing for a takeover.  That's just the usual crap one might expect from a dodgy character like him.

There's also some rumors that what Russia is trying to do is create a situation where Russian forces in Transnistria would invade Moldova.  That would likely not end well for the independence of Transnistria as I don't think Russia could pull it off long term and when the dust settled there would be a unified Moldova.

So... I for one still don't know what is going on here, but we can be assured that whatever it is there's a direct tie to Russia's war in Ukraine.

Steve

Moldova, on paper, is pretty defenseless. It's not much of a stretch to imagine Putin thinks he can complicate Ukrainian and NATO plans if he's able to escalate tensions there. It's pretty small beans relative to the big war happening farther east but if you're Vlad, right now you are casting about for pretty much anything that might help somehow.

[Gpig]

"War means War"

BBC - Russia's Lavrov, latest comments . . .

Okay. This is a little unnerving . . .

Edited April 25, 2022 by Gpig

[DesertFox]

4 minutes ago, Gpig said:

"War means War"

BBC - Russia's Lavrov, latest comments . . .

Okay. This is a little unnerving . . .

He is playing with the fears that exist in the western european states. The russians run out of options, everyone can see that. The clock is ticking against them. TikTok...

[panzermartin]

44 minutes ago, Machor said:

The employment of the UR-77 in urban combat appears to be becoming common, seen here in Rubizhne:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the UR-77, with footage from its novel use in Syria:

Reminds me of the 'Stuka-zu-Fuss', seen here in the Warsaw Uprising:

In the broadest terms, from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine-clearing_line_charge) :

"the basic design is for many explosive charges connected on a line to be projected onto the minefield. The charges explode, detonating any buried mines, thus clearing a path for infantry to cross. The system may either be human-portable or vehicle-mounted. The systems do not guarantee clearance of all types of mines."

Great input , basically looks like a long lasso rope with explosives. I would be very uncomfortable as crew with a chain of TNT "sausages" catapulting above my head. One of the strangest vehicles I've seen. 

[dan/california]

14 minutes ago, Gpig said:

"War means War"

BBC - Russia's Lavrov, latest comments . . .

Okay. This is a little unnerving . . .

That was the purpose of course. But Lavrov and friends are not going to end civilization unless there are Nato heavy brigades closing in on Moscow. They are quite content to reign in the totalitarian hell they are turning Russia into short of that. They barely care if the serfs getting the worst of it are Russian or Ukrainian. The war in Ukraine is now an internal regime contest to see who gets the blame for failure, and position the various factions for the inevitable AFTER Putin contest.

[Fenris]

13 hours ago, Haiduk said:

No comments )

Still does the job

 

[dan/california]

27 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Moldova, on paper, is pretty defenseless. It's not much of a stretch to imagine Putin thinks he can complicate Ukrainian and NATO plans if he's able to escalate tensions there. It's pretty small beans relative to the big war happening farther east but if you're Vlad, right now you are casting about for pretty much anything that might help somehow.

Vlad has forgotten the first rules of holes, stop digging when the one your are in is big enough to bury yourself five times over. Firing up a mess in Moldovia will result in his little transwhatever project there being vaporized. It may well result In Moldavia simply becoming a province of Romania. Stalin basically broke it off after WW2 and it really isn't a viable country. 

[DesertFox]

Oligarch deaths and russian fires (Bryansk et al.)

 

 

[billbindc]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

Vlad has forgotten the first rules of holes, stop digging when the one your are in is big enough to bury yourself five times over. Firing up a mess in Moldovia will result in his little transwhatever project there being vaporized. It may well result In Moldavia simply becoming a province of Romania. Stalin basically broke it off after WW2 and it really isn't a viable country. 

I think it's pretty safe to discount the idea that the Putin regime will take the path of wisdom in any course.

[BeondTheGrave]

42 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

@BeondTheGrave you're saying BTG in relation to US Army, but shouldn't that be BCT?

Hmm. I think I need to read up a bit to understand some key NATO concepts.

Considering how drastically UA changed after 2015 incorporating NATO concepts in a Ukrainian context, I'll be very interested to see what the realities of this modern war does to UA force structuring - and if there's a feedback loop back into NATO.

Ack sorry thats my fault, Im getting acronyms a bit mixed up. Im more used to the Cold War terminology and all this its just too new and scary for me.

Properly it should be BTGs for Russian Battalion Tactical Groups, BCTs for us Brigade Combat Teams, something like I said designed in the 2000s to make the Army lighter and more maneuverable. It basically shifted the hierarchy of the Army down one level, with Brigades becoming parent maneuver organizations like divisions. But really this was just a renormalization of Cold War practice which already had begun to deemphasize divisional operations. The old term comparable to the Russian BTG would be the US Battalion TF which is the same idea in a different suit. You can read more about this unit in Cold War practice in FM 71-2, which is an Active Defense era manual (fun!) that AFAIK was not replaced until after the end of the Cold War. This was, best I can tell, something the US Army stole from Germany either in 1974-75 OR! sometime in the mid 1960s, depending on who you ask. Never been able to find a good answer on that one. 

Anyway sorry for the confusion, it happens because I myself am a confused and deranged individual. 

[Commanderski]

I don't know if this has been posted yet but I haven't seen it before:

 

[sross112]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

That's very interesting. So a UKR BDE could be considered the resourcing pool to equip it's BTG for whatever task?

Why are UKR Bdes so small, in comparison to RUS? Wide front to defend with limited forces? Focussing on Quality over RUS's quantity?

Have you seen the war forcing any changes in structure?

The UA brigades structures in wikipedia shows 2017ish as to when they were last modified. They also look to be a little heavier than you would expect. This is the 72nd Mech Brigade and is pretty much the basic format:

• 72nd Mechanized Brigade, Bila Tserkva
  • Headquarters & Headquarters Company
  • 1st Mechanized Battalion
  • 2nd Mechanized Battalion
  • 3rd Mechanized Battalion
  • Tank Battalion
  • 12th Motorized Infantry Battalion "Kyiv"
  • Brigade Artillery Regiment
    • Headquarters & Target Acquisition Battery
    • Self-propelled Artillery Battalion (2S3 Akatsiya)
    • Self-propelled Artillery Battalion (2S1 Gvozdika)
    • Rocket Artillery Battalion (BM-21 Grad)
    • Anti-tank Artillery Battalion (MT-12 Rapira)
  • Anti-Aircraft Missile Artillery Battalion
  • Engineer Battalion
  • Maintenance Battalion
  • Logistic Battalion
  • Reconnaissance Company
  • Sniper Company
  • Electronic Warfare Company
  • Signal Company
  • Radar Company
  • CBRN-defense Company
  • Medical Company

There is some deviation from brigade to brigade but it is mostly in the motorized infantry complement. For example the 24th Brigade has no motorized inf battalion and the 54th shows 2.

The tank brigades show 3 tank bn and no inf. The airborne and air assault brigades show three infantry bn and no tanks.

I think that helps explain some of the combat frontages they have been able to hold. Most of the regular mech brigades have 4 inf, 1 tank and 3 arty bn's plus the HHS. Looks like pretty good sized and capable.

Like the others pointed out it is basically along the western BCT design but a little heavier. The big difference between this and the BTG concept (I think we really disected this a few hundred pages ago, if you search The Capt's posts you can probably find it) is that the BCT forms the task forces as needed where the BTG is pretty much it's own unit with the infantry, artillery and tanks organic to it. The additional support from their brigades on up can be added but the BTG is supposed to be able to handle most tasks on it's own with the organic units. One of the biggest failings in this design that I think we all agree on is having the artillery spread between the BTG's and not massed at brigade level for concentration of fire. With their communication problems and the BTG's being their own little island it actually really reduces the RA brigade effectiveness in a lot of ways.

The same could be said for the parceled recon elements as well. A recce BN at brigade level would probably be more useful than spread between the BTG's. Basically all the resources are like that. I think Steve just pointed out that when the RA tried to copy the TF concept that has been so successful, they failed to note that it is constantly in flux depending on the task. Pushing all the resources down to the BTG looks good on paper but in reality it doesn't allow the concentrations of the different assets where they would be the most useful for the Brigade.

[panzermartin]

19 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Great input , basically looks like a long lasso rope with explosives. I would be very uncomfortable as crew with a chain of TNT "sausages" catapulting above my head. One of the strangest vehicles I've seen. 

Also probably not a good time to say something like this, but I really dig the  Soviet made hardware primarily of cold war period as much as I dig German WW2 designs. 

There is some distinct character and aesthetics from the early mig jets to the elegant Su 27 and probably the T-72 is my favorite post WW2 tank design. The weirdness in some of these soviet designs make them stand out to the rather boring boxy clean cut looking NATO etc. 

(Yes, sorry for not contributing serious content again, please move on:) ) 

 

 

[BigDog944]

4 minutes ago, Commanderski said:

I don't know if this has been posted yet but I haven't seen it before:

 

This is the video game ARMA, as stated in the title of the video.

Edited April 25, 2022 by BigDog944

[chuckdyke]

9 hours ago, womble said:

Maybe the fight the UA want to use the Leo1s in isn't "straight up fighting T-80s and upgraded T-72s", and it is, indeed, "good enough" for their purposes.

And this is a rhetorical question, by the way, as should be apparent.

Unable to penetrate frontal armor with the 105mm while the 125mm can take out the Leo1 at 2km. The Leo 1 is an outdated tank from the cold war. 

[akd]

4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Unable to penetrate frontal armor with the 105mm while the 125mm can take out the Leo1 at 2km. The Leo 1 is an outdated tank from the cold war. 

This is not how the utility of tanks is determined.  Like saying Sherman 75s were outdated and useless in 1944.

[akd]

Oh Russia. Never change. (This is probably not from the current war.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/ubxsg6/russian_tank_teamkill_unknown_date/

Edited April 25, 2022 by akd