How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, the bridgehead was located north of Bilohorivka on the western bank (near) to the eastern bank (far) at this point:

48.950735136924834, 38.22677715669604

I've orientated and scaled one of the direct overhead images we have (left) with Google Maps (right).  You can see the bend of the river, banks, and importantly a structure that matches.  If you look on the western bank in Google Maps you can see the connecting road they used to get to the river.  That matches up nicely with the wrecked vehicles in the woods.

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, Gpig said:

In all this discussion on the bridge crossings, I've missed what direction the Russians were attempting to cross in the pictures above..

Are the photos oriented as North being top of picture?

Based on the big strat maps, the Russians would have been trying to cross the river from North West to South East. (left to right, in the images above). But the tanks and wrecks all seem to be pointed south in the pictures, as if having crossed from top to bottom in the pics.

Assuming(!) the top right bank of the river is East, wouldn't the tanks be pointed / driving in that direction (bottom to top)?

Any help?

As it so happens, yes   See my previous post.  The image I uploaded is orientated North at top.

Steve

[FancyCat]

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Exactly - the point I wanted to highlight, given my particular trade, is the use of IPB.  It is an effective tool, particularly when you can draw on the expertise of SMEs - in this case a combat engineer who knows the detail on the river and bank conditions.  From there, as an analyst, once you narrow down the likely crossing sites you can start refining your NAIs and TAIs.  He also discusses the likely enemy assets needed to cross that gap and that allows you to work out the echelon you're facing and where that equipment might come from and how it will get to where it needs to be.  This allows you to add more NAIs to locate them and TAIs to strike them.  By knowing the equipment that is likely to be used you can then give clearer direction to your ISR assets - in this instance look for boats.  If deemed a High Payoff Target (HPT) then you are looking to strike that/those asset(s).  There was also some good detail about timings as well as time estimates.

A lot of people outside the intelligence trade seem to think that good tactical intelligence is enabled by super secret technical whizzbangery.  In fact it isn't - it is essentially a speed-time-distance problem that you are solving based on a knowledge of the enemy's orbat/likely orbat and the area of operations.  This is almost a classic case study of how to do this and how, if done competently (as in this case), tactical intelligence provides the decision support to get inside the enemy's OODA loop and to defeat him.

All extremely interesting!

It also speaks to the quality of the Ukrainian chain of command.  Someone higher up figured they needed to be worried about a crossing and instead of guessing brought in an expert.  The chain functioned as it should to produce the right guy for the job.  The guy made his report, it went up the chain, and they officers in charge listened to him.  They probably had alerted some artillery to stand by for this specific need, which allowed the artillery to come up with a rough plan on what they wanted to do when the time came (fuse settings, number of guns, firing pattern, etc.).  And the chain had to communicate out to the squadies what they needed to keep a look out for and instructions for how to report back.  When they indeed noticed what they were told to look out for they reported it and the chain got everything going within 20 minutes of the initial tip off.

I have no idea how impressive this might be to a NATO guy who does/did this for a living, but I for sure am super impressed.

Steve

[Taranis]

Lots of actions this morning, from north to south. Russians on the offensive :

↓General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine: Russian troops managed to cross Siversky Donets river near Lyman

 

 

↓Russian army has limited success in offensive at Kudriashivka direction near Sieverodonetsk, - General Staff of Armed forces of Ukraine

https://t.me/lumsrc/1474

 

↓At the Bakhmut direction Russian army conducts assault actions in the direction of Pervomaisk, Komyshuvakha, clashes continue - General Staff of Armed forces of Ukraine

https://t.me/lumsrc/1470

 

↓ At the Avdiyivka direction Russian army assaulting Novobakhmutivka and Novokalynove, - General Staff of Armed forces of Ukraine

https://t.me/lumsrc/1471

 

↓ At the Kurakhive direction Russian army on the offensive at Stepne-Novomykhailivka, Slavne-Novomykhailivka and Oleksandrivka-Maryinka, continued clashes, - General Staff of Armed forces of Ukraine

https://t.me/lumsrc/1472

 

→ About Finland :
Finland's president is expected to announce his position on whether or not the country will join NATO this morning.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

I reread the engineer's narrative and it checks out with my theory.  Swimming vehicles went over while they were building the YELLOW bridge.  Just as they completed it they smashed it with artillery, so not many vehicles got over that way before it was cut off.  This was May 8.  On May 9 they tried again with RED bridge, which he noted was also attacked and destroyed.  He makes no mention of BLUE or attacking it, so I think I'm correct they couldn't swim any more vehicles (too much debris) and BLUE was never finished so it wasn't attacked.  He apparently wasn't informed about BLUE and, as they didn't attack it, didn't have a reason to know there was a third attempt.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

49 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Raihorodok and roll!

[GWAR rulez!!!] 

.....

No, seriously, all that ground has been carefully studied, for weeks at least. All those crossings are canalized to the max, boggy forests. Let them get nice and strung out on the roads and then, linear barrage.

You know, the one everyone was waiting for on that big column north of Kiev but which was a little out of reach for the UA artillery and air forces at that time?

...Not now though.

We're long overdue for a nice Highway of Death in this war.

Edited May 12, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

OK, so it looks like the Russians are trying very hard to break the frontage up from Popasna all the way to Kudriashivka  (northern suburb of Sieverodonetsk).  They're trying to move towards Bakhmut from Popasna.

To the south they're trying, once again, to break out from the Donetsk City frontage.

The big surprise, to me, is breaching the Donets directly in front of Slovyansk without also putting serious pressure from Izyum at the same time.  What's the point of that?

Given this, and the previous days' activities, it seems that this is Russia's further narrowed down offensive concept. 

Plan 1 was the big attempt to get all of Donetsk and Luhansk at one time.  This involved driving south from Izyum and north from Novomykhailivka area.  They made no progress in either that was worth mentioning and Izyum got put on the defensive.

Plan 2 was to sweep into Slovyansk and join up with forces coming from somewhere further south.  Maybe Donetsk City area.  This fell apart when Slovyansk wasn't seriously threatened from Izyum and no progress was made further south.

Plan 3 seems to have developed as a result (or fluke?) of Popasna.  Now they finally have some motion from the south and so they tried to breach the Donets just east of Sieverodonetsk, presumably to drive south and meet up with the forces coming from Bakhmut after Popasna drive gets there.  The goal now is to secure everything east of Slovyansk.

I don't see Plan 3 being reasonable.  Just getting frokm Popasna to Bakhmut is likely going to be quite a task.  Driving north is more reasonable, but then they don't get the big bag they want.  Seems they aren't headed north and if they were I think they would have already done so.  And while they are trying to do this the north is going to continue to be bogged down taking Sieverodonetsk.  As we discussed, the attempt to cross the river to get at Sieverodonetsk from the west failed pretty miserably and the new crossing is too far away to have any real impact there.

All of this and with what forces?  They are definitely running on fumes at this point.

Steve

[Offshoot]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I reread the engineer's narrative and it checks out with my theory.  Swimming vehicles went over while they were building the YELLOW bridge.  Just as they completed it they smashed it with artillery, so not many vehicles got over that way before it was cut off.  This was May 8.  On May 9 they tried again with RED bridge, which he noted was also attacked and destroyed.  He makes no mention of BLUE or attacking it, so I think I'm correct they couldn't swim any more vehicles (too much debris) and BLUE was never finished so it wasn't attacked.  He apparently wasn't informed about BLUE and, as they didn't attack it, didn't have a reason to know there was a third attempt.

Steve

Is it possible the red circled spots in the right-hand pic are from shelling? If so, they may have abandoned blue after it came under fire again and they finally decided to give up. The smoke would also indicate that there was fighting here after the first two bridges were destroyed.
BTW, when I mentioned the vehicle traffic, I meant that it doesn't look like it was there until after yellow and red were destroyed.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Is it possible the red circled spots in the right-hand pic are from shelling? If so, they may have abandoned blue after it came under fire again and they finally decided to give up. The smoke would also indicate that there was fighting here after the first two bridges were destroyed.

Good point about the smoke, but this could be part of the deliberate fires that the Ukrainian engineer mentions.  Could also be from shelling of course.

2 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

BTW, when I mentioned the vehicle traffic, I meant that it doesn't look like it was there until after yellow and red were destroyed.

There's no landing spot for them as the destroyed YELLOW and RED areas are the only signs of vehicle traffic on the far side of the river.  Once BLUE construction started swimming would not be viable.  Due to the short span of time between when RED was destroyed and BLUE was started I doubt they used it as a crossing at that point.  Plus, there is no mention of a third round of strikes and that is what would be needed to explain the dead vehicles in the water next to RED's landing area.  Much more likely they were swimmers coming ashore when the strike on RED happened.

Not saying it's impossible for some vehicles to gone over before BLUE got set up and a third attack whacked them when they got to the Ukrainian side.  However, I think it's more logical they swam as much as they could while setting up YELLOW in order to protect their bridging efforts.  When they lost YELLOW they continued swimming until RED was set up, at which point they lost both RED and the last bit of landing spot for swimmers.

Steve

[Taranis]

 

Quote

Le président et le premier ministre finlandais annoncent être favorables à une demande d’adhésion à l’OTAN, qui devrait avoir lieu dimanche
Le président de la Finlande, Sauli Niinisto, et la première ministre, Santa Marin, ont déclaré aujourd’hui qu’ils étaient favorables à une demande d’adhésion à l’Organisation du traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN), qui sera annoncée officiellement dimanche.

Cette demande ouvre la voie à l’expansion de l’Alliance atlantique au milieu de la guerre menée par la Russie en Ukraine, bien qu’il reste quelques étapes avant le début du processus de candidature. La Suède voisine devrait décider de rejoindre l’OTAN dans les prochains jours.

Finland's president and prime minister announce support for NATO membership application, set to take place on Sunday
Finland's President Sauli Niinisto and Prime Minister Santa Marin today said they support an application to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which will be officially announced on Sunday.

This request paves the way for the expansion of the Atlantic Alliance amid the Russian-led war in Ukraine, although there are still a few steps before the start of the application process. Neighboring Sweden is expected to decide whether to join NATO in the coming days.

Source : Le Monde

  

[Hapless]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I know the video is old, but it is still very interesting to look at.  I can't be absolutely sure because the video doesn't have all its original frames

I'm probably going to upload the original at some point. Might make an interesting video about how powerful OSINT has gotten.

Also yes, there are multiple BMDs and trucks being towed. And some Pantsirs going forward, a military police vehicle, a tank with a Soviet flag, some kind of fire strike in the background, random civilian vehicles passing through. Loads of stuff.

[The_MonkeyKing]

11 minutes ago, Taranis said:

 

Finland's president and prime minister announce support for NATO membership application, set to take place on Sunday
Finland's President Sauli Niinisto and Prime Minister Santa Marin today said they support an application to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which will be officially announced on Sunday.

This request paves the way for the expansion of the Atlantic Alliance amid the Russian-led war in Ukraine, although there are still a few steps before the start of the application process. Neighboring Sweden is expected to decide whether to join NATO in the coming days.

Source : Le Monde

  

As a fin I can confirm. NATO for Finland.

The process was set in motion right after the invasion started. The timetable and result was very clear to fins from the very start. Now it is starting to get public with high level statements. Yesterday parlaments defense committee statement recommended NATO membership. 

Almost all the parties have given pro membership NATO policy statements in the last months (one small left party said no, 7% seats). Only the prime ministers party has not released the revisited NATO policy, it is coming this Saturday.

Sweden is expected to follow the same timeline with Finland.

[Huba]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

That map got to be wrong - if they were indeed trying to cross where the pin is, it would meant that Lyman, and basically the whole UA forces north of Donets are cut off. In the original statement it is only mentioned that they try to cross near Lyman, I'd think quite a bit further east near Yampil.

[FancyCat]

3 minutes ago, Huba said:

That map got to be wrong - if they were indeed trying to cross where the pin is, it would meant that Lyman, and basically the whole UA forces north of Donets are cut off. In the original statement it is only mentioned that they try to cross near Lyman, I'd think quite a bit further east near Yampil.

Entirely possible the pin is simply to show the river the Russians are attempting to cross to viewers, and the exactly spot hasn't been disclosed.

[LongLeftFlank]

50 minutes ago, Huba said:

That map got to be wrong - if they were indeed trying to cross where the pin is, it would meant that Lyman, and basically the whole UA forces north of Donets are cut off. In the original statement it is only mentioned that they try to cross near Lyman, I'd think quite a bit further east near Yampil.

One of my usual sources, though not infallible:

Per @Haiduk, Ukrainians have kept it vague how many forces they left to contest Lyman and its environs north of the river. They blew all the bridges some time ago, and I would assume left some nasty surprises behind as well.

More to the ongoing "is it Mass? or is it Memorex?" discussion (yes, I'm an old codger), letting the Russians mass up and then 'punch at air' a lot of the time seems like a nice gloss on the overall strategy. Very Sun Tzu.

Compare the German delaying action in the bocage above St. Lo, where a depleted division (352, with shredded bits of others) slow walked and bled 3-4 times the number of American forces for a full month. They employed a 'checkerboard' defence where the GIs had no idea what was waiting for them in each field until they went in. This is an echelon up, but not dissimilar?

Edited May 12, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[JonS]

4 hours ago, Combatintman said:

A lot of people outside the intelligence trade seem to think that good tactical intelligence is enabled by super secret technical whizzbangery.  In fact it isn't

At the risk of stating the obvious here, a shiny new Mk59 SOPHIE modC rev2 sensor will tell you there is a group of three vehicles at GR123 456. But it takes a good IntOp to tell you what that means.

[Ultradave]

6 hours ago, CivE said:

I'm about ten pages behind the thread by now, but one question about terminology. Does this really count as "light" infantry? ATGMs and MANPADS are solidly in the territory of heavy weapons. The ISR capabilities are only cheap and light because the civilian communication infrastructure is intact, but in more austere or contested environments similar capabilities would require truckloads of pricey gear. Sometimes light infantry denotes units with high mobility on foot, or easy to transport, but it looks like the Ukrainian infantry is succeeding more by being everywhere ahead of time rather than dashing to where they are needed. Sometimes "light" means a smaller number of soldiers per small unit, and that fits with the two-guys in a treeline idea. So what do you mean by light infantry, and do you think it is an important distinction?

The term "light infantry" these days usually refers to non-mechanized, non-motorized infantry. It can still be loaded up with ATGMs, mounted or carried by light vehicles, and even light infantry has *some* vehicles, (artillery primer movers, supply trucks, CO's vehicles, etc). 

So in the US this would apply to, for example, the 101st Abn (Air Assault), in spite of it's slew of choppers, and the 82d Abn, which is really highly trained light infantry that arrives in style, the Ranger battalions.  Mountain divisions anywhere are almost always light infantry, I guess for obvious reasons

Dave

[Combatintman]

43 minutes ago, JonS said:

At the risk of stating the obvious here, a shiny new Mk59 SOPHIE modC rev2 sensor will tell you there is a group of three vehicles at GR123 456. But it takes a good IntOp to tell you what that means.

That a probable platoon-sized group of Russians still haven't grasped tactical dispersion is the first deduction 

[Panserjeger]

Interesting map over roaming Russian SIMs in Ukraine.

 

[chuckdyke]

https://au.yahoo.com/news/russian-army-lose-entire-battalion-102030104.html  Try to beat this. 

[Holien]

40 minutes ago, Panserjeger said:

Interesting map over roaming Russian SIMs in Ukraine.

 

Tie this into a drone targeting program and you would soon see a massive loss of communications within the Russian forces. 

[The_Capt]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I reread the engineer's narrative and it checks out with my theory.  Swimming vehicles went over while they were building the YELLOW bridge.  Just as they completed it they smashed it with artillery, so not many vehicles got over that way before it was cut off.  This was May 8.  On May 9 they tried again with RED bridge, which he noted was also attacked and destroyed.  He makes no mention of BLUE or attacking it, so I think I'm correct they couldn't swim any more vehicles (too much debris) and BLUE was never finished so it wasn't attacked.  He apparently wasn't informed about BLUE and, as they didn't attack it, didn't have a reason to know there was a third attempt.

Steve

So this is the definition of insanity.  They probably lost the boats on the first try, which explains the diagonal attempt as they were backing on the pontoon, and got hit, again.  So of course third time is the charm, or not.

This is what I mean by micro-view, those are formation and above assets being thrown away.  This first hit is the cost of doing business, the second and third are entirely on the Russians as trying to do a crossing on a site that has 1) ISR on it and 2) dialled in for arty, is freakin insane.

So what?  This tells me that for this crossing, at least, this was amateur hour (see my post on zero bank prep) from a technical perspective.  My bet is that this whole mess is a result of higher HQ pistol waving “I do not care about reality..cross or be shot” because no engineer would do this.  That, or they tried getting non-engineers to do the later crossings.

Edited May 12, 2022 by The_Capt

[c3k]

13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Actually scratch that, I see possible craters now in the zoomed out shot:

So maybe was just good ol HE?  That is the weirdest crossing site, the bridge was diagonal?  That does weird thing to the exits and stresses the bridge too.

 

I don't think it was diagonal. 

I think it became diagonal.

There are three crossings. The topmost probably landed on the near side of the river where there is a light-colored patch along the bank.

Middle landed about where the red circle closest to the river is in your image.

Bottom is the mud-churned bank on both sides. More of a ford/launching point look right there.

The topmost and middle bridges are diagonal because they lost their near-bank landing. Then, as pontoons, the current was able to move them downstream, pivoting on their far-side anchor point. 

I would think that the bottom bridge was dislodged from both launch and landing points and was swept downstream.

That's my .02.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, c3k said:

 

I don't think it was diagonal. 

I think it became diagonal.

There are three crossings. The topmost probably landed on the near side of the river where there is a light-colored patch along the bank.

Middle landed about where the red circle closest to the river is in your image.

Bottom is the mud-churned bank on both sides. More of a ford/launching point look right there.

The topmost and middle bridges are diagonal because they lost their near-bank landing. Then, as pontoons, the current was able to move them downstream, pivoting on their far-side anchor point. 

I would think that the bottom bridge was dislodged from both launch and landing points and was swept downstream.

That's my .02.

That all points to them losing the boats and having to go with backing-on the pontoons, one is at the mercy of the current.  It does look like they tried 3 crossing attempts here and only the first one is straight, so it likely had boat support.  The other 2 are some sort of weird attempts, that also went all to hell.