How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

About the bridgehead...

I've not had time to revise my take on how it went down.  There's two things that are really bothering me about the evidence we have in hand.  Something critical is missing, so I'm continuing to look for more information.

I did see this neat one:

Looks like they completed BLUE after the pictures we have been looking at.  This is a phone picture of a UAV screen by the looks of it.

Seems BLUE was sunk by yet another artillery strike.  However, it seems intact enough that at least tracked vehicles could use it.  The question is... WHY?!?  Except to evacuate, what's the point?  The last reports I saw was the bridgehead forces were eliminated without having made any gains.

Lunacy.

Steve

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Mind you, this is just angling for concessions. Money, sanctions relief, etc. For example, there are multiple military-industrial sanctions on Turkey, that they may want repealed.

I don't really see the issue in Turkey, a NATO ally, asking her fellow NATO partners who have placed restrictions on it, to repeal them so she can better produce weapons and equipment for Ukraine, oh and some compensation for the market loss previously would be nice.

But to answer your question, the Black Sea being locked down to further reinforcement of the Russian Black Sea Fleet basically answers why Turkey was, is and will be in NATO forever.

All of this. The Turks are going to work the diplomatic situation to get some benefits. That's how it works. But everybody knows that Turkey has an enormous political/strategic stake in stopping Russia from dominating the Black Sea and Turkey has been quite helpful to the US and Ukraine though out this conflict. I would watch Orban more than Erdogan.

[BlackMoria]

That new picture Steve put in in his last post is such an camera angle to show how steep the ingress points are that was not clear in the previous pictures of the site.  And no apparent bank preparation other than maybe running a vehicle back and forth to tamp the ground down a bit.

Edited May 13, 2022 by BlackMoria

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

About the bridgehead...

I've not had time to revise my take on how it went down.  There's two things that are really bothering me about the evidence we have in hand.  Something critical is missing, so I'm continuing to look for more information.

I did see this neat one:

Looks like they completed BLUE after the pictures we have been looking at.  This is a phone picture of a UAV screen by the looks of it.

Seems BLUE was sunk by yet another artillery strike.  However, it seems intact enough that at least tracked vehicles could use it.  The question is... WHY?!?  Except to evacuate, what's the point?  The last reports I saw was the bridgehead forces were eliminated without having made any gains.

Lunacy.

Steve

I think it was a zombie-operation.  There was a plan and the big red button was hit.  Those executing the plan were not told to stop, even if everything else did, and went ahead with "the plan", likely not even knowing the situation until they got to the site and then went "well crap...orders are orders are orders".

You get something like this in motion, it can be really hard to stop.

[FancyCat]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

All of this. The Turks are going to work the diplomatic situation to get some benefits. That's how it works. But everybody knows that Turkey has an enormous political/strategic stake in stopping Russia from dominating the Black Sea and Turkey has been quite helpful to the US and Ukraine though out this conflict. I would watch Orban more than Erdogan.

A reminder that Turkey also has powerful incentives to not support Ukraine and not stick with NATO and EU line on Russia, Turkey relies as heavily as some European countries for Russian energy, Russian tourism is big money, so Turkey choosing to not sanction or stop Russia should be seen in that context. It is quite nice Turkey keeps sending those TB2s to Ukraine. Well worth letting Russia supply energy to Turkey and not joining broader sanctions.

Tho this supports their own armaments industry, I'm sure the order lineup for TB2s is out the door. But just circles back to my earlier posts, a lot of money earmarked for defense for Ukraine basically sorta comes back to the giving country in some form. $40 billion for Ukraine becomes in reality a lot less.

A bit of a tangent, one of the reasons money isn't a big deal in this war has to do with how you use it. Money to Russia for energy imports is sorta.....worthless since most Russian weapon and equipment production requires foreign parts, the sanctions preventing export to Russia are a way bigger factor in preventing Russia rearming than the money given for gas.

Germany had responded to prior criticism about lack of aid for Ukraine by touting it's monetary package but what use is $500 million if Germany says you can't buy any heavy equipment with the money. It's near worthless.

Same **** applies to Turkey. Yes, Russian money still flows to Turkey and Russia gets money from Turkey but the TB2s sinking the Black Sea Fleet are worth more than cutting off Turkish money to Russia.

[sburke]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Especially because most Americans don't pay Federal taxes.

Steve

WTF?!   You mean I am funding all this stuff?!  I'm trying to retire!   Rand get those receipts!!

[sburke]

22 minutes ago, billbindc said:

All of this. The Turks are going to work the diplomatic situation to get some benefits. That's how it works. But everybody knows that Turkey has an enormous political/strategic stake in stopping Russia from dominating the Black Sea and Turkey has been quite helpful to the US and Ukraine though out this conflict. I would watch Orban more than Erdogan.

Let's not forget Turkey shooting down a Russian plane either.

Turkey's downing of Russian warplane - what we know - BBC News

[Raptor341]

49 minutes ago, asurob said:

We're Americans, it's what we do...we help the world when it's in need.  When this war reaches it's conclusion, Ukraine will need more than ATGM to rebuild it's shattered economy.  Unless you're in favor of it falling away from democracy and into a fascist type regime.   Sounds' like you're a Rand Paul fan, so likely you are...

Ignoring any specific personalities in this post; I just wanted to highlight that this attitude is one of the things I love about working with most Americans. If more of us chose to view the world this way it will be a better place, doing what’s right because you can, not because it is easy. If it also happens to strengthen your allies and interests, even better. Am I optimistic? Yes, but it sure as hell beats being negative for the sake of being negative - nothing gets done with that attitude. 

Just a little positive thought from a Canadian! Back to the war… this is all I will say on this topic. 

(Also, long time thread watcher, second post. Been here since around page 150 or so. Thanks to all for the excellent insights and to the strength of our Ukrainian members here. Glory to Ukraine!) 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Raptor341

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Yes, I may step on some toes. But I see the way it is going. Ukraine's time is limited sooner or later there will be opposition on the money being spent. It has already started by a guy in the US senate named Rand Paul. According to him you don't help the Ukraine by sending the US bankrupt. No worries he will gain support if not this year but certainly next year. 

I suppose US politics are very relevant to the war effort, since continued US support depends on the attitudes of its voters. But I'm not worried on that front. The current administration is very much committed to helping Ukraine, and while I admit a possibility of this turning into a multi-year war (although Russia having the strength to carry it on that long would require that they officially declare war and mobilize) it seems extremely unlikely that it will carry on until the next presidential election. Even if it does, that would basically make Biden a wartime president at the time of the election, practically guaranteeing him the victory (wartime boosts are a very real phenomenon).

In any case, US public opinion seems to be overwhelmingly in support of helping Ukraine. Democrats are obviously opposed to Russia and supportive of protecting a democratic country. Republicans are in a bit of a bind, since their guy has been talking up a big game about how great a guy Putin was for the last several years. And yet, between the fact that Republicans are usually the war party and the obviousness of Russia's aggression, even Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of Ukraine. The numbers I was able to find claimed 81% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans in support of defending Ukraine. Granting, those numbers were from March. But it seems that American politics has never been more united.

[chrisl]

41 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

About the bridgehead...

I've not had time to revise my take on how it went down.  There's two things that are really bothering me about the evidence we have in hand.  Something critical is missing, so I'm continuing to look for more information.

I did see this neat one:

Looks like they completed BLUE after the pictures we have been looking at.  This is a phone picture of a UAV screen by the looks of it.

Seems BLUE was sunk by yet another artillery strike.  However, it seems intact enough that at least tracked vehicles could use it.  The question is... WHY?!?  Except to evacuate, what's the point?  The last reports I saw was the bridgehead forces were eliminated without having made any gains.

Lunacy.

Steve

It does look like it was used more for evacuation than getting BTGs across - the mud tracks on the UKR side indicate vehicles were going from that bank to the RUS side.  If vehicles were coming out of the water more than off the bank, they'd probably be dripping enough to rinse those better.  Also, that bank on the RUS side looks like the steepest of the three attempted points.  The had to put that pair of ramps there to keep from chewing up the bank too much and may have needed to do some winching to get up it anyway if it was really muddy.

[keas66]

Some crazy intense scary footage  from around Lyman ( from a mainly civilian/police perspective  ) - I  seriously recommend following this  Ukrainian News Channel .

 

[dan/california]

Let me throw something out there to get this off the mess that is American politics. There seems to be a reasonably strong consensus on the board going forward a first rate militaries primary goal is to maintain an ISR bubble around its indirect fire assets and degrade that bubble around it's opponents indirect fire assets to the extent that that you achieve superiority of fires at the desired point. Specifically point I wanted to raise is does the 203 mm class self-propelled artillery have a place in the scheme. They obviously throw bigger shells farther, but they have a large logistical tail associated with them. Is this a job that is better left to rocket it to rocket based systems? The equivalent to an Excalibur 155 in a 203 mm size would obviously be useful, is it worth it?

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, purpheart23 said:

That's conjecture, no i'm a fan of being fiscally responsible where it makes sense, we've already armed them with AT, Artillery, ISR assets, who knows what else. If anybody needs to fork over that money, it's the EU, after all they stand the most to lose. When the money finally moves, because it will, politicians gotta get paid you know, why not get receipts?

I'm sorry. Fiscally responsible? While the independence of a democratic country is at stake, war crimes are being committed on a scale not seen since WW2, and we have an opportunity to deliver a massive strategic blow to a long time adversary?

No. We should be talking about spending entire percentages of our GDP to decisively defeat Russia. Not a mere few hundred million dollars. But several hundred billion dollars. No more incrementalism. We should be looking at overmatching the entire Russian GDP in aid to Ukraine. Enough to make it obvious to them that it is economically impossible for them to win, and that their only option is to make peace. That is very doable for us. The Russian GDP is 1.6 trillion. The US GDP is 20 trillion, and the rest of NATO is another 20 trillion. Overmatching the entire Russian GDP would cost the US and her allies ~4% of their respective GDPs. That would be painful, but we can afford to tighten our belts for a year or two to make that happen, and it would be well worthwhile (in WW2 our spending was closer to 40% of GDP). When the war is over we should be looking at spending hundreds of billions more, maybe even a couple trillion, on rebuilding Ukraine with a modern Marshal plan. 

[Huba]

This was tweeted by UA MoD

 

 

[AlsatianFelix]

45 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I suppose US politics are very relevant to the war effort, since continued US support depends on the attitudes of its voters. But I'm not worried on that front. The current administration is very much committed to helping Ukraine, and while I admit a possibility of this turning into a multi-year war (although Russia having the strength to carry it on that long would require that they officially declare war and mobilize) it seems extremely unlikely that it will carry on until the next presidential election. Even if it does, that would basically make Biden a wartime president at the time of the election, practically guaranteeing him the victory (wartime boosts are a very real phenomenon).

In any case, US public opinion seems to be overwhelmingly in support of helping Ukraine. Democrats are obviously opposed to Russia and supportive of protecting a democratic country. Republicans are in a bit of a bind, since their guy has been talking up a big game about how great a guy Putin was for the last several years. And yet, between the fact that Republicans are usually the war party and the obviousness of Russia's aggression, even Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of Ukraine. The numbers I was able to find claimed 81% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans in support of defending Ukraine. Granting, those numbers were from March. But it seems that American politics has never been more united.

U.S. politics will have an impact on Ukrainian strategy if the war is not settled by the 2024 election. The state of US politics is such that, whichever position one party takes, the other party stakes out the exact opposite. Regardless how Ukraine polls now with Americans, the two parties will corral their voters into the paddock they're supposed to be in. Yes, I'm an old gnarled pessimist.

Edited May 13, 2022 by AlsatianFelix

[Combatintman]

15 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Let me throw something out there to get this off the mess that is American politics. There seems to be a reasonably strong consensus on the board going forward a first rate militaries primary goal is to maintain an ISR bubble around its indirect fire assets and degrade that bubble around it's opponents indirect fire assets to the extent that that you achieve superiority of fires at the desired point. Specifically point I wanted to raise is does the 203 mm class self-propelled artillery have a place in the scheme. They obviously throw bigger shells farther, but they have a large logistical tail associated with them. Is this a job that is better left to rocket it to rocket based systems? The equivalent to an Excalibur 155 in a 203 mm size would obviously be useful, is it worth it?

Not necessarily regarding indirect fire assets - it all depends on the mission and task.  Granted FIND is one of the core functions in combat and anything that that you can do to degrade the enemy's ability to execute that function always helps but indirect fire/gunnery/boom boom boom/whoosh-bang is not necessarily the be all and end all.  I recall an exercise where I was the enemy commander and was able to slam a company-sized flanking attack unnoticed into the forward left battalion of a brigade because:

• There weren't enough ISR assets to provide redundancy on the cover all of the identified avenues of approach from the flank.
• The gunners controlling the UAVs were jerking around trying to locate a 120mm mortar battery that I kept displacing every time it fired.

Granted that this was a simulation and I knew where all the moving parts were but I wanted to, and did, make the point that ISR needs to be focused and the people that are controlling key assets like UAVs need to be supporting the ISR plan ... which they weren't.  BTW I did not take advantage of my god's eye view to use an avenue of approach that had not been identified during IPB or deliberately dodge the assets that should have been covering the NAI's in the Decision Support Matrix.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Especially because most Americans don't pay Federal taxes.

Steve

This is not quite right.  ~1/2 US people don't end up paying federal income taxes.  This gets promulgated into the myth that half of america is free loading.  These are children, stay at home parents, disabled, etc plus the majority which is low income folks.  But low income folks DO pay social security and medicare taxes.  Since Social Security, and Medicare make up ~1/3 of the budget and around half of mandatory spending, they are chipping in.  And they are paying all sorts of state & local taxes.  I don't want to distract just wanted to clarify a bit.

But if anyone thinks being low income worker is free loading, they should try it for a while. 

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, BlackMoria said:

I feel a disturbance in the force.  The shadow of Elvis approaches.

In other words, back on topic, gents.

Professional quality humor, BlackMoria, well done, deserves more recognition than just a like

[c3k]

1 hour ago, BlackMoria said:

That new picture Steve put in in his last post is such an camera angle to show how steep the ingress points are that was not clear in the previous pictures of the site.  And no apparent bank preparation other than maybe running a vehicle back and forth to tamp the ground down a bit.

The steepness of the banks is evident in some other oblique-angle images that were linked upstream. (<- No, that pun was not intended.  )

The total lack of approach/departure preparation is just par for the course for the Russians at this point.

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, TheVulture said:

Having heard on the BBC (who just this morning got around to the famous bridging fiasco as breaking news) about how Russia is threatening to encircle Sievierodonetsk, I decided to summarise how the Russian 'threatening to encircle' reports have changed over the war so far:

And this is true. Our military experts pointed that Russians shifted own effort exactly on "Plan D" - to encircle UKR forces between Popasna and Rubizhne-Lysychansk-Severodonetsk agglomeration. Russians are still massing forces - reportedly, as claimed the chief of military-civil admministration of Luhansk oblast, during last day there was spotted a movement of 2000 vehicles through Luhansk oblast to combat zone. Looks like Russians are throwing in the battle own reserves and now exactly this group will conduct main strike, not Izium group. The latter will only suport their efforts, operating N and NW from Lyman 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Haiduk

[asurob]

2 hours ago, purpheart23 said:

 That's where we disagree, all good til we need to foot the bill for something not even in our hemisphere of control. Another nation rebuilding? Those have been going swimmingly for the last quarter century, all at the final tally of trillions of dollars to future generations. You'll never convince me that dumping 40bn into Ukraine right now is a good idea, especially without oversight. I do appreciate the well thought out response though.

We send billions out to countries all across the world...this is no different.  We help those who need it.  Isolation doesn't work in a global society.  The Russian attack on Ukraine WAS an attack on all of us.  We manage to foot the bill rather easily for things that blow up.  This is no different.  You turn your back now and before you know it you are sending American combat troops to fight Russian combat troops in a place like Germany or Poland.  No, you're wrong about this 100 percent.  As is a certain Senator from Kentucky who does stuff like this all the time so he can be in the news.  Believe me if his party was in power he'd be leading the charge to send the money...and you well know it.

[womble]

Going back to the flustercluck that was the recent multiple bridging fiasco. The reports of general firesetting by the Russians in an attempt to provide obscuration for their efforts definitely explain the large scorched areas that the overheads are showing in the aftermath. They provoke a thought about spreading fire in the CM titles...

Last time it came up, I believe the rationale was that it's not modelled, because we gamey bastidges would be setting fire to every cornfield, copse and crib in the place to "shape the battlefield".... Does that make the Russians gamey as well as all their other faults?

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

The Ukrainians have almost no Oplots (around 10 in total I believe). They mostly have T64BVs and T64BV model 2017s, with a handful of T80BVs and T64BM Bulats. They also have a handful of assorted T72s (many of them captured from the Russians, I'm not sure how many T72s they had at the start of the war) and the aforementioned insignificant number of T84 Oplots.

We hadn't any BM Oplot in combat units (one item is for exhibitions doesn't count), we had 5 T-84 "Oplot" mod.2001, we had T-72/B/AV/AMT not less 100-150, I can't say exactly.

[c3k]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

Let me throw something out there to get this off the mess that is American politics. There seems to be a reasonably strong consensus on the board going forward a first rate militaries primary goal is to maintain an ISR bubble around its indirect fire assets and degrade that bubble around it's opponents indirect fire assets to the extent that that you achieve superiority of fires at the desired point. Specifically point I wanted to raise is does the 203 mm class self-propelled artillery have a place in the scheme. They obviously throw bigger shells farther, but they have a large logistical tail associated with them. Is this a job that is better left to rocket it to rocket based systems? The equivalent to an Excalibur 155 in a 203 mm size would obviously be useful, is it worth it?

I agree. 

Anything the 155 can do...the 203 can do bigger.

The 2S7 Pion has a 203mm gun with a length of 56 calibers. I'm seeing published ranges of 37km to 47km (I'm not sure if that's with rocket-assisted projectiles). I think RAP would tend to induce accuracy issues, but I am not an expert in that, just applying some "gut feel" to what a rocket motor would do to a ballistic projectile. Minor differences in the boost motor would affect the shell dispersion, IMO.

That's why the excaliber is so important: not only is it boosted (via base bleed for less drag, not a "push") but it has "glide" and guidance capability. That counteracts (and improves upon) any irregularities in the base bleed or fin extension system.

The US 155s are all L39 and show a non-boosted range ~24km.  Excaliber pushes it to 40km.

The European 155s are L52 and have longer ranges. PzH2000, non-boosted, about 35km.

(The experimental program to replace the current M109 with an L58 cannon, coupled with a RAP round, may have a range of 70km up to 100km (with other changes). They've got a new acronym for whatever the new SP Arty would be.)

I would think sustained fire is far easier to do with a cannon than with missiles or rockets.

A modern 8" cannon with excaliber-type projectile would be...impressive.

Edited May 13, 2022 by c3k
Nomenclature and ranges

[Vacillator]

15 minutes ago, womble said:

Last time it came up, I believe the rationale was that it's not modelled, because we gamey bastidges would be setting fire to every cornfield, copse and crib in the place to "shape the battlefield".... Does that make the Russians gamey as well as all their other faults?

To me, if it is something that happened in the confilcts being modelled, then it should be considered.  However, it's probably a slippery slope (just like those river banks, trying desperately to keep this on topic ) where you start with buildings, forests, crops etc. and keep going until you have to model every combustible item catching fire.  I can live without it I suppose.