How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Harmon Rabb]

More Czech made artillery in Ukraine.

[Armorgunner]

9 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Let's lay out a few assumptions about what I near future for us is going to look like. For this discussion I will assume that it will be possible for systems bigger than an infantry man in a very good ghillie suit, and a drone that's trying very hard to look like a goose are capable of surviving. This may be a bad assumption in which case you wind up in a completely different place. I did not mean to imply that I meant the 2S7 specifically. I am talking about the  Panzerhaubitze 2000, fully digitized, new from the ground up version of the 2S7. Assuming that the concept of large and expensive tracked vehicles are still viable, it is my assumption that various different kinds of search vehicles are going to have to operate together in order to create a viable onion layer defense. You're not going to be able to have your artillery running around without co-located electronic warfare and point defense assets. It is also my assumption that you were logistics train is going to have to have nearly as much, maybe as much, protection as your front line assets. Autonomous drones that hunt trucks are going to be a thing very, very soon. So the trade-off I am thinking about is that a 2S7 class self-propelled howitzer certainly has a large footprint, but the logistical footprint of each shell fired would be considerably smaller than a rocket with the same throw weight. Does this matter? Does this matter enough?

A rocket obviusly will have a larger footprint, on the logistic chain! But with modern 155mm going to the US army. With the same range, and really fast Shoot, and scoot times? Maybe Swedish Archer for the US Stryker brigade combat teams? 

US armored brigade combat teams will have tracked, other Howitsers.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Armorgunner

[chrisl]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Let's lay out a few assumptions about what I near future for us is going to look like. For this discussion I will assume that it will be possible for systems bigger than an infantry man in a very good ghillie suit, and a drone that's trying very hard to look like a goose are capable of surviving. This may be a bad assumption in which case you wind up in a completely different place. I did not mean to imply that I meant the 2S7 specifically. I am talking about the  Panzerhaubitze 2000, fully digitized, new from the ground up version of the 2S7. Assuming that the concept of large and expensive tracked vehicles are still viable, it is my assumption that various different kinds of search vehicles are going to have to operate together in order to create a viable onion layer defense. You're not going to be able to have your artillery running around without co-located electronic warfare and point defense assets. It is also my assumption that you were logistics train is going to have to have nearly as much, maybe as much, protection as your front line assets. Autonomous drones that hunt trucks are going to be a thing very, very soon. So the trade-off I am thinking about is that a 2S7 class self-propelled howitzer certainly has a large footprint, but the logistical footprint of each shell fired would be considerably smaller than a rocket with the same throw weight. Does this matter? Does this matter enough?

You could probably have autonomous truck-hunting drones by tuesday of next week if you're willing to accept some constraints on their deployment, like they may not be all that picky so you have to constrain them to areas with no friendlies.  

And your point defense of the artillery and its train will have to not only be able to spot and eliminate drones from the sky, but probably also detonate incoming arty high enough that all the explosive energy behind the shrapnel is spent before it gets to the ground.

[Haiduk]

4 minutes ago, akd said:

@sburke @Kinophile

Here’s an interesting loss: Captain 2nd Rank (Major equivalent) Alexander Bobrov, commander 170th Minesweeper Division, 184th Water Area Protection Brigade (Novorossiysk).

 

List of vessels assigned to this Division:

170-й дивизион тральщиков
901	12660	Железняков	МТЩ	1988	в строю
770	266МЭ	Валентин Пикуль	МТЩ	2001	в строю
908	02668	Вице-адмирал Захарьин	МТЩ	2009	в строю
426	1265	Минеральные Воды	БТЩ	1990	в строю
438	1265	Лейтенант Ильин	БТЩ	1982	в резерве 1-й категории
	1251	РТ-168 (рейдовый тральщик)	РТЩ	1969
	12592	РТ-278	РТЩ	1990
506		Даурия		1968	в строю

 

Also, Maj. Ivan Zaika, probably 7th Guards Mountain Air Assault Division:

 

Captain of 2nd rank is lt.colonel equivalent

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Combatintman said:

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.

This is an excellent example of why good ISR is the sum of its parts and communication between them is critical.  More-or-less traditional means of detecting the general origin of incoming artillery would then give the UAV operator a narrowed down search grid and some idea of what to look for (single tube heavy mortar vs. SP 152mm battery, for example).  Ideally someone might have intercepted communications to know something about what the artillery was up to, which could also help predict future behavior, which could better direct the UAV.  And knowing this sort of stuff would allow a system to be set aside for instant counter battery fire so that when the target is spotted it could be engaged immediately.

I find all this stuff endlessly fascinating

Steve

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

You could probably have autonomous truck-hunting drones by tuesday of next week if you're willing to accept some constraints on their deployment, like they may not be all that picky so you have to constrain them to areas with no friendlies.  

And your point defense of the artillery and its train will have to not only be able to spot and eliminate drones from the sky, but probably also detonate incoming arty high enough that all the explosive energy behind the shrapnel is spent before it gets to the ground.

Exactly, the whole complex of vehicles will have to move around together. Maybe the value of the 8 inch shell is that it can have an ablative layer to absorb point defense, and still have enough payload.

[beardiebloke]

I don't think this has been posted here already but here's an arty hit on an "AFV"; not sure if it's edited or what but it looks very precise or lucky for arty.

 

 

And here some counter battery arty:

This is way more accurate than when I play CM, that's for sure.

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, BlackMoria said:

Ignore

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3dhcm9udGhlcm9ja3MubGlic3luLmNvbS9yc3M/episode/OWUzMDcwODUtZjM1NS00NWU0LTllODQtMmUwODU0NWMzNWEw?ep=14

WOTR query re US assumptions of superiority of organization, ability to escalate and/or adapt to modern pace of change and rate of attrition.

[Haiduk]

37 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Actually @Haiduk, I'm not sure if you'd have any information on this (at least that you could share), but do you have any idea of how well the modernised T-64BV 2017s and any of the refurbished Bulats (BM and BM2) are doing? I'm currently writing a paper comparing the BV 2017 with the T-72B3 2016 as modernisation programmes.

Sure, MLRS/MARS are very accurate, but their design philosophy is pretty fundamentally different to that of Uragan/Smerch.

Why not? ) This information was in open sources. So, main upgrades of T-64BV mod.2017:

- "Nozh" ERA packed in Kontakt-1 ERA boxes

- gunner's thermal sight TPN-1-TPV (6000 m detection reange of "tank" type target, 4000 m - recognition range, zoom 1x, 2x, 4x)

- commander's observation device TKN-3VUM (3rd gen EOP, 1000 m of range with full moon, 550 m with 1/4 of moon, angle of view 11 deg)

- driver's observation device TVNE-4BUM (3rd gen. EOP, 500 m of range with full moon, 100 m with 1/4 of moon, angle of view 32 deg) 

- digital radio Lybid' K-2RB (licenced Mototrola) - up to 70 km range

- CN-4215 GPS navigation system

There are about 200+ T-64BV mod.2017 were in service on the end of 2021

Also T-64BV mod.2022 was under tests in January

Edited May 13, 2022 by Haiduk

[Centurian52]

38 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Actually @Haiduk, I'm not sure if you'd have any information on this (at least that you could share), but do you have any idea of how well the modernised T-64BV 2017s and any of the refurbished Bulats (BM and BM2) are doing? I'm currently writing a paper comparing the BV 2017 with the T-72B3 2016 as modernisation programmes.

Sure, MLRS/MARS are very accurate, but their design philosophy is pretty fundamentally different to that of Uragan/Smerch.

I don't know the full details. I understand that the T64BV 2017 has the domestically developed Nozh ERA, which is effective against kinetic energy projectiles, and 2nd generation thermal sights. The un-upgraded T64BV of course has no thermal sights and used Kontakt-1 ERA, which is completely useless against kinetic energy projectiles. There are some other improvements as well, but I'm not sure what they were. Which is to say that the T64BV 2017 is big improvement over the T64BV. I doubt it's the equal to the T72B3 2016, but considering how many older T72Bs the Russians have, the improvements made to the T64BV 2017 are probably more than enough to make it very competitive in this war.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Centurian52

[Armorgunner]

2 minutes ago, beardiebloke said:

I

And here some counter battery arty:

This is way more accurate than when I play CM, that's for sure.

The Russian way of countering, counterbattery fire. Fire your rounds, and then run to safety . No Scoot there! 

[Huba]

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Huba

[Harmon Rabb]

 

 

Good Times Bad Times released a new video today. Covered a lot of things we have been discussing here recently.

[c3k]

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

Personally I think this is an overly platform-focused viewpoint.

• How many 203s are out there - or more importantly where they need to be to have the desired effect?
• Are the ISR assets able to find the targets that need to be engaged to achieve the desired effect?
• What is the shooter to sensor link like?
• What effect do you want your gunnery to have?
• How is that effect coordinated with manoeuvre and other elements?
• etc ...

Bah! Spoken like someone who tries to make excuses for the 6" capability when he knows everyone thinks 8" is better. 

 

But, in a serious vein (<- hewing close to the pun line...), 8" shells bring about double the payload of a 6" shell. (And have a concomitant increased burden on logistics).

As far as effects, a double charge should have an almost 4x greater area of impact, so requiring fewer shells. 

With field artillery developers seriously using 100km ranges in discussions, ISR and kill-chain becomes crucial. But that's true of either 155mm or 203mm.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Combatintman said:

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.

This seems first and foremost to be a case if inducing a bad assumption, and then taking advantage of it. You convinced them to re-task there ISR, and then caught acting like it was in two places at once. Which, sort of anyway, brings me back to what I am convinced will be the main difference between Ukraine right now, and the next unresolvable disagreement. Drones now are pretty much a one or two at a time thing. The next war they will be a one or two HUNDRED at a time thing, minimum.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

This is not quite right.  ~1/2 US people don't end up paying federal income taxes.  

Which is the money we're using to pay for things like Ukraine.  The other forms of taxes, including fuel taxes, are not available for that.  Therefore, not relevant to my point that it's a pretty even bet that the people complaining about all the money going to Ukraine aren't paying one penny of it.

Personally, I'm not worried about US resolve to stay fully engaged in Ukraine for a very, very long time.  As I said above, the amount of money Ukraine needs is "chump change" for the West as a whole and even the US on its own. 

Let me put this into perspective for those who are still not able to wrap their heads around the money issue...

One early estimate is that Ukraine will need $600B to rebuild critical infrastructure.  The unfunded US tax break of 2017 is projected to add $2T to the US debt over 10 years.  We're about 1/2 through that period, which means there's about $1T still to be added to the national debt.  If the tax cut was reversed today the US would have $1T less in debt, pay for the entire Ukrainian rebuild, and still have $400B in revenue to put towards the US debt.

I am not saying this to be political (I am not against tax cuts, even unfunded ones necessarily).  What I'm saying here is that if people are going to complain about spending $40B towards the future of our national and economic security without also complaining about $2T in debt incurred to give (mostly) higher income earners and corporations lower tax bills, then they are operating with an entirely different definition of "fiscal responsibility" than I do.

Steve

[Haiduk]

3 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

The Russian way of countering, counterbattery fire. Fire your rounds, and then run to safety . No Scoot there! 

Looks like one of theese two Nona-K later became a victim of hungry tractor

 

[Armorgunner]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which is the money we're using to pay for things like Ukraine.  The other forms of taxes, including fuel taxes, are not available for that.  Therefore, not relevant to my point that it's a pretty even bet that the people complaining about all the money going to Ukraine aren't paying one penny of it.

Personally, I'm not worried about US resolve to stay fully engaged in Ukraine for a very, very long time.  As I said above, the amount of money Ukraine needs is "chump change" for the West as a whole and even the US on its own. 

Let me put this into perspective for those who are still not able to wrap their heads around the money issue...

One early estimate is that Ukraine will need $600B to rebuild critical infrastructure.  If the unfunded US tax break of 2017 is projected to add $2T to the US debt.  If that were reversed today the US could pay for the entire Ukrainian rebuild and still have $1.4T in revenue to put towards the US debt.

I am not saying this to be political (I am not against tax cuts, even unfunded ones necessarily).  What I'm saying here is that if people are going to complain about spending $40B towards the future of our national and economic security without also complaining about $2T in debt incurred to give (mostly) higher income earners and corporations lower tax bills, then they are operating with an entirely different definition of "fiscal responsibility" than I do.

Steve

I think, we all in the west. Are all the winners, of an out of gas Russian army! For a few years to come, at least!

[SteelRain]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uoydyg/russia_unveils_its_secret_weapon/

Beware of the Russian Terminator! In its current state i can only see one usecase and thats steeling pension cheques while disguised as elderly to drain money from Ukraine. Putin at least looks a bit wary

Edited May 13, 2022 by SteelRain

[dan/california]

Drones in the next war It will be like the way Ukraine has used ATGM assets in this one. They have handed them out at probably ten times the rate/density of pre-war doctrine. Which would seem crazy, except they are winning, so it isn't crazy, and will probably be the NEW doctrine

 

[Armorgunner]

1 minute ago, Haiduk said:

Looks like one of theese two Nona-K later became a victim of hungry tractor

 

I like Nona-k´s as victim of hungry tractors in Ukraine 

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which is the money we're using to pay for things like Ukraine.  The other forms of taxes, including fuel taxes, are not available for that.  Therefore, not relevant to my point that it's a pretty even bet that the people complaining about all the money going to Ukraine aren't paying one penny of it.

Personally, I'm not worried about US resolve to stay fully engaged in Ukraine for a very, very long time.  As I said above, the amount of money Ukraine needs is "chump change" for the West as a whole and even the US on its own. 

Let me put this into perspective for those who are still not able to wrap their heads around the money issue...

One early estimate is that Ukraine will need $600B to rebuild critical infrastructure.  If the unfunded US tax break of 2017 is projected to add $2T to the US debt.  If that were reversed today the US could pay for the entire Ukrainian rebuild and still have $1.4T in revenue to put towards the US debt.

I am not saying this to be political (I am not against tax cuts, even unfunded ones necessarily).  What I'm saying here is that if people are going to complain about spending $40B towards the future of our national and economic security without also complaining about $2T in debt incurred to give (mostly) higher income earners and corporations lower tax bills, then they are operating with an entirely different definition of "fiscal responsibility" than I do.

Steve

We're on same page, Steve.  And note that the costs currently (and for next few months) associated w Ukraine are actually pretty trivial compared to what we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yet in Ukraine we have a much better, by orders of magnitude, chance of making the world better via a Ukrainian victory. 

The future where despots realize that wars of conquest will bring 1000X more cost than benefit is a good one.  The future where Russia has a choice of being N Korea or making real efforts of being a responsible adult is a good one.

[dan/california]

Going to be tractor in every monument to this war.

[dan/california]

 

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

We're on same page, Steve.  And note that the costs currently (and for next few months) associated w Ukraine are actually pretty trivial compared to what we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yet in Ukraine we have a much better, by orders of magnitude, chance of making the world better via a Ukrainian victory. 

The future where despots realize that wars of conquest will bring 1000X more cost than benefit is a good one.  The future where Russia has a choice of being N Korea or making real efforts of being a responsible adult is a good one.

Well said!

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

I think, we all in the west. Are all the winners, of an out of gas Russian army! For a few years to come, at least!

I am waiting for someone smart numbers think tank to project how much the West might save in defense spending if Russia became a peaceful neighbor.  A lot more than $40b a year, that's for sure

Steve