How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Centurian52]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This something I've been making copious notes about throughout this entire war.  One thing trap we seem to fall into when talking about UAVs is kinda mushing them all into one of two types; things that look and kill, things that can only look.  But this is a gross oversimplification of both capabilities as well as missions.

The quadcopters, for example, are FANTASTIC for answering very basic tactical questions.  Is there someone on the road we're about to drive down?  Someone spotted a flash of something over there, can we get a better look at it?  We know there's enemy forces in this section of town, can we get a better idea of their numbers and capabilities?  That sort of stuff.

For this sort of task you don't need huge infrastructure, you just need one dude and some direction from a junior commander on the spot.

But if you're trying to figure out what is going on within a large battlespace, then quadcopters are not going to be all that good unless you have a lot of them and the infrastructure to tie all that info together to create a single picture.  And even then, it's still likely to be missing a lot of stuff in particular due to range restrictions.  So for this sort of larger picture ISR you need bigger UAVs and a room full of people crunching information to make sense of it.

This is the same for weaponized UAVs.  Quadcopters with grenades work great to get rid of a single thing that's causing a problem, they don't work well at all against large dynamic forces.  Even the bigger UAVs run into limitations rather quickly, but their punchier weaponry has more potential to create an outsized effect.  And trying to use UAVs to nail things specific to a larger operational plan... yup, lots of coordination needed to make that happen.

Again, this stuff fascinates me in more ways than I can count

Steve

Some interesting points in here that I hadn't considered. Such as the difference between a small unit leader using a small UAV to gain a bit of tactical intelligence, vs a roomful of analysts using a big UAV to gain operational intelligence. It's at times like these that I really wish I could like your comments Steve.

I suppose smaller UAVs used to gain tactical intelligence will likely proliferate faster than the bigger ones used to gain operational intelligence, since they require far less infrastructure to make use of the information they gain. A high battlefield density of small tactical UAVs seems very likely in the next war, or even late in this war. While a high density of large operational UAVs may have to wait on the development of the right technology or infrastructure to properly make sense of the mass of information they will bring in to that roomful of analysts (some kind of AI probably).

[MikeyD]

21 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

what I'm more interested in is their combat performance in this war

It hard to judge relative combat performance in an asymmetric war. The ideal tank can be hit by a precision artillery round at 20km, the worst tank can find itself in the right place at the right time and put a round into something vital. The best drone can be knocked out of the sky with a well aimed can of beans, the worst drone can detect and relay back vital information to HQ. It would be a pity to die at the hands of a conscript carrying a Mosin rifle three times his age, but its not out of the realm of possibility.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Even if sanctions don't stay in place, an awful lot of that stuff was developed and built in the Soviet years, and the time since then has not been kind to Russian technology.  

Thank you for bringing this up.  I raise this whenever we talk about Russia's capacity for fighting a "long war", but it is always a good idea to bring it up whenever we talk about Russian options in the future.

Let's use the Muskova as an example.  This ship was built in the Soviet days.  Russia was slated to retire it years ago, but it did not.  Why not?  Because it didn't have the money and possibly the ship building capacity to do it.  It wasn't a great ship by the looks of it, but it did perform a function and therefore was useful.  Now it is sunk and Russia is forever without its service, no matter how limited it might have been.  Now it either has to produce a ship it already decided it couldn't afford or it has to live without that capacity until it's economic fortunes improve.  And not improve from now, but improve from where they were at the height of Russia's post-Soviet economy.

Russia has, in all sense of the term, been "spending its inheritance."  Once spent, it's gone for good.

Steve

[CivE]

18 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Light basically means they are unarmored (not carried in armored vehicles).

"Heavy infantry" means "mechanized infantry".

Thanks for this, and to several other people who responded as well. I'm trying to follow along with the ongoing discussion by @The_Capt, @Battlefront.com and others about the lessons to be learned from the first part of this war (and trying to keep in mind that the value of those lessons for us as spectators is not worth the price that Ukrainians are paying). "Mass" has been a key concept in this, and I think I'm correct in understanding that to be the concentration of force in time and space, but I wasn't sure if the "weight" of the units was meant to be part of that. Now I know it isn't, except that AFVs give heavy mechanized infantry the firepower and mobility to create their own local mass, and the ability to get their mass to the right place at the right time as part of larger unit maneuvers.

I'm trying to understand what you all think is new or different about the role of light infantry in this war. I think you've been saying it, but some of the terminology is new to me, so thanks for your patience as I rewind and try to re-state some basic things in this long post. I don't think anybody is surprised that light infantry can eat away at heavier forces on strategic timeframes. And I don't think we've seen light infantry become immune to combined arms attacks on the tactical level. It looks like the difference is that improvements in some key technologies have passed a tipping point that dramatically increases the importance of dismounted infantry in the balance of combined arms operations.

The improvements in technology mean that capabilities in reconnaissance, communications, and accurate long range fire power can be pushed down to much smaller light infantry units. On the defense this allows infantry to focus long range fire power against concerted attacks while remaining dispersed and concealed. Direct armor attack remains possible, but at a steep exchange rate. Artillery attack or suppression is possible, but it takes a lot of tubes and a lot of shells to cover all the possible hiding places, and it's expensive in supplies if not losses. Ditto air attack. But bypassing well equipped light infantry is also dangerous because even after being suppressed or pushed back a little they can retain the capability to find and attack the enemy lines of communication, either independently, or in coordination with neighboring units or higher command. As someone here said, the attacker would basically need to clear and protect a 10km wide corridor along their supply line, which looks more like an occupation than a breakthrough, takes resources away from the advance, and slows everything way down.

Mechanized infantry can't play the front line defensive role because more of their capabilities are built into vehicles that can only maneuver well in terrain where they are easy to spot by satellite or drone, and hit with artillery or aircraft. Plus they need gas every day and if they are cut off they quickly run out of options. Lower tech or more cheaply equipped light infantry couldn't do this because they wouldn't have the quality or quantity of portable AT weapons, or enough situational awareness to make good decisions on a rapidly developing battlefield. Units without permission, training, inclination, or morale to take their own initiative can't do it either. Insurgents can't do it to such good effect because the occupying force isn't trying to fight a conventional battle at the same time. But Ukrainian foot infantry with phones, drones, mortars, and loads of AT weapons have shown they can take a beating on day one of an enemy attack, and still have the ability to re-organize, re-orient, and mount their own counter attacks or ambushes for days. Trying to bypass or cut off forces like these turns into a "I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me" situation. That has been a capability of elite units in the past, but it looks like the new technologies bring it in the reach of far more units with less training.

Looking at the bigger defensive picture, the light infantry don't have to be decisive, they just have to do their part as part of a larger defensive operation to add "friction" to whatever part of the enemy's advance is still within marching distance. Mechanized units move to block the head of the attack, armored units go for its throat, the infantry keep throwing kidney punches, and artillery, air, and strategic assets strike as far back along the tail as they can reach. Even accounting for Russian incompetence, I looks like one of the big surprises or lessons so far has been how important of a contribution light infantry make to that bigger picture. 

There has been less discussion here of the role of light infantry on the offense, except for the idea that while the enemy's long range recon and fires prevent your heavier forces from assembling in the rear, infantry can still infiltrate forward despite drone surveillance with some pretty effective weapons. Maybe we will know more soon. There has been a lot more discussion about air power, autonomous systems, is this the end of the tank etc., but I think this is sort of where the consensus is at least for infantry in the defense. Am I getting it sort of right? What I am I missing? Am I using the words right?

 

[purpheart23]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, because nobody can see into the future.  However, there's a difference between making logical and sound arguments based on historical precedence and understanding the situation vs. pretending historical precedents don't exist and/or that they can't be learned from.

I'll put it back to you.  Can you show a situation where appeasement and/or isolationism has not resulted in an eventual larger investment later on down the road, including war?  Yes I have a degree in history.  Yes I have spent my life studying wars and autocratic states.  But no, I'm not infallible.  Maybe you know of an example of doing nothing has worked, so I'm totally open to learning from you if you have something to share.

Steve

No I can't, but I never argued that. Nowhere in any post that I made to I say I don't want to assist Ukraine in defeating Russia. Because I do, I just keep getting pigeon holed into defending my stance and inferred that I have some particular liking to a particular political side, I don't, I despise all politicians. All I want is accountability to the people of the United States for where our money is spent, regardless of who pays for it, it's coming out of our coffers and it should be measured. After the last two money pits of conflicts we've been vested in I think it's the least we should ask for. All my opinion of course.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Some interesting points in here that I hadn't considered. Such as the difference between a small unit leader using a small UAV to gain a bit of tactical intelligence, vs a roomful of analysts using a big UAV to gain operational intelligence. It's at times like these that I really wish I could like your comments Steve.

It's the thought that counts

2 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I suppose smaller UAVs used to gain tactical intelligence will likely proliferate faster than the bigger ones used to gain operational intelligence, since they require far less infrastructure to make use of the information they gain.

Absolutely proven true already.  Ukraine went into this war with a huge amount of tactical UAV capacity, very limited mid range (TB2), and nothing strategic that I know of.  Because Russia insists on fighting this entire war as if it is a bunch of disconnected tactical exercises, Ukraine's ISR is almost perfectly lined up to cause Russia maximum pain.

The bridge crossing is a perfect example.  It was rushed and very poorly executed.  Russia did not even follow their own doctrine, not to mention tap into the fantastic successes of previous Soviet operational successes.  Instead, they just tried to ram a bunch of vehicles over an obvious crossing and hoped nobody would notice.  But because Ukraine has plenty of UAV capacity down at this level, all they needed to thwart Russia's plan was a good (normal) chain of command headed by some decent (maybe excellent!) officers, and an f'n $200 quadcopter.

Some day I'm going to get over this bridge crossing.  Really, I will.  But man-oh-man, it's going to be a while

Steve

[Cederic]

52 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

If the sanctions remain in place? Never. They basically will become a Chinese vassal state and resource extraction source.

Russia has the capability and capacity to be self-sufficient in food and energy, and that generates the funds needed to acquire everything else.

Look how well Iran copes with sanctions. They develop their own weapon systems and fund a wide network of agitators that require a lot of expensive counter-insurgency and anti-terror capability across many countries.

If Russia really switched focus and invested in those directions the savings from protecting against its conventional threats (which wouldn't be that great, as the same funding goes towards retaining capability to act in Asia) will easily be lost in protecting against asymmetric attacks.

It's one reason I think that the moment Russia withdraws from Ukraine (almost certainly due to a change in leadership) sanctions will need to be relaxed and diplomatic relations rapidly rebuilt. That may well upset Ukraine but it's going to be key to a continued (well, return to) approximate world peace.

 

(re: UK taxes - it is all one general taxation pool, not ringfenced)

[chrisl]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Some day I'm going to get over this bridge crossing.  Really, I will.  But man-oh-man, it's going to be a while

Steve

You probably will before Russia does, in every sense.

[Calamine Waffles]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Let's use the Muskova as an example.  This ship was built in the Soviet days.  Russia was slated to retire it years ago, but it did not.  Why not?  Because it didn't have the money and possibly the ship building capacity to do it.  It wasn't a great ship by the looks of it, but it did perform a function and therefore was useful.  Now it is sunk and Russia is forever without its service, no matter how limited it might have been.  Now it either has to produce a ship it already decided it couldn't afford or it has to live without that capacity until it's economic fortunes improve.  And not improve from now, but improve from where they were at the height of Russia's post-Soviet economy.

Moskva is interesting because she and the rest of the Slava class were all built at what is today Mykolayiv in Ukraine. The same for all the Soviet aircraft carriers, including Kuznetsov.
 

Quote

Look how well Iran copes with sanctions. They develop their own weapon systems and fund a wide network of agitators that require a lot of expensive counter-insurgency and anti-terror capability across many countries.

"Well" is a relative term, I guess...

14 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

It hard to judge relative combat performance in an asymmetric war. The ideal tank can be hit by a precision artillery round at 20km, the worst tank can find itself in the right place at the right time and put a round into something vital. The best drone can be knocked out of the sky with a well aimed can of beans, the worst drone can detect and relay back vital information to HQ. It would be a pity to die at the hands of a conscript carrying a Mosin rifle three times his age, but its not out of the realm of possibility.

That is correct, but I still want to know if there is any preliminary feedback on whether the troops see them as a big improvement over the old tanks.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, purpheart23 said:

No I can't, but I never argued that. Nowhere in any post that I made to I say I don't want to assist Ukraine in defeating Russia. Because I do, I just keep getting pigeon holed into defending my stance and inferred that I have some particular liking to a particular political side, I don't, I despise all politicians. All I want is accountability to the people of the United States for where our money is spent, regardless of who pays for it, it's coming out of our coffers and it should be measured. After the last two money pits of conflicts we've been vested in I think it's the least we should ask for. All my opinion of course.

Well, if your position just boils down to wanting some accountability tied to the $40b, I don't think you'd find anybody arguing against that!  Fortunately, I think we're not likely to see much in the way of waste on the Ukrainian side with this money.  Weapons are likely to wind up where they need to, eventually at least.  Less chance of money going to graft because it's stuff they are buying vs. getting cash.  Reconstruction money... well, a totally different kettle of fish.  The chance of abuse of that is huge and the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan need to be applied.  Fortunately, there will be more time to work out the details for that.  Right now, speed is more important than precise accounting.

Steve

[purpheart23]

15 minutes ago, keas66 said:

You have not exactly posted any strong arguments for  your own position . I don't feel its the purpose of this forum to convince you of anything ...rather the opposite . If one has a strong opinion about some aspect of the conflict  - one usually provides some sort of demonstrable proof of the correctness of ones views  . So what are your actual arguments for not helping out Ukraine to the extent  that we are ?

Thank you for chiming in.

[Armorgunner]

36 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Tax policies are really off topic (thank the gods!), so we shouldn't go down this road.  However, I will say that US tax policy there are certain taxes that are mandated to go to their intended purposes.  Yes, people play funny accounting games, but largely the laws do dictate how the money is spent.  Where one has to be very cautious is when you hear politicians talking about increasing general tax mechanism (VAT for you folks, Sales Tax for us Americans) to fund particular things.  "General revenue" is just that.

Again, the tie-in to Ukraine here is that the quantity of money being requested by the respective Western governments is very small in terms of total GDP even if there is no offsets taken into consideration.  So even if it was just GIVEN away, it's not going to make a big difference to any normal person's tax bill, if any.

We also have to keep in mind that there are lots of offsets to take into consideration.  Weaponry, for example, is a physical item made by a nation's defense industry.  Every weapon made for Ukraine is economic activity in that home country.  Paychecks for workers gets spent locally.  Property expansions gets spent locally.  Many goods/services from related industries gets spent locally.  I don't have any numbers handy, but there are studies that show for every $1 spent on a defense item in the US, some large chunk of that goes into the local economy.

Other offsets are harder to calculate.  Savings on future defense spending, for example, is very hard to gauge.  The value of lives that might be lost in the event of having to go to war with Russia now or in the future is extremely hard to put a pricetag on, yet it counts a lot.  The expense to industry for supply chain disruptions, energy blackmail, etc. also need to taken into consideration.  And of course, the costs of humanitarian disasters that can be avoided or minimized by getting Russia out of the warmaking business counts too.  Lastly, there's all that nefarious Russian influence to make the world a worse place that winds up costing the global community so much (Europeans complaining about Syrian refugees must remember Russia is largely responsible for them).

Steve

It´s a very different game with taxes, in different countries! We have very high taxes, but pay 10 dollars a day on hospital. Even if you do brain cancer surgery! In a low tax country like the US, you make the choise by your self. 

[MikeyD]

I get the impression that river crossing had been preceded by someone with shoulder boards and a very red face pound the desk angrily and yelling that he doesn't want excuses, he wants it done NOW!

Edited May 13, 2022 by MikeyD

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Cederic said:

Russia has the capability and capacity to be self-sufficient in food and energy, and that generates the funds needed to acquire everything else.

Look how well Iran copes with sanctions. They develop their own weapon systems and fund a wide network of agitators that require a lot of expensive counter-insurgency and anti-terror capability across many countries.

If Russia really switched focus and invested in those directions the savings from protecting against its conventional threats (which wouldn't be that great, as the same funding goes towards retaining capability to act in Asia) will easily be lost in protecting against asymmetric attacks.

It's one reason I think that the moment Russia withdraws from Ukraine (almost certainly due to a change in leadership) sanctions will need to be relaxed and diplomatic relations rapidly rebuilt. That may well upset Ukraine but it's going to be key to a continued (well, return to) approximate world peace.

I know I've said this several times when we've discussed sanctions.  Russia DOES have the capacity to be mostly self-sufficient in taking care of its basic needs (food, housing, even transportation) with some significant reconfiguration of their economy.  It will take a lot of time, effort, and very good leadership... three things Russia lacks at the moment.

6 minutes ago, Cederic said:

(re: UK taxes - it is all one general taxation pool, not ringfenced)

YUCK!

Steve

[purpheart23]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

Well, if your position just boils down to wanting some accountability tied to the $40b, I don't think you'd find anybody arguing against that!  Fortunately, I think we're not likely to see much in the way of waste on the Ukrainian side with this money.  Weapons are likely to wind up where they need to, eventually at least.  Less chance of money going to graft because it's stuff they are buying vs. getting cash.  Reconstruction money... well, a totally different kettle of fish.  The chance of abuse of that is huge and the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan need to be applied.  Fortunately, there will be more time to work out the details for that.  Right now, speed is more important than precise accounting.

Steve

Yeah that's all it was. Not just the 40B, any bill really. I digress though. You'll do you in this forum. Thanks for the engagement.

[keas66]

1 minute ago, purpheart23 said:

Thank you for chiming in.

No problem !  but if all you care about is accountability - then isn't that what  the comptroller general is for ?

https://www.gao.gov/about/comptroller-general

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Feb/25/2002588406/-1/-1/1/UNDERSTANDING RESULTS OF AUDIT OF FY 2020 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.PDF

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

It´s a very different game with taxes, in different countries! We have very high taxes, but pay 10 dollars a day on hospital. Even if you do brain cancer surgery! In a low tax country like the US, you make the choise by your self. 

Off topic... Moon (you old timers might remember him!) moved to the US many years ago.  He asked why our roads were so awful.  I said, easy... road budgets are determined by the local (town) government and people don't want to pay what it costs to make good roads.  As a result we have much lower taxes, but also poor quality roads compared to where he was in Germany.

It is fun though.  People deliberately under fund the infrastructure they rely upon most, then complain about how bad the infrastructure is.  Oh, and they still complain about taxes.

Some days I find it hard to imagine Humanity making it much longer.  We seem to succeed only when we've run out of ideas how to screw things up

Steve

[Armorgunner]

1 minute ago, MikeyD said:

I get the impression that bridge crossing had been preceded by someone with shoulder boards and a very red face pound the desk angrily and yelling that he doesn't want excuses, he wants it done NOW!

The order of a likely success, came probably from higher up in command. From someone with very heavy shoulders?

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, purpheart23 said:

Yeah that's all it was. Not just the 40B, any bill really. I digress though. You'll do you in this forum. Thanks for the engagement.

Ah, then a classic case of misreading what was written.  Thanks for sticking with it and clarifying things so we can understand each other better.  That's what need more of in this world, eh?

Steve

[danfrodo]

deleted

Edited May 13, 2022 by danfrodo
deleted

[LukeFF]

11 hours ago, Huba said:

And a step back:

 

No, not really - all he was/is asking for is some proper oversight into how this money is going to be spent. Without going off into tangents, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money recently on weapons for Ukraine (while ignoring some other critical, domestic issues), so it's only rational that someone with some sense stood up and said, hold on, where exactly is this money going?

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

No, not really - all he was/is asking for is some proper oversight into how this money is going to be spent. Without going off into tangents, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money recently on weapons for Ukraine (while ignoring some other critical, domestic issues), so it's only rational that someone with some sense stood up and said, hold on, where exactly is this money going?

Yes, but Rand has a history of making sure he holds things up when the cameras are rolling.  That's his MO.  This was an important bill and for sure he had a chance to raise objections to it before it came to the floor, even if it meant delaying it getting to the floor.  So it's political theater masked as responsibility to score points.  It's also successful.  There's 99 other Senators, and yet we're here talking about just one of them.

Steve

[purpheart23]

To*,  additionally, grind your little axe with somebody that cares. I've made my point clear and if you disagree that's fine make your point and move on.

 

 

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

to me this sounds like someone trying to cover for that f-ing snake rand paul.  Rand Paul has been pro-putin from the start and this was just his way of delaying aid to help out his homey, Vlad.  Oversight, my ass.  I am so pissed at rand paul I .... better shut up else I'll get a call from the FBI for threatening a senator .  So I'll think I'll just be nice and nominate him for the 1st ever Oswald Mosley Gold Medal Award.

We are sending weapons, not wagonloads of paper money.  and we already know our weapons are being used to kill Russians via all the dead Russians we see every day.  So the point is really quite pointless, unless all one is doing is repeating bulls-t from rand paul. 

This is not Syria where we had to stop sending weapons because they were all getting sold to or hijacked by ISIS. 

 

 

[purpheart23]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

No, not really - all he was/is asking for is some proper oversight into how this money is going to be spent. Without going off into tangents, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money recently on weapons for Ukraine (while ignoring some other critical, domestic issues), so it's only rational that someone with some sense stood up and said, hold on, where exactly is this money going?

Yes, thank you.

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

No, not really - all he was/is asking for is some proper oversight into how this money is going to be spent. Without going off into tangents, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money recently on weapons for Ukraine (while ignoring some other critical, domestic issues), so it's only rational that someone with some sense stood up and said, hold on, where exactly is this money going?

I wish that were true.  But it's rand paul, senior senate f-ing snake.  Have you heard the garbage he's been spewing about Ukraine the last couple months?  he would have handed UKR to Putin on a silver platter.  He said that UKR was part of Russia so what's the problem.  And 44 million people and their descendants would lose their freedom, forever.  That's the stakes we're actually talking about.   RP doesn't give a flying f-k about the money.  He's one of Putin's like autocrat-wannabe waterboys.