How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

Yet more suicidal Russian tank operations. "Lets drive around unsupported until the Ukrainians kill us, it will be fun."

[fireship4]

4 hours ago, acrashb said:

The overall message is about flexibility in open societies, which many pages ago I likened to a faster OODA loop. 

Flexibility maybe, but faster?  I think the opposite is true.  The advantage of the West is that democracies (and not just the institutions and laws but the values instilled in peoples' heads) are error correcting - trial and error which can bring them over time toward being better.  It is also somewhat of a safety valve against revolutions - when things go too far in one direction you blame the one in charge and kick them out.  In fact a poster a little while ago bemoaned the state of US politics that had the opposition take the opposite side of each issue to the incumbent party.  I have come to see the value in this (though I'm not convinced of it in practise, as it makes for politicians without values): the electorate in this case has a clear way of changing policy.  In the case of there being no obvious party to vote on that supports 'x' policy, it does not get implemented.  Over time the window of which policies are up for public debate moves around.

On actual military OODA loops, it seems that the Russia military has believed it can be quicker in this respect also, through centralised command and automated/pre-set plans adjusted to context.  From 'The Russian Way of War' by Grau & Bartles:

Quote

[EDIT: Unfortunately for them, many of the centralised commanders have been spread around a bit to be blunt, ignoring for a moment the human horror of it for the sake of poetry.]

This approach can be compared and contrasted with the (more) free market model in economics vs. central planning.  One good thing about a free market is that it empasises computation by those closest to the ground - how is Gosplan supposed to know I need nylon stockings?!  In a similar sense this is something this approach seems to lack - judgement and action by units lower down in a formation.  I think a mix of top-down big picture stuff and lower level price finding and idea trying in both politics, economics and warfare is where it's at.  [EDIT: More or less what the West has with a democratically elected executive enacting laws and independent actors starting businesses.  In fact you could say the US constitution is problematic in this sense, as far as it holds back experimentation and correction.]

Edited May 14, 2022 by fireship4

[SeinfeldRules]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

No Excalibur for Ukraine?

Correct, unless there is an export version of the Excalibur that has a different way of loading the data into the shell, which would be a possibility. Biggest implication of no digital systems for the M777 is that you lose the ability to self lay and self locate. In other words, you are operating at the same level as the rest of the majority of Russian/Ukrainian artillery.

It's good to see someone on OSINT finally noticed this, perhaps now I will stop seeing some of the outrageous claims about the M777.

Edited May 14, 2022 by SeinfeldRules

[fireship4]

More footage of the river crossing, with artillery damaging or destroying a boat of some sort interacting with a pontoon:

https://nitter.net/Blue_Sauron/status/1525519492373270528#m

[FancyCat]

Whatever softness about the West on Crimea, had more to do with appeasing Putin and the assumption Putin and co weren't insane enough to seize all of Ukraine, and that their rhetoric was, simply rhetoric. Since that **** is proven false, I think the West's opinion on Crimea and Donbas will harden, we already have statements from the G7 stating that recognition of the seizures of Ukrainian territory in either area will not occur. 

Whatever Russians think of Crimea, it really comes down to the fact it was only taken 8 years ago. Political apathy also abounds in Russia, the loss of Crimea and the included realization Russia has been militarily defeated will not result in Russians seeking to nuke the world to death, but to rearm and avenge the loss, and punish those who failed. The internal clashing in Russia will certainly mean crazy orders won't be followed. 

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

Yet more suicidal Russian tank operations. "Lets drive around unsupported until the Ukrainians kill us, it will be fun."

wow, what kind of graphics card & settings do you have?  -- this is CMBS w mods, right? 

[Huba]

 

[Haiduk]

@sburke @Kinophile

"Lt.colonel" (LPR-promoted) Roman Medvedev, artillery chief of 4th motor-rifle brigade of LPR. Got killed 11th of May. Citizen of Ukraine. Probably retired officer

  

Captain of 3rd rank (mayor equivalent) Roman Pasynkov, chief of troops service department of Black Sea HQ. Data of death is unknown, probably Zmiinyi island garrison

 

 

[Vacillator]

7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Citizen of Ukraine

Yes, but perhaps not really?

[sross112]

1 hour ago, SeinfeldRules said:

Correct, unless there is an export version of the Excalibur that has a different way of loading the data into the shell, which would be a possibility. Biggest implication of no digital systems for the M777 is that you lose the ability to self lay and self locate. In other words, you are operating at the same level as the rest of the majority of Russian/Ukrainian artillery.

It's good to see someone on OSINT finally noticed this, perhaps now I will stop seeing some of the outrageous claims about the M777.

I know nothing about the digitized systems and how they interact, so a question.

Could the lack of the digital system be because the command and control net isn't integrated with the software it uses? Would their fire control centers, forward observers, etc all need to be linked into the same net using the same software stuff in order for any of it to be used? Or would they still be useful in isolation on a single gun or battery? 

 

[Combatintman]

30 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

Flexibility maybe, but faster?  I think the opposite is true.  The advantage of the West is that democracies (and not just the institutions and laws but the values instilled in peoples' heads) are error correcting - trial and error which can bring them over time toward being better.  It is also somewhat of a safety valve against revolutions - when things go too far in one direction you blame the one in charge and kick them out.  In fact a poster a little while ago bemoaned the state of US politics that had the opposition take the opposite side of each issue to the incumbent party.  I have come to see the value in this (though I'm not convinced of it in practise, as it makes for politicians without values): the electorate in this case has a clear way of changing policy.  In the case of there being no obvious party to vote on that supports 'x' policy, it does not get implemented.  Over time the window of which policies are up for public debate moves around.

On actual military OODA loops, it seems that the Russia military has believed it can be quicker in this respect also, through centralised command and automated/pre-set plans adjusted to context.  From 'The Russian Way of War' by Grau & Bartles:

[EDIT: Unfortunately for them, many of the centralised commanders have been spread around a bit to be blunt, ignoring for a moment the human horror of it for the sake of poetry.]

This approach can be compared and contrasted with the (more) free market model in economics vs. central planning.  One good thing about a free market is that it empasises computation by those closest to the ground - how is Gosplan supposed to know I need nylon stockings?!  In a similar sense this is something this approach seems to lack - judgement and action by units lower down in a formation.  I think a mix of top-down big picture stuff and lower level price finding and idea trying in both politics, economics and warfare is where it's at.  [EDIT: More or less what the West has with a democratically elected executive enacting laws and independent actors starting businesses.  In fact you could say the US constitution is problematic in this sense, as far as it holds back experimentation and correction.]

It is an interesting discussion piece for sure.

I recall my Introduction to Maritime Warfare Course at HMS Dryad in 2002ish where the training audience (predictably) was mostly naval types and the exercise scenario involved resolving some unpleasantness in Libya.  Off the top of my head there were three Task Groups (TGs) - the amphib force, the carrier group (UK version so Invincible class rather than a proper one) and a logistics TG.  The discussion over the verbiage of the set of orders to be issued to the logisticians took something like 30 minutes to resolve.  In essence the intent was for both of the fighty TGs (amphib and carrier) to be resupplied to allow them maximum 'poise' (an in vogue phrase then) off the coast of Libya to execute the shaping and amphib operation outside the most likely enemy engagement envelopes.  My suggestion that rather than discuss it at length to come up with some arcane phraseology and to avoid any chance of misinterpretation by the TGs it would be easier to make 'conduct a RAS (replenishment at sea)' a specified task in a designated ops box was dismissively responded by the statement that I was limiting the freedom of action of the TGs.  Such are the joys of open discussion from a group of cleverish (not me obviously) people brought up in a system that encourages debate which certainly can be the enemy of tempo during a planning process.

It was a thoroughly amusing course after that as I decided that I should act as the scribe during planning from that moment on ... until we did course of action (COA) selection where I had a robust discussion with a naval OF4 that by the group's own deductions and scoring, the COA he decided on was not the most favourable.  An argument I didn't win inevitably in that forum but clearly I did if the scoring was robust (which it was) - anyway - I digress.

The point; therefore, is that there is certainly merit in a more command directed and automated approach to planning in order to increase tempo but, it relies on a commander that knows what they're doing, good situational awareness and competent subordinates to execute the orders.  From what we're seeing all three are absent.  Additionally, the glacial pace of Russian advances shows that the approach taken is not working if the intent is tempo.  My sense is that it is not happening at all - pretty much every tactical operation that we've been analysing and picking apart since about day two of this 'special military operation' has uncovered issues in both planning and execution.  If the goal is to compress/beat an eight hour planning cycle and arrive at a six-hour cycle - why are we seeing so many bite and hold advances with three to four day gaps between the next iteration of bite and hold?  At that rate, perhaps sitting down and taking more time, because it clearly is available, to plan in detail might pay a dividend or two.

[Vacillator]

Just walked by the TV as Eurovision and Ukraine's entry was playing.  The singer gave a shout out to Azovstal and Mariupol. 

Respect is due .

[SeinfeldRules]

13 minutes ago, sross112 said:

I know nothing about the digitized systems and how they interact, so a question.

Could the lack of the digital system be because the command and control net isn't integrated with the software it uses? Would their fire control centers, forward observers, etc all need to be linked into the same net using the same software stuff in order for any of it to be used? Or would they still be useful in isolation on a single gun or battery? 

 

Yes and no. Digital Fire Control allows several things. One is the ability to self locate and self lay. This greatly simplifies operation or the howitzer and speeds up emplacement. This part of DFC simply tells you where the howitzer is located (grid) and the direction and elevation the tube is currently pointed at (firing data), and is unique for each howitzer and independent of any command network. You still need someone to tell you what data to fire. 
 

The second part of DFC is the ability to link into the digital network to receive firing data. The computer system calculating the data sends it over a digital network to the howitzer and it auto populates into the system, meaning all the crew has to do is lay the howitzer, instead of receiving it over the radio and the crew entering it into their gunner sights and then laying the howitzer. 
 

Theoretically this allows an observer to enter a target into the system and have it automatically route to a howitzer without any intervention. The American AFATDS system is designed to operate this way, as all our howitzers are fully digital.  In reality we rarely operate this way, as combat is never as simple as putting some guidances and control measures into a computer system, you need some sort of human oversight at certain points. Which is why Trent’s thread the other day is almost certainly bunk: Ukraine seems to have very little howitzers with Digital Fire Control systems to enable such a system, and are operating in such a high tempo and target rich environment that some level of decision making has to go into the allocation of fires. I’m sure they have a similar system to AFATDS for passing a digital fire mission from node to node, but that’s not that ground breaking. 

Edited May 14, 2022 by SeinfeldRules

[Harmon Rabb]

7 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

Just walked by the TV as Eurovision and Ukraine's entry was playing.  The singer gave a shout out to Azovstal and Mariupol. 

Respect is due .

Yeah I also watched it. I did not really like Ukraine's Eurovision entry this year but definitely respect that they brought up Mariupol.

[fireship4]

15 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

Just walked by the TV as Eurovision and Ukraine's entry was playing.  The singer gave a shout out to Azovstal and Mariupol. 

Respect is due .

Russia... Nul pointe.

...This just in, UK accused of militarily assisting Ukraine to boost scores in Eurovision Song Contest after a spate of zeros plagued the country over the last...

[JonS]

Jordan is at his best when he sticks to crayfish.

[dan/california]

14 minutes ago, fireship4 said:

Russia... Nul pointe.

...This just in, UK accused of militarily assisting Ukraine to boost scores in Eurovision Song Contest after a spate of zeros plagued the country over the last...

The interplay between Eurovision, and life and death on the battlefields of Ukraine is a fascinating cultural inflection point.

[Haiduk]

48 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

Yes, but perhaps not really?

According to Peacemaker database he lived in Luhansk

[LongLeftFlank]

Looks like the RA has indeed adopted the expedient of beefing up its BTG infantry strength for attacks by attaching VDV paras, a la Kampfgruppe Peiper. Makes sense since these guys are supposed to be trained to fight cross-country and independently. Although they still bring their BMDs along....

 

 

[Anon052]

2 hours ago, akd said:

Counterattack operations around Kharkiv:

 

Russian BMP-3 attacking a Ukrainian crossing attempt of Siverskiy Donets west of Izium:

Ukrainian fighting position, somewhere in Kharkiv area:

 

Whoa. This trench firefight video is really intense. I am glad they didn't get hit near the end. That was a very close call. And watching this video gave me a ww1 feeling.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Anon052

[SeinfeldRules]

12 hours ago, Holien said:

 

 

 

 

The comment on how they use their drones is what I found interesting and confirms some other comments In this thread. Smaller drones are used to build the intelligence picture (the guy claimed he spent 10 days scouting out a particular village) and they use that data to cue the larger more capable UAVs that have a link with the artillery. 

Edited May 14, 2022 by SeinfeldRules

[Haiduk]

42 minutes ago, SeinfeldRules said:

Ukraine seems to have very little howitzers with Digital Fire Control systems to enable such a system, and are operating in such a high tempo and target rich environment that some level of decision making has to go into the allocation of fires. I’m sure they have a similar system to AFATDS for passing a digital fire mission from node to node, but that’s not that ground breaking. 

This sytem partially realized in GIS Arta and newer Kropyva info sytems. It also locates coordinates of FO vehicles, spotters and main gun by GPS and allows to calculate corrections for each gun in the battery or platoon depending of fire mission type. Of course, all adjustments on the guns make not automatic, but crews manually, according to comamnds of senior officer of battery, which get information on own PDA from spotters for final calculations and transmits it to platoon commander(s) 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[danfrodo]

The failed bridging operations just reek of someone up high forcing decisions on the command structures below.  Like Stalin in 1941, constantly ordering immediate piecemeal attacks instead of make proper, coordinated, powerful counterattacks.

so how exactly was Russia planning on supplying the troops that were crossing the river well within UKR artillery observation (via drone)???   They'd be out of fuel in a day or two.  The bridges wouldn't last.  Bizarre, completely unrealistic choices being made.

[LongLeftFlank]

News you can use.... 

 

 

[Suleyman]

3 hours ago, dan/california said:

Yet more suicidal Russian tank operations. "Lets drive around unsupported until the Ukrainians kill us, it will be fun."

It looks abandoned to me, they don't send tanks head first for recon. Must have been mission killed and abandoned.