How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Vacillator]

4 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

While Germany could be faster with armaments, German money is still important tbf. EU money is very important for keeping Ukraine afloat, and for just generally ensuring Ukraine can fight on. One easy way for NATO members to sort of avoid "escalation" is simply have everything go to Eastern European states like Poland, Baltics, who basically enjoy telling Russia to go to hell and have them pass on the equipment to Ukraine. Pretty sure this is ongoing rn. 

Totally agree.  As a sadly ex-EU member .

[dan/california]

This seems REALLY risky, but the Ukr General staff has been right so many times you have to assume they know whats up. Maybe they are going to try a counter attack at the exact moment the Russians run out of steam? The post could be intentional disinformation, too. To help cover a withdrawal.....

[danfrodo]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

This seems REALLY risky, but the Ukr General staff has been right so many times you have to assume they know whats up. Maybe they are going to try a counter attack at the exact moment the Russians run out of steam? The post could be intentional disinformation, too. To help cover a withdrawal.....

very very interesting.....   So we know UKR likes to wear out RU offensive power via these defend/delay operations and interdicting LOCs.  The RU arty is making that very painful but it still seems to be working.  And we believe that UKR is planning for counteroffensive(s), somewhere. 

So an interesting thing about this sector is that RU is basically fixing in place its own forces which won't be able to quickly withdraw to other sectors that might get attacked.   Let's say I wanted to attack some other sector, like NE of Kharkiv or south toward Melitopol.  It would be very nice if, w minimal forces and only a tactical risk, I could keep RU main power concentrated in some other area.  If I retreat from the Lysychansk salient, then RU can claim their little victory and redeploy all that combat power, especially the artillery, in other areas. 

If I attack somewhere else and RU moves all the protecting artillery and its best units, then I've got opportunities in the area of this salient itself. 

So this makes some sense to me. 

[chrisl]

The UA probably has more accurate information on the quantity and state of RU forces around them than the Kremlin does.

[FancyCat]

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

This seems REALLY risky, but the Ukr General staff has been right so many times you have to assume they know whats up. Maybe they are going to try a counter attack at the exact moment the Russians run out of steam? The post could be intentional disinformation, too. To help cover a withdrawal.....

Hmm, considering how Ukraine opted to hold urban territory during the first stages of the invasion to wear down Russian supply lines and inflict damages on the Russian rear and smartly chose that vs holding a broader defensive line or withdrawing wholesale, and considering Russian manpower numbers aren't really enough to tie down and lock down defenders and push forward, and assuming that Russia needs a long period of time to turn the urban area being defended into something undefendable, while they have to reduce the urban region, Ukraine can devote itself to counterattacking elsewhere or into the forces keeping the pocket on lock. Like Mariupol. 

[The_MonkeyKing]

Any sources or educated guesses when then next major US aid package is going to be announced with details?

Ukraine seems to be drumming extremely hard for in the information space HIMARS/M270...

[danfrodo]

and that Izyum salient is not far from being cut off by attacking north of the city.  Wouldn't that be fun?

[Huba]

Looks like UA blew up the last bridge from Lyman (the one on the dam). The battle of the Donets line seems to be over, battle of Sloviansk is next:

 

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

Reserve Lt. Col. Alexander Kalnitsky, presumably with a Cossack volunteer unit from Krasnodar Krai:

Another captain in command of a battalion: Capt. Fakhretin Gasanov, commander 1st MRB, 394th MRR, 127th MRD

VDV Maj. Alexander Denisov, unit unknown

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by akd

[akd]

Sweet. Expect more nuclear hyperventilation.  IMO, if Russia is using it in Ukraine, giving it to Ukraine should not be considered escalatory.

 

[Harmon Rabb]

38 minutes ago, akd said:

Sweet. Expect more nuclear hyperventilation.  IMO, if Russia is using it in Ukraine, giving it to Ukraine should not be considered escalatory.

 

Great news! Ukraine needed those HIMARS MRLs yesterday.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Harmon Rabb

[Cederic]

15 hours ago, dan/california said:

The Poles really have been outstanding in this whole thing from literally hour #2. That , and it pains me say this, Boris Johnson's NLAWS, bought Ukraine enough time for the "rest of the West" to realize Ukraine wasn't folding, and get involved.

The Poles made a massive difference in World War 2. Their skill, attitude and commitment made a difference and set an example in the Battle of Britain, and their contribution towards breaking Enigma is often overlooked.

Poland frequently gets ****ed but I'd always want the Poles on my side.

[SeinfeldRules]

33 minutes ago, akd said:

Sweet. Expect more nuclear hyperventilation.  IMO, if Russia is using it in Ukraine, giving it to Ukraine should not be considered escalatory.

 

Wouldn’t be surprised if we only give them the shorter range, non-precision guided rockets that are around the 32-45km range. The longer range guided GMLRS was used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s contribution would signify a much greater risk to the US Army’s ability to project power. The HIMARS system was used at a level that basically makes it a strategic asset and I doubt we could supply a meaningful amount of the precision rockets without cutting into our own reserves. The unguided rockets have already been phased out of use however, and probably could be contributed with minimal impact from whatever war stock we had left. 
 

We’ll see how many of the systems we can even contribute however, my understanding is that a portion of the M777s came from the stockpile of Marine artillery units that were recently deactivated, and I don’t think we have dozens of these systems laying around. But I could be wrong. 

[Huba]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Sweet. Expect more nuclear hyperventilation.  IMO, if Russia is using it in Ukraine, giving it to Ukraine should not be considered escalatory.

Hell yeah! Now, how long would it take to train the crews on that? I'd think that there's much less manual training compared to a gun crew, but apart from that?

17 minutes ago, SeinfeldRules said:

Wouldn’t be surprised if we only give them the shorter range, non-precision guided rockets that are around the 32-45km range. The longer range guided GMLRS was used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s contribution would signify a much greater risk to the US Army’s ability to project power. The HIMARS system was used at a level that basically makes it a strategic asset and I doubt we could supply a meaningful amount of the precision rockets without cutting into our own reserves. The unguided rockets have already been phased out of use however, and probably could be contributed with minimal impact from whatever war stock we had left. 
 

We’ll see how many of the systems we can even contribute however, my understanding is that a portion of the M777s came from the stockpile of Marine artillery units that were recently deactivated, and I don’t think we have dozens of these systems laying around. But I could be wrong. 

According to Wikipedia, there are 12 battalions of HIMARS in ARNG, on top of Army and USMC - there's plenty reserves to draw from, and those units could use M270 in the meantime.

As for GMLRS, according to Lockheed page, more than 40K was produced to date - even if half was spent already, parting with say 3000 should hopefully be possible for US, and this is a game changing  number for UA. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Huba

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, SeinfeldRules said:

Wouldn’t be surprised if we only give them the shorter range, non-precision guided rockets that are around the 32-45km range. The longer range guided GMLRS was used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s contribution would signify a much greater risk to the US Army’s ability to project power. The HIMARS system was used at a level that basically makes it a strategic asset and I doubt we could supply a meaningful amount of the precision rockets without cutting into our own reserves. The unguided rockets have already been phased out of use however, and probably could be contributed with minimal impact from whatever war stock we had left. 
 

We’ll see how many of the systems we can even contribute however, my understanding is that a portion of the M777s came from the stockpile of Marine artillery units that were recently deactivated, and I don’t think we have dozens of these systems laying around. But I could be wrong. 

I think you're correct about sending the shorter range rockets.  This keeps the system within the performance of standard artillery, which means Ukraine can't get into too much trouble with HIMARS.  Just imagine if we gave them the full range system and they decided to hit Sevastopol.  Oh, it would be fun for a little while, but I am sure Russia would do something to make things rather unpleasant.

So what does this give Ukraine?  A very mobile system that can reach out and touch something about 20km further away than with the M777 and about the same distance as the 2S7 Pion.  Unlike the 2S7, though, a barrage can be laid down quickly by a single HIMARS system.  Pion's have a *very* slow RoF and Ukraine has very few of them so firing in battery isn't really a possibility.

Unfortunately, this does not mean Ukraine can clear off Snake Island yet.  Range is about 5-10km short.

Steve

[dan/california]

23 minutes ago, Huba said:

Hell yeah! Now, how long would it take to train the crews on that? I'd think that there's much less manual training compared to a gun crew, but apart from that?

According to Wikipedia, there are 12 battalions of HIMARS in ARNG, on top of Army and USMC - there's plenty reserves to draw from, and those units could use M270 in the meantime.

As for GMLRS, according to Lockheed page, more than 40K was produced to date - even if half was spent already, parting with say 3000 should hopefully be possible for US, and this is a game changing  number for UA. 

The man brings reciepts!

[SeinfeldRules]

12 minutes ago, Huba said:

Hell yeah! Now, how long would it take to train the crews on that? I'd think that there's much less manual training compared to a gun crew, but apart from that?

According to Wikipedia, there are 12 battalions of HIMARS in ARNG, on top of Army and USMC - there's plenty reserves to draw from, and those units could use M270 in the meantime.

As for GMLRS, according to Lockheed page, more than 40K was produced to date - even if half was spent already, parting with say 3000 should hopefully be possible for US, and this is a game changing  number for UA. 

It’s not that simple to switch a weapon system, as now you have to also swap out the entire supply chain - the M270 is a tracked vehicle chassis and the HIMARS is a light wheeled vehicle. That includes parts and all the associated mechanics and such, and all the support equipment. That is not easy or cheap to do. You start running into second or third order effects if you start striping units like that.  These National Guard rocket units are routinely deployed overseas. 
 

 

[dan/california]

Everyone is still hung up on these exceedingly fine distinctions in how we kill Russians, even as we have killed 20,000 to thirty thousand of them. 

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think you're correct about sending the shorter range rockets.  This keeps the system within the performance of standard artillery, which means Ukraine can't get into too much trouble with HIMARS.  Just imagine if we gave them the full range system and they decided to hit Sevastopol.  Oh, it would be fun for a little while, but I am sure Russia would do something to make things rather unpleasant.

So what does this give Ukraine?  A very mobile system that can reach out and touch something about 20km further away than with the M777 and about the same distance as the 2S7 Pion.  Unlike the 2S7, though, a barrage can be laid down quickly by a single HIMARS system.  Pion's have a *very* slow RoF and Ukraine has very few of them so firing in battery isn't really a possibility.

Unfortunately, this does not mean Ukraine can clear off Snake Island yet.  Range is about 5-10km short.

Steve

Everyone is still hung up on these exceedingly fine distinctions in how we kill Russians, even as we have killed 20,000 to thirty thousand of them. if we ask Zelensky for a firm promise that he will only use them in the DPR/LPR and Ukraine proper i am sure the Ukrainians would honor it. If the Russian wanted to attack Poland they would have done it weeks ago. Apparently even they can figure out that the only two outcomes of that for them are bad and worse. Granted worse is bad for the whole planet.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, SeinfeldRules said:

It’s not that simple to switch a weapon system, as now you have to also swap out the entire supply chain - the M270 is a tracked vehicle chassis and the HIMARS is a light wheeled vehicle. That includes parts and all the associated mechanics and such, and all the support equipment. That is not easy or cheap to do. You start running into second or third order effects if you start striping units like that.  These National Guard rocket units are routinely deployed overseas. 
 

 

Fair enough, it makes sense of course. Maybe it will be the M270s being sent instead? I wonder how much of a difference it makes logistically to support those big heavy vehicles compared to HIMARS, taking into account that (I assume) it is the weight and bulk of the ammo that is the chief issue, and this remains the same.

OTOH, US sent M777s that (again as I uderstand) were taken from active units more or less, instead of older but perfectly suitable M198s, maybe the consideration for the delivered system being new and less maintenance intensive were more important. We'll see shortly I hope.

So, would you risk to guess how much time it would take for a battalion of experienced artillerymen to switch to HIMARS/ M270 from some other (older) weapon system?

 

[Huba]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think you're correct about sending the shorter range rockets.  This keeps the system within the performance of standard artillery, which means Ukraine can't get into too much trouble with HIMARS.  Just imagine if we gave them the full range system and they decided to hit Sevastopol.  Oh, it would be fun for a little while, but I am sure Russia would do something to make things rather unpleasant.

So what does this give Ukraine?  A very mobile system that can reach out and touch something about 20km further away than with the M777 and about the same distance as the 2S7 Pion.  Unlike the 2S7, though, a barrage can be laid down quickly by a single HIMARS system.  Pion's have a *very* slow RoF and Ukraine has very few of them so firing in battery isn't really a possibility.

Unfortunately, this does not mean Ukraine can clear off Snake Island yet.  Range is about 5-10km short.

Steve

Hmm, would you think that the difference between conventional 45km ranged round and GMLRS with (as I understand) 60km of range make that much of a difference? Ukraine already has comparable systems in form of those guided BM-30 rockets (not in significant numbers obviously), not to mention the Tochka.

Of course ATACMS is out of the question at this point, this would be an escalation for much later time, if possible at all.

Edit: oh, and from 45.441717, 29.695611 there's exactly 45km to the Snake Island, if UA feels adventerous they could drive/ ferry the launcher there.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Huba

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, SeinfeldRules said:

It’s not that simple to switch a weapon system, as now you have to also swap out the entire supply chain - the M270 is a tracked vehicle chassis and the HIMARS is a light wheeled vehicle. That includes parts and all the associated mechanics and such, and all the support equipment. That is not easy or cheap to do. You start running into second or third order effects if you start striping units like that.  These National Guard rocket units are routinely deployed overseas. 
 

 

There are times you have to take a calculated risk, and accept that life isn't perfect. Every munition we send to Ukraine is being used to kill the army that those munitions were BUILT to kill. The only other two opponents that could really stress the U.S. military are China, and Iran.  And since I think the U.S. has ZERO appetite for another mideast war, that pretty much leaves China. Unless we are going to start shipping HIMARS to Taiwan in en masse, now, today, we need to start shipping them to Ukraine. If we need a whole new factory for GMLRS, then start pouring concrete. And yes I know it will take three years to get the first missile out the door of the new facility. But it will take 3 years plus how ever long we bleep around before starting on it, SO START.

[SeinfeldRules]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

Fair enough, it makes sense of course. Maybe it will be the M270s being sent instead? I wonder how much of a difference it makes logistically to support those big heavy vehicles compared to HIMARS, taking into account that (I assume) it is the weight and bulk of the ammo that is the chief issue, and this remains the same.

OTOH, US sent M777s that (again as I uderstand) were taken from active units more or less, instead of older but perfectly suitable M198s, maybe the consideration for the delivered system being new and less maintenance intensive were more important. We'll see shortly I hope.

So, would you risk to guess how much time it would take for a battalion of experienced artillerymen to switch to HIMARS/ M270 from some other (older) weapon system?

 

Well as I said the M270 is a tracked vehicle and those always come with a significant logistical cost in fuel, spare parts and support vehicles. HIMARS is air transportable a glorified truck chassis, so easier to operate and supply.

I don't believe I've heard of any Army units that had their M777s taken away for shipment to Ukraine. I believe it was all pre-positioned stocks and other reserves. Probably the biggest reason we gave them M777s over M198s is availability of parts in our supply chain.

I have never been in a rocket unit so I am unfamiliar with the firing procedures, but from what I understand it's a fairly automated system, so not hard to train on.

[Huba]

Ukraine is getting a little cocky regarding Hungary's position in the oil embargo negotiations:

 

[sross112]

1 hour ago, SeinfeldRules said:

The longer range guided GMLRS was used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s contribution would signify a much greater risk to the US Army’s ability to project power.

Has anyone reached out to the Taliban to see if they would be willing to part with some of billions of dollars worth of weapons systems left lying around their country a few months ago? Asking for a friend.....

On a serious note, does anyone know what happened to the almost 1000 M109's that were replaced by the Pzh2000 systems in the European armies? If there is a significant number of them in storage they would be a good option to get moving to the UA to help them ween off the 152mm before their ammo reserves get critical. I think most of them were A2's and A3's but those should be really comparable to what the UA is running now so no real loss in capability. They also would have the ability to be upgraded significantly as time went on.

[Fenris]

With Orban declaring a state of emergency the other day it's not going to be long before Europe has another "president for life" on the continent.  I'm ignorant of how things work over there and am wondering how does that play into EU and NATO rules?  (Little bit of a side track but I'm concerned with him making things more difficult)