How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Machor]

19 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

I had to skip ahead (The Thread has been taking up most of my reading time since early March) to see what he has to say about Bagration. He does indeed make a strong case that the defeat of the Luftwaffe (not in a definitive sense of course, but a tipping point was reached) in the west earlier that year was the key factor: Luftflotte 6 had 100 single-engine fighters to cover Army Group Center, of which 40 were mission-capable and even they did not have adequate fuel. There were 600 Luftwaffe fighters (single- and twin-engine) on the entire Eastern Front when Bagration began, and against this the V-VS were able to deploy 5,417 aircraft, 2,528 of which were fighters, along the fronts taking part in the offensive. German commanders interviewed by the Allies after the war generally considered this to be the point where Soviet tactical airpower went from being a nuisance to a decisive factor.

Hope time and health do permit that for you soon, CMRT does look very interesting to get into.

Thank you for the input and kind wishes! I looked up War over the Steppes by Hooton (2016) to see what he had to say, and he pretty much corroborates, particularly underlining the shortage of aviation fuel for the Luftwaffe. I also found out about a gallant effort to supply the Warsaw Uprising from air, which forced the Luftwaffe to reallocate resources. Relevant to this thread - since there has been much discussion of how little intel and planning time Russian officers appear to have received before the invasion - here's how much heads-up the VVS had before Bagration (p. 210):

"No wire communications were permitted during planning, with corps and division commanders briefed five to seven days before the attack while regimental commanders had only a few hours notice. The physical strain was so severe that shortly before Bagration Golovanov collapsed with nervous exhaustion, and while he followed Stalin’s advice to rest at home and drink vodka, Skripko bore the brunt of ADD planning."

Edited June 5, 2022 by Machor
formatting

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, sross112 said:

You put forth this idea quite a ways back in this thread and it does have it's merits. This definitely works, but it is a long drawn out process and time is a double edged sword. I think most of us agree that time is against the RA but the longer it takes to defeat them the longer they get to pound the UA with their arty and air. That seems to be the biggest threat to the UA personnel and a war of attrition, even though in the end the UA wins, it means a lot more losses for them as well. Plus it basically just pushes them back to their borders instead of destroying them.

If the UA can even do smaller pockets on the RA the results can be exponentially better for the same commitment of power. The Kremlin can spin a lot of things but the wholesale destruction or capture of a couple brigades would be priceless for the UA and could be the chance at stimulating a collapse.  

100% agree, but only if they can do it at acceptable risk. 

[fireship4]

@Osinttechnical thread on the subject of the defensibility of Sverodonetsk: https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/status/1533249952809463809#m

Included are pictures, a terrain map, and a link to a thread in a similar vein by @DefMon3, which itself contains a link to his livemap, and a link to an unsubstantiated claim that the entirety of Sverodonetsk has been retaken(!)

Edited June 5, 2022 by fireship4

[Sequoia]

30 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Near transition areas, probably, but there's more than just the rail gauge. If the standard dimensions of the rolling stock are different then you might run the risk of collisions with other trains or even parts of tunnels, especially in turns, or load bearing problems on bridges.  Not to mention needing to get ahold of and lay that much extra steel rail at a time when transportation systems have been completely messed up for a couple years.

I'm sure smarter people than me have been putting thought into this, so I'm not trying to suggest this is an original idea, but could perhaps just converting one line that winds up in Constanta by moving the rail over (no dual gauge) be temporally feasible?

[Machor]

12 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Also Turkey decides everything with their strait.

A reminder that Turkey doesn't get to decide much, since it's bound by the Montreux Convention.

If Turkey were to allow naval vessels through the straits, it would be an undisputable casus belli against Russia.

[Battlefront.com]

46 minutes ago, chrisl said:

They can't outrun an ATGM by reversing and going back - if one's in the air already they have less than 20 seconds to get out of the IFV.  The rocket will stay targeted on the vehicle if it moves, but it isn't going to follow them once they're out, and it at least gives them an opportunity to try to get captured rather than incinerated.

Yup, I've made a note of this a while ago.  This is not something that current TacAI takes into consideration, but it should for really crappy crews.  A more experienced and motivated one would have more confidence that they could do something evasive, even if it turns out not to be the case.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

43 minutes ago, Machor said:

MLRS attack on Donetsk city centre - some replies suggest it may be a Russian provocation:

Definitely.  Ukraine has ZERO incentive, or even history, of senselessly bombarding civilian areas.  Russia, on the other hand, absolutely does.  Further, they have been caught numerous times over the last 8 years shelling their own territory and blaming it on Ukraine.  There even was a famous terror bombardment of Mariupol out of nowhere in 2017 IIRC.  Of course Russia said Ukraine did it.  Right.

There's another reason to point the finger at Russia.  The pro-Russian account that posted the video started off with this introduction:

Quote

The first footage from the scene of the shelling of the center of Donetsk. Apartments, cars are burning, there are wounded civilians. You might wonder why people seem relatively calm.... it's because they're used to be under Ukrainian bombardment.

You can quite easily see the distorted point of view even without peeking at the rest of the guy's comments.  In response to someone asking if he's post videos of the hundreds of Ukrainian cities bombarded with thousands of dead Ukrainian civilians, he responded with:

Quote

I would love for you to do so on your account since I can't find any. FVCK you troll.

I didn't read much further in the responses because I like my dinner to stay where I put it instead of decorating one of my walls.

Steve

[Calamine Waffles]

16 minutes ago, Machor said:

A reminder that Turkey doesn't get to decide much, since it's bound by the Montreux Convention.

If Turkey were to allow naval vessels through the straits, it would be an undisputable casus belli against Russia.

To be quite honest, the Turkish Navy is stronger than the Black Sea Fleet at this point. They along with the Romanian Navy could easily force the Black Sea Fleet to back off from a grain convoy.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

4 hours ago, slysniper said:

I have no clue what trucking could do as to amounts, but it seems like it is the only other option and that it should be attempted. But again in eurupe, trucking might not be near the size it is here in the states. All I keep thinking is we basically live in a time where hardly anyone alive has ever had to deal with food shortages. I have a feeling that is going to change and the world is in for a shock.

 

The average load of grain we ship/recieve here at work, in Canada, is in the 40 metric tonnes range. In order to meet the 6,000,000 metric tonnes a month it works out to 5,000 truckloads of grain to be moved every single day. 

The new and modern rail cars here hold 100 metric tonnes. The new modern grain handling facilities are being setup to accommodate trains of 134 cars in length with load/unload times of 12 hours per train. This means with the most modern equipment and facilities, 15 trains need to be loaded and leave Ukraine every day. If they are using systems designed 30 years ago, it becomes 20 trains a day. If facilities are any older, the three "modern" elevators around me were all built in the sixties, then it will be closer to 40 trains. Of course this all assumes everything is going to work perfectly without any maintenance issues. 

If you are lucky enough to live in a location with a lawn, it is not too late to rip up some grass and plant some vegetables. 

[chrisl]

37 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

To be quite honest, the Turkish Navy is stronger than the Black Sea Fleet at this point. They along with the Romanian Navy could easily force the Black Sea Fleet to back off from a grain convoy.

And is there any legal reason that NATO couldn't enforce a safe transit shipping lane/zone from the air?  It would largely be over international waters or NATO coastline, with just a very short zone in Ukrainian waters that could be easily protected by shore batteries.  It may or may not be politically viable, but giving notice that vessels attacking non-belligerent commercial ships in will be immediately sunk is probably legally defensible under maritime law.

[fireship4]

The Sverodonetsk 'basin' with the corresponding BMU hightmaps overlaid.  .KMZ file for loading in GoogleEarth desktop and browser (Projects -> New project -> Import .KML file from computer) versions: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hyfvgg3qqoq5x78/Sverodonetsk.kmz?dl=0

Edited June 5, 2022 by fireship4

[FancyCat]

If Russia didn't have nukes, sure, I could see a situation like the Persian Gulf patrols. But....it does. So NATO is not going to risk nuclear confrontation and war. Plus commercial shipping won't go into the Black Sea unless a country seizes their ships or somehow legally forces them to work in the Black Sea.

[sross112]

28 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

If Russia didn't have nukes, sure, I could see a situation like the Persian Gulf patrols. But....it does. So NATO is not going to risk nuclear confrontation and war. Plus commercial shipping won't go into the Black Sea unless a country seizes their ships or somehow legally forces them to work in the Black Sea.

I think it would have to be a UN operation and not a NATO one. Escorts could come from non NATO nations, especially ones that have a direct interest in the grain. Egypt comes to mind, but maybe some South American, Asian and Indian vessels could be used. Just like the land force peacekeeping forces for the UN but for a designated sea lane. The UN has a legitimate reason to do it to help all those countries that depend on Ukrainian grain and the countries providing security don't have a dog in the fight. Russia would look even worse to the world if they didn't accept that sort of deal or tried to stop/board/sink any of the shipments. 

[G.I. Joe]

2 minutes ago, sross112 said:

I think it would have to be a UN operation and not a NATO one. Escorts could come from non NATO nations, especially ones that have a direct interest in the grain. Egypt comes to mind, but maybe some South American, Asian and Indian vessels could be used. Just like the land force peacekeeping forces for the UN but for a designated sea lane. The UN has a legitimate reason to do it to help all those countries that depend on Ukrainian grain and the countries providing security don't have a dog in the fight. Russia would look even worse to the world if they didn't accept that sort of deal or tried to stop/board/sink any of the shipments. 

That does seem like it could be the most workable (certainly least escalatory) option available. There are certainly many non-NATO navies entirely capable of the mission, especially in combination...

[sburke]

Putin Skirts Talk of 'Special Operation' as Ukraine War Takes Toll—Report (msn.com)

 

bummer when the news only shows that your soldiers are still dying, so yeah lets just stop talking about it.

[Calamine Waffles]

2 hours ago, chrisl said:

And is there any legal reason that NATO couldn't enforce a safe transit shipping lane/zone from the air?  It would largely be over international waters or NATO coastline, with just a very short zone in Ukrainian waters that could be easily protected by shore batteries.  It may or may not be politically viable, but giving notice that vessels attacking non-belligerent commercial ships in will be immediately sunk is probably legally defensible under maritime law.

I think you could definitely call it piracy if the grain vessels not a Ukrainian flagged vessel. And you could deal with them accordingly

[MikeyD]

Over on a proper news site today I've been contributing to their Ukraine news story chat group by sharing some nuggets from this forum for their edification. I think I'm making people mad at me. Some people just don't like accurate specific, detailed information dropped into the middle of their conversation.

[kraze]

14 hours ago, sburke said:

Your definitions are categorically wrong.  A dictator with actual 95% support isn't a dictator but a phenomenally popular leader.  An autocrat maybe.   A Dictator in reality relies on brute force power to stay on top.  Pinochet, Kim Jong un, Robert Mugabe etc. State control of the media and education systems, full control of the state police and military institutions, judiciary etc ensures control.  

And what the heck is that "smoothie sipping leftist" comment?  I don't think you are finding in the US that the "smoothie sipping leftists" are Putin's main apologists.  Granted the left can have some annoying as hell pontificators, they however haven't been the ones most vocally decrying the US gov't support for Ukraine.  Who within the French political scene has been arguing against supporting Ukraine?  Same in most other western states.  Gimme a smoothie and arm the hell out of Ukraine. (actually,  i prefer coffee and wine).

Ah, but Pinochet, Kim Jong Un and Mugabe didn't have the state control over everything simply because they decided "I'm gonna be the dictator now, everyone obey me".

Somebody has to do the controlling. There have to be military, cops, journalists, jailors, teachers (from kindergartens to universities) who will all willingly agree to follow the guy and do his bidding. Same as whole supporting industry for the guys who do the "controlling".

So by the time they are brute forcing the opposition - the numbers of supporters far outweigh the numbers of unhappy. Otherwise it won't work, there will be insurgency. Says every single dictator dethroning ever.

There's a reason why in russian army and police there are at least 200.000 people who are willing to go and kill for putin in Ukraine in person but there are no people who are willing to go and kill putin to not kill in Ukraine.

And it's not because somebody brute forces anybody.

North Korea is North Korea because its people want it to be like so. Russia is Russia because its people want it to be like so. UK is UK because its people want it to be like so.

People aren't the same. Some want democracy and freedom, some want totalitarian regime and obedience. Yes, there are people that do want that and there are billions of them.

Dictator is just a single guy made of meat and bone. He is nobody unless an absolute majority of the population decides he is the guy they wish to worship. He is nobody unless that same majority decides that anyone who disagrees with said majority is an enemy.

Only people make dictator a dictator. Otherwise who is there to dictate over?

Edited June 5, 2022 by kraze

[Huba]

4 hours ago, chrisl said:

Near transition areas, probably, but there's more than just the rail gauge. If the standard dimensions of the rolling stock are different then you might run the risk of collisions with other trains or even parts of tunnels, especially in turns, or load bearing problems on bridges.  Not to mention needing to get ahold of and lay that much extra steel rail at a time when transportation systems have been completely messed up for a couple years.

AFAIK Standard and Russian gauges cannot be combined cause the difference is just too small and rails ( and their fixtures! ) just overlap. Ditto for the switching equipment. 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Huba

[Huba]

So according to El Pais, Spain intends to hand over some Leopard 2s to Ukraine! Quick wiki search shows that they have 100 2A4s in active service, and 50 in reserve, so might be a complete battalion for mechanized brigade. Most importantly, it would pave the way for future. Scholz must be fuming

https://elpais.com/espana/2022-06-05/espana-dispuesta-a-entregar-a-ucrania-misiles-antiaereos-y-carros-de-combate-leopard.html

Edited June 5, 2022 by Huba

[Offshoot]

The death of a drone (2nd video from 40 seconds)
 

 

[chrisl]

27 minutes ago, Huba said:

AFAIK Standard and Russian gauges cannot be combined cause the difference is just too small and rails ( and their fixtures! ) just overlap. Ditto for the switching equipment. 

Indeed that's correct!  There's a graphic on wikipedia showing the righthand rail position for a bunch of different gauges, all with the same lefthand.  There's overlap at the bottom and only a small gap at the top.  So for dual gauge tracks it looks like they just use longer ties and four rails, which adds another whole layer of complication to dual-gauging existing tracks.

[Gpig]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Over on a proper news site today I've been contributing to their Ukraine news story chat group

Ha! I saw that, unless someone else is speaking eloquently about the war while using the exact same handle

[Aragorn2002]

10 hours ago, FancyCat said:

France likes to look independent from the rest of the West. While it is in my opinion, a mistake, i guess it serves France domestically, as foreign policy wise, Eastern Europe is gonna be pissed for a good while at Germany and France, and Italy I suppose. As long as they keep sending those Caesar SPGs, they can say whatever they want tho, it won't change the battlefield reality when Ukraine routs the Russians (when that day occurs) and Ukraine's ability to tell France to shove it at the peace talks. 

 

France is totally unfit to play a leading role within the EU. Always has been. For me this was one of the biggest worries when the UK left the EU, since it only increased French influence. Netherlands usually could form a counterbalance with the UK against the French, but not anymore. The latest remarks by Macron only show how difficult the situation has become. The French were never teamplayers and can't be build upon.

Germany is another story. Apart from it's past and failed attempts to appease Putin, it also fears the economical consequences and the unstable political situation in the US. American support for the Ukraine is not guaranteed after the next elections and the Germans realize that. A mistake in my opinion, because NATO should seize the moment to deal Russia a decisive blow, from which it won't recover for years/decades to come.

Combined with the dangerous ambitions of certain Eastern European countries all of this doesn't bode well for the future of the EU.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[CHEqTRO]

Take this with a huge grain of salt, but it seems that Spain its going to deliver tanks (supposedly Leo2a4, although we have a large number of M60A3 in cue for retirement that would make more sense for us to give to Ukraine, honestly), as is reported by ElPais, the (un)offcial tabloid of the government.

Huge caveats, we need German approval first, and we dont know what the number of sent tanks would be (I highly doubt that there would be that many). There is also the possibility, that this is the government testing the waters to see the popular reaction, and hence why it was allowed to be published, but there is still no real commitment to it. Also, lets remember that the vehicles that the spanish army supposedly ceded to ukraine were quitly returned back to Spain. Maybe they are trying to sell it as they giving the tanks to Ukraine for combat usage, but they are intended for training in Latvia, to be later returned.

 

Nevertheless, huge news for Ukraine if true, as it marks the precedent for western tanks being sent to the country.

Edited June 5, 2022 by CHEqTRO