How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[billbindc]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The one slant of the article I did not like was the typical lack of historical perspective.  Just imagine in 1940...

"Well, the British aren't telling us what their plans are for liberating Europe.  I don't think we should send them anything to defeat Nazi Germany until we do.  I mean, yes we want to defeat Hitler and all of that, but what guarrantees do we have that if we send a whole bunch of stuff over that will happen?"

Short sighted thinking that lacks historical context, but hey... this is mass market journalism we're talking about.

Steve

That's exactly the part that I found rankling and it points at a larger problem. There is a profound lack of expertise on not just this particular war but what it means to fight a big/long war in general. American media is big on narrative and short story arcs. Their understanding and marketing of war falls into either "look at this thing that's going to lead to big results tomorrow" or "look at this heroic American soldier". They don't really do much else. It's an important problem because those tendencies affect eventually public support for Ukraine in a real way and those attitudes percolate into the foreign policy establishment as well. 

[akd]

I guess it makes sense…

 

[hcrof]

17 minutes ago, akd said:

I guess it makes sense…

 

I really hope this is just a joke and they plan to mount that gun on an APC or something...

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:

First I couldn't believe it, now I find it fascinating, that people in this forum, despite having access to the internet, choose to live in the NATO filter bubble.

I live in The Swamp, sovok. Get it right next time. 

[Huba]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

That's exactly the part that I found rankling and it points at a larger problem. There is a profound lack of expertise on not just this particular war but what it means to fight a big/long war in general. American media is big on narrative and short story arcs. Their understanding and marketing of war falls into either "look at this thing that's going to lead to big results tomorrow" or "look at this heroic American soldier". They don't really do much else. It's an important problem because those tendencies affect eventually public support for Ukraine in a real way and those attitudes percolate into the foreign policy establishment as well. 

This times x100. If something is not new, entertaining and/or dramatic it is not worth reporting. And probably not palatable to the broad public at this point. I personally cannot stomach most of Netflix documentaries, which often cover quite interesting subjects, but instead of just concentrating on the facts/ story, seek personal drama and try to build tension for some weird reason. I believe the term is 'infotainment", content that does not fit it has less and less space in media destined for general public.

 

Also, who's up for Nicaraguan Missile Crisis of 2022?

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Huba

[LongLeftFlank]

1.  Mine warfare is freeking ugly.

2.  Bonus question: gee whiz PopMech journalism aside, is anyone using infantry grenade launchers to knock down the smaller hover drones? I know there have been 40mm airburst rounds since the 1970s (don't know about Bloc 30mm).

...And I mean, ordinary GLs, from thump guns and M203s to AGLs, not some fiddly hi-tech toy that could cost as much as a MANPADS.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/grenade-launchers-might-be-the-ultimate-weapon-they-can-fire-drones/

Curious what people may know about this....

Edited June 9, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Taranis]

Three foreign fighters sentenced to death by separatist authorities in Donetsk
"Two Britons and a Moroccan taken prisoner in eastern Ukraine, where they were fighting for kyiv, were sentenced to death on Thursday for mercenary charges by the separatist authorities in Donetsk, according to Russian news agencies.

"The Supreme Court of the Donetsk People's Republic has sentenced Britons Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner and Moroccan Brahim Saadoun to death, accused of having participated in the fighting as mercenaries", relayed the official Russian news agency TASS."

[Huba]

13 minutes ago, Taranis said:

Three foreign fighters sentenced to death by separatist authorities in Donetsk
"Two Britons and a Moroccan taken prisoner in eastern Ukraine, where they were fighting for kyiv, were sentenced to death on Thursday for mercenary charges by the separatist authorities in Donetsk, according to Russian news agencies.

"The Supreme Court of the Donetsk People's Republic has sentenced Britons Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner and Moroccan Brahim Saadoun to death, accused of having participated in the fighting as mercenaries", relayed the official Russian news agency TASS."

If Putin's plan for this war is to wait till West loses interest in the war, this is the opposite of what they should be doing - this is the way to get Ukraine some Eurofighters.

Edit:

So this user claims that by appealing the verdict, UK would de facto recognize DLPR as a legal entity. IMO the counter to that is for UK to add them to terrorist organization lists, and recognize Russia as a terrorist supporter and rogue state. Bleep around and find out...

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Huba

[paxromana]

New poster, but have been lurking for a while and have found this forum's posts the most useful on the 'net ... I have a background in History and knew that a lot of the stuff posted by regular news outlets was, much more often than not, complete rubbish based on an almost total lack of relevant knowledge ... but this forum has been great to read!

Two things ... 

Artillery Ammunition: There has been some mention of Ukraine having shot off a lot (perhaps most) of their Pact calibre stuff which is why it is so important that they get as many NATO compatible artillery pieces as possible ... and can therefore draw down on NATO artillery stocks. And some suggestions that Russia may be running out of some calibres themselves.

Thing is, while there have been comments about Russian shortages of 'high tech' warfighting gear and, more recently, of some artillery calibres, but I believe that there may be an underestimation of just how hard it is to ramp up the production of artillery shells.

Consider WW1 - all sides soon shot off their pre-war stocks very quickly in 1914 and it took them a year for production to be brought up to a level to meet actual combat usage/demand.

Inded, one of the several reasons that Hitler went with Blitzkrieg tactics for WW2 was that he was informed that German industry would take a like time to tool up to produce the amount of ordnance a WW1 style war would require .... and that there wasn't enough 'fat' in what was left of the *uncommitted* German economy to manage it in peacetime.

So, at the rate the Russians are shooting of artillery shells, at some point they are going to have to ramp up production - and it is almost certainly going to be a bigger drain on their sanction ridden economy than they can probably afford ... indeed, sanctions may make achieving the production levels needed virtually impossible. 

So, even allowing some miraculous mass conscription which isn't squandered in insane and pointless mass casualty events ('offensives') will they be able to sustain a war that goes on for more than a few more months?

Ukraine, on the other hand, can draw on NATO and Western Allied stocks and their economies ... with (as another poster pointed out) 20 times or more the size of Russian military spending. If the war lasts long enough the Russians will be hurting for artillery ammo ... and that doesn't even consider their probable lack of ability to recondition their increasingly clapped out artillery pieces (as someone else suggested).

Railroad Gauge: Converting Russian 5'3" to Standard 4'8.5" is actually not all that hard. Despite the 'received wisdom' of German experiences in WW2 the actual conversion was a doddle. Just some guys with hand tools moving one rail in 6.5" closer to the other .. took very little time at all.

THAT wasn't the problem. The ACTUAL problem was that Soviet RR infrastructure was designed to service much larger locomotives ... so watering points (vital for steam trains) and coaling points were roughly twice as far apart as what German locomotives needed.

Likewise, Steam Engine and general Maintenance Facilities were roughly twice as far apart as well. The real problem was that most of the gear required was special order only ... it wasn't available off the shelf and the Germans had little or none stockpiled (they planned to use captured Russian locomotives and Rolling stock ... but it turned out that German Landsers just *loved* shooting locomotive boilers full of holes) and they didn't have a lot of slack in their economy to produce what was needed on the scale that was needed (in fact, they had a shortage of rolling stock for the entire war, and that often had negative effects on their military efforts).

Theoretically, if you really wanted to run a single track line from Ukraine to the west you probably could for most of its length - it would only be where tunnels, bridges, cuttings etc were not wide enough for the wider rolling stock ... and, of course, converting Switching Yards (needed to change consists) over would be nontrivial. You could possibly even do it for double tracked lines with careful scheduling (which would be a nightmare, I would guess).

Of course, if the Turks manage to re-open shipping from Odessa this is less of a problem (and, as the Ukrainians are now saying, RR transport wouldn't be enough anyway)

Just some thoughts.

[Probus]

Can anyone validate the claims of this You Tube video.  I've not ever seen an air-to-air shoot down with guns before.

I think something is out of place because the plane shot down looks like it has dual tails.

[Beleg85]

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not really different.  The view from the ground is always more "colorful" than those following the overall trends.  Around Popasna, for example, ISW has correctly characterized the situation as initially very threatening transitioning to stalled or small gains by Russia.  There was nothing in the reporting of the CBC or New Yorker articles that contradicted what ISW reports

First thanks for kind words.

As to the topic- well you are right about morale and grudging by common soldiers. However, ISW did several times repeated Russians are still unable to employ combined warfare tactics. Ukrainian commander seem to contradict those claims- at least at some sectors (I suspect northern forests) they successfully infiltrated with SF teams; perhaps they captured this way already a village with wooden church on the other side of Donec. They combine different elements -some of them by necessity probably- use massive firepower and then sweep defenders with infantry. So they are adapting, in awkward and bloody way, but they are learning in the end. Even higher echelons of Ukrainian command and civil administration seem to view situation in bleak terms now.

And don't get me wrong, I am not in the camp of "Russian Hords of Doom". Strategically Ukraine is winning or at least not loosing. The point is that if this form of attrition warfare will last longer, Ukrainians will be exhausted too, and even thousands of new recruits will have problems mounting any noticable offensives later if their instructors will be dead.

BTW- what struck me that instead of dedicating entire interview to general, the journalist gave him two paragraphs and  sandwiched between some unimportant stories. And this would be primary source, far better than conjectures of OSINT guys or military bloggers. What a pitty for people interested in militrary side of conflict.

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I keep coming back to the idea of smart-mass and massed precision in a attrition-to-manoeuvre-to-attrition cycle.  This may seem minor but if one does the math, one has to ask "is manoeuvre warfare as we know it, dead?"  How does one achieve conation shock, leading to physical collapse when your opponent can see everything you are doing well in advance? [aside: JasonC has to be loving this] 

Exactly my take from this war. Instead of pointless tank debate, the real question is how nowadays anybody can concentrate enough forces for serious attack before being seen and blown to pieces by enemy artillery/air force. As for now, a lot of attacks in this war reminds SDF's "village hopping" raids from Northern Syria, just with extra firepower, rather than serious military manouvers of large bodies of troops.

Of course US has its superior air force, ISR and all of that, so question is rather theoretical, as there are probably no "peer" armies that could face US and Allies in such a war. But it may be valid for all other militaries and paramilitaries.

 

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Of course US has its superior air force, ISR and all of that, so question is rather theoretical, as there are probably no "peer" armies that could face US and Allies in such a war. But it may be valid for all other militaries and paramilitaries

So I ask myself "what if the Taliban had NLAWs/Javelins, Stingers/Starstreak and UAVs all backed up with a modular cell network?  And the support of a great power(s) behind them for training, force generation and ISR?"

We concentrate forces too and our logistics lines are built on sustaining heavy mass.  I think technology may be lowering the cost of what it means to be "peer" at some levels of warfare.  Finally, unless we are talking about war in mainland NA or western Europe, we are talking interventions/crisis response wars.  We historically have been allergic to high casualties in these types of conflicts since the end of the Cold War.  A much smaller power could theoretically become a strategic peer in war simply by creating too high a cost for us to get directly involved.  The whole thing points to a re-emergence of attrition/exhaustion as a strategy...although many will argue it never really went away.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, hcrof said:

I'm not sure a one sentence comment is gonna change anyone's mind here. Happy to hear a russian perspective but it needs to be a properly constructed arguement.

Good luck with that . You'll be waiting.... and waiting...and waiting...

[Xavierisback]

Hi there.

I have been a CMx1 player since CMBO beta and have all CMx2 WW2 titles. This thread is exciting and a lot of the arguments are very interesting. But I wonder if there is not sometimes an ethnocentric tropism in many of the analyzes presented. Let me share with you, not a structured argumentation, but just some thoughts from a guy who is far to be an expert.

• Among the western allies, and unlike the Americans and the British, the German (WW2) and French (WW1) people know the price to pay for a war on their territory. Perhaps this difference explains a certain caution on the part of France and Germany to commit themselves too far in aid to Ukraine.
• When President Macron said that we should not humiliate Russia, we can see here an admission of weakness but we must not forget that for many Europeans the 2nd World War is partly the fruit of humiliation « diktat » of Versailles treaty of 1919.  These people know that humiliate an adversary is also to take the risk that he capitalizes on resentment and a desire for revenge.
• A Russian friend from Moscow told me that they (the Russians) were ready to fight to the last Siberian…
• From the point of view of western military logic (the 10 points developed by Steve), the Russians have already lost the war. But, this is only a western reading grid. Is there a Russian reading grid that would be different ? (For example, I have the impression that losses are hardly a factor to take into account for the Russians. See previous thought).

Thank you.

[akd]

55 minutes ago, Huba said:

If Putin's plan for this war is to wait till West loses interest in the war, this is the opposite of what they should be doing - this is the way to get Ukraine some Eurofighters.

Edit:

So this user claims that by appealing the verdict, UK would de facto recognize DLPR as a legal entity. IMO the counter to that is for UK to add them to terrorist organization lists, and recognize Russia as a terrorist supporter and rogue state. Bleep around and find out...

 

Yes, the correct move is to declare DNR government / militia a terrorist organization and Russia a state sponsor of terror.

Edited June 9, 2022 by akd

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Good luck with that . You'll be waiting.... and waiting...and waiting...

I've still been waiting for a properly constructed pro-Russian argument to explain why NATO is a threat to a peaceful Russia.  Probably 20 years since I started looking for one and still haven't seen it, so yeah... this is not likely to come about any time soon

Steve

[Blazing 88's]

3 hours ago, YouWillOwnNothing said:

First I couldn't believe it, now I find it fascinating, that people in this forum, despite having access to the internet, choose to live in the NATO filter bubble.

LMAO!!!

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, akd said:

The correct move is to declare DNR a terrorist organization and Russia a state sponsor of terror.

Yup, and there's already some talk about it.  Still preliminary, but it's been at least brought up for the first time.  Ukraine specifically asked for the designation change.  The West doesn't take kindly to illegal detention of its people generally, but murdering them in cold blood?  Definitely won't go unanswered and the terrorist designation is the most logical first step in that response.

Personally, I doubt the DPR will go through with it.  This is PR posturing for the locals and to dissuade foreigners from joining in the fight against Russia.  In the end they'll probably not kill them on "humanitarian grounds" and, again, give them some PR for the locals.

Steve

[holoween]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've still been waiting for a properly constructed pro-Russian argument to explain why NATO is a threat to a peaceful Russia.  Probably 20 years since I started looking for one and still haven't seen it, so yeah... this is not likely to come about any time soon

Steve

Youre not looking then.

In international relations intentions cant be known and can change so you have to base decisions on capabilities.

NATO massively outmatches russia in conventional military power so were they to decide to attack russia has little i could do except nuclear excalation. Having buffer states makes it harder for NATO offensive actions since no forward supply depos can be established early.

Now you and i know that NATO has no intentions of ever attacking russia but as pointed out above that could change. Just like NATO was worried about the Warsaw pact because they did have the capability to possibly successfully invade europe even though they might never have wanted to.

[cyrano01]

23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So I ask myself "what if the Taliban had NLAWs/Javelins, Stingers/Starstreak and UAVs all backed up with a modular cell network?  And the support of a great power(s) behind them for training, force generation and ISR?"

We concentrate forces too and our logistics lines are built on sustaining heavy mass.  I think technology may be lowering the cost of what it means to be "peer" at some levels of warfare.  Finally, unless we are talking about war in mainland NA or western Europe, we are talking interventions/crisis response wars.  We historically have been allergic to high casualties in these types of conflicts since the end of the Cold War.  A much smaller power could theoretically become a strategic peer in war simply by creating too high a cost for us to get directly involved.  The whole thing points to a re-emergence of attrition/exhaustion as a strategy...although many will argue it never really went away.

In many ways a Taliban type opponent so -equipped would be even harder to deal with. The Ukrainian army is, at least, a regular army in the sense of wearing uniforms, carrying their weapons openly etc. A Taliban type foe (with NLAWs/Javelins, Stingers/Starstreak and UAVs all backed up with a modular cell network) who merged back into the population following their actions would be a nightmare for any military, even one as well equipped as the US,  that had ambitions to stay more or less the right side of the Hague and Geneva conventions.

[akd]

3 minutes ago, holoween said:

NATO massively outmatches russia in conventional military power so . Having buffer states makes it harder for NATO offensive actions since no forward supply depos can be established early.

Now you and i know that NATO has no intentions of ever attacking russia but as pointed out above that could change.

Not it couldn’t, because…

Quote

were they to decide to attack russia has little i could do except nuclear excalation

 

[FancyCat]

12 minutes ago, holoween said:

Youre not looking then.

In international relations intentions cant be known and can change so you have to base decisions on capabilities.

NATO massively outmatches russia in conventional military power so were they to decide to attack russia has little i could do except nuclear excalation. Having buffer states makes it harder for NATO offensive actions since no forward supply depos can be established early.

Now you and i know that NATO has no intentions of ever attacking russia but as pointed out above that could change. Just like NATO was worried about the Warsaw pact because they did have the capability to possibly successfully invade europe even though they might never have wanted to.

And yet Putin when asked about the Swedish and Finnish attempt to join NATO, said it changed nothing strategically for Russia. Clearly now that the risk of NATO coming closer nears, Russia does nothing like push troops to the Finnish border, that it would do if NATO were really a threat to Russia.

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by FancyCat

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Can anyone validate the claims of this You Tube video.  I've not ever seen an air-to-air shoot down with guns before.

I think something is out of place because the plane shot down looks like it has dual tails.

I'm going to tentatively say the 1992 reference clip looks genuine. The twin tailed aircraft is an OV-10 Bronco and the plane shooting it down is an F-16 in what looks like the Venezuelan camouflage scheme, so the obvious guess is the coup attempt there that year.

Edited June 9, 2022 by G.I. Joe

[Huba]

25 minutes ago, Xavierisback said:

Among the western allies, and unlike the Americans and the British, the German (WW2) and French (WW1) people know the price to pay for a war on their territory. Perhaps this difference explains a certain caution on the part of France and Germany to commit themselves too far in aid to Ukraine.

That would imply that they seriously consider that this could spill over to their territory. I''d call it a bad judgement at least. For some reason countries that are closer to Russia, and thus really threatened with conflict spilling through their borders, have completely different idea how to deal with this situation. And you won't tell me that Polish or Baltic people don't know what it means to have the war on their territory - where I live, you can still find bullet marks from 1945 on the old buildings if you care to look for them.

25 minutes ago, Xavierisback said:

• A Russian friend from Moscow told me that they (the Russians) were ready to fight to the last Siberian…
• From the point of view of western military logic (the 10 points developed by Steve), the Russians have already lost the war. But, this is only a western reading grid. Is there a Russian reading grid that would be different ? (For example, I have the impression that losses are hardly a factor to take into account for the Russians. See previous thought).

The Siberians already don't want to die, and if they try to force them i.e. mobilize, you friend is going to the front with them. I bet he'll have much less stomach for that. And of course, manpower alone is not enough to wage wars, and lack of materiel cannot be alleviated by willingness to take losses - somehow I don't believe that your friend would like to participate in human wave attack carrying just a sharpened stick to take some obscure village in Donbas.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Huba

[holoween]

8 minutes ago, akd said:

Not it couldn’t, because…

Yet the us is investing significantly in missile defense possibly rendering the nuclear option void. Also a nuclear war would still mean the end of russia.

 

7 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

And yet Putin when asked about the Swedish and Finnish attempt to join NATO, said it changed nothing strategically for Russia. Clearly now that the risk of NATO coming closer nears, Russia does nothing like push troops to the Finnish border, that it would do if NATO were really a threat to Russia.

Except the first thing he said was that it would be a problem. only later did he change that and id argue thats mostly because he cant make any credible threat to Finnland atm.