How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Machor]

A reminder that Ukraine does not have the full home team advantage in Donbas that it had elsewhere:

Crowdfunded Chinese thermal scopes for Russian troops:

Russian 2S5 Giatsint-S "Sniper":

[Calamine Waffles]

8 minutes ago, Machor said:

A reminder that Ukraine does not have the full home team advantage in Donbas that it had elsewhere:

It's not just in Donbas. It would be naive to think these people only operate there.
 

 

[G.I. Joe]

23 minutes ago, Machor said:

 

This is the same usage in English with examples like 'The Congo' and 'The Sudan': It indicates not so much inferiority, rather a perspective where the territory under discussion lacks sovereignty - it is precisely a colonial 'territory', not a sovereign 'nation'. Therefore, trying to return the favor to Russia doesn't make sense: It's like saying "The Congo invaded Belgium."

Exactly... Also, doesn't Ukraina literally mean "borderland?" I have heard there is some ambiguity about the etymology, but I have heard that from multiple credible sources. I don't doubt that that would contribute to the connotation of "the Ukraine" carrying the implication of perceiving Ukraine as a "territory."

[danfrodo]

35 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

FWIW at my last active duty unit my intel platoon operated out of MATVs (basically upgraded MRAPs) and every single one of us hated the damn things.

how come?  Ya left us hanging....

[Beleg85]

21 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

Exactly... Also, doesn't Ukraina literally mean "borderland?" I have heard there is some ambiguity about the etymology, but I have heard that from multiple credible sources. I don't doubt that that would contribute to the connotation of "the Ukraine" carrying the implication of perceiving Ukraine as a "territory."

That is exactly the case, in other Slavic languages too. There was a ****storm several weeks ago in Poland as not to talk "on Ukraine" (Na Ukrainie) but "in Ukraine" (W Ukrainie), including serious language experts involved. Some older people used to talk in a certain way that Ukrainians may found inappropriate. I asked some Ukrainian Polish-speaking refugees personally and they did not mind or understand what the problem was even about, but hey...

I think the same was in Slovakian and possibly Czech.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Beleg85

[Doc844]

For me I think people are looking to much in to this, 'the Ukraine' 'the Russia's thing in regards to territories and what not.  It's more to do with context and how it rolls off the tongue and how it sounds in a sentence.  For instance, 'we are going to the Germany' doesnt sound right, where as 'we are going to the Ukraine' does sound right.  'We are going to the Belgium' 'we are going to the Seychelles' which one sounds right and for me it's as simple as that.  No point over complicating things which just dont exist.

[G.I. Joe]

10 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

That is exactly the case, in other Slavic languages too. There was a ****storm several weeks ago in Poland as not to talk "on Ukraine" (Na Ukrainie) but "in Ukraine" (W Ukrainie), including serious language experts involved. Some older people used to talk in a certain way that Ukrainians may found inappropriate. I asked some Ukrainian Polish-speaking refugees personally and they did not mind or understand what the problem was even about, but hey...

I think the same was in Slovakian and possibly Czech.

Interesting...thanks.

5 minutes ago, Doc844 said:

For me I think people are looking to much in to this, 'the Ukraine' 'the Russia's thing in regards to territories and what not.  It's more to do with context and how it rolls off the tongue and how it sounds in a sentence.  For instance, 'we are going to the Germany' doesnt sound right, where as 'we are going to the Ukraine' does sound right.  'We are going to the Belgium' 'we are going to the Seychelles' which one sounds right and for me it's as simple as that.  No point over complicating things which just dont exist.

Fair point. I am reminded somewhat of how Commonwealth and U.S. practices differ on ship name prefixes: "the HMCS Vancouver" is considered incorrect because "the Her Majesty's Canadian Ship" is grammatically awkward, but "the United States Ship" works just fine, so there is generally no objection to "the USS Enterprise..."

[Bearstronaut]

23 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

how come?  Ya left us hanging....

They have a very high center of gravity and tip over relatively easily. I nearly died several times at NTC going over terrain that was no problem for a HMMWV or a Stryker. They are large and you can’t hide them well and despite that the space for the crew is very small. They also broke all the damn time. I would have much preferred rolling around in a HMMWV. 

[SeinfeldRules]

18 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

how come?  Ya left us hanging....

While I can’t speak for Bear I can tell you my problems with the MATV: too small for everyone will full kit; no real covered storage on the outside of the vehicle which meant all your personnel gear got wet and snowy, or you looked like a hobo wagon with tarps and plywood strapped everywhere; impossible to conduct any sort of command or control functions inside of it (a must for survivability, as you need to avoid setting up tents); radios stored OUTSIDE the crew compartment, meaning you have to go outside to troubleshoot or change nets; small windows that are impossible to see out of; too high of a center of gravity which made it hard to maneuver on tough terrain; complex and hard to acquire repair parts; and an over reliance on civilians specialist to provide support for the various systems. 

It was universally hated by everyone in our battalion. It stayed in our motorpool and we used HMMWVs unless there was no other choice due to maintenance. 

 

 

[FancyCat]

How much do you suppose the focus on airpower in the west has impacted artillery, particularly in the realm of material being supplied to Ukraine? 

On that note, do we have any numbers for Russian artillery? At all? I know 10,000 tanks were thrown around, but what about artillery? 

[Bearstronaut]

8 minutes ago, SeinfeldRules said:

While I can’t speak for Bear I can tell you my problems with the MATV: too small for everyone will full kit; no real covered storage on the outside of the vehicle which meant all your personnel gear got wet and snowy, or you looked like a hobo wagon with tarps and plywood strapped everywhere; impossible to conduct any sort of command or control functions inside of it (a must for survivability, as you need to avoid setting up tents); radios stored OUTSIDE the crew compartment, meaning you have to go outside to troubleshoot or change nets; small windows that are impossible to see out of; too high of a center of gravity which made it hard to maneuver on tough terrain; complex and hard to acquire repair parts; and an over reliance on civilians specialist to provide support for the various systems. 

It was universally hated by everyone in our battalion. It stayed in our motorpool and we used HMMWVs unless there was no other choice due to maintenance. 

 

 

Oh yeah I forgot about the windows lol. 

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, SeinfeldRules said:

While I can’t speak for Bear I can tell you my problems with the MATV: too small for everyone will full kit; no real covered storage on the outside of the vehicle which meant all your personnel gear got wet and snowy, or you looked like a hobo wagon with tarps and plywood strapped everywhere; impossible to conduct any sort of command or control functions inside of it (a must for survivability, as you need to avoid setting up tents); radios stored OUTSIDE the crew compartment, meaning you have to go outside to troubleshoot or change nets; small windows that are impossible to see out of; too high of a center of gravity which made it hard to maneuver on tough terrain; complex and hard to acquire repair parts; and an over reliance on civilians specialist to provide support for the various systems. 

It was universally hated by everyone in our battalion. It stayed in our motorpool and we used HMMWVs unless there was no other choice due to maintenance. 

 

 

wow, thanks Bearstronaut & SeinfeldRules.  That was very enlightening.  My first guess is they put so much emphasis on mine survival that it ruined the vehicle for anything outside of driving down mine-ridden roads.  That's messed up.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

It's not just in Donbas. It would be naive to think these people only operate there.

Yup, and in the first couple of days there were Ukrainians caught putting down IR markers to help guide Russian ops.  Quite a few of the ones I saw were way in the west (Lviv for example), so probably no practical use as the Russians didn't really do much there because they were so thoroughly defeated in the east.  But treason is still treason, even if it isn't effective.

It really hurts my head to try and put myself in the mindset of someone who can help the Russians destroy and kill everything around you in the name of "liberation", yet it's not just one or two people that did this.  In fact, we had a Russian poster early in the war blaming Ukraine for the fact that he had family members sheltering in their basements in Sumy with no food or heat.  Worse, this was a Russia living abroad (presumably in the West).  I asked him how it was Ukraine's fault that Russia was indiscriminately shelling residential areas.  Not surprisingly, no response to that rather simple question.

Unlike the organized criminals that pretend to be "separatists" or people on the SBU payrolls, the average person aiding Russia kill their fellow Ukrainians and lay waste their country are doing it for ideological reasons only.

We all know of Stockholm Syndrome, right?  This is something similar, though different enough that some bunch of smartypants need to give it a unique name and a Wikipedia page.

Steve

P.S.  I have no problems with Ukraine using extreme methods to clamp down and punish traitors (collaborators in a time of war get an upgrade in status) as long as they aren't in violation of generally accepted detention practices.  No torture, inhumane conditions, etc.  As long as that's not happening, locking people up on suspicion alone for 30 days isn't concerning to me at all given the circumstances.

[Battlefront.com]

More video of Ukrainian artillery making its presence felt by hitting a Russian logistics point.  Back when I discussed the importance of keeping relative artillery capabilities in perspective, this is also one to factor in.  Thousands of shells aren't needed to stop an advance if you can drop rounds in the middle of logistics areas.

 

[Artkin]

It appears 93rd Mechanized Brigade uses captured T-80BVMs in the fight. I'm surprised they kept the kit and it wasn't set back to be redistributed. I guess the 93rd would know how to use it better than most though..

[JonS]

3 hours ago, Doc844 said:

For me I think people are looking to much in to this, 'the Ukraine' 'the Russia's thing in regards to territories and what not.  It's more to do with context and how it rolls off the tongue ...

Yeah, nah. It's their country, so they get to set the name. The Ukrainian govt has has clarified that it's, just, 'Ukraine,' without the definite article. You can of course ignore that request for the sake of your tongue's comfort, but that'd be kinda rude.

Personally, it's kind of on ingrained habit that I still have to consciously correct. A bit like Mumbai/Bombay or - to a much lesser degree - Peking/Beijing.

That said, the attempted cuteness of "the Russia" is ... yeah, that actually happened.

Edited June 13, 2022 by JonS

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Ukraine has mobilised about 700,000 men. How many do you think can they train at once within these 3 months? Do you think they have the facilities and instructors to give all of them the same level of training over 3 months?

It's not 700k.  This number, I think, includes the standing military force of roughly 250k, so that's 500k if we deduct 50k for casualties.  Of this number it is my understanding that this is the number that received call up papers, but not everybody called up is immediately assigned a roll.  There's OPSEC here, but as I understand it the military takes in only those that it has an immediate need for and the rest are either dismissed (for a number of reasons) or kept on a "short leash" as soon as they are needed.

Of whatever number they are actively putting into service, a fair number of them (perhaps more than half) have already served in the military before, either as conscripts or as contract soldiers.  They require refresher training and anything else specialized for their new occupations, but basic training isn't needed.

From there a certain number can be counted out because they are destined for specialized roles that don't require much military training.  For example, rear area mechanics, doctors, EMTs, office clerks, and the sundry of non-combat rolls necessary to keep a military functioning.  Obviously I haven't a clue what this number is, but it's not small.

Of those that need combat training, quite a lot of them are going to go into a specialized role such as artillery, tanker, etc. for the regular military and not the TD.

The balance of all of this is the soldiers going into TD that have no prior military experience.  These people need at least basic infantry skills before they can be of much use even in quiet rear areas.  3 months should be sufficient to impart those skills.  Unfortunately, it seems Ukraine didn't have a great plan for this part of mobilization.  It's been pointed out since just before the war, in fact.  Even with that, I'm surprised to hear that even 3 months into the war that new TD personnel are lacking basic skills. 

It could be that, for the most part, things are fine and we're simply hearing negativity from journalists and those who think Ukraine has the luxury of training everybody to NATO standards before committing them to the front.

Whatever the case might be, TD units are holding vast stretches of the front under significant Russian pressure without Russia gaining much ground.  So if TD units are really poorly trained and equipped, what does that say about the quality of the Russians?  That needs to be taken into the calculations by the higher level guys who are trying to assess "how is this war going". 

Steve

[G.I. Joe]

4 hours ago, Machor said:

Four Ukrainian Su-25s in formation, and they actually seem to be doing formation training - maybe, start with line astern and transition to line abreast? @c3k

And a tantalizing thought: Though I've never flown one - virtually, of course; I've never flown anything IRL  - the Su-25 looks like it should have docile handling and make for a good advanced trainer. Could these be pilot cadets who've skipped the L-39 and are completing their training on Su-25s, simultaneously gaining experience with an operational platform?

 

4 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

I doubt you would send pilots into an Su-25 before doing basic and advanced training in an L-39. The Su-25 is not a Mach 2.0+ fighter, but it's still considerably more complex than an L-39.

First off, great video, thanks for posting it.

I would urge caution on reading too much in to such a short clip. It could be proficiency flying by operational pilots, or perhaps even the return from an operational mission or flight testing ex-Bulgarian aircraft before returning them to service. I can say that the plane the video was shot from definitely looks like a single -seater, not an Su-25UB, judging by the canopy framing.

I'm inclined to agree with Calamine Waffles that the Su-25 isn't ideal for earlier phases of training, especially since from what I gather (I know Haiduk posted something on the subject a while back) Ukraine already does their equivalent to the lead-in fighter training phase on operational types. However, it is arguably no more complex than a lot of advanced and lead in fighter trainers (T-38 Talon, BAe Hawk, Kawasaki T-4, T-50 Golden Eagle, etc.) Also, the Su-25 has been used in a purely training role: the naval Su-25UTG is solely a two-seat deck landing trainer to teach carrier qualifications on, much like the T-2 Buckeye or T-45 Goshawk. I don't think there was ever much consideration to an operational naval Su-25 (it would be a bit like a "Sea Hog" version of the A-10, which I'm sure the Marines would love, but I can't see the Navy devoting funds or hangar and flight deck space to such an aircraft). Also, at the end of the Soviet era, a handful of Su-28s were built: a stripped-down, unarmed Su-25UB meant as a dedicated trainer.

So Ukraine probably could, in theory, shift some of the L-39 syllabus onto the Su-25, the question is whether any advantages in time saved or shifting hours onto a frontline type outweigh the operating economics and added difficulty at that phase. Cutting corners always has drawbacks: less experienced new pilots, suitable candidates washed out because of added time pressure, etc.

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

Yeah, nah. It's their country, so they get to set the name. The Ukrainian govt has has clarified that it's, just, 'Ukraine,' without the definite article. You can of course ignore that request for the sake of your tongue's comfort, but that'd be kinda rude.

Personally, it's kind of on ingrained habit that I still have to consciously correct. A bit like Mumbai/Bombay or - to a much lesser degree - Peking/Beijing.

Agreed on both. Saying Ukraine without the definite article is a bit like saying Kwakwa̱ka̱ʼwakw instead of Kwakiutl or Nuu-chah-nulth instead of Nootka... convenience and force of habit aren't really relevant if one is more correct to the people it refers to. I'm old enough to remember Czechoslovakia and find it trips off my tongue oddly easily, but am still finding Czechia takes some getting used after being accustomed to the Czech Republic for most of my life...

Edited June 13, 2022 by G.I. Joe

[Offshoot]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

It really hurts my head to try and put myself in the mindset of someone who can help the Russians destroy and kill everything around you in the name of "liberation", yet it's not just one or two people that did this.  In fact, we had a Russian poster early in the war blaming Ukraine for the fact that he had family members sheltering in their basements in Sumy with no food or heat.  Worse, this was a Russia living abroad (presumably in the West).  I asked him how it was Ukraine's fault that Russia was indiscriminately shelling residential areas.  Not surprisingly, no response to that rather simple question.

 

I found this article telling the stories of some teenagers in Mariupol revealing (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/apr/01/who-will-return-my-stolen-life-to-me-the-teenagers-who-fled-mariupol-ukraine). As they are young there wasn't any equivocation. The third one straight up thinks that the Ukrainians wanted to kill them and the Russians saved them based on his father's opinions. Most civilians wouldn't have a clue where shells and bullets are coming from, so it is easy to lie to them if it aligns with their pre-existing biases (and some in the Donbas have had this for years). It's just a short step from that to actively helping the Russians.

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

I found this article telling the stories of some teenagers in Mariupol revealing (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/apr/01/who-will-return-my-stolen-life-to-me-the-teenagers-who-fled-mariupol-ukraine). As they are young there wasn't any equivocation. The third one straight up thinks that the Ukrainians wanted to kill them and the Russians saved them based on his father's opinions. Most civilians wouldn't have a clue where shells and bullets are coming from, so it is easy to lie to them if it aligns with their pre-existing biases (and some in the Donbas have had this for years). It's just a short step from that to actively helping the Russians.

The above is why I think 2/24 borders with EU and NATO membership is the best scenario for Ukraine. In the LPR/DPR and Crimea that is probably the majority outlook or close to it. I grant you the Russians are trying get literally every male between 15 and 60 killed in this war, but that isn't going to put the rest of the population in these godforsaken "republics" in happy mood.

[Battlefront.com]

There's always something interesting in the ISW reports that hasn't found its way into this thread by other means.  For June 12th, it was this bit:

Quote

Russian forces continue to struggle with generating additional combat-capable units. The UK Ministry of Defense reported on June 12 that Russian forces have been trying to produce more combat units by preparing to deploy third battalion tactical groups (BTGs) from some units over the last few weeks.[1] The UK MoD noted that Russian brigades and regiments normally can generate two BTGs, but doing so leaves the parent units largely hollow shells. The UK MOD concluded that these third BTGs will likely be understaffed and rely on recruits and mobilized reservists. Their deployment will likely adversely impact the capacity of their parent units to regenerate their combat power for quite some time. BTGs generated in this fashion will not have the combat power of regular BTGs. It will be important not to overestimate Russian reserves produced in this way by counting these third BTGs as if they were normal BTGs.

Here's why this is important.

Under normal situations a regiment has three battalions that are kept in different states of readiness instead of being treated as equals as is standard in the US military.  As I understand it, under peacetime conditions each regiment is supposed to have the 1st Battalion ready to go pretty much at any time.  The 2nd Battalion generally provides the forces to top off the 1st Battalion if the need arises.  2nd Battalion normally doesn't deploy, but is kept in a higher state of readiness.  3rd Battalion is not intended to be deployed except if there's a national mobilization.

Some of the higher readiness Russian regiments have (er, had) enough personnel and equipment to field two battalions concurrently.  However, it seems only in rare circumstances have 3rd Battalions been deployed to Ukraine.

3rd Battalion, according to Russian service members, is the dregs of the regiment.  They have the discipline problem soldiers, the ones with serious drug problems, etc.  They pretty much have no contract soldiers and the ones they have fit the "screw up" definition.  Officers are probably similar.  Equipment, for sure, is the worst of what the regiment has.  Even if they have up-to-date equipment at times, it's probably in a less ready state than what's in the other battalions.

This system makes sense as long as the manpower required doesn't exceed what the sum of all 1st Battalions of the Russian Armed Forces can provide.  As we well know, Russia has struggled even with 1st and 2nd Battalions thrown into the fight.  Now it seems they are so desperate that they are going to send the 3rd Battalions into the fight.  The worst of the Russian Armed Forces.  Ukrainians are not likely shaking in their boots

This move is consistent with historical Russian wartime thinking.  Instead of concentrating on reconstituting the forces already in Ukraine, it seems the plan is to bring new forces in.  This means they'll still have their existing weakened 1st and 2nd Battalions, but now weakened 3rd Battalions as well.  And really, how much strength is there in those battalions anyway?  Haven't they been feeding replacements into the other battalions during the last 3 months? 

Steve

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

Major Petr Luzanov, Deputy Battalion Commander of tank battalion, 5th Seperate MRB, 1st AK, DNR:

 

[LongLeftFlank]

11 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Enemy artillery destroyed a section of the second bridge to Siverodonetsk. Their artillery tried to do this more than a week, could hit bridge several times, but only slightly damaged it. And now they have success. The last bridge remained, but it was in bad conditions already before a war. This puts again a question of city defense expediency. 

The defense of Siverodonetsk is obviously political decision, so in society there is many criticism about this and demands to Armed Forces Command "don't listen Zelenskyi and to withdraw our guys to Lysychansk immediately". Though, looks like Siverodonetsk like and Rubizhe previuosly now playing a role of "meat grinder". Main forces, that ae storming the city and villages around are not Russians, but 2nd and 7th motor-rifle brigades of LPR + some battalions of conscripts rifle regiments. Russians probably represented with Kadyrov's forces and 31st air-assault brigade. 

Inside the city our troops hold industrial zone and quarters around it. LPR/Russians occupies NE and E parts of the city. All other space is just a place of artilery and airstrikes and deadly "counter-strike" games, as told commander of "Legion of Freedom" - one of the unit, holding the city. This is volunteer unit under Nationmal Guard comamnd, mostly of members of political moderate nationalist party "Svoboda" ("Freedom")

 

As noted, Pfarrer tends to be *very* rah rah , but map gives bridge locations.

 

[kraze]

6 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

Exactly... Also, doesn't Ukraina literally mean "borderland?" I have heard there is some ambiguity about the etymology, but I have heard that from multiple credible sources. I don't doubt that that would contribute to the connotation of "the Ukraine" carrying the implication of perceiving Ukraine as a "territory."

Ukraine means 'center of the country / inside the country' (Kraina = country, U = in) and basically meant the very core area of Ruthenia initially. So Ukrainians are people living in and around the Kyiv area, as opposed to the rest living in the newly colonized lands.

When German (and other European) outcast dynasties that usurped power in Muscovy decided to falsify history in early 18th century and invent "Russia" - they had to steal the history from somewhere - so suddenly Kyiv, the center of whole Eastern Slavic culture became "borderlands" and swampy, remote Moscow with its unwelcoming climate and badlands where no crops grow became the center of the world.

And it's why for the past 300 years it's a war of extermination. If Kyiv exists and prospers - it means Russia has no historical glue to hold its occupied peoples together.

Stealing history to invent an empire isn't even a new thing, if you remember it's what Germanic tribes did, when they captured decaying Rome - they suddenly proclaimed themselves to be the actual, genuine Roman Empire, even though Romans have been at war with them for centuries.

Kyiv to Russia is what Rome is to (Holy) Roman Empire. If it's not under control - then why are you even calling your state that?

Edited June 13, 2022 by kraze