How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Centurian52]

30 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

China attacking Taiwan is an utterly insane, self destructive choice for China.  They are dependent on trade and world is dependent on them.  Attacking Taiwan wrecks all that.  There is simply no cost-benefit that is in 1000 miles of making sense.

And so maybe China will actually do that.  considering it was insane for Putin to make this move.  Actually Putin's move was less insane than Taiwan attack would be -- Putin was staging a coup that went sideways.  China would be full on war.  I guess insane cost-benefit ratio doesn't really mean a dictator won't do actually pull the trigger.

It would indeed be an incredibly stupid move for Ji to pull the trigger on an invasion of Taiwan. But there are several reasons to think he might do it anyway.

1. The rhetoric supports it: China has claimed Taiwan as an integral part of its territory for decades. But the intensity of that rhetoric has been stepped up in intensity in recent years. It is likely that the purpose of this rhetoric is to appease an increasingly nationalistic population, more than to justify a premeditated war. But it creates a positive feedback loop, because the rhetoric feeds the nationalism of the population, and the increasing nationalism of the population demands increasingly intense rhetoric. If the loop isn't broken, it is possible that at some point the rhetoric alone may no longer be enough to appease the population.

2. The demographics support it: This one is more statistical in nature than it is based on the specific facts on the ground in China. But historically, countries with an overinflated male population are more likely to go to war than countries with a balanced ratio between males and females. I'm not sure that the cause of this tendency has been nailed down (they could both be caused by a third factor, rather than having a direct causal relationship), and it doesn't guarantee war by any stretch, but it does seem to nudge up the probability by a non-negligible margin (there is a correlation). China currently has an overinflated male population thanks to decades of the One Child Policy. 

3. The timing supports it: China's economy and military are still growing more powerful every year. But that boon time is coming to an end very soon. Demographic realities will catch up with China sometime this decade, and their economy will begin shrinking (and inevitably, their military strength will begin shrinking with it). The mid-2020s will represent their peak power relative to the United States, and therefor their best chance of successfully taking Taiwan. I believe the 2020s represent a "now or never" moment for China. If they do not attack Taiwan in the 2020s, they will lose their chance forever. This sort of "now or never" mentality may have echoes throughout history, with it being a possible motivating factor for the aggressing side in WW1, WW2, and even the current war in Ukraine.

4. China's military structure and spending supports it: China's military hasn't had equal growth in all areas. Growth has been disproportionally concentrated in the PLA Navy and PLA amphibious capabilities. Particularly capabilities that have no use but to invade Taiwan.

5. Xi's parallels to Putin support it: Xi may not understand just how stupid it would be to invade Taiwan, because he isn't being fed good intel about how difficult it would be, because he is every bit as isolated as Putin. Both Putin and Xi have surrounded themselves with yes-men who tell them what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear, because the most important quality of an advisor in an autocracy is loyalty, not competence.

None of this guarantees war, but the probability of war is definitely way above normal "background" levels.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Centurian52

[Calamine Waffles]

I don't see the US sending weapons to Ukraine to be very problematic for Taiwan. The stuff that Taiwan will need in an invasion is very different from the stuff Ukraine needs right now, for the most part.

[Ultradave]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

 

Goddamn I did not realize Ukraine was asking for essentially the entire artillery of the U.S x2.

 

I didn't read far enough down the Twitter thread. I would point out that numbers wise, whether there is a separate DIVARTY or the battalions are with the infantry in brigade combat teams makes no difference. Either way, one artillery battalion supports one maneuver brigade. The BCT just makes the direct support more permanent - but there was normally a permanent direct support relationship between artillery battalions and brigades in divisions anyway. 

Dave

[sburke]

On 6/14/2022 at 11:27 AM, Huba said:

Or they might deem it worth it as a stepping stone for huge invasion of all of the near abroad IJN style, which is crazy. Or it (most possibly) be just an ego trip of Xi or his successor.

Heh China has a couple aircraft carriers they are still learning how to use.  Japan had 6 fleet carriers and the most experience using them of any Navy.  To counter them the US had 5 fleet carriers and now has 11 and over 75 years of experience.  

Taking Taiwan would make the Normandy landings look like child's play.  The channel from Portsmouth to Normandy is 100 miles.  The Germans were restricted to pretty much the mk 1 eyeball and were mislead as to where a landing might take place.  The US had experience doing multiple amphibious landings.  China has never done one.  The moment a fleet even starts organizing we'll know and Taiwan can reach pretty far out into that strait. 

Militarily it is a suicide mission.

Edited June 17, 2022 by sburke

[Calamine Waffles]

Taiwan may also have nukes...they collaborated with the South Africans and Israelis during the late Cold War on "unspecified" weapons related things

[Huba]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

Heh China has a couple aircraft carriers they are still learning how to use.  Japan had 6 fleet carriers and the most experience using them of any Navy.  To counter them the US had 5 fleet carriers and now has 11 and over 75 years of experience.  

Taking Taiwan would make the Normandy landings look like child's play.  The channel from Portsmouth to Normandy is 100 miles.  The Germans were restricted to pretty much the mk 1 eyeball and were mislead as to where a landing might take place.  The US had experience doing multiple amphibious landings.  China has never done one.  The moment a fleet even starts organizing we'll know and Taiwan can reach pretty far out into that straight. 

Militarily it is a suicide mission.

Fully agreed, US would mop the (sea)floor with PLAN. And even without it, all TW would have to do is to wait for the amphibs and hit them as they close to shore. Chinese air power alone wouldn't prevent it happening one bit.

[Cederic]

7 hours ago, Huba said:

A really great article about France's position during the war, concentrating mostly on the failures of Macron's mediation attempts. A little excerpt to give you a taste:

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/macron-must-avoid-immolation-french-influence

I resisted posting this last week, but it keeps feeling relevant.

Sorry, culturally brought up to taunt the French at every possible opportunity. Doesn't stop us bailing them out when Germany invade though..

[Vic4]

Seems like an interesting time for Rheinmetal/Germany to reveal a new tank. Apologies if this has already been posted, been off grid for a few days..

-----------

(Headline)

Germany’s Badass New Tank Could Outmatch Every Other Tank in the World
The KF51 is named “Panther.” Sound familiar?

No Paywall: https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/rheinmetall-unveils-new-tank-design-kf51-panther/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a40277518/new-german-tank-kf51-panther/

Edited June 14, 2022 by Vic4
No paywall link and direct link to PM

[MikeyD]

There has ben a push for as long as I can remember to up the caliber of NATO guns to 140mm. It seems they're trying something new with 130mm, almost doubling the length of the 120mm round. I can't imagine a human loader manhandling that monster.

Edited June 14, 2022 by MikeyD

[Centurian52]

On 6/11/2022 at 9:32 AM, danfrodo said:

Geez, I take time off the forum to go to the big city and see a show and y'all put 7+ pages of content.  Took me most of an hour to catch up.

Consider yourself lucky. I'm still three days and 20 pages behind.

[Centurian52]

On 6/11/2022 at 10:37 AM, dan/california said:

Yes, Realize that, but it will take that long, plus how ever long we procrastinate on STARTING. The fact that it is a slow process is a reason to get going, not obfuscate for eighteen months. And yes I am advocating the aforementioned parallel lines. Go absolutely all in on automating the process. This is at at LEAST the sixth or eighth time sine WW1 that the Pentagon or its equivalents has said "holy bleep a real war uses a lot of ammo".  Might be time to learn the lesson.

I suspect the lesson is that there will always be an ammo shortage within the first year of a real war. I doubt it's practical to maintain a large enough stockpile in peacetime, and I suspect it isn't easy to rev up production when the **** hits the fan.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Centurian52

[dan/california]

16 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

There has ben a push for as long as I can remember to up the caliber of NATO guns to 140mm. It seems they're trying something new with 130mm, almost doubling the length of the 120mm round. I can't imagine a human loader manhandling that monster.

What are they going to shoot with that? The Yamato? Or is it that even the pieces will rip the turret off the target if it is degraded by APS? Really not sure 50% plus more 120mm ammo isn't better?

By the way Zelensky wants 50 of them yesterday, He is including free field test data. He promises to check how many T72-B3s the round can go through length wise. I fact he can start testing the prototype TOMMORROW morning outside of Kherson. If it is parked on the river surrounded by smoking wreckage at 3pm it passes with flying colors.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Metallurgy is at least as important as caliber.

I'll be interested to see the real penetration data for the 130mm (probably won't be anything solid for several years) vs the the M829A4 120mm.

[Haiduk]

On 6/13/2022 at 7:28 PM, Huba said:

I just discovered this Twitter profile, it concerns itself mostly with statistical data about UA, really interesting stuff!

I think, last poll was unrepresentative. Maybe they asked only those, who stayed in Ukraine, not fled to other countries, not turned out on occupied territories. So, remained part of population, probably was more optimistic. 

[Artkin]

Wow thats one long rod. It's going to be really difficult to stop something moving that quick. I cant see any reason why we would ever need a caliber larger than 130mm if that's the size of it. 

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Metallurgy is at least as important as caliber.

I'll be interested to see the real penetration data for the 130mm (probably won't be anything solid for several years) vs the the M829A4 120mm.

I assume the Germans are using Tungsten, not depleted Uranium? And everybody on this board has seen this picture before?

[Haiduk]

Murz is continuing to assert own words about disaster of 35th CAA. He with anger anwers on the blames in lie and writes that in so-called "Sherwood forest" (west from Izium) two motor-rifle brigades of this army were grindered "up to gun crews and per 100 capable infantry remained in each brigade, because they were thrown to the battle not only without UAVs and thermals, but even without shovels to dig trenches". In previous posts Murz wrote that many of 35th Army infantry got KIA and WIA because of UKR artillery fire, but most number of losses are soldiers, which just reject to fight. But Murz has a reputation of alarmist, so all his statements should be divided. There is opinion, that "two brigades" in the forest indeed "two BTGs of two differents brigades 35th army"

Edited June 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[Artkin]

46 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Metallurgy is at least as important as caliber.

I'll be interested to see the real penetration data for the 130mm (probably won't be anything solid for several years) vs the the M829A4 120mm.

I thought the latest German rounds were supposed to be pretty good, especially for tungsten. I think I was looking at the Steel Beasts forum, so obviously information taken for what it is. I believe they had rated the DM63(?) fired from the 120mm L/55 better than the contemporary american round. I assume M892A3. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Artkin

[Haiduk]

@sburke @Kinophile

Lt.colonel Dmitriy Molchanov, FSB, probably from Krasnodar RSSN FSB (regional "Alfa" special force detachment). Killed 29th of May

 

[dan/california]

7 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I thought the latest German rounds were supposed to be pretty good, especially for tungsten. I think I was looking at the Steel Beasts forum, so obviously information taken for what it is. I believe they had rated the DM63(?) fired from the 120mm L/55 better than the contemporary american round. I assume M892A3. 

Is there anything on the planet that can take a hit from the  M892A3 or A4?

[c3k]

31 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Wow thats one long rod. It's going to be really difficult to stop something moving that quick. I cant see any reason why we would ever need a caliber larger than 130mm if that's the size of it. 

The rod is frequently supported by a "stick". So, just because the round is that long does not mean the rod is, as well.

(I think 10:1 length:diameter is currently what is used...for lots of reasons.)  

The extra shell length allows for a LOT of extra powder.

I wonder what the muzzle velocity/muzzle energy will be?

[akd]

@sburke @Kinophile

Colonel Sergey Postnov, Rosgvardia media relations officer:

 

[Haiduk]

Oleksandrivka, Kherson oblast. Artillery of 28th mech.brigade hit BMP-3 and small ammunition storage. Nice fireballs.

 

[dan/california]

You know, mark 1 eyeball of what might be pre production mock ups, the penetrator looks to be about the same diameter in both pics.

12 minutes ago, c3k said:

The rod is frequently supported by a "stick". So, just because the round is that long does not mean the rod is, as well.

(I think 10:1 length:diameter is currently what is used...for lots of reasons.)  

The extra shell length allows for a LOT of extra powder.

I wonder what the muzzle velocity/muzzle energy will be?

So most or all of the improved performance would be from some combination of velocity and metallurgy. I feel that live fire testing just outside of Kherson is really quite urgent. I feel strongly this kit can make a competitive showing in the turret toss competition.

 

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

There has ben a push for as long as I can remember to up the caliber of NATO guns to 140mm. It seems they're trying something new with 130mm, almost doubling the length of the 120mm round. I can't imagine a human loader manhandling that monster.

 

[Beleg85]

46 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Murz is continuing to assert own words about disaster of 35th CAA. He with anger anwers on the blames in lie and writes that in so-called "Sherwood forest" (west from Izium) two motor-rifle brigades of this army were grindered "up to gun crews and per 100 capable infantry remained in each brigade, because they were thrown to the battle not only without UAVs and thermals, but even without shovels to dig trenches". In previous posts Murz wrote that many of 35th Army infantry got KIA and WIA because of UKR artillery fire, but most number of losses are soldiers, which just reject to fight. But Murz has a reputation of alarmist, so all his statements should be divided. There is opinion, that "two brigades" in the forest indeed "two BTGs of two differents brigades 35th army"

How you read those news about Ukrainian moves in forests west of Izyum? Read somewhere it was 81st brigade and SOF pushing more forward, perhaps even trying to reach the city outskirts (seems dubious for now). Definitelly Russians can't get cosy in those woods.