How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Centurian52]

On 6/12/2022 at 11:33 AM, Vet 0369 said:

I place the the major difference here as being that the US or the UK haven’t tended to use the article to indicate an inferior subject region or territory as The Russia does.

I don't think it's a matter of inferiority vs superiority. "The" in this context seems to refer to whether the subject is considered a geographic area (a region), or a political unit (a country). When people refer to "the Ukraine" they are speaking of it as a region, and when they refer to it as "Ukraine" they are speaking of it as a country. All that is required of "the X" is that it is thought of as a geographic area, not a as a political unit. But that geographic area could contain within itself multiple smaller political units. We refer to "the Balkans", which is a larger area that contains many countries (in this case it is the "the" entity which is greater). Or it could be a smaller part of a larger political unit. We refer to "the Donbass", which is a geographic area within Ukraine.

Like all things in language, this is not a hard and fast rule (what language in history has ever been consistent?). It does not seem to apply to continents. We refer to "Europe", "Africa", and "Asia", not "the Europe", or "the Africa", or "the Asia". Meanwhile there are some political units that are prefaced with "the" such as "the US", "the UK", and "the EU". What the political units that are prefaced with "the" seem to have in common is that they are themselves collections of smaller political units. "The United Kingdom" is a collection of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. "The European Union" is a collection of the various member countries that make it up. "The United States" is a bit of an odd one, since its member states are no longer considered to be an alliance of sovereign countries. But originally the member states of the United States were considered their own sovereign countries under a UN-like federation, which is how it got the name "United States".

Where "inferiority vs superiority" comes into play I think is that when Russia-aligned people refer to "the Ukraine" at this point, they are denying that Ukraine is, in the present day, its own sovereign country, and are instead referring to is as a region. They are tacitly following Putin's line that Ukraine doesn't deserve to be a sovereign country, and that its historical place is as a region of Russia.

[danfrodo]

thanks all for putting my mind right, folks. 32k dead seemed reasonable until I thought about what that would mean for total-loss wounded.   I wish these numbers were real but as you all said, if these numbers were real there'd be nothing left.

[Huba]

51 minutes ago, SeinfeldRules said:

But how long will it take to step up production to that level? 20,000 represents a third of what they’ve produced over 15 years. The latest production figure I can find is an order for 9,000 GMLRS to be delivered over 2.5 years. Lockheed also has other priorities for manufacturing weapons for the US Army, so how will that effect things? It makes sense for countries in Europe to empty their stockpiles but the United States has many other interests besides Ukraine and there can be strategic implications to removing these capabilities from the military.  

I recall 20K was once brought up as a number for 3 shift "wartime footing" production. Also I  do not imply that it is US who should solely bear this burden - rather exploring what hard technical boundaries of what's possible are.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Speaking of casualties...

_____

"Up to 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers are being killed or wounded each day in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, with 200 to 500 killed on average and many more wounded, a top Ukrainian official said on Wednesday.

The big picture: President Volodymyr Zelensky said on June 1 that 60 to 100 Ukrainian troops were being killed daily as Russia stepped up its Donbas offensive. Over the past two weeks that number has climbed significantly according to David Arakhamia, who leads Ukraine's negotiations with Russia and is one of Zelensky's closest advisers.

• Ukraine has recruited one million people into the army and has the capacity to recruit two million more, Arakhamia said, so it has the numbers to continue the fight in Donbas, where Russia has been gradually gaining territory.
• Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley was asked about the rate of Ukrainian casualties on Wednesday and said it was difficult to estimate but previous media reports of around 100 killed and up to 300 injured each day had been "in the ballpark of our assessments." He was not responding to the latest Ukrainian estimate.
• Milley also said Russia had taken "huge" losses and Ukraine was fighting effectively."

_____

 

[Vet 0369]

8 hours ago, Ultradave said:

I'm not sure if I'm using the correct term. Perhaps not.

Mac users always get a message that the software can't be checked for viruses when attempting to install, and the default response is to move it to the trash (this is if you double click on the installer). The only other response is Cancel, which aborts. 

If we use the right-click, Open method, then the same or similar message appears but it asks if we want to open anyway. 

These happen when unpacking the installer, and again when running the installer.

A lot of Mac users new to Battlefront question this and have to be told how to go about the installation because many aren't even familiar with semi-bypassing that check by right-click Open.  

Hope that helps figure it out. It would save some questions if it worked like most other software.

Dave

I’ve been playing Combat Mission on my Mac since the CM1 and Shock Force Paradox (CDs) days with no issues. I have all the titles except CM Afghanistan, and have never had an issue with the certificate issue. I do know that some of my friends who downloaded the demos had the issue though. I’ve never used any of the Steam or Matrix versions though, so they might be “suspect.”

[Beleg85]

8 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Speaking of casualties...

_____

"Up to 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers are being killed or wounded each day in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, with 200 to 500 killed on average and many more wounded, a top Ukrainian official said on Wednesday.

The big picture: President Volodymyr Zelensky said on June 1 that 60 to 100 Ukrainian troops were being killed daily as Russia stepped up its Donbas offensive. Over the past two weeks that number has climbed significantly according to David Arakhamia, who leads Ukraine's negotiations with Russia and is one of Zelensky's closest advisers.

• Ukraine has recruited one million people into the army and has the capacity to recruit two million more, Arakhamia said, so it has the numbers to continue the fight in Donbas, where Russia has been gradually gaining territory.
• Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley was asked about the rate of Ukrainian casualties on Wednesday and said it was difficult to estimate but previous media reports of around 100 killed and up to 300 injured each day had been "in the ballpark of our assessments." He was not responding to the latest Ukrainian estimate.
• Milley also said Russia had taken "huge" losses and Ukraine was fighting effectively."

Damn... I am hoping Arakhamia may be exegarating heavily for the Cause (I frankly suspect that). Aslo, pomping army to 1 mln...numbers seem way too high.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Beleg85

[Suleyman]

1000 casualties a day is bad if true

[Billy Ringo]

Pay attention to what China does, not what the Russians say the Chinese promised.   Most Chinese banks, funding operations, corporate investment,  business engagements etc. dealing with Russia have backed off or discontinued operations with the Russians.  They don't want to risk Western economic sanctions.

Those Chinese entities aren't independent businesses like McDonalds, Nike or Purnell's Home Folks Country Sausage.  Their actions represent what China really thinks about the Russian invasion--which doesn't seem very supportive.  And, so far, I've heard nothing about Chinese military assets being supplied to Russia.

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, SeinfeldRules said:

I have always viewed the published Ukrainian losses as absolutely ridiculous. If Russians truly have 90,000 casualties then there would be virtually no fighting forces left (not counting support units like artillery or logistics), and you then have to wonder how Ukraine is still struggling to gain momentum in places like Kherson or Kharkiv. Besides, since when has a nation EVER been able to accurately estimate an opposing nation’s casualties? It’s pretty much accepted as historical fact that governments and militaries always overestimate enemy casualty numbers. Plenty of evidence out there that one burned out vehicle doesn’t automatically equal 3+ dead soldiers and humans are hardier then is commonly believed by the public. I can buy 32,000 total casualties but certainly not 32,000 KIA. 

Start pouring concrete. It take two years from the day you lay the floor fro the new plant. Every day talking is time wasted. The war reserve is obviously way too small, and Taiwan needs a ton of them too. There would be no landings as long as Taiwan had GMLRS launchers in action.

Edited June 15, 2022 by dan/california

[dan/california]

Ukr pushing back everywhere it can.

[Vanir Ausf B]

 

[Suleyman]

The forest terrain should make it easier for Ukrainian offense in the push towards Izium but I don’t have high hopes, if it works they will 100% halt the push for Slavyansk

[Vanir Ausf B]

 

[Calamine Waffles]

The ACE Models (Ukrainian model kit maker) homepage

[Butschi]

48 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I don't think it's a matter of inferiority vs superiority. "The" in this context seems to refer to whether the subject is considered a geographic area (a region), or a political unit (a country). When people refer to "the Ukraine" they are speaking of it as a region, and when they refer to it as "Ukraine" they are speaking of it as a country. All that is required of "the X" is that it is thought of as a geographic area, not a as a political unit. But that geographic area could contain within itself multiple smaller political units. We refer to "the Balkans", which is a larger area that contains many countries (in this case it is the "the" entity which is greater). Or it could be a smaller part of a larger political unit. We refer to "the Donbass", which is a geographic area within Ukraine.

Like all things in language, this is not a hard and fast rule (what language in history has ever been consistent?). It does not seem to apply to continents. We refer to "Europe", "Africa", and "Asia", not "the Europe", or "the Africa", or "the Asia". Meanwhile there are some political units that are prefaced with "the" such as "the US", "the UK", and "the EU". What the political units that are prefaced with "the" seem to have in common is that they are themselves collections of smaller political units. "The United Kingdom" is a collection of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. "The European Union" is a collection of the various member countries that make it up. "The United States" is a bit of an odd one, since its member states are no longer considered to be an alliance of sovereign countries. But originally the member states of the United States were considered their own sovereign countries under a UN-like federation, which is how it got the name "United States".

Where "inferiority vs superiority" comes into play I think is that when Russia-aligned people refer to "the Ukraine" at this point, they are denying that Ukraine is, in the present day, its own sovereign country, and are instead referring to is as a region. They are tacitly following Putin's line that Ukraine doesn't deserve to be a sovereign country, and that its historical place is as a region of Russia.

In German, too, an article in front of a country indicates something like a region (it's "die Ukraine") if in singular. Given that in German this also applies to Switzerland, for instance, "die Schweiz", I don't think it can generally indicate an inferior country. In French it is also "La France" and I'm certain the French don't think their country is inferior in any way.

[Butschi]

32 minutes ago, Billy Ringo said:

They don't want to risk Western economic sanctions.

On the other hand, they know full well that there won't be any significant sanctions against unless maybe they get directly involved, something on the level of a military intervention. The western economies just cannot afford it (I don't know if China can but then it would be a question of who blinks first).

No, if they just deliver weapons (maybe depends on which and how many, sounds familiar?) there will be some strongly worded letters and possibly some well sounding sanctions that don't really do much.

While the Chinese might not want to be on the losing side, it would be a good chance to test their stuff. Let's be realistic here, NATO is not only providing weapons because they want to help Ukraine, it is also done in order to test the new stuff. Same goes for China.

[Calamine Waffles]

22 minutes ago, Butschi said:

On the other hand, they know full well that there won't be any significant sanctions against unless maybe they get directly involved, something on the level of a military intervention. The western economies just cannot afford it (I don't know if China can but then it would be a question of who blinks first).

No, if they just deliver weapons (maybe depends on which and how many, sounds familiar?) there will be some strongly worded letters and possibly some well sounding sanctions that don't really do much.

While the Chinese might not want to be on the losing side, it would be a good chance to test their stuff. Let's be realistic here, NATO is not only providing weapons because they want to help Ukraine, it is also done in order to test the new stuff. Same goes for China.

You strongly underestimate how much more Chinese sanctions will hurt them compared to the West. It will hurt the West, yes, but if you apply the sanctions Russia is facing now to China, the result will be the destruction of the Chinese economy and industry.

 

[MikeyD]

As to casualties, during the 1 month and 1 week of 'the Battle Of The Bulge' the US alone was seeing an average of 2,000 casualties a day, day-after-day. You don't send Russia reeling, fleeting east to dig in behind the Donets river just by inflicting a few hundred casualties here and there.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, SeinfeldRules said:

I have always viewed the published Ukrainian losses as absolutely ridiculous. If Russians truly have 90,000 casualties then there would be virtually no fighting forces left (not counting support units like artillery or logistics), and you then have to wonder how Ukraine is still struggling to gain momentum in places like Kherson or Kharkiv. Besides, since when has a nation EVER been able to accurately estimate an opposing nation’s casualties? It’s pretty much accepted as historical fact that governments and militaries always overestimate enemy casualty numbers. Plenty of evidence out there that one burned out vehicle doesn’t automatically equal 3+ dead soldiers and humans are hardier then is commonly believed by the public. I can buy 32,000 total casualties but certainly not 32,000 KIA. 

Yup, the KIA number is too high for sure.  However, it is likely too low for total casualties.

What I think the Ukrainians did was make the cardinal mistake of estimating casualties based on vehicles knocked out and added it to estimates for straight up infantry.  If one assumes all tanks destroyed with full crews, you get a number of roughly 4200 KIA right there.  Add another 6000 for AFV crews.  Yet we know, from historical examples, first hand accounts, and drone footage that a large number of crews escape death.  Instead of 10,200 KIA in crews it's maybe 2000 or so.  Huge number, for sure, but way lower than what they might have estimated.

The other issue is Ukraine is probably making some estimates based on full staffed BTGs.  "We just destroyed 3x BMP with infantry" is a different thing if the unit started at 50% strength and the estimate was made at 100%.

Then there's the usual double counting and overestimating that goes on.  It wouldn't be a war without that

When double checking the likely casualties, we have to keep in mind that Russia has had to withdraw quite a few Regiments back to Russia because they are no longer combat capable.  There is also ample evidence that a significant portion of their best units have been radically reduced in strength.  In some reports even having difficulty fielding a single BTG without non-organic attachments.

Russia has put probably close to 300,000 soldiers into Ukraine since the war started.  Rough guess, of course!  I would not be surprised if there were 15% casualties across the board.  That would be 45,000 all casualty types.  That's about 11,000 KIA and 34,000 all types of WIA.  This I think is fairly reasonable.

Which means I take Ukraine's number as either a very conservative estimate of total casualties or a significant overestimation of KIA.  Based on historical precedence, I'd say the latter

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

 Nova Kakhovka viaduct.... 

 

 

 

 

[Letter from Prague]

4 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...

This would not be the first time Ukrainians blew a dam to flood the Russians, would it?

[LongLeftFlank]

Interesting.

 

[G.I. Joe]

Just wanted to clarify that the earlier quip about the average age in here was not meant as a joke at the expense of anyone's age or the group in general... I just meant to say that I can relate to feeling old, but didn't want to joke too much about that myself when I'm younger than a number of folks "in the room" as it were.

(And yes, I probably worry too much...)

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Calamine Waffles said:

You strongly underestimate how much more Chinese sanctions will hurt them compared to the West. It will hurt the West, yes, but if you apply the sanctions Russia is facing now to China, the result will be the destruction of the Chinese economy and industry.

 

No, you strongly underestimate how much the western industry not only depends on China as a market but also as global workbench. The Russian sanctions already hurt us. But that is mostly fossil fuels and food. And is (technically) relatively easy to import those from somewhere else. Apart from that ours and the Russian industry isn't very interdependent. China? Most of our electronics products are manufactured in China, hell, most of everything is manufactured there. Sanctions would be mutually assured destruction, so nothing will happen. I mean, how much worse can it really get than concentration camps for a whole ethnic group? And still no real reaction from the west.

[SeinfeldRules]

Interesting twitter thread on Switchblade 300. Auto-translated the content below so you don't have to:

"Switchblade kamikaze drones have been used in Ukraine for a long time. Today we will understand how they work and why they are not as effective as they might seem. And what is the best way to replace them. Short thread

The United States has supplied Ukraine with 700 Switchblade 300 kamikaze drones. This is a lightweight disposable low-power drone designed to destroy enemy soldiers. In fact, this is not even a drone, but loitering ammunition

The main advantage of the Switchblade 300 is its compactness. It is launched from a small pipe, like a mortar, using compressed air. The entire system can be carried and controlled by one soldier. It can be conveniently brought directly to the position.

The main disadvantage of Switchblade 300 is disposability. Even without a goal, he cannot sit down. Either a fall, probably without the possibility of a restart, or a safe detonation. This imposes a great responsibility on the operator.

The Switchblade 300 is a lightweight drone that carries the equivalent of a 40mm grenade grenade. In these frames we see the wreckage after the explosion. Judging by the state of preservation, the power of the explosion is close to that of a hand grenade. This means that they cannot destroy equipment.

Look at an example of using a drone. Everything happens literally like in a computer game. A huge advantage of the Switchblade 300 is a high-quality camera, which, among other things, allows you to conduct reconnaissance in search of targets.

But the Switchblade 300 cannot significantly strengthen the Ukrainian army and is generally not suitable for this type of conflict. All because of the high price. One drone (or kit) costs $6,000 dollars. Although Ukraine received them for free, we must take into account the price, because you can buy something else for it.

For example, the 700 Switchblade 300 is $4.2 million. With this you can buy an M777 howitzer ($3.7 million) and there will still be money left for ammunition!

Each launch costs a lot. In Afghanistan, the Switchblade 300 has been used to hunt down important militants, groups of bomb-planters for terrorist attacks. It was justified there, because a small drone allows you to attack from the air, while avoiding collateral casualties among civilians.

But in Ukraine there is a regular army of Russia, the strength of which (like any regular army) is in its mass character and interchangeability. The destruction of individual soldiers is of course useful. But at $6,000, it becomes too expensive.

 

A much more interesting option is a quadrocopter with hanging ammunition. The same 40-mm grenades from the AGS-17 grenade launcher. Ukrainians have learned how to equip mass-produced Mavic 3 drones with them by printing a bomb launcher and grenade stabilizers on a 3D printer.

 

Videos of successful discharges of such grenades come across regularly. Here is one of the relatively recent ones. Yes, compared to the Switchblade 300, the accuracy is much lower, the wind can interfere. However, only a grenade is spent. The price of which is hundreds of dollars (or free). Drone may return

 

Let's compare Switchblade 300 and Mavic 3. Range: 10 km (15 minutes) and 15 km (40 minutes) Ceiling: 150 m and 6000 m Price $6000 and $2000-$4000 (Amazon) At the same time, the Mavic 3 drone is a priori reusable if it is not shot down.

 

As a result, it turns out that for the same amount you can buy about 2 times more drones with comparable and even reusable weapons. I think the price of a VOG-17 grenade with refinement should not exceed a couple of hundred bucks.

 

At the same time, intelligence plays a much more important role than the destruction of individual Russian soldiers. And Mavic 3 drones (or equivalent) are better at scouting because they can stay in the air longer and have better cameras. And heavier drones can carry larger charges.

 

The powerful Switchblade 600 with a warhead from Javelin is quite another matter. He is able to destroy expensive equipment, even if he costs much more. However, the supply of such drones to Ukraine is still only being discussed.

 

Finally, another video of the Switchblade 300 launch in Ukraine. Still, it seems that launching a quadcopter is faster, quieter and safer for the operator, which means it can get much closer to the enemy"

 

Fits in line with my expectations for the Switchblade in Ukraine.