How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, keas66 said:

Any more news on the Ukrainian advances  in Kherson and  Izyum ?  Really would like to see some more  Ukrainian  War   news on this thread  - but seems like the amount of  details getting out is shrinking ?

1.  The artillery war intensifies, and it looks like it's expanding to new sectors, e.g. Lyman and Sumy, by launching probes and then bombarding the UA reaction forces.  My read is that RU recognises artillery is still in their favour and are trying to raise the Ukrainian casualties levels still further. And it seems they are, although this feed also touts the UA standard line, which remains Send Guns Now!

2.  Fighting around Sieverodonetsk city continues, as separ troops try to cut off the river crossings from the north, since it seems they haven't been able to get there from the south and the city fight is a death trap. Reports conflict; a lot of prop on both sides, but once more it appears the UA are using limited forces to tie up much larger RU forces in tough terrain, and will withdraw them once they have extracted a suitable toll.

3. Below is the only significant new attack reported. OSINTAg, while editorially pro  has a pattern of overcrediting RU advances, so salt as always....

4. The UA has continued to launch multiple attacks along the Kherson front, but their opsec is pretty strict and since the scale is modest there aren't big victories (or losses) to report either. The UA seems to be trying to find ways to mount combined arms attacks that can achieve serious penetrations and destroy Russian formations; so far they aren't doing much better than Ivan at that.  Happy to be proven wrong....

 

That's my quick scan anyway.  You know my usual sources, feel free to check them.

Edited June 16, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Grigb]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

That's a great question. If Vladimir Vladimorovich was to snuff it tomorrow, what happens then? I'm not a Kremlinologist and don't dare to make any guesses ( mayby only that sequel to "Death of Stalin" will hit the movie theaters in a few years). But maybe some more knowledgable member cares for a little what if? 

Due to secrecy, it is always difficult to know. But we can see certain trends. 

Kremlin power struggle is better view as Power Clans struggle than personalities struggle. Personalities can change any moment; Clans are very stable. 

There are three main Clans: KGB clan, Party clan and Military Clan.

For example, in Death of Stalin you see KGB clan (Βeria) was fighting with Party clan (Khrushchev) but Party clan allied with Military clan (Zhukov) and won. 

Fast forward to the end of 90s. Due to Chechnia and Yugoslavia the Party clan (Yeltsin) politically got weak. They needed somebody young and strong. Due to some cunning maneuvers KGB clan managed to finally sneak a young and strong trojan horse (Putin) to Party clan and got power. As a result, KGB clan forcefully allied and further weakened Party clan (now with sort of Medvedev head). Then during Chechen war KGB clan allied with Chechen Joker (Kadirov) against Military clan. Finally, there is Russian Joker (Navalny) 

So, the current disposition is:

1.  Party clan (Medvedev) weak and mostly irrelevant. But tough guy rhetoric means he is looking toward alliance with hardcore nationalists. That is Military clan.
2. KGB clan (Putin) currently controls everything but politically very weak due to Putin starting the War. Unless they scheme something, they will be out one way or another.
3. Military clan (military junta). Real hardcore nationalist. Dumb, brutal, and angry that KGB clan made them fight real war as a result of which their reputation was flashed to toilet. 
4. Chechen Joker (Kadirov) - seemingly not very important Kadirov is in fact Putin most loyal ally against Military clan. Both Military and Kadirov hate each other due to atrocities during Chechen wars. Kadirov has his own small but well equipped and motivated military. But Kadirov hold loyalty only to Putin and has his own plans to achieve full Chechen independence.
5. Russian Joker (Navalny) - the guy seems to have unnatural ability to survive where all others died. Even current imprisonment can be seen as making sure he survives until he is needed. This implies he is under KGB protection but most likely not under Putin but somebody else because of Putin's ego issues.

My take is: 

1. Military and Party are allying. Medvedev is the Facade, Military junta is a real ruler. They are most likely close to power but probably cannot take out Putin.
2. Putin is scheming to shift blame to military and finally cleanse them. Severodonetks can be a good place to bury Miliary. The more Military lose men and reputation the easier will be to clean them. In case of disloyalty there is a loyal Tik Tok guard. That is why they are not really fighting. Not their job.
3. Somebody in KGB (Patrushev?) is waiting for Putin to die to activate Navalny so he can rise people against military like it was in august 91 then at least guaranty KGB clan survival.
4. Everything hinges on Putin. That's why there are few men following him around to pick up his poo, so nobody can be certain. 

That is as far as I can go. I can speculate further but it will not be very reliable. Because for example Military clan is brutal dumb nationalists. That scenario is bad. Like really bad. On other hand they seems to ally with useless Party clan. Which means they are hoping to deal with the outside world. So, at the end they might be not as dumb and brutal as they were in the past and are not going to start WW3.

Who knows. We will have to wait and see. 

[Combatintman]

47 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

I don't know. I would expect the US helps them train and equip for this kind of scenario.

I can't find my original post about 400 pages or so back but its essentially what @Huba said.  My comment was something like 'an anti-radiation missile and a jamming pod strapped to a fast jet does not a SEAD capability make.'  The US pioneered SEAD through hard-won experience in Vietnam and even then lost something north of 200 fixed wing aircraft to some fairly rudimentary SAMs/MANPADs - SA2 and SA7 in the main.

According to Wikipedia - usual caveats apply - Germany and Italy are the only two NATO nations that deploy a specialist aircraft (Tornado ECR).  The former acquired 35 and the latter acquired 16 at a slightly lower spec.  It appears that as of February last year the Germans could only field 20 while the Italians could field 15.

Looking at a more authoritative source - the Royal United Services Institute - the linked article below lays the lack of NATO capability, excepting of course the US, bare:

Getting Serious About SEAD: European Air Forces Must Learn from the Failure of the Russian Air Force over Ukraine | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

 

[LongLeftFlank]

14 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Agreed! the Russian army doesn't collapse, or yield significant territory, unless it is given a very hard shove, or several.

Given the intensity of this war and the firepower being employed by both sides, I actually have no trouble believing Russian dead are in the mid 20,000s, That includes separ militias whose medevac is likely near nonexistent.

...So if I apply 24k/40% mortality rate, I get 60k total casualties (KIA/WIA), which is in line with US DoD estimates. And is enough to explain the huge amount of anecdata showing the Russians frantically scraping up manpower from wherever to employ as frontline infantry.

That's the core arm where everyone including Strelkov agrees they are cripplingly short, as amply documented here:

Note that in time though, Russia will find the  replacements if its forces do not start being attacked and physically destroyed. And if it meanwhile stops losing men at the rate of 200 dead a day, its forces will be able to resume a higher tempo of attack.

I'll quote Stuffy Dowding again:

...the fact remains that our young men must shoot down their young men at a rate of 4 to 1 if we are to keep pace at all.

Probably more like 2 to 1 here, but still quite a task and one not accomplished by M777s and Caesars alone.

Suyi notices the RA continuing to pull units from all its frontiers and feed them in. Notice crap medical care too, supporting my contention of much higher KIA ratios than we Westerners are used to.

....I wonder whether Kim will send over some North Koreans 'volunteers' as mercs; Russia might be desperate enough for infantry and it does have a Korean minority so they're deniable. 

Ever since the Gulag closed down, a lot of the logging and mining work in Siberia has been done by Norks, working at slave wages to earn forex for the Hermit Kingdom.

Edited June 16, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[akd]

1 hour ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Tom Cooper, who writes a lot about the Arab Air Forces during the Cold War, gives his view on the performance of both the VVS and the PSU:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-failure-of-air-power-during-the-russia-ukraine-war/

Also talks about the Kh-22 being fired by the Tu-22Ms (which have a CEP of 3 miles)

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/russian-tu-22m-3-bombers-are-hitting-ukraine-with-kh-22-as-4-kitchen-1960s-missiles-but-since-they-have-a-circular-error-probable-of-3-miles-they-are-missing-their-targets/

 

Presumably they are just using these to soak up air defenses for their dwindling supply of actual precision strike weapons.

[Battlefront.com]

37 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

Exactly. Insofar as early M4s had an issue with catching fire (I gather they were really not any worse than average to begin with) it was all to do with ammo storage. Once they introduced wet storage, the late model Shermans became one of the least fire-prone tanks of the war, diesel and gasoline variants alike.

Although this is straying off topic, like all tank designs there were deficiencies and vulnerabilities in earlier designs that were addressed in later designs, but sometimes the folklore of the earlier remained through the later.  It would be like judging late war Panthers based on their Kursk performance.  Or lack of performance as it was for the many Panthers that broke down before they got into the fight

Steve

[rocketman]

Another mysterious fire and this is a big one:

 

[Grigb]

25 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

...On the most pressing issue being discussed, I will only say that I am pro-sherman .  Love those tanks, especially the curvy all-casting ones.  Good looking and versatile.  Nothing that 75mm gun vs some nasty MG42 in a building.  Gosh, sounds like I gotta finish my CMBS campaign and get back to the western front.

Sherman 75mm beat T-34-76 any day. Nothing to discuss here. In Soviet February 43 Tiger tests  Sherman 75mm penetrated 80mm of the sides from 600 meters. Non of 76mm rounds could penetrate 80mm even from 200 meters. BTW, 76mm gun is the same as their main AT gun (which is not the same as their official AT gun of rifle divisions). 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

I can't find my original post about 400 pages or so back but its essentially what @Huba said.  My comment was something like 'an anti-radiation missile and a jamming pod strapped to a fast jet does not a SEAD capability make.'  The US pioneered SEAD through hard-won experience in Vietnam and even then lost something north of 200 fixed wing aircraft to some fairly rudimentary SAMs/MANPADs - SA2 and SA7 in the main.

According to Wikipedia - usual caveats apply - Germany and Italy are the only two NATO nations that deploy a specialist aircraft (Tornado ECR).  The former acquired 35 and the latter acquired 16 at a slightly lower spec.  It appears that as of February last year the Germans could only field 20 while the Italians could field 15.

Looking at a more authoritative source - the Royal United Services Institute - the linked article below lays the lack of NATO capability, excepting of course the US, bare:

Getting Serious About SEAD: European Air Forces Must Learn from the Failure of the Russian Air Force over Ukraine | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

 

I read that post of yours.  It was as good as you remember it being

The key point in your post is that SEAD is extremely difficult to do and even the USAF, which has probably put more resources into that role than all other nations combined since aerial warfare became a thing, would have a tough slog ahead of it.

The mistake people make is thinking SEAD is something that can be done with standard equipment like was done in WW2.  When it comes to SEAD, multi-role aircraft just don't cut it.  That means specialized aircraft, tactics, and strategic vision are required.

Russia was never going to get air superiority over Ukraine with the force it had.  As with everything Russian, what they started out with was a half arsed attempt to look similar on paper to what the West has in reality.  And we've seen how that turned out for them.

Steve

[Grigb]

27 minutes ago, Huba said:

Russia has taken some American POWs, and guess that they want to do with them:

 

Negotiation tactic. Why bother killing for negative consequences if they can just lock them up forever and have option to release in exchange for something when needed.   

[sburke]

24 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

 

3. Below is the only significant new attack reported. OSINTAg, while editorially pro  has a pattern of overcrediting RU advances, so salt as always....

4. The UA has continued to launch multiple attacks along the Kherson front, but their opsec is pretty strict and since the scale is modest there aren't big victories (or losses) to report either. The UA seems to be trying to find ways to mount combined arms attacks that can achieve serious penetrations and destroy Russian formations; so far they aren't doing much better than Ivan at that.  Happy to be proven wrong....

That's my quick scan anyway.  You know my usual sources, feel free to check them.

Kharkiv?  WTF is the RU Army thinking?  What possible reason makes sense for launching an attack there?

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

Kharkiv?  WTF is the RU Army thinking?  What possible reason makes sense for launching an attack there?

Because they can, is my best guess; it's close to the frontier and they can launch some attacks, engage with UA forces and then bombard them to ratchet up the casualties.  I continue to believe the RU is going to try to 'freeze' this war soon and killing and maiming Ukrainian kids at high rates is one of the few chips they have.

Also, the sad realities of the mine warfare that is ramping up.

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Another mysterious fire and this is a big one:

 

Whether this is an example of decaying Russian infrastructure going boom out of neglect (I include Human error) or a deliberate act by someone, we may never know.  Regardless, it is a reminder that all industrialized nations have vast amounts of critical infrastructure that can not be defended against attack.  If an adversary, state or non-state, foreign or domestic, wants to cause huge damage it can. 

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Negotiation tactic. Why bother killing for negative consequences if they can just lock them up forever and have option to release in exchange for something when needed.   

Yup.  Definitely.  They are also trying to dissuade foreign nationals from joining up with Ukraine's military.

Though if I were able to ask a cheeky question, I'd ask the Russian government spokesperson if that means Ukraine should execute all Wagner, Syrian, and Libyan fighters it captures since by Russia's definition they aren't legitimate combatants.  I mean, c'mon, fair's fair, right?

Steve

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup.  Definitely.  They are also trying to dissuade foreign nationals from joining up with Ukraine's military.

Though if I were able to ask a cheeky question, I'd ask the Russian government spokesperson if that means Ukraine should execute all Wagner, Syrian, and Libyan fighters it captures since by Russia's definition they aren't legitimate combatants.  I mean, c'mon, fair's fair, right?

Steve

And on top of it, if I understand Americans at all, parading American POWs and threteaning their lives is really counterproductive to strategy based on hope that West tires of the war and forces peace. 

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Because they can, is my best guess; it's close to the frontier and they can launch some attacks, engage with UA forces and then bombard them to ratchet up the casualties.  I continue to believe the RU is going to try to 'freeze' this war soon and killing and maiming Ukrainian kids at high rates is one of the few chips they have.

Applying pressure to a sideshow front can work both ways.  Ukraine hit the Kharkiv area while Russia was distracted and it achieved great success on the ground and eventually forced Russia to recommit shattered units prematurely there instead of later somewhere else.  Now Russia seems to be trying to repay the favor by forcing Ukraine to divert resources that could otherwise go elsewhere to keep the gains around Kharkiv.

Russia doesn't need to do much more than it already is doing to have some impact on Ukrainian plans.  Buuuuuut... double edged sword problem... due to Russia's lack of forces this means they are, in effect, giving Ukraine what it wants which is to be distracted from a single effort in the Donbas.

War is all about tradeoffs.  Both sides are having their fair share of difficult decisions about what to emphasize, that's for sure.

Steve

[Hapless]

Another friendly reminder that 99% of the internet is not a reliable source and anyone can write a caption. In the words of Sergeant Hamlet from the CM Discord, this is Shroedinger's Hind.

Never seen two blatantly contradictingly titled clips of the same footage pop up next to each other in the feed before.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Hapless

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

And on top of it, if I understand Americans at all, parading American POWs and threteaning their lives is really counterproductive to strategy based on hope that West tires of the war and forces peace. 

Yes.  Showing Americans in distress and unfair conditions does tend to piss off the American population.  Most of the anger goes towards the country doing the parading, though some goes towards the political party in power either for getting them into that situation or not getting them out of it.  I don't think there's going to be much outrage against the Biden Admin of any significance in this case.  These guys volunteered and the American ethos of "personal responsibility" is very strong, therefore most will say "we need to help them in any practical way possible, but the volunteers knew the risks so it's mostly on their shoulders".

Contrast this with a situation where Russia got its hands on, say, a couple of US Seals or Green Berets.  Whole different thing.  If that happened I wouldn't want to be either Biden or Putin

Steve

[Calamine Waffles]

37 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

I can't find my original post about 400 pages or so back but its essentially what @Huba said.  My comment was something like 'an anti-radiation missile and a jamming pod strapped to a fast jet does not a SEAD capability make.'  The US pioneered SEAD through hard-won experience in Vietnam and even then lost something north of 200 fixed wing aircraft to some fairly rudimentary SAMs/MANPADs - SA2 and SA7 in the main.

According to Wikipedia - usual caveats apply - Germany and Italy are the only two NATO nations that deploy a specialist aircraft (Tornado ECR).  The former acquired 35 and the latter acquired 16 at a slightly lower spec.  It appears that as of February last year the Germans could only field 20 while the Italians could field 15.

Looking at a more authoritative source - the Royal United Services Institute - the linked article below lays the lack of NATO capability, excepting of course the US, bare:

Getting Serious About SEAD: European Air Forces Must Learn from the Failure of the Russian Air Force over Ukraine | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

 

I mean, at the end of the day, it's kind of a moot point because the only likely scenario is going to be a NATO vs. Russia war, where the US will be involved anyway. But the main point is that an IADS of S-400s is not some magic impenetrable shield. The history of modern warfare is full of examples where air defence systems overpromise and underdeliver.

[Taranis]

Embarking CAESAR : (on ukrainian Antonov)

 

Six new CAESARs :

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Taranis

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, Machor said:

All right, folks; first, two confessions:

1. When the Canadian Parliament declared that Russia was committing genocide in Ukraine, I thought it was overkill, even though I've never doubted Russia's war crimes.

2. Unlike many folks on the forum and in agreement with Steve, I've been opposed to NATO openly entering the war on the side of Ukraine, for all the reasons that Steve has argued + avoiding a nuclear war.

Now, if this latest BBC piece can be verified, that all changes. Again, I do demand verification before going ahead with anything, but if all this is true, NATO has to go in - else, it means we were building our own Potemkin village since the Nuremberg trials:

[I tried to pick parts of the article to quote but it didn't make sense, so I'm quoting the whole thing with the hope of reaching a wider audience who may not want to or cannot open the BBC website.]

AKD already posted a response that was spot on, but I wanted to reinforce what he said.  Russia has been murdering and torturing Ukrainian civilians consistently since 2014.  Which is why anybody who knew about this was absolutely not surprised by Bucha, Irpin, and all the other clearly documented atrocities committed by Russian forces.  It's just something they do, like breathing and eating.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

I mean, at the end of the day, it's kind of a moot point because the only likely scenario is going to be a NATO vs. Russia war, where the US will be involved anyway. But the main point is that an IADS of S-400s is not some magic impenetrable shield. The history of modern warfare is full of examples where air defence systems overpromise and underdeliver.

Yes.  The air defenses protecting Iraq in 1990 were, on paper, quote formidable.  In reality they were difficult to disrupt, for sure, but in the end they were overcome.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

5 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

I mean, at the end of the day, it's kind of a moot point because the only likely scenario is going to be a NATO vs. Russia war, where the US will be involved anyway. But the main point is that an IADS of S-400s is not some magic impenetrable shield. The history of modern warfare is full of examples where air defence systems overpromise and underdeliver.

I think the S400 system the Slovaks sent with much hoopla in May got destroyed by Kalibrs in its containers at Dnipro Airport (that's from RU sources, but seems credible).

[Huba]

20 M-109s from UK goes to Ukraine. Soon there will be 300+ 155mm guns firig at the RU there. 

[Calamine Waffles]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes.  The air defenses protecting Iraq in 1990 were, on paper, quote formidable.  In reality they were difficult to disrupt, for sure, but in the end they were overcome.

Steve

Also, with all the stuff Ukraine has been capturing during this war, you can be sure the US is already studying key components of the Russian air defence and ECM systems that have been captured.