How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Suleyman]

That's some good combat footage, I got surprised when one of the guys turned out to be American. That combat looks rough, if they make it nasty enough the Russians might bring in the TOS-1s though, Ukrainian counter-battery needs to be on point. 

[poesel]

7 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

"According to German Business Insider, Brazil “is ready to provide Ukraine with 300,000 shells for the Gepard."

Yes, that is still true. But does the Dutch army have ammo that can be exported?
For 30 tanks that is 10.000 shells each. At a rate of 1100 shots/min that is about 9 minutes of firing.

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Kinda off topic, but I've been noticing with a lot of the videos posted here how the AI voice overs are getting scary good. 

You sure this is an AI voice over? Because I'm getting this in English and wouldn't if that had been in German in first place.

 

About EU paying for the aftermath: that always sounds like that money is somehow lost.
What do you think the Ukrainians are going to do with their money? They are going to rebuild their country. That is streets & buildings, machines, cars, plants, ... Where are they going to buy it from? Right.

That money is not lost but a big part will come back to us and we all will be richer. That is the wonder of capitalism.
I'm very happy to pay for that especially if we get rid of that regime.

[FancyCat]

 

 

 

[Aragorn2002]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's some intense footage of fighting in Serverodonetsk by the International Legion.  There's a great bit towards the end that shows these guys are not TickTock warriors parading around safe in the rear like some others we know of

 

How sweet it would be to see these guys on a victory parade in a year or so.

[Calamine Waffles]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's how these numbers line up with Oryx:

400 Tanks -> Oryx says 194 (50%)

1300 IFVs -> Oryx says 290 (22%) for all armored passenger vehicles

700 Artillery -> Oryx says 93 (13%)

Interesting to see how many more tanks were documented as a percentage compared to the other categories.

I suspect a some of the artillery "lost" includes systems that are simply worn out and no longer useful.  From a combat perspective it's not much different, especially if there's no reason to think they're coming back into service (i.e. no ammo for them anyway).

Steve

If the Ukrainian use the same "loss" accounting as the Soviets did, then "lost" means anything from "got stuck on the bridge/river crossing and could not take part in the battle" to "completely destroyed."

[Huba]

1 minute ago, poesel said:

Yes, that is still true. But does the Dutch army have ammo that can be exported?
For 30 tanks that is 10.000 shells each. At a rate of 1100 shots/min that is about 9 minutes of firing.

You sure this is an AI voice over? Because I'm getting this in English and wouldn't if that had been in German in first place.

 

About EU paying for the aftermath: that always sounds like that money is somehow lost.
What do you think the Ukrainians are going to do with their money? They are going to rebuild their country. That is streets & buildings, machines, cars, plants, ... Where are they going to buy it from? Right.

That money is not lost but a big part will come back to us and we all will be richer. That is the wonder of capitalism.
I'm very happy to pay for that especially if we get rid of that regime.

Out of likes, but that's the attitude we need! 

[Aragorn2002]

3 minutes ago, poesel said:

Yes, that is still true. But does the Dutch army have ammo that can be exported?
For 30 tanks that is 10.000 shells each. At a rate of 1100 shots/min that is about 9 minutes of firing.

 

If you've got money you can lay your hands on anything.

[Harmon Rabb]

For any boxing fans here. German police getting a photograph with the Klitschko brothers.

[Butschi]

41 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

A paradox, among the sheer sinster brutality they still had a sense of "professionalism" and discipline. 

Contrary to what Hollywood stereotypes show us, not all German soldiers were fanatic SS Nazis. Many were, many more lost all empathy by what they saw and did (and got away with) during the war. Some were to weak to speak up or went along because of false loyalty to their comrades. But some retained a measure of decency.

Nowadays I regret that I didn't ask my grandpa about what he had experienced. By the time I was more into history, he was too far gone with dementia. An interesting character actually, born in 1900 he was in WW1 and as a musician/entertainer for the troops in WW2.

But I digress, sorry for the off topic.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

Indeed, I wonder if intelligence about Putin's plans informed the decision that it was time to go?

It's an open question for me if the eyes on Russia contributed to the way in which Afghanistan ended. I suspect so.

[Haiduk]

40 minutes ago, Huba said:

Damn those are serious numbers. 

Icluding captures, tanks are probably replenished. Artillery not so much, but new systems make up for it with quality. But APCs seem to be urgently needed in huge quantities. 

 

@Battlefront.com

I've found full interview and something strange in theese numbers: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/6/15/ukraine-to-us-defense-industry-we-need-long-range-precision-weapons

Think about this: one brigade occupies around 40 kilometers of the fence line. That means that to cover the active combat conflict we need 40 brigades. Every brigade is 100 infantry fighting vehicles, 30 tanks, 54 artillery systems — just for one brigade, and we have 40 of them.

I'm not going to talk about the anti-tank guided missiles or anti-tank guided weapons for now. I’m just talking about heavy weapons. As of today, we have approximately 30 to 40, sometimes up to 50 percent of losses of equipment as a result of active combat. So, we have lost approximately 50 percent. … Approximately 1,300 infantry fighting vehicles have been lost, 400 tanks, 700 artillery systems.

That is a mathematical estimation we can make based on the length of the frontline and the intensity of the conflict. So, I'm giving you this estimate just for you to understand how significant the requirement is based on the intensity of the conflict.

 

So, this is just estimated, not real number of losses? And another form of presure on West "give us much more wepon"? 

And "Trukha" twitter just pulled from context theese numbers and for the sake of hype "born" sensation. Damn, I figure out, what a level of "everything lost" will fly in next days in social networks... 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Haiduk

[c3k]

Deleted to comply with Steve's request.

Edited June 17, 2022 by c3k

[Calamine Waffles]

Citing OAN...it's a bit like citing Russia Today.

[c3k]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Guys, can we please stop it.  I find it extremely saddening that we can have hundreds of pages of on-topic political discussions directly related to the war, but pretty much one mild mention of Trump provokes a completely off-topic political fight that has NOTHING to do with this war.

C3K, you say you don't want this thread to devolve into political bickering, yet you are the one that is taking us down that path.  I am asking you to please realize that you are acting against your own stated wishes for this thread.

I am already late for something because of this, which does not make me happy.  I've giving Elvis some instructions to monitor and vacation anybody that keeps things going off track.

Steve

I just read this.

I will only say that I agree that Geopolitical forces push nations in certain directions. The personalities of the leaders are irrelevant. Hence my push whenever I see the opposite being posited.

The exception, of course, is lunacy...such as Putin.

I'll respect your wishes. Your forum.

[Calamine Waffles]

7 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

@Battlefront.com

I've found full interview and something strange in theese numbers: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/6/15/ukraine-to-us-defense-industry-we-need-long-range-precision-weapons

Think about this: one brigade occupies around 40 kilometers of the fence line. That means that to cover the active combat conflict we need 40 brigades. Every brigade is 100 infantry fighting vehicles, 30 tanks, 54 artillery systems — just for one brigade, and we have 40 of them.

I'm not going to talk about the anti-tank guided missiles or anti-tank guided weapons for now. I’m just talking about heavy weapons. As of today, we have approximately 30 to 40, sometimes up to 50 percent of losses of equipment as a result of active combat. So, we have lost approximately 50 percent. … Approximately 1,300 infantry fighting vehicles have been lost, 400 tanks, 700 artillery systems.

That is a mathematical estimation we can make based on the length of the frontline and the intensity of the conflict. So, I'm giving you this estimate just for you to understand how significant the requirement is based on the intensity of the conflict.

That's just silly. Loss rates are going to be highly uneven because the intensity of the conflict is highly uneven across the entire frontline.

[Huba]

15 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

@Battlefront.com

I've found full interview and something strange in theese numbers: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/6/15/ukraine-to-us-defense-industry-we-need-long-range-precision-weapons

Think about this: one brigade occupies around 40 kilometers of the fence line. That means that to cover the active combat conflict we need 40 brigades. Every brigade is 100 infantry fighting vehicles, 30 tanks, 54 artillery systems — just for one brigade, and we have 40 of them.

I'm not going to talk about the anti-tank guided missiles or anti-tank guided weapons for now. I’m just talking about heavy weapons. As of today, we have approximately 30 to 40, sometimes up to 50 percent of losses of equipment as a result of active combat. So, we have lost approximately 50 percent. … Approximately 1,300 infantry fighting vehicles have been lost, 400 tanks, 700 artillery systems.

That is a mathematical estimation we can make based on the length of the frontline and the intensity of the conflict. So, I'm giving you this estimate just for you to understand how significant the requirement is based on the intensity of the conflict.

 

So, this is just estimated, not real number of losses? And another form of presure on West "give us much more wepon"? 

And "Trukha" twitter just pulled from context theese numbers and for the sake of hype "born" sensation. Damn, I figure out, what a level of "everything lost" will fly in next days in social networks... 

Thanks for the explanation, that makes much more sense. I myself wrote here that there's a UA PSYOP going on, and fallen victim to it the next day... 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Huba

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, c3k said:

I just read this.

I will only say that I agree that Geopolitical forces push nations in certain directions. The personalities of the leaders are irrelevant.

For the most part, true.  Which is why arguing that the timing of this war was significantly influenced by either Trump or Biden, in either direction, is flawed.  Putin wanted Ukraine destroyed and why he chose 2022 to do it isn't dependent upon that argument anyway. 

Collectively the West, across many nations and political parties, made some very bad decisions over the past 20 years.  There's literally hundreds of leaders to point fingers at as they all collectively contributed to this mess.

7 minutes ago, c3k said:

Hence my push whenever I see the opposite being posited.

The exception, of course, is lunacy...such as Putin.

Personalities of leaders matter the more power is concentrated.  Putin has almost near total control, therefore it is natural that his personality is more relevant than for other leaders.

7 minutes ago, c3k said:

I'll respect your wishes. Your forum.

Thanks man.  And because I can, I just gave your post a Like.  It's maybe the 3rd I've ever bothered to give out, so quite rare.  You might want to print it out, carefully cut around the edges, and sticky tape it to your chest so that you can impress your friends

Steve

[poesel]

A question: how does the mainstream media report about the war in your country?

Here in Germany its always 'the Russians are attacking', 'the Russians are progressing', 'heavy shelling of UA cities', 'heavy losse for the UA army' and so on. Add to that that they mostly shy away from 'internet' video which cannot be verified and instead take picture from Russian news. To be fair, the Russian video are also accompanied with 'we cannot verify this'. They have only just noticed that there is an UA offensive around Cherson.
That leads many of my fellow countrymen to the feeling that this war will be lost or at least that the UA is currently loosing.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

For the most part, true.  Which is why arguing that the timing of this war was significantly influenced by either Trump or Biden, in either direction, is flawed.  Putin wanted Ukraine destroyed and why he chose 2022 to do it isn't dependent upon that argument anyway. 

Collectively the West, across many nations and political parties, made some very bad decisions over the past 20 years.  There's literally hundreds of leaders to point fingers at as they all collectively contributed to this mess.

I always found the discussion about deterministic vs. voluntarist models of history kinda moot. Narratives build based on both views are valid, none in itself is sufficient to explain anything good enough. 

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

That's just silly. Loss rates are going to be highly uneven because the intensity of the conflict is highly uneven across the entire frontline.

As someone who does a lot of statistical analysis for a living (e.g. Combat Mission!), I absolutely *HATE* not knowing the context of numbers.  It's like when I customer tells me that "your game is broken because my tank blew up".  Er... how about even telling me what type of tank you had there buddy?  What were the conditions that it blew up?  What specifically do you think wasn't right about what happened?  So on and so forth.  More often than not once the facts are discussed the original poster's position is found to be factually flawed and we conclude there is no problem other than player perception.

These numbers that Ukraine is putting out over the last few days are vague to an extreme.  They also are obviously being orchestrated as before we got near nothing and now we're getting multiple sources providing us with similar vague numbers.

My feeling is that Ukraine is telling us the truth, but deliberately taking that truth out of context because they want to present a strong argument for getting the West's collective arse to speed up deliveries of bigger boom-booms because they have a *real* need for it.

In the end Ukraine is not lying to us, but they are not telling us all we need to know to put what they say into context.  However, I believe in the truth of their overall message... they need heavier weapons and they need them NOW and not some day way off in the future.

Steve

[Calamine Waffles]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As someone who does a lot of statistical analysis for a living (e.g. Combat Mission!), I absolutely *HATE* not knowing the context of numbers.  It's like when I customer tells me that "your game is broken because my tank blew up".  Er... how about even telling me what type of tank you had there buddy?  What were the conditions that it blew up?  What specifically do you think wasn't right about what happened?  So on and so forth.  More often than not once the facts are discussed the original poster's position is found to be factually flawed and we conclude there is no problem other than player perception.

These numbers that Ukraine is putting out over the last few days are vague to an extreme.  They also are obviously being orchestrated as before we got near nothing and now we're getting multiple sources providing us with similar vague numbers.

My feeling is that Ukraine is telling us the truth, but deliberately taking that truth out of context because they want to present a strong argument for getting the West's collective arse to speed up deliveries of bigger boom-booms because they have a *real* need for it.

In the end Ukraine is not lying to us, but they are not telling us all we need to know to put what they say into context.  However, I believe in the truth of their overall message... they need heavier weapons and they need them NOW and not some day way off in the future.

Steve

I mean, basically use some common sense: an army that has lost half its material is no longer functional. Russia would be breaking through now in Donbas and probably reaching the banks of the Dnipro river.

I would not be surprised if they are using Soviet accounting to get these numbers, where if a T-64BV got hit and had to be sent back to the factory for repair it counts as a "loss". That's how the Soviets accounted for "losses" in WW2.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[Haiduk]

Russians already have a lack of operative-level UAVs, so forced to "mobilize" such class drones from civil service. UKR forces about week ago already downed Orlan-10, belonged to Emergency Ministry. In that time newest drone S450 Supercam of the same service was jammed and landed. 

S450 can fly 8 hours. Max. range of flight - 560 km, but videotransmiiting is possible only on 80 km. 

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, poesel said:

A question: how does the mainstream media report about the war in your country?

Here in Germany its always 'the Russians are attacking', 'the Russians are progressing', 'heavy shelling of UA cities', 'heavy losse for the UA army' and so on. Add to that that they mostly shy away from 'internet' video which cannot be verified and instead take picture from Russian news. To be fair, the Russian video are also accompanied with 'we cannot verify this'. They have only just noticed that there is an UA offensive around Cherson.
That leads many of my fellow countrymen to the feeling that this war will be lost or at least that the UA is currently loosing.

depends on the source and even then it can be all over the map.  I get a digest of headlines via MSN.  A lot of them are Newsweek/Business Insider/ WSJ, Wash Post and NT Times..  The same grouping can in some articles say something very similar to what you posted and another set say the complete opposite.  a lot of op ed pieces and those you can see the bias of the author and their consistency at either "the sky is falling Ukraine is gonna lose" or "Russia is collapsing".  You can pretty much find a whole slew of articles to support your own viewpoint whatever it may be.  It is like a buffet of headlines.  Pick your favorites.  

[Battlefront.com]

48 minutes ago, poesel said:

You sure this is an AI voice over?

99% sure   It is extremely good, which is why I am not 100% sure.  There are some things that indicate the voice is not a native American English speaker, but they are very subtle.  It's similar to how I can identify a mild Canadian accent from an "standard" American accent yet I doubt many Americans would pick up on the differences.

48 minutes ago, poesel said:

Because I'm getting this in English and wouldn't if that had been in German in first place.

I think the voice is embedded into the video, so everybody gets English.

My understanding is that various YouTubers use AI voices instead of their own either because they can't speak English at all, well enough for their tastes, or because they rather not have their voices made public.

Over the years the AI voices have transformed from decent to extremely good.  The one in that video was about the best I've ever heard.

Steve

[Calamine Waffles]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

My understanding is that various YouTubers use AI voices instead of their own either because they can't speak English at all, well enough for their tastes, or because they rather not have their voices made public.

Over the years the AI voices have transformed from decent to extremely good.  The one in that video was about the best I've ever heard.

I honestly despise these AI voices because I associate them with YouTube ads. I'd much rather hear a real person speak, with accent and all.