How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[panzermartin]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I would say that if the Russians are forced to employ existing underground parking lots as the backbone of their logistics plan, the UA is already winning.  If we start seeing this it is a clear indicator that the deep strike campaign is working.

I guess, unless they have zillions of ammo and they don't care, they should at least try to hide them somehow. 

On the other hand we probably don't get a clear picture of the material losses from distant fires and columns of smoke. (they might not be as huge ) 

[panzermartin]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

To quote Globalsecurity, about the M31 Unitary round:

It won't be effective against purpose-build bomb shelters or other reinforced structures. Those are really quite numerous in older buildings from Warsaw Pact times. But what's to keep in mind is that modern shopping malls in particular are commercial buildings, built to the lowest standard allowed by law, to keep the costs in check. In Poland there was some discussion recently about changing the legal requirements to make this type of structures dual purpose. The ones built up to this point are not up to the task, not by a long shot.

Yes, it's prime strength is not penetration it seems. it would be interesting to see if the Russians can come out with a solution on this or they don't have a clue. 

[akd]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

 Russian armor trying to avoid of artillery strike from UKR 93rd mech.brigade and drove to ravine. The driver of one tank probably made a mistake and the vehicle overturned

... But artillery reached them anyway. Funny that the honor name of 93rd brigade is "Kholodnyi Yar" (literally "Cold Ravine"), so Russian tankers in this ravine became really cold %)

 

At least one of these appears to be a T-90M.

[sburke]

Russia in 'Quiet Mobilization' As 22k Vacancies Show Army Losses: Ukraine (msn.com)

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

I guess, unless they have zillions of ammo and they don't care, they should at least try to hide them somehow. 

On the other hand we probably don't get a clear picture of the material losses from distant fires and columns of smoke. (they might not be as huge ) 

That is not how military operations work...even in the Russian military.  You never have enough of anything, no matter how much.  Russians have a lot of old ammo stockpiles - a lot of that ammunition is very questionable and I would love to see the dud rates for Russian arty right now.  However, that is not what is important, it is their ammo production capability in relation to the burn/output rate.  In a longer war, which everyone is concerning themselves over, we are really comparing an ammo production competition between Russia, and the entire Western World.  Russian stocks, no matter how big, cannot sustain middle-chain attrition such as we are seeing for very long.  And this middle-chain attrition makes the production competition much harder for the Russian side as the West has no such interdiction in its supply chains - beyond the "knee shaking" at the political level.

The military operations are highly complex but the equation is pretty simple: the West needs to keep out-producing, out-supplying and overmatching qualitatively compared to the Russian military until it breaks, the only thing standing in our way...is us. 

The Russians are employing old-school iron mountain logistics, and once again demonstrating a major weakness in concentrated mass on the modern battlefield (Sburke...no!).  Iron mountain logistics has enormous redundancy built in but it relies on being far enough back, hidden or shielded enough from deep strike (see: air superiority).  On a modern battlefield where tactical weapons have ranges we used to rely on aircraft for, and ISR to the point that it is impossible to hide anything...well you see the results: 1 missile = 1 ammo dump.  We, in the west, have been moving to "just in time" logistics to try and remove the iron mountain concept, but that is highly sensitive to disruption...which again is almost a guarantee on the modern battlefield.  In short our concepts of mass are in just as much trouble in a near-peer environment because - logistics.  

All that talk about tanks is just noise, it is the refuelers, ammo trucks, depot system and maintenance that makes mass of just about anything but light infantry particularly challenging.  "But we will have APS and C-UAV!"  Sure, but you now need it the entire length of the operational system (e.g. every fuel truck), and even then we are not close to re-establishing the conditions we have been training and operating in since the end of the Cold War.  Hell, this does not even look like the conditions we trained for during the Cold War.  We have just scratched the surface of unmanned (UGS anyone?) and modern ISR looks like it s choking out at least one principle of war.

This is going to be one crazy ride. 

[Taranis]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

Good points. 

 

Yes, it makes perfect sense thanks for the insight. I was wondering whether the HIMARS has a penetrating mod, in my mind most MRLS are "soft" explosives. And I rembered the theater in Mariupol that people hidden in the lower basement survived a direct hit from aircraft strike iirc. 

Beyond the HIMARS, this can also be a task entrusted to "sniper" guns such as the CAESAR for example.

And then as it could be said previously the car parks being quite rare that would mean even more concentrations of ammunition. A lucky shot and bang, there is no more ammunition at all among the Russians. The comings and goings of the trucks will also raise awareness among the local population who will know that something is going on there (the more ammunition there is, the more trucks there are coming in and going out, etc.) and give the information to the Ukrainian army.
Well seen for the example of Mariupol theater but it seems to me that the basements had been planned as anti-bomb shelters, right? (maybe an error on my part). Finally, a simple act of sabotage of the car park could also be sufficient as was sometimes done by the French resistance during the war (there is a fairly well-known episode, incidentally, the Jonzac ammunition depot, 120 ammunition trains etc, explosions for 3 days!).

I take advantage that we talk about this subject and I see many sources on the internet which deny the effect of the destruction of ammunition depots. The funny thing is that when it's a Ukrainian depot they say Ukraine is going to collapse tomorrow and when it's a Russian depot they don't care because even more ammunition is coming . I don't agree with that at all. Yes it is a long process and the effects may not be seen right away. Maybe the Russians have a lot of other ammunition but until each depot is destroyed, these are ammunition that will not fall on the Ukrainian army and which will not kill Ukrainian soldiers or civilians...
And then, the Russian strategy is currently based on mass artillery. The artillery consumes a lot of ammunition and even more in the case of the Russians so it takes large deposits. Scattering them will make things even more difficult for them. It might reduce their loss but it will necessarily reduce their capacity.
We can also look at history, the Soviet one in particular. The great Soviet offensives (of which the Russians are currently dreaming) such as Bagration, Berlin or even Vistula-Oder required enormous concentrations of ammunition (in whole trains, for months) to allow them to use their artillery tactics in mass. After all, phase 1 of these operations was artillery saturation to create the breakthrough, armor only having to exploit it in the operational phase. No ammunition, no artillery. No artillery, no offensive.
I had also been able to read that the Russian artillery had also played a big role in their ability to stop the Ukrainian counter-offensives of the previous months. Without that and in addition by being beaten even more by the Ukrainian artillery, it will be even harder for them. In a way, such is taken who thought he was taking.

[poesel]

Why don’t we see any videos of destroyed Russian artillery? I remember some from the early days but nothing recent.
Is that OpSec or is the UA not targeting the guns and goes for the ammo instead? And if they are not after the guns - why?

[Harmon Rabb]

23 hours ago, dan/california said:

There will be an outstanding  chance to sort it out at the end of the war. And no shortage whatever of proven veterans who deserve the jobs

Visegrad 24 posted an interesting video today showing Ukrainian soldiers arresting a corrupt traffic cop who was trying to extort a motorist. Nice to see Ukrainian soldiers doing their part to not only fight an invading force but also fight corruption.

 

[Huba]

So according to this listing (which I didn't verify case-by-case, but I recall reading about most cases; it does not include Kherson attacks too), the number of GMLRS strikes is quite intense already. It looks like UA has at least several tens of missiles available every day. I can see it increasing still (maybe going up to 100 -200 missiles/ day? Currently pledged launchers can carry 180 missiles at once in total vs 48 for 8 HIMARS present at the front today.

With US/ Allied stock at around 50K, and Lockheed reportedly being able (working 24/7) to produce 15K annually, this use rate is quite sustainable over long period.

 I remember a twitter post from some time ago, that was ridiculed as way too optimistic, that went along these lines:

- UA will concentrate on hitting the large ammo dumps and high level command centers first

- then fuel storage/ barracks, all other concentrations of materiel/ equipment/ men

- then key rail infrastructure like switching yards and bridges

- then high value single targets like AD/ missile launchers

- and then everything else like single artillery pieces and battlefield targets of opportunity

If the missile supplies keep steady, this "roadmap" seems perfectly plausible to me, as it looks that already items from lines 2 and 3 are part of the strikes ( rail bridge in Kupyansk for example). It is nowhere near Shock and Awe yet of course, but it sure goes in that direction. If that "shaping" of battle space keeps it's pace, the prospects of strategic UA counteroffensive are quite optimistic.

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Huba

[Huba]

14 minutes ago, poesel said:

Why don’t we see any videos of destroyed Russian artillery? I remember some from the early days but nothing recent.
Is that OpSec or is the UA not targeting the guns and goes for the ammo instead? And if they are not after the guns - why?

Here you go, quench your thirst

 

[danfrodo]

A full week out in the wilderness, no news of outside world, rugged terrain where no sane person would ever do a military operation, that's for sure.  I was hoping I'd come back to find Putin had been ousted in a bloody coup that burned down the kremlin.  No such luck.

I reviewed the posts of last few days.  So it seems UKR ceded some territory, arty was heavy on both sides last week.  But last couple days it looks like mountains of RU ammo going up in flames.  That's a nice way to fight an arty war, just destroy the enemy's ammo. 

Anyone have any info on any UKR advances?  Any success over the last week?  I do see UKR lost territory, though it was the expected areas where UKR was untenable and pulled out. 

[dan/california]

8 hours ago, Grigb said:

Nope, I am not - I post like half (often one third) of what I usually go through every day. Sorry, I will cut further. 

No please don't. Butschi's opinion is nowhere close to the average. We more competent translations and interpretations, not less.

[Haiduk]

51 minutes ago, poesel said:

Why don’t we see any videos of destroyed Russian artillery? I remember some from the early days but nothing recent.
Is that OpSec or is the UA not targeting the guns and goes for the ammo instead? And if they are not after the guns - why?

Last days counter-battery fire examples:

 

[Huba]

12 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Anyone have any info on any UKR advances?  Any success over the last week?  I do see UKR lost territory, though it was the expected areas where UKR was untenable and pulled out. 

Movement has stalled mostly, nothing spectacular after retread from Lysychansk. It look like it can change very soon as UA is pushing in Kherson.

In other news, an extremely informative threat about UA armor, really worth reading:

 

[Haiduk]

45 minutes ago, Huba said:

 

 

"Big explosion in Mariuol" was not missile attack, but mistake of Russian sappers, which demined Azovstal territory. Locals wrote something heavy exploded (mayby unexploded large-caliber bomb), by RUMINT 3 sappers were killed

[Butschi]

56 minutes ago, dan/california said:

No please don't. Butschi's opinion is nowhere close to the average. We more competent translations and interpretations, not less.

Ok, ok, I get it, I seriously have to improve my attempts at humor. @Grigb Apologies, I just found it funny when you wrote something like "You didn't even read my posts of today, now go to my profile and read all of them".

Edited July 10, 2022 by Butschi

[hcrof]

7 minutes ago, Huba said:

Movement has stalled mostly, nothing spectacular after retread from Lysychansk. It look like it can change very soon as UA is pushing in Kherson.

In other news, an extremely informative threat about UA armor, really worth reading:

 

That is a really good thread.

I was interested in the effectiveness of HE against tanks. I have always thought that 120+mm HE is a very big bang and even if it doesn't penetrate the armour it will wreck the gun/sights/tracks etc and possibly deafen/injure the crew. At what point does it not matter how much armour you have if people are chucking such huge HE shells at you?

[cesmonkey]

5 hours ago, Grigb said:

Regarding RU replenishing manpower losses/mobilization potential (sorry if it was posted already)

 

It is Tiger battalion to support 155 marine brigade (Far East). 

According to this interview, these are ages of some of the volunteers (Google Translation)
https://www.kp.ru/daily/27416.5/4615321/
 

What is the age of the volunteers?

- Our with you, Alexander. Well, different ages: 50+, there are up to 50 years old - 46, 47.

Volunteers have no age limit - you can join these units until retirement.

Also in this interview:

- Why - "Tiger"? Who came up with it? Governor?

- These are the volunteers themselves - they offered several names, and now they consulted and decided to choose this one.
 

[akd]

It’s pronounced “Tigger.”

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, hcrof said:

That is a really good thread.

I was interested in the effectiveness of HE against tanks. I have always thought that 120+mm HE is a very big bang and even if it doesn't penetrate the armour it will wreck the gun/sights/tracks etc and possibly deafen/injure the crew. At what point does it not matter how much armour you have if people are chucking such huge HE shells at you?

The western fixation with AP rounds always seemed strange to me too, and it was quickly checked as soon as the 120mm generation of tanks was tasked deployed in prolonged conflicts. If we go back to WW2, IS2 and even more so ISU152 were tossing HE at enemy armor, which would result with firepower kill at minimum, and breaking the main welds if lucky. In the thread I linked, there's a critique of modernized tanks with large exposed sights/ optics, which reportedly are routinely taken out by small arms or fragments. I

[Haiduk]

37 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Anyone have any info on any UKR advances?  Any success over the last week?  I do see UKR lost territory, though it was the expected areas where UKR was untenable and pulled out. 

I posted reviews about Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Kahrkiv directions during this week, you can find it )

[OldSarge]

Another Perun video is now up and relevant to the current discussion. 
 

 

[Artkin]

30 minutes ago, hcrof said:

That is a really good thread.

A lot of good stuff:

"10)

@oryxspioenkop

's list contains 60-70% of our equipment and 50-60% of the enemy's."

[Butschi]

I am not sure if this isn't too off topic but since it fits in with "The Future of the Tank (tm)", logistics and future warefare in general... So my knowledge of tanks comes just from war games - IRL I work in automotive industry (mostly AI/ML stuff). For what seems like the 1000th iteration, there was a discussion about about battery electric vehicles (BEVs) vs those with a good old internal combustion engine (ICE). Anyway, someone claimed that  ICEs will be around for a long time because the military will be buying tanks with ICEs for a long time. And I wondered if that necessarily has to be the case.

Given that for trucks batteries are currently not really feasible (because of the weight of the battery), such a battery electric tank (BET?) would have to be really light compared to current tanks. So, some thoughts:

• The current trend seems to go towards light tanks. Does it make sense to think that there while be a change in paradigm from ever thicker (and thus heavier) armour plus reactive components towards active counter measures (like APS and future more advanced stuff)? Such that armour could be scaled down to APC level (protection against small arms fire) and so make BETs feasible?
• An alternative would be to integrate batteries with armour layers, no idea if that can work...
• Several advantages of a BET come to mind:
  • less noise
  • direct access to a large electric power source for e.g.
    • lasers (advanced active counter measures, anti-drone weapons, ...)
    • way more computing power: AI/ML is still in its infancy but can already do a lot. Image recognintion will be an important thing for quickly identifying targets. Humans are really good at that, too but they have limited attention, can usually only focus on one thing and have a built in reaction time of several hundred milliseconds. But generally, the more computing power (GPUs...) you have, the more performant you get but also the more power you need. (<- Captain Obvious?)
  • Instead of the logistics chain needed for refueling, you could tap into the electricity network (if still active) or have independent solar power based forward refueling bases (yeah, a bit scifi but if you have fuel ready, you can still just use a diesel generator, or a small fusion reactor if you really want to go scifi so you basically have more options).
  • smaller heat signature - ICEs are terribly inefficient, so you generate a lot of heat. Electrical engines produce less surplus heat.
• EDIT: If we really go towards BEVs for the civilian mobility sector it ICE driven tanks (and other vehicles) would mean keeping a parallel infrastructure ready purely for the military sector.

Sorry, if too off topic but this kept me thinking for a while. Do my points make at least some sense?

Edited July 10, 2022 by Butschi

[Calamine Waffles]