How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Interesting to see how this can be shutdown by the Ukrainians. 

DPICM

[Huba]

While payments are a problem, I wonder when these rails will need to be closed for repair… On a serious note, this perhaps is aligned with DE to pressure RU to keep the gas flowing.

 

[poesel]

56 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

DPICM

I guess if Ukraine would like to sink those ships, they'd already had done it.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, poesel said:

I guess if Ukraine would like to sink those ships, they'd already had done it.

Yup, that's my thinking.  I doubt the Russians are keeping them going 24/7, so if civilian casualties are a concern (they should be), then smash them at night.

Another thing they could do is some psyops.  Make it known that they intend to destroy the ferries within X days and advise civilians not to use them during this period of time.  This not only (hopefully) reduces the number of civilians that get killed, but it also sends a frightening message to the occupiers...

"we can afford to be generous because we can destroy these things any time we want and there isn't a thing anybody can do about it"

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Grigb said:

Few disadvantages of RU

• Lack of infantry (they cannot sustain casualties from shelling)
• No CB radar, reliance on Orlans and plastering area with MLRS

So, UKR needs something:

• to shell advancing RU infantry to force it break the assault
• It has to be resilient to MLRS strikes.
• On top of that ammo must be cheap and allow quick mass production.    

While I would strongly advocate giving Ukraine mobile short range artillery under any and all circumstances, this isn't what Ukraine needs to counter the Russian advantages.

We've seen, and continue to see, that Russia has a serious shortage of infantry in which to take terrain.  Which is really bad for them because their war is about taking terrain, not killing Ukrainians or holding what they have.

The evidence of how much of a problem this is for Russia has been seen since the first few days of the war and has only gotten more noticeable as the war has gone on.  Over and over again we've seen Russians blow a hole in something and not be able to exploit it because there simply isn't anybody in a physical state to keep the battle going deeper into Ukraine's lines.  Whether that be a operationally significant breakthrough (Izyum, Popasna, Lysychansk, etc.) or some random tactical spot on the battlefield it's the same deficiency. 

The only difference is that with the operational breakthroughs they have enough forces gathered to at least keep momentum going VERY SLOWLY.  The tactical areas, not as much.  This presents Ukraine with a dual solution...

Smash everything that provides motion behind the immediate rear area of a chosen Russian area of focus.  Target all bridges, rail related components, major road junctions, every suspected marshaling area and do it soon as Russia has signals that area is important to it.  This presents major problems for both Russia's artillery fire and moving around infantry resources.

Obviously this is very easy to say and very difficult to do.  But it is what needs to be done.  Ukraine is already doing some of it, but I don't think enough.  155 based PGMs are well within range of these sorts of targets.  If the West hasn't given them enough to make logistics life Hell within a limited geographical area, then get on the phone and get it fixed.  This is a solvable situation with existing weapons systems if they are properly supplied and used in a focused way.

Just my humble opinion

Steve

[Grigb]

2 hours ago, Taranis said:

I don't know if that would really work. Perhaps on a large scale. The advantage is that Ukraine already has VABs.

The problem for a towed mortar like the 120mm RTF-1 is that you have to set-up and perform the orientation phase (where the mortar is relative to north) before you can fire. Without counting that it is still necessary to carry out the spotting phase on the target (FOO and adjustment of the shots). It is a type of artillery which has the advantage of being rustic so easy and fast to put in place but which precisely has the fault of being rustic (more time consumer and less precise). Throughout this period the crew and mortars are exposed to Russian attacks and their artillery. Mortars with a relatively short range are really vulnerable in particular due to the increasingly pronounced spotting by Russian drones. These dangers of counter battery (etc) are on the contrary erased with the CAESAR but this one will always be available only in too small number (approximately 75 in France).

I agree with you, but not ideal yet simple and quick solution now is better than waiting for better solution empty handed. VAB + towed mortar is cheap, quick and low maintenace solution to deploy while waiting for other better solutions.

Now let's discuss the issues you mentioned:

• Speed and accuracy of targeting is solved by pre-deployed Drone team in VAB with HMG. While VAB with mortar is in route Drone team gets drone up and forward. Then the whole aiming procedure is simplifed to get shell on ground and drone team walks mortar to the target. Even missed 120mm shot is a serious cause of concern for enemy infantry became they know what gonna happen next. Plus it is morale booster for defending infantry.
•  RU CB is not on NATO level. It is worse. The guy from TerBat from Pisky explicitly stated that from their side two mortars (120mm and 82mm) are working. For 6 days on heavies hit part of front two towed mortars are still working.  All what you need to know about RU CB.
• Drones are not as dangerous as the public think. They are not ubiquitous. There is a gap in their coverage. Commercial drones RU are using have limited range, limited speed and limited endurance. We are talking about 2 km, 4-5 km at most. And flying far is not a good idea either - there are limits on signal strength as well, there is danger of running out of battery due to an unexpected wind.
• Drone VAB with HMG can be pre-deployed in front of Mortar VAB and engage drones with HMG - tracer fire + adjustment from own drone should push enemy drones far away from Mortar VAB. And even If it targeted by enemy arty it can easily drive away immediately.
• So, RU have only Orlans to track VAB. But they do not have enough of Orlans and they are flying like 10 km from frontline to find 155mm arty. Redirecting them to hunt for mortar VABs like 5-6 km away takes pressure from 155mm guns for CB. It is good as well. 

So, now more VABs, more mortars, more drones, more mortar shells. Then more tracked mortar carriers. Then more 155mm. This is my humble opinion.

[Huba]

5 minutes ago, Grigb said:

So, now more VABs, more mortars, more drones, more mortar shells. Then more tracked mortar carriers. Then more 155mm. This is my humble opinion.

UA should be getting as much NATO artillery as possible/ can be supplied with shells, why it isn't happening is beyond me. Sure they got a lot, but compared to needs it is still a drop in the ocean, maybe 1/4of what would be needed to replace the soviet types in the line units. The gap seems to still be huge.

[Grigb]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

While I would strongly advocate giving Ukraine mobile short range artillery under any and all circumstances, this isn't what Ukraine needs to counter the Russian advantages.

We've seen, and continue to see, that Russia has a serious shortage of infantry in which to take terrain.  Which is really bad for them because their war is about taking terrain, not killing Ukrainians or holding what they have.

The evidence of how much of a problem this is for Russia has been seen since the first few days of the war and has only gotten more noticeable as the war has gone on.  Over and over again we've seen Russians blow a hole in something and not be able to exploit it because there simply isn't anybody in a physical state to keep the battle going deeper into Ukraine's lines.  Whether that be a operationally significant breakthrough (Izyum, Popasna, Lysychansk, etc.) or some random tactical spot on the battlefield it's the same deficiency. 

The only difference is that with the operational breakthroughs they have enough forces gathered to at least keep momentum going VERY SLOWLY.  The tactical areas, not as much.  This presents Ukraine with a dual solution...

Smash everything that provides motion behind the immediate rear area of a chosen Russian area of focus.  Target all bridges, rail related components, major road junctions, every suspected marshaling area and do it soon as Russia has signals that area is important to it.  This presents major problems for both Russia's artillery fire and moving around infantry resources.

Obviously this is very easy to say and very difficult to do.  But it is what needs to be done.  Ukraine is already doing some of it, but I don't think enough.  155 based PGMs are well within range of these sorts of targets.  If the West hasn't given them enough to make logistics life Hell within a limited geographical area, then get on the phone and get it fixed.  This is a solvable situation with existing weapons systems if they are properly supplied and used in a focused way.

Just my humble opinion

Steve

Hitting RU targets with PGM is good. But it requires time. Time UKR are buying now with bodies. Do not underestimate the seriousness of the situation (I did read both UKR posts in full. It is concerning). Yes, in grand scale their losses might not be that big. But their losses are not insignificant either. 

So, I do agree with you that PGMs are essential but I prefer waiting for their effect while smashing evil with 120mm rain.

[Haiduk]

@sburke

"Colonel" Olha Kachura (callsign Korsa), commander of reactive artillery battalion of 3rd MRB "Berkut" of DPR (deploys in Horlivka). Got lost Aug 3. Because of 3rd MRB fights on Bakmut direction, likely this happened there.

Kachura served in UKR police in Donetsk, in the rank of police lt.colonel was fired in 2011. Collegues described she was  "rare f....g beast", brutal drunkard, boasted ties with higher officials. Since 2014 she was actively participated in pro-russian uprising. Later studied in St.Peterburg on artilelry officer, was Grad battery commander, then deputy commander-chief of the staff of Grad battalion and at last battalion commander. Cynically told, how her Grads shelled on civilians like "Ukranians", also she told she "feels a delight, when kills Ukrainians". UKR court sentenced her in absentia to 12 years of prison. Well, at last this drunken b...ch departed to hell... 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Haiduk

[Grigb]

Just now, Huba said:

UA should be getting as much NATO artillery as possible/ can be supplied with shells, why it isn't happening is beyond me. Sure they got a lot, but compared to needs it is still a drop in the ocean, maybe 1/4of what would be needed to replace the soviet types in the line units. The gap seems to still be huge.

I do not know as well. May be NATO is holding for the stock of tube or shells in case of WW3. May be not. So, let's throw at the enemy something cheaper and simpler. It is worse but it is better than harsh words and bodies. 

[Taranis]

17 minutes ago, Grigb said:

I agree with you, but not ideal yet simple and quick solution now is better than waiting for better solution empty handed. VAB + towed mortar is cheap, quick and low maintenace solution to deploy while waiting for other better solutions.

Now let's discuss the issues you mentioned:

• Speed and accuracy of targeting is solved by pre-deployed Drone team in VAB with HMG. While VAB with mortar is in route Drone team gets drone up and forward. Then the whole aiming procedure is simplifed to get shell on ground and drone team walks mortar to the target. Even missed 120mm shot is a serious cause of concern for enemy infantry became they know what gonna happen next. Plus it is morale booster for defending infantry.
•  RU CB is not on NATO level. It is worse. The guy from TerBat from Pisky explicitly stated that from their side two mortars (120mm and 82mm) are working. For 6 days on heavies hit part of front two towed mortars are still working.  All what you need to know about RU CB.
• Drones are not as dangerous as the public think. They are not ubiquitous. There is a gap in their coverage. Commercial drones RU are using have limited range, limited speed and limited endurance. We are talking about 2 km, 4-5 km at most. And flying far is not a good idea either - there are limits on signal strength as well, there is danger of running out of battery due to an unexpected wind.
• Drone VAB with HMG can be pre-deployed in front of Mortar VAB and engage drones with HMG - tracer fire + adjustment from own drone should push enemy drones far away from Mortar VAB. And even If it targeted by enemy arty it can easily drive away immediately.
• So, RU have only Orlans to track VAB. But they do not have enough of Orlans and they are flying like 10 km from frontline to find 155mm arty. Redirecting them to hunt for mortar VABs like 5-6 km away takes pressure from 155mm guns for CB. It is good as well. 

So, now more VABs, more mortars, more drones, more mortar shells. Then more tracked mortar carriers. Then more 155mm. This is my humble opinion.

I agree with you regarding the quality of Russian counter-battery. For me, they are generally known (including in other subjects) to have a reactivity, shall we say, less than that of NATO.
 
I feel really concerned by these helpless Ukrainian losses in the face of Russian artillery and it is also my Western military vision that leads me to tell myself that everything must be done to put the crew in danger to a minimum.

I'm skeptical about the ability of a VAB HMG to be able to shoot down a drone quite easily. However, I suppose you imagined this one also equipped with a MANPAD as for the batteries of HIMARS.

Like Steve, I imagine more of a priority from an operational point of view the importance of the 155mm on the ammunition depots to silence these Russian guns.

In any case, we all agree that it is urgent for Ukraine to receive new guns and whatever, there is a way he can help.

[Taranis]

7 minutes ago, Huba said:

UA should be getting as much NATO artillery as possible/ can be supplied with shells, why it isn't happening is beyond me. Sure they got a lot, but compared to needs it is still a drop in the ocean, maybe 1/4of what would be needed to replace the soviet types in the line units. The gap seems to still be huge.

I guess every country is more or less worried about the future turn of things and realizes that our armies are not ready for what is happening and what might happen. Given that most Western countries are in the process of massive rearming, giving up equipment that is already quite rare for them is perhaps a problem because it would weaken the units. I take the example of the CAESARs (pure random example... ), France has about 75 of them at the base and gave up about 18 of them, which is still 1/4 of our guns. Which is still significant. From memory, we will not redistribute our initial quantity before 2023 or 2024. So in other words, increasing the size of our fleet is not for now

[Haiduk]

UKR artillery strikes on Russian supply convoy on Russian territory near Sereda village, Belgorod oblast. This is 2 km from UKR border in Kharkiv oblast (Ternova village is closest). Clained 7 trucks hit, but from the video it's unclear.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Haiduk

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, Taranis said:

I guess every country is more or less worried about the future turn of things and realizes that our armies are not ready for what is happening and what might happen. Given that most Western countries are in the process of massive rearming, giving up equipment that is already quite rare for them is perhaps a problem because it would weaken the units. I take the example of the CAESARs (pure random example... ), France has about 75 of them at the base and gave up about 18 of them, which is still 1/4 of our guns. Which is still significant. From memory, we will not redistribute our initial quantity before 2023 or 2024. So in other words, increasing the size of our fleet is not for now

Well, you supposedly have a lot of the old tracked stuff laying around, don't you? But this isn't really what is needed, what is needed are M198s from the US desert, there's enough for 3 UA armies AFAIK. I don't see why we (the EU/ NATO) shouldn't just buy them off Uncle Sam's hands and deliver to UA, should be rather affordable...

[Taranis]

Finland seized military equipment at Russian border
"Finnish customs have announced the seizure, at the border with Russia, of goods that could strengthen Moscow's "industrial and military capacities" and others subject to international sanctions: various luxury goods hit by European sanctions as well as that goods that may have military use, "such as tools used in maritime traffic" have been detected, said the customs authority. “There are also drones as well as objects that we cannot comment on at the moment,” customs enforcement director Mikko Grönberg told Agence France-Presse.

The seizures come as Finland mulls possible Russian visa restrictions, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine and ensuing Western sanctions. More than 2,500 checks were carried out between July 22 and 27 and nearly a hundred similar cases arose, of which about twenty are "under preliminary examinations", the customs administration said in a press release. ."

Source : Le Monde

[Taranis]

3 minutes ago, Huba said:

Well, you supposedly have a lot of the old tracked stuff laying around, don't you? But this isn't really what is needed, what is needed are M198s from the US desert, there's enough for 3 UA armies AFAIK. I don't see why we (the EU/ NATO) shouldn't just buy them off Uncle Sam's hands and deliver to UA, should be rather affordable...

Yes, of course there are all those old AMX-30s, AUF-1s, AMX-10Ps, but maybe they're not in good enough condition or they just want to keep them just in case. I do not know. It was just a guess. I feel like you this impression that we are not doing enough to help them...

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Taranis said:

Yes, of course there are all those old AMX-30s, AUF-1s, AMX-10Ps, but maybe they're not in good enough condition or they just want to keep them just in case. I do not know. It was just a guess. I feel like you this impression that we are not doing enough to help them...

One thing that was casually mentioned by Arestovych and some other UA politicians a few times is that the actual "big" lend-lease (as opposed to US presidential drawdowns, and donations from other allies) will start kicking in at the end of summer. What is also a bit telling is that UA absolutely stopped sending the message that they need more stuff (except fro new capabilities like ATACMS/ aircraft). There's more and more mentions about it being a long war (i.e. taking longer than end of this year). When looking at the state RU is in, it is hard to imagine them continuing for 12 more months, but perhaps this would be the actual plan? Cause if not, what we can expect is one more big fight (perhaps Kherson/ the south) in next months, after which negotiations will have to commence. I really hope West plans for other contingencies too.

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, Taranis said:

I'm skeptical about the ability of a VAB HMG to be able to shoot down a drone quite easily. However, I suppose you imagined this one also equipped with a MANPAD as for the batteries of HIMARS.

Yes, against Orlans LMM is good to have. But realistically there is no way UKR can equip mortar batteries with them. They must be reserved for 155mm.

HMGs are to keep smaller drones away (and fend off occasional RU recon parties). Right now both sides either try to scare them away either with EW rifles or small arms fire to negligible effect. To give you an idea this is how close they get:

 

This is normal observation range

 

This is the range when UKR soldiers pushed drone away with small arms.

So, HMG with tracer fire and own drone is better than what is used now on frontline (20mm or 30mm obviously better but you cannot strap it on VAB easily).

And bonus - RU mortars are trying to hit VAB van.

It is an unarmored Soviet van. It was 5 minutes under drone adjusted to 120mm mortar fire, picked up soldiers and got away (though not far due to the ambush).

[Taranis]

18 minutes ago, Huba said:

One thing that was casually mentioned by Arestovych and some other UA politicians a few times is that the actual "big" lend-lease (as opposed to US presidential drawdowns, and donations from other allies) will start kicking in at the end of summer. What is also a bit telling is that UA absolutely stopped sending the message that they need more stuff (except fro new capabilities like ATACMS/ aircraft). There's more and more mentions about it being a long war (i.e. taking longer than end of this year). When looking at the state RU is in, it is hard to imagine them continuing for 12 more months, but perhaps this would be the actual plan? Cause if not, what we can expect is one more big fight (perhaps Kherson/ the south) in next months, after which negotiations will have to commence. I really hope West plans for other contingencies too.

All the ingredients for a long war are there. Just by talking about the artillery towards Prisky as with GrigB earlier, we would think we were during the First World War. Almost everything is fixed, more or less mobile and we return to a war of position where each side is unable to break the impasse. Personally, I think that unless there is a Russian collapse for political or other reasons, the conflict is likely to last for several years.

[chrisl]

11 minutes ago, Taranis said:

All the ingredients for a long war are there. Just by talking about the artillery towards Prisky as with GrigB earlier, we would think we were during the First World War. Almost everything is fixed, more or less mobile and we return to a war of position where each side is unable to break the impasse. Personally, I think that unless there is a Russian collapse for political or other reasons, the conflict is likely to last for several years.

It's something of a war of attrition, but Russia will eventually have a harder time with materiel attrition, since they're being sanctioned and don't have a steady outside supplier of equipment.  Given the Russian situation now, if they don't figure out a way to put more, and more effective, troops into the line it sort of will come down to their artillery shell production and transport rate: can they produce shells as fast as they need to use them to flatten Ukraine so that their limited ground force can walk up to the next line?  And can Ukraine continue to destroy that ammunition before it gets fired at them and/or stretch out the supply line far enough that Russia doesn't have enough trucks to bring in powder and shells, even if they can manufacture it.

Russian is on a backward path technologically - it's not like they've developed some modern manufacturing system for all their war materiel and have been cranking out updated stuff at high rates.  They're mostly burning through the enormous supply of old soviet equipment that they were left with, and they don't have the means to replace it.  Some of it was even manufactured in Ukraine, and they're going to find maintaining any modern manufacturing equipment that they have harder and harder as this goes on.  They can get some help from China, but it doesn't look like they're going to get a lot.

[FancyCat]

Jeez. I mean one person being ****ty does not make a trend but goddamn, I'm not sure why they couldn't take him.

Edit: obviously, I don't have that much sympathy considering his part in a genocidal war. It's just interesting how they don't even make some attempt at respect or feigning it.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by FancyCat

[Huba]

15 minutes ago, chrisl said:

It's something of a war of attrition, but Russia will eventually have a harder time with materiel attrition, since they're being sanctioned and don't have a steady outside supplier of equipment.  Given the Russian situation now, if they don't figure out a way to put more, and more effective, troops into the line it sort of will come down to their artillery shell production and transport rate: can they produce shells as fast as they need to use them to flatten Ukraine so that their limited ground force can walk up to the next line?  And can Ukraine continue to destroy that ammunition before it gets fired at them and/or stretch out the supply line far enough that Russia doesn't have enough trucks to bring in powder and shells, even if they can manufacture it.

Russian is on a backward path technologically - it's not like they've developed some modern manufacturing system for all their war materiel and have been cranking out updated stuff at high rates.  They're mostly burning through the enormous supply of old soviet equipment that they were left with, and they don't have the means to replace it.  Some of it was even manufactured in Ukraine, and they're going to find maintaining any modern manufacturing equipment that they have harder and harder as this goes on.  They can get some help from China, but it doesn't look like they're going to get a lot.

Might very well be that way. It is a nasty and costly way to fight, but it is rather less risky than trying dramatic, war winning offensives. The new reserves corps UA is creating might very well not be used for offensive, but just as a reserve, to make sure RU will never be able to break through at any point. It will allow rotating and refitting the rest of the forces too, a crucial capability in the attrition scenario. In the meantime, GMLRS does it work, more western weapons appear on the battlefield etc, while RU struggles more and more. Some issues with this approach though:

- UA could use a win politically, to show everyone they are capable of winning this

- liberating occupied territories is the main objective, leaving them in RU hands means more and more atrocities will happen there

- UA economy is going down the drain. RU is too, but at least for now UA is hurting more I think. Hopefully the West has enough resolve to prop UA as long as it is needed...

IMO we well see something in between the purely attritional, WW1 type slugfest and proper war of maneuver, meaning there will hopefully be a moment when UA will be able to hit the RU house of cards hard enough for it to collapse, and then we'll see fast movement and retaking territory. There's no way either side could achieve success by taking territory the way it is happening now, there's not enough men/ materiel for it on either side.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Huba

[panzermartin]

15 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Jeez. I mean one person being ****ty does not make a trend but goddamn, I'm not sure why they couldn't take him.

 

Where is that? Kherson, or Russia? This is really sad and sorry the driver is an inhuman piece of meat no matter what the unfortunate soldier was involved in.

[FancyCat]

2 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Where is that? Kherson, or Russia? This is really sad and sorry the driver is an inhuman piece of meat no matter what the unfortunate soldier was involved in.

Russia according to Kherson cat.

[panzermartin]

Maybe an example of the sheeps russians are then, they didnt question the authority (driver) and nobody came in the defense of the disabled. Pathetic.