How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, poesel said:

I understand what you are saying here. But as an engineer, I cringe a bit with your mixing up of terms and definitions.

Which ones, specifically?

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, chrisl said:

And it reduces your risk of having the current Russian problem of those tons and tons of HE falling victim to stray butts because big tobacco has infiltrated your country. 

Oh man, @The_Capt and you have been talking together too much.  Please don't stop.

Ref that using stars for location confirmation, was that also envisaged as a back up layer to gps, in case of hostile/natural interefence or action?

Once that database and associated calculation systems/software are built It suggests that future drones could be far less vulnerable to gps jamming. And could also be fine by civilians with enough time, participants and commitment. 

[Kinophile]

Btw thank you to @Grigb.

Your posting of maps and analysis are great. Not getting enough +1s, you are. 

[Haiduk]

Likely SOF or recons, or maybe ATGM-team on the buggy with mounted Milan ATGM

Buggy is enough popular in our troops, though have own specific and pick-ups by the way are more universal. But some units order them. There are several "garage-factories" produce buggies in small series, but one of them proven own success.

Self-employed metalworks specialist Volodymyr Sadyk from Chernivtsi oblast, which has also a hobby of buggy designing for his kids. Whith start of the war has launched manufacturing of several buggy types under own trademark VOLS. Volunteer fund of Serhiy Prytula has been ordering theese buggy for troops and VOLS vehicles got very good feedback. Cheapest model cost about 5000$. Already dozens of VOLS in service.

On the photo Sadyk (right), his doughter Melisa - his "marketing department" and Serhiy Prytula (the guy, who raised 600 millions and bought the SAR satellite) on background of his cars

Early VOLS model with light Korsar ATGM

Later VOLS

 

[Huba]

This originally coming from AP and Washington Post. On top of that, Germany announced a package worth 500M Euro today, that will include 3 IRIS-T batteries.

 

[Beleg85]

If anybody is interested, Rochan consulting published their own free weekly assessment yesterday:

https://rochan-consulting.com/issue-150-15-21-august-2022-weekly-update/

Worth to check especially if somebody want to track Belarus axis.

[Vet 0369]

On 8/22/2022 at 11:22 AM, hcrof said:

Can someone from the "but if only they had good infantry camp" explain how infantry solves this problem? Honestly I can't understand how it is supposed to work.

 

For one thing, one of the main purposes of Infantry in a Combined Arms Attack is to clear and protect the flanks of the armor advance. These are not the days of the WWII Blitzkrieg armored spearpoint when the only infantry AT weapon was the anti-tank rifle. One opponent of mine in the CMx1 scenario “The Library” was stunned when I sent my Axis Infantry through the buildings on either side of the route of my Armor advance. Of course, that was where he had sited his AT Teams and my infantry wiped them out. Combined Arms Operation means everyone supporting each other.

When it comes right down to it, Armor, Artillery, and Air exist for one and only one purpose, to support the mission of the Infantry! 

[sross112]

3 hours ago, chrisl said:

And to get that precision you need a lot of resources - it's not just making a missile with a 5 cm CEP.  You need all the ISR to precisely find targets, the sensors for moving targets, the communication systems to convey that information to the control room or missile, etc.

You still need some mass, or at least ROF+retargeting speed.  Kind of like late in a game of Asteroids when there are a zillion asteroids coming at your one ship - if you can't fire and retarget fast enough, all the precision in the world won't help.  

 

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

3 hours ago, chrisl said:

Precision is a big part of the solution to the energy problem.  The less stuff you need to accomplish the task at hand, the smaller the logistic tail and the less total energy you need, and the less energy you need to haul that energy around.

B.I.N.G.O. And in a war of exhaustion the side that makes better use of energy has what now?

I'm so glad to be able to be part of this board as there is so much insight and technical knowledge here. One of the big themes that we've been discussing for over a 1000 pages is the future of warfare and also how what we are seeing here affects it. I've had a pretty simplistic view of combined arms for a long time, probably because the majority of my reading and wargaming is around WW2. So rock (armor), paper (infantry), scissors (arty). This has been very educational on modern war and I see that it is now so much more complex, like rock, paper, scissors, hedge trimmers, chainsaw, metal pipe, crow bar, machete, etc, etc, etc. 

From what I gather, the single most important factor on the contemporary battlefield is ISR. The side with the best recon is going to be able to dominate the other side even if outgunned and outnumbered. This in itself isn't a new concept but what is new is the scope. With the precision strike capabilities of hundreds of kms you also need the ISR to support those systems. If you don't have that you end up looking like Russia in this war and hitting stuff, well at least trying to, that you "think" "might" be there instead of Ukraine that is hitting stuff that actually is there. The more precision your weapons have and the greater your ability to have good ISR the more effective your campaign will be. Either without a corresponding ability in the other results in a lot of ineffectiveness or wastage of resources. 

Having the accurate deep strike capability with missiles greatly enhances the ability to shape the operational and even strategic goals. If we work our way back from the front lines with priorities of AA, Radars, HQ's, logistics hubs and LOCs/SLOCs and airfields/bases. Several hundred km ranges really presents a plethora of opportunity. Maybe there will be a whole new missile arty arm in the western forces. 

Then you need the air power to gain and maintain air supremacy over the operational area. This shouldn't be hard if you've mastered the first part and reduced their AA capability and probably even air capabilities with missile strikes. With control of the air those assets can target the heavier static stuff with large ordnance and interdict anything that moves. With the good ISR, the rear pounded with missiles and the air controlled it shouldn't be hard to kill any arty within the operational area with your air, arty and missiles. 

That leaves the front lines. ISR again. Any vehicles that aren't basically underground should be able to be targeted and destroyed. The infantry can be degraded but eventually you will have to dig them out with bayonets. Considering the lethality of the infantry AT and AA weapons you aren't going to want to do that with tanks and helos and that is where your ground pounders come in. Highly trained, well equipped light mobile infantry with coordinated heavy supporting elements and great ISR should make short work of the defenders with minimal losses. Then the breakthrough and wholesale destruction of the enemy's rear echelons.

Does this next step fall to the heavy mech forces? I'm thinking that these are just not cost effective with the modern AT weapons. Javelin type weapons that kill MBT's from 4 km away with a 90% probability make our contemporary tanks and IFV's not cost effective. So is the transition back to infantry, fog eating snow, slowly grinding forward, or is our new model of infantry more akin to a rebirth of dragoons? Each squad mounted in a lightly armored, high speed, all terrain capable vehicle with a crew served weapon for each fire team? Each fire team having their drone, Javelin, AA and a crew served weapon for mounted or dismounted support use. Cheaper, more versatile and a much lighter logistic tail than heavy armored formations.  

The problem with this future war is that there is only really one country that can support the military assets needed to wage it. You need to have every facet covered from space on down. It will be hugely expensive and manpower intensive. A coalition might be able to pull it off, but that is only if every member agrees on their role and the ALWAYS agree to fight together so they have all the pieces. 

When you don't have all the pieces you get what we see in Ukraine. Both sides are missing key capabilities and it has shown since the beginning. Ukraine is slowly getting the pieces. When they get the pieces and the right amount of pieces I believe we will witness the wholesale destruction of the RA. 

Well, there's my comblaberation of random thoughts for the week. 

[hcrof]

26 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

For one thing, one of the main purposes of Infantry in a Combined Arms Attack is to clear and protect the flanks of the armor advance. These are not the days of the WWII Blitzkrieg armored spearpoint when the only infantry AT weapon was the anti-tank rifle. One opponent of mine in the CMx1 scenario “The Library” was stunned when I sent my Axis Infantry through the buildings on either side of the route of my Armor advance. Of course, that was where he had sited his AT Teams and my infantry wiped them out. Combined Arms Operation means everyone supporting each other.

When it comes right down to it, Armor, Artillery, and Air exist for one and only one purpose, to support the mission of the Infantry! 

That might have worked 80 years ago, but infantry advancing on foot in Ukraine get cut to pieces by drone directed mortar fire. Armour without infantry gets destroyed by dug in infantry if they are aggressive and by artillery if they are cautious. So for all this talk of combined arms this is why I can't see how more/better infantry solves the problem of the fact that entrenched infantry + drones + artillery seems to be able to repel any attack at the moment and the war devolves into an attritional stalemate. 

Honestly I think a non-US NATO force would do better than Russia in the same situation: they would advance through the first defensive belts but they would still take heavy casualties, run out of momentum due to The_Capt friction then end up playing Grigb artillery ping pong. 

Edit: the US would do better of course, but that is only because of the enormous resources they can throw at the problem.

Edited August 23, 2022 by hcrof

[Harmon Rabb]

7 hours ago, danfrodo said:

yeah, getting back on the front page in US & EU by doing terrorist attacks is only going to get more support for Ukraine.  Good god, RU has been stupid on the international propaganda front.  It's not just incompetent, it's anti-competent, meaning doing exactly the opposite of what they should be doing.  

Kind of ironic that Putin's political career may come to a full circle ending.

He started it by allegedly bombing Russian apartment buildings in 1999 so Russia could launch a successful military campaign in Chechnya.

Now it seems in 2022 the playbook has not changed that much. Trouble for Putin is the world caught on to his tricks and the Ukrainians have the ability to put up much more of a fight than the Chechens did.

[Vanir Ausf B]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

- Military Energy

 

5 hours ago, poesel said:

ok, what is that? Must have missed that in physics.

[sburke]

6 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

 

and I thought he meant Viagra...

[Vanir Ausf B]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

and I thought he meant Viagra...

Would be an explosive combination.

[Kinophile]

Joking aside, I assume his Mil En ref relates to logistics?   ie both the actual energy formats involved (liquid fuel, electrical power generation)  and the resulting organizational momentum?

Interestingly, there's a definite r&dpusb globally into all-electric AFVs.  I believe  AUS has just tested/unveiled a fully electric AFV? 

I wonder if an all-electric armor force is that unfeasible...

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Kinophile

[sburke]

25 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I wonder if an all-electric armor force is that unfeasible...

I think a few questions would need to be answered first.

1.  What is the role now of an AFV?

2.  What does that mean for design specs?

3. what do those design specs require in a power train?

4. What impact will this have on the logistical trail?

That last one has fundamentally changed.  The US has historically been really good at that piece, but in this new world it is questionable how well we can protect it.  It seems technology is going to be directed towards a more distributed logistical model possibly driven by autonomous vehicles supporting a smaller more lethal unit size with more independence and high level access to ISR and a secure battle net to be coordinated with an overall view of the battle space.

In the @The_Capt words.  Mass precision trumps everything.  There are a limited number of players in that space.  Maybe only really one if you plan on an extended campaign.  I am not confident that China over the next couple decades will continue to be able to fuel it's military growth.  At some point a decision may be forced to scale down and focus on an economy that has some real cracks in its foundation.  

On the other hand unconventional warfare now has a whole lot of additional weapons in the tool box and isn't quite as vulnerable to mass precision.  Though hiding a bomb in a prosthetic leg....  A prominent Taliban cleric is killed in an explosion in Kabul : NPR

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by sburke

[chris talpas]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, or specifically my pet theory that this is messaging by the GRU to the RU Nats to tread lightly.

The_Capt... I am absolutely convinced that this was not an FSB inspired false flag 

The other reason I favor this being a GRU op is that it fits better with the agency motivations.  The FSB is responsible for keeping the Russian state together, the GRU is there to serve the interests of the military.  They are NOT the same thing.  So the GRU is not a team player, so it is totally in keeping with them to do something for their own perceived self interests while at the same time harming Russia as a whole.

Steve

On the GRU front, I too was thinking they could have their hand in it.  Who has more incentive to end this sooner than the army which is being systematically ground down?

Quis bono?  Who benefits

i agree the military and its dirty tricks dept are likely culprits
 

I agree this is a message to the nationalists from the army to tone down those drumbeats for escalation?
 

Edited August 23, 2022 by chris talpas
Add latin

[Vet 0369]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Someone probably blew a blood vessel when this happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache.  Let alone whatever all this self loitering stuff is, or missile systems.  Not sure there is much point to that service border anymore, but they tend to go on well past the point of sense.

 

This rivalry between services goes well beyond the bizarre. In the 1980s, a DOD plant representative where I worked asked me to help him develop a joint military specification for aircraft turbine engines (there were three specs at the time, one for each of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force) that basically had different requirements for the same engines. The need developed from an issue with the same engine used on Navy and Air Force airplanes. The Air Force engines were developing corrosion on the turbine blades of the engines, but not the Navy engines. It turned out that the Navy spec required a corrosion preventative coating, that the Air Force choose not to incorporate in their spec because the AF engines weren’t going to be used at sea, but then the AF based aircraft on bases next to the sea and they corroded. The combined spec effort went nowhere because the Army and AF couldn’t even agree on an agenda or need. So much for having the Nation’s interests at heart.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Vet 0369
Dumb typo

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, hcrof said:

So for all this talk of combined arms this is why I can't see how more/better infantry solves the problem of the fact that entrenched infantry + drones + artillery seems to be able to repel any attack at the moment and the war devolves into an attritional stalemate. 

Because warfare is more complicated than just the guys up front meeting up with drones

Think back to the maps of Russian penetrations into Ukraine, especially in the north to the east of Kyiv.  Lots of streaks of red along roads and railroads.  They couldn't take built up urban areas, they could not keep a cohesive front line.  The Ukrainian light infantry (emphasis on infantry) cut them to pieces.  Not only rear logistics slaughtered, but small battlegroups trying to maneuver.  Russia could have had masses of drones and artillery at the ready and the situation would not have been appreciably improved.  The only thing that could have effectively countered Ukraine's infantry was Russian infantry.  And they didn't have it.

Another example was the infamous videos of Russian recon groups poking into Kharkiv.  They had some AFVs (mostly Tigrs) and some infantry.  First scrape they got into caused significant problems because they didn't have the manpower to spread out and effectively neutralize Ukraine's infantry.  They got slaughtered by Ukraine's infantry.

When Russia makes minuscule advances it leaves too many of it's understrength infantry units incapacitated, so that when it goes to do something (including simply occupying what it took) it hasn't sufficient forces available.  And so they either have to wait for more to arrive or they have to withdraw.  More often than not they have to withdraw.

This is including the MASSIVE use of Russian artillery and, in primary points of interest, drones.  Still can't do squat without sufficient infantry.

Think of it this way.  If you look at a WW2 engagement between a Tiger and a Sherman, you'd think "gee, I wonder why the Allies even bother.  The Tiger rules the battlefield".  But when you zoom out you realize that all the places that the Tigers weren't and Shermans were.  You would also want to note that there are weather and logistics considerations for Tigers that don't apply equally to Shermans.  Not to mention muddy season where neither were very useful.

My point is that if you focus on a subset of tactical engagements without looking at the other aspects of the war, then yup... drones + artillery seems to be far more important than infantry.  While I agree that drones + artillery are a MASSIVELY important part of this battle, I'd take more infantry over more of that any day.  I'm sure the Russians would too.  Fortunately, they don't have them available.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

Joking aside, I assume his Mil En ref relates to logistics?   ie both the actual energy formats involved (liquid fuel, electrical power generation)  and the resulting organizational momentum?

Interestingly, there's a definite r&dpusb globally into all-electric AFVs.  I believe  AUS has just tested/unveiled a fully electric AFV? 

I wonder if an all-electric armor force is that unfeasible...

 

First off @sburke deserved the "parking garage lecture", I hope any an all reading this can see that now...and he does not need encouragement.

So the US term is "operational energy", I think it is unspecific (we are talking military application) and too narrow, there is an institutional/strategic component here, Perun has glanced off this in his series.

https://nps.edu/web/eag/operational-energy-essential-knowledge-for-military-officers

https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/OE/OE_index.html#:~:text=The Department defines operational energy,systems%2C generators and weapons platforms.

And it is a parallel part of the overall arms race between nations.

Edited August 24, 2022 by The_Capt

[chuckdyke]

The C of METT-TC if you don't have them on your side, you're as effective as a fish out of the water. Quoting old Chairman Mao. At Market Garden they offered the Telcom Network, which was rejected, the Railways were on strike disrupting German logistics. How would the movement through France, Belgium and the Netherlands have progressed if the population had been pro National Socialist. Lots of it we don't know, history is always written by the victors.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, sross112 said:

 

I'm so glad to be able to be part of this board as there is so much insight and technical knowledge here. One of the big themes that we've been discussing for over a 1000 pages is the future of warfare and also how what we are seeing here affects it. I've had a pretty simplistic view of combined arms for a long time, probably because the majority of my reading and wargaming is around WW2. So rock (armor), paper (infantry), scissors (arty). This has been very educational on modern war and I see that it is now so much more complex, like rock, paper, scissors, hedge trimmers, chainsaw, metal pipe, crow bar, machete, etc, etc, etc. 

From what I gather, the single most important factor on the contemporary battlefield is ISR. The side with the best recon is going to be able to dominate the other side even if outgunned and outnumbered. This in itself isn't a new concept but what is new is the scope. With the precision strike capabilities of hundreds of kms you also need the ISR to support those systems. If you don't have that you end up looking like Russia in this war and hitting stuff, well at least trying to, that you "think" "might" be there instead of Ukraine that is hitting stuff that actually is there. The more precision your weapons have and the greater your ability to have good ISR the more effective your campaign will be. Either without a corresponding ability in the other results in a lot of ineffectiveness or wastage of resources. 

Having the accurate deep strike capability with missiles greatly enhances the ability to shape the operational and even strategic goals. If we work our way back from the front lines with priorities of AA, Radars, HQ's, logistics hubs and LOCs/SLOCs and airfields/bases. Several hundred km ranges really presents a plethora of opportunity. Maybe there will be a whole new missile arty arm in the western forces. 

Then you need the air power to gain and maintain air supremacy over the operational area. This shouldn't be hard if you've mastered the first part and reduced their AA capability and probably even air capabilities with missile strikes. With control of the air those assets can target the heavier static stuff with large ordnance and interdict anything that moves. With the good ISR, the rear pounded with missiles and the air controlled it shouldn't be hard to kill any arty within the operational area with your air, arty and missiles. 

That leaves the front lines. ISR again. Any vehicles that aren't basically underground should be able to be targeted and destroyed. The infantry can be degraded but eventually you will have to dig them out with bayonets. Considering the lethality of the infantry AT and AA weapons you aren't going to want to do that with tanks and helos and that is where your ground pounders come in. Highly trained, well equipped light mobile infantry with coordinated heavy supporting elements and great ISR should make short work of the defenders with minimal losses. Then the breakthrough and wholesale destruction of the enemy's rear echelons.

Does this next step fall to the heavy mech forces? I'm thinking that these are just not cost effective with the modern AT weapons. Javelin type weapons that kill MBT's from 4 km away with a 90% probability make our contemporary tanks and IFV's not cost effective. So is the transition back to infantry, fog eating snow, slowly grinding forward, or is our new model of infantry more akin to a rebirth of dragoons? Each squad mounted in a lightly armored, high speed, all terrain capable vehicle with a crew served weapon for each fire team? Each fire team having their drone, Javelin, AA and a crew served weapon for mounted or dismounted support use. Cheaper, more versatile and a much lighter logistic tail than heavy armored formations.  

The problem with this future war is that there is only really one country that can support the military assets needed to wage it. You need to have every facet covered from space on down. It will be hugely expensive and manpower intensive. A coalition might be able to pull it off, but that is only if every member agrees on their role and the ALWAYS agree to fight together so they have all the pieces. 

When you don't have all the pieces you get what we see in Ukraine. Both sides are missing key capabilities and it has shown since the beginning. Ukraine is slowly getting the pieces. When they get the pieces and the right amount of pieces I believe we will witness the wholesale destruction of the RA. 

Well, there's my comblaberation of random thoughts for the week. 

Yes, yes and damn yes.  The question left on the table is versus the West (with the US at its center...right guys?  No, seriously...right?!) is that a peer war will only come from one place right now, and hence all the heat and light on it - looking eastward.  Everywhere else, the question is "can a lesser power do a war by Denial, like Ukraine, with less?"   Here the details of how much US/Western ISR has actually been handed over to Ukraine, and how much was homegrown/crowdsourced will be very important.  Also as technology accelerates, remember most of what we are seeing is last generation, even HIMARs and Switchblades, and become cheaper - what can a smaller power do with that?  Denial as a strategy - thank you naval warfare - is important as it imposes cost on the west that we frankly will likely not accept.  10000 casualties in ten years we can take, 10000 in a month and I am not sure we have the stomach for it, unless it is existential.   

So the world gets kinda broken into three locations:  Places where we can and will do war, places that we can but won't, and places where we may or may not be able, but if we do, we must.

[chuckdyke]

Interesting reporting from this Polish News.

 

[Huba]

Aged like a barrel of milk and herrings:

 

[chrisl]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Ref that using stars for location confirmation, was that also envisaged as a back up layer to gps, in case of hostile/natural interefence or action?

No idea.  I don't work on that side of things.  But it's pretty simple to figure out what kind of accuracy in stellar knowledge works out to what dimensions on earth.  At the time there were still aircraft that navigated using star trackers (and still may be). Detailed knowledge of stellar positions and motions can also help in precisely locating anything that can do stellar nav, and that in turn can be used to improve the precision of things that are using those things for nav.

[sburke]

48 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

First off @sburke deserved the "parking garage lecture", I hope any an all reading this can see that now...and he does not need encouragement.

I think you just have an inherent fear of parking garages.

On The Best Defense: The Parking Garage - Outdoor Channel

Quote

On The Best Defense: The Parking Garage
One of the scariest places in the world is that dark parking garage. It is a place we all go and we're very vulnerable if we don't pay attention to awareness and avoidance.