How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Well, yeah I remember Girkin predicting last spring that Russia could raise a few "tens of thousands" of volunteers that would get swamped by the Ukrainian horde of millions. I'm sure he was spitballing, but still. I don't know what the number is but several hundred thousand would surprise me.

Including the units dragged from all corners of the Russian Empire (cough, Federation), it could very well be that high.  IIRC the US estimated that 70% of Russia's entire standing ground forces had been moved into Ukraine at some point.  Obviously the conscripts mostly got left behind, but the % of units is still massive.

The other issue is that if Russia has suffered even 100k casualties of all types (KIA would be around 20k, which is the bottom end of estimates by now), this means a starting force of 140k would be at 70% loss.  Obviously that's ridiculous, so let's double that number to take into consideration all that came after... loss rate of 35% for a force of 280k.   That still seems high.  Let's peg it at 20% loss rate.  That means a 500k sized force.

What this means is even if you more than halve the 50k KIA rate you still wind up with about 500k uniformed Russian personnel rotating through Ukraine.

Steve

[chrisl]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There were no defenses around Kyiv or Kharkiv where Russia deployed the bulk of its forces.  They got slaughtered by light infantry.

Not just light infantry.  

A light infantry force far smaller than the mass of invasion forces that they destroyed. Like orders of magnitude smaller for the famous convoy.

 

[Grigb]

Today I hope it will be last day I am away and with the phone only.

Sh*t just got very serious - major RU counter - offensive is imminent. RU tick tokers troops don wil recapture don all lost cities don. They are don ready don to do it don! 

[Aragorn2002]

5 hours ago, cyrano01 said:

Maybe but the West was a bit busy at the time. Taking on the USSR and Nazi Germany simultaneously might have been a bit tricky.

I wouldn't qualify sending weapons to Ukraine (or Finland in 1939/1940 for that matter) and imposing sanctions on Russia the same as taking Russia on. But you're right of course, life is all about priorities.

[sburke]

 

Russian 'Fear of Failure' Helps Ukraine Offensive, Ex-Defense Minister Says (msn.com)
 

Quote

 

Uncertainty among Russia's top military leaders is helping Ukrainian troops push their recent advances deeper into enemy-held territory and is hindering Moscow's response, a former Ukrainian defense minister has said.

Speaking at the Yalta European Strategy summit—organized by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation—in Kyiv, Zagorodnyuk said occupying Russian forces are exhausted and incapable of responding to Ukraine's escalating offensives.

The Russian mentality, he said, is a serious problem for Moscow.

"Fear of failure is one of the biggest drivers for the Russians in this war," Zagorodnyuk said. "They were certain of their superiority over Ukraine, they were so certain that they were going to win, that any mistake they make is much harder for them than it would be for us or for any other nation."

"That's why they don't call this a war," he said. "Because if this was a war and they don't win it, they'll look stupid. They cannot call mass mobilization, they cannot do lots of other things. For us, it's a total war...they are still trying to show it as some kind of regional operation. And that gives us an advantage."

"The generals are afraid to make mistakes, because as soon as the general makes a mistake he is blamed for that," Zagorodnyuk continued. "They stigmatize mistakes."

He added: "That's why, right now, we have a phenomenon where the generals are avoiding responsibility. That leads to the ultimate centralization of decision making, because everybody's trying to push decisions as far up as possible, which in turn kills their ability to make a multi-directional approach. And that's exactly what our armed forces are using."

Moscow's forces have already shown their inability to successfully maintain multiple axes of advance. The initial push towards Kyiv from Belarus collapsed in defeat, though Russian forces found more success in the south. In Donbas, Russia's grinding advance was facilitated by mass concentration of troops and artillery, weakening the lines elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces are inflicting significant defeats on Russian occupiers in the south and northeast simultaneously. Primed for an offensive around Kherson in the south, Russian forces were taken by surprise east of Kharkiv, where a Ukrainian counter-attack has punched deep holes in Russian lines and put tens of thousands of Russians at risk of encirclement.

"The Russians have stopped being competitive, and they're afraid to fail," Zagorodnyuk said. "Honestly, that does not seem like a winning plan."

The mood in Kyiv this weekend is resolutely confident. Six months into the war, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears stuck. Ukrainian forces have momentum, growing international support, and confidence.

"Russia has no chances, because they used all their chances already," Zagorodnyuk said. "They have no room for escalation, they have no room for growth...What we see right now is the Russian maximum. They cannot hire people, they cannot mobilize more equipment."

Russian troops have significant inertia, Zagorodnyuk said, but are steadily degrading. "They can still bring lots of people, but they cannot double their effort," the former defense minister said.

"Their ability to hold what they are holding right now will be less and less," he continued. "They literally have no chance of success."

 

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The other issue is that if Russia has suffered even 100k casualties of all types (KIA would be around 20k, which is the bottom end of estimates by now), this means a starting force of 140k would be at 70% loss.  Obviously that's ridiculous, so let's double that number to take into consideration all that came after... loss rate of 35% for a force of 280k.   That still seems high.  Let's peg it at 20% loss rate.  That means a 500k sized force.

What this means is even if you more than halve the 50k KIA rate you still wind up with about 500k uniformed Russian personnel rotating through Ukraine.

That's a fair assessment, but it circles back to the question of how believable the 50k number is. 50k at 20% loss rate means a million Russians cycling through Ukraine in 6 months. That is why I have been skeptical of the 40-50k Russian KIA numbers.

[FancyCat]

50 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

There were no defenses around Kyiv or Kharkiv where Russia deployed the bulk of its forces.  They got slaughtered by light infantry.

Is that totally true tho? I recall reading that Ukraine after the fact placed a high emphasis on the use of their artillery, some of which was pulled off of training grounds to defend Kiev. 

Non-Paywalled: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/kyiv-battle-ukraine-survival/

From the article, it points out artillery was used effectively to hit Russian bridgeheads and crossings across the flooded plain NW of Kiev, prevented Russia from landing planes during the airborne attack, and scattered and disrupted Russian convoys. Same with Chernihiv, artillery blasted the convoys as they attempted to enter the city. 

Not to say attacks by light infantry didn't hit their supply lines hard, but hitting their platoon bridges, keeping the airfield closed, striking their armored columns, was artillery fire. (and tank fire since 1st Tank Brigade) 

[chrisl]

5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That's a fair assessment, but it circles back to the question of how believable the 50k number is. 50k at 20% loss rate means a million Russians cycling through Ukraine in 6 months. That is why I have been skeptical of the 40-50k Russian KIA numbers.

I suspect the 50K is accurate, and the number that's being overestimated is the WIA:KIA ratio.  Russia has demonstrated absolutely crap logistics for the past 6 months.  Do you believe that they somehow have managed to maintain high levels of battlefield medical support?  They aren't drafting doctors from St. Pete and Moscow, or we'd hear about it on Twitter and Telegram, and anything they fly is into contested airspace.  I don't think I've seen a single image of a helicopter with a red cross on it, or any mention of mobile hospitals.  It's plausible that the WIA:KIA rates are closer to 2:1 or even 1:1 for much of the action.  So they could have a total of 100K casualties that remove men from combat, with half of them KIA because the medical response is so poor that injuries that shouldn't be terminal are.

[FancyCat]

Mind you, a big part of Russian tank losses is due to lack of infantry. Case in point, link goes to a Russian tank column attempting to enter the NE suburb of Kiev, Brovary, wiki states a combo of artillery and infantry AT fire got them to fall back.  

This entire war, lack of infantry has been one of the most serious flaws to the Russian forces, if we ask what Russia could have more of, tanks, artillery, infantry for each stage of the war, every time it comes down to more infantry, even for the latter stages where artillery was just being raked over every itch of the frontline. We have piles and piles of Russian tanks, APCs, IFVs just coming online, being destroyed, and replaced, but the one constant has been lack of infantry.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/tau47c/the_battle_in_the_brovarsky_district_a_top_view/

But why? To counter Ukrainian infantry. And that's why we cannot say tanks are useless, cause this entire war, Russia has deliberately shot itself in the leg. (both legs. and maybe a shot to the gut frankly) 

And if the counter is to point out Russian infantry is useless, sure, but then its the lack of training, in combined arms, in professionalism, the state of corruption of the Russian military that doomed Russia, not per say, lack of infantry. 

Had Russia had more infantry, to counter Ukrainian infantry, Ukraine would have to rely a lot more on their tanks, artillery, and be even more severely punished for lack of armored infantry transport like APCs and IFVs. 

Edited September 11, 2022 by FancyCat

[Taranis]

Some "news" (old) stuff to Ukraine :

Ukraine bought old TRF1 155mm towed guns formerly used by the French Army
 

Quote

The main activity of the company S2M-Equipment, established in Montlouis-sur-Loire, is to restore, even modernize, equipment that has previously been used by the French forces in order to put them on the second-hand market. . Thus, its catalog offers Armored Forward Vehicles [VAB] and ERC-90 Sagaie having found a second youth, as well as P4s, VLRAs and… 155 mm TRF1 towed guns,

While, during a meeting organized in Ramstein [Germany], on September 8, the head of the Pentagon, Lloyd Austin, announced a new military aid of 675 million dollars for the benefit of Ukraine, to which the Kingdom United and Norway have respectively promised the forthcoming delivery of 120 logistics vehicles and 160 Hellfire anti-tank missiles, S2M Equipment should provide the Ukrainian army with TRF1s. This is indeed what Jean-Dominique Merchet, of the daily L'Opinion, revealed.

“These guns are no longer in service with the Army, except for a handful of them in a regiment stationed in Djibouti. Destocked, they were acquired by a broker – the company S2M-Equipment […]. It was from her that the Ukrainians bought the TRF1s, the Ministry of the Armed Forces having “accompanied their certification”, ”said Mr. Merchet.

Such a sale must first be authorized by the Interministerial Commission for the Study of War Material Exports [CIEEMG]. And so she had no objection.

According to key Defense figures, the Army had, on July 1, 2021, a total of 119 155 mm artillery pieces, including 76 CAESAr [Trucks equipped with an artillery system] and an undetermined number of AUF1 self-propelled howitzers [mounted on a tracked chassis] and at least 12 TRF1s, the latter being used by the 5e Régiment Inter-Armes d'Outre-Mer [RIAOM] of Djibouti.

As a reminder, 18 CAESAr were taken from the Army endowment to be donated to Ukraine. An order of 85 million was notified to Nexter in July to replace them.

As for the TRF1, it is a gun with a maximum range of 30 km. Able to be quickly put into action [less than five minutes] and requiring eight gunners, it has a rate of fire of 3 shots in 15 seconds in rapid mode or 6 shots in one minute in “classic” mode. Its tube must be changed every 3,000 shots.

Since the Russian offensive, Ukraine has been able to renew its artillery means thanks to international aid. In addition to the French CAESArs and TRF1s, its army received M142 HIMARS systems, M777s, M270 MLRS multiple rocket launchers, PzH2000, Zuzana and ASH Krab self-propelled howitzers... In addition to those it already possessed, such as the 2S22 Bohdana. The accuracy and range of these lights have visibly changed the game in the field. Thus, kyiv has just reported a breakthrough of the Russian defenses over 50 kilometers deep during the past twenty-four hours.

Source: opex360.com

 

A descriptive of the gun in english page 2 :
https://www.s2m-equipment.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/fiche-canon-155-s2m.pdf

Edited September 11, 2022 by Taranis

[chrisl]

9 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Mind you, a big part of Russian tank losses is due to lack of infantry. Case in point, link goes to a Russian tank column attempting to enter the NE suburb of Kiev, Brovary, wiki states a combo of artillery and infantry AT fire got them to fall back.  

This entire war, lack of infantry has been one of the most serious flaws to the Russian forces, if we ask what Russia could have more of, tanks, artillery, infantry for each stage of the war, every time it comes down to more infantry, even for the latter stages where artillery was just being raked over every itch of the frontline. We have piles and piles of Russian tanks, APCs, IFVs just coming online, being destroyed, and replaced, but the one constant has been lack of infantry.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/tau47c/the_battle_in_the_brovarsky_district_a_top_view/

But why? To counter Ukrainian infantry. And that's why we cannot say tanks are useless, cause this entire war, Russia has deliberately shot itself in the leg. (both legs. and maybe a shot to the gut frankly) 

And if the counter is to point out Russian infantry is useless, sure, but then its the lack of training, in combined arms, in professionalism, the state of corruption of the Russian military that doomed Russia, not per say, lack of infantry. 

Had Russia had more infantry, to counter Ukrainian infantry, Ukraine would have to rely a lot more on their tanks, artillery, and be even more severely punished for lack of armored infantry transport like APCs and IFVs. 

Russia is suffering from a lack of infantry, as well as poor infantry training (never dismount).

But I don't think that would help protect their armor against Ukraine with current equipment. NLAW has a 1 km range, and Javelin and Stugna P can hit at 5 km, which is the horizon for a 6 foot tall person.  All three of those are "If you can see just a little bit of it you will hit it, and if you can hit it you will kill it" weapons.  So the infantry have to be well ahead of the armor if you can count on every enemy squad having a couple NLAWs, or maybe a Javelin with multiple rounds.  Russia is missing the G part of most of their ATMs, so Ukraine is in a much better position for using vehicles in closer support to their infantry.

[Grigb]

Mashkovets made three posts. They are big and requires map. So, unfortunately I will post them later.

Anyway, main points of the posts:

1. Loss of Kupynsk west part and UKR breakthrough to Oskil river was not critical for RU

2. RU thought UKR main objective Izum. They planned to hold Izum and front line by Oskil river and Lyman. Then counter-attack UKR grouping that was trying to assault Izum.

3. But UKR crossed Oskil in unnamed place [probably Senkove], blocked supply route there and made situation worse. Then disaster (for RU) happened.

4. UKR command realising RU plans shifted main effort to North and North East Directions (toward reservoir and Burluk). And UKR hit there hard.

5. This is were RU front collapsed not at Izum. 

6. Facing disaster at North RU command realized that throwing RU reserves in this area wil not dramatically change  difficult situation at Izum any more. So, they decided to play safe and ordered reatreat at Izum, and at long term seems to decide to redeploy from there completely.

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 minute ago, Taranis said:

Some "news" (old) stuff to Ukraine :

Ukraine bought old TRF1 155mm towed guns formerly used by the French Army
 

A descriptive of the gun in english page 2 :
https://www.s2m-equipment.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/fiche-canon-155-s2m.pdf

looks quite a lot like FH70 (already in UKR service). Is this some France modification/variant of that?

[Taranis]

4 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

looks quite a lot like FH70 (already in UKR service). Is this some France modification/variant of that?

Not that I know of. Maybe minor tweaks or engine part changes, things like that.

[Aragorn2002]

I haven't heard much of the Panzerhaubitze 2000. Only a couple of dozens were delivered, so perhaps they haven't made much impact?

[Grigb]

27 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I haven't heard much of the Panzerhaubitze 2000. Only a couple of dozens were delivered, so perhaps they haven't made much impact?

From what I heard they are good and they are being used in current offensive. May be there is ban on publishing info about them? 

[Aragorn2002]

9 minutes ago, Grigb said:

From what I heard they are good and they are being used in current offensive. May be there is ban on publishing info about them? 

That's possible yes. Germany and the Netherlands are keeping a low profile with regard to their military aid for Ukraine. Unlike some other countries.

[Grigb]

Girkin:

1. Yesterday evening and night RU was reatreating from Izum area

2. RU troops were not encircled but rearguard of DPR troops and reserve volunteer units (BARS) fought in operational encirclement [RU sacrificed LPR and BARS units to save regulars]

3. By evening and night UKR controled Northern part of Izum

4. UKR attempts at capturing Lyman are unsuccessful.

5. He have no info regarding North direction [most likely it is so bad he prefers not to discuss it]

6. Kherson - local battles. At Donetsk - heavy arty duels.

[Grigb]

UKR claim they took Dorojnyanka settlement in Zaporozhye (Between UKR Hyliapole and RU Polohi)

[Grigb]

UKR are pushing to Izum from South. Not far from outskirts.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

It's plausible that the WIA:KIA rates are closer to 2:1 or even 1:1 for much of the action. 

Not impossible, but pretty extreme by historical standards.

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Vanir Ausf B

[Cederic]

 

[poesel]

8 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I'd love to learn more about what the Gepards are doing. Because prior to this article the last we heard was that the ammunition painstakingly sourced from Norway didn't work.

Me too. Apart from that video where one turns its turret in front of a bush, I have seen nothing. Anyone stumbled over footage of Gepards in action?

[chrisl]

27 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Not impossible, but pretty extreme by historical standards.

 

If a lot of Kofman's MIA in your link were vaporized in their vehicles, that would be close to 2:1. American Civil war total was ~1:1.3 (more KIA than WIA), but a lot of those were non-combat deaths due to disease, which is probably not killing too many Russians.

[BletchleyGeek]

2 hours ago, chrisl said:

But I don't think that would help protect their armor against Ukraine with current equipment. NLAW has a 1 km range, and Javelin and Stugna P can hit at 5 km, which is the horizon for a 6 foot tall person.  All three of those are "If you can see just a little bit of it you will hit it, and if you can hit it you will kill it" weapons.  So the infantry have to be well ahead of the armor if you can count on every enemy squad having a couple NLAWs, or maybe a Javelin with multiple rounds.  Russia is missing the G part of most of their ATMs, so Ukraine is in a much better position for using vehicles in closer support to their infantry.

Totally agreed. And how often we see an infantry force break through a "modern system" infantry defense (buttressed by heavy machine guns, mortars and grenade launchers) without tank support? Overcoming such a defense quickly would require infiltration to seek surprise and hope for the defenders to lose cohesion and fall back. Or having close air support. Or knowing how to organize the artillery arm to use UAV observation effectively and radically reduce the time lag between the need for artillery support being formulated in the battlefield and the supporting fires zeroing on targets? 

Using superior numbers in infantry when attacking under the modern system is hard. It requires finesse to avoid carnage (and failure).

By the way, infiltration and surprise possibly was the key for the Ukrainian breach of Russian lines, I look forward to read/learn how those early hours played out.