How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Maquisard manqué said:

Not thought/seen that comparison before… So what is the relative cost and logistics or maintenance tail requirement for precision indirect fire vs armour?

Can armour be realistically defended against such weapons through inbuilt systems? Or would it require combined arms to resist precise indirect fire (as has been discussed here already)?

I am not sure to be honest.  My gut tells me "a lot less".  Heavy - I am talking about an entire military system, so F ech in on tracks (IFVs and tanks), SPGs, armored engineers, A1/A2 are also on tracks.  Logistics is hardened but wheeled.  Building that en masse is extremely logistically stressful and really hard to project quickly.   For example, a modern US Armd Division uses 600,000 gallons of fuel per day (https://www.forbes.com/2008/06/05/mileage-military-vehicles-tech-logistics08-cz_ph_0605fuel.html?sh=5ee30ace449c) at 6 pounds per gallon, that is 3.6 million pounds or about 1800 tons, per day.  That is just fuel, there is ammo, maint supplies and spare parts, spare equipment, food and water for troops etc.

So the problem with heavy is, well, it is heavy. And that logistical tail is vulnerable, hard to hide and long if we are attacking, and we love to attack.

Precision systems might be inside that Heavy formation, but that might be putting weight on something that doesn't need it.  If they have the range and are linked into ISR, like the UA HIMARs, you need less fuel, ammo and vehicles to get effect because every round hits from a long way away.

As to armor or heavy, the question really is, well if I can do what it does lighter and with less logistical stress - why wouldn't I?  Strongpoint keep getting brought up - well precision weapons systems can hit a strong point from kms away, like it was a bridge in Kherson.  So if I can go lighter and hit like heavy with precision, why do I need heavy?

How to defend heavy?  That is  the real problem.  As to today, you cannot beyond getting rid of it, or eroding your opponent to the point they are no longer a threat to it.  Also remember you have to protect its entire logistical tail as well or you wind up with very expensive paperweights...the RA did exactly that several times in this war.  There comes a point where the cost to protect the thing outweighs what we get out of it. 

The most common argument for the mighty tank I have heard is that "there will be tanks until something comes along that can provide the same capability".  This is so narrow that it borders on nonsensical. The capability a tank delivers could be delivered by multiple integrated systems so it is disaggregated across them and not a single "thing".  Further if the employment costs of armor get too high, we will simply figure out how to live without them until we develop a replacement technology(ies)…just like we did with cavalry.  The question is not "is the tank dead or alive?", the question is "are we entering into a capability gap phase of warfare?"  If so will it be symmetrical?  How fast can we close that gap and how?  Those are the real questions.

I honestly think what we may see is a bunch of light/medium formations/units buzzing around, linked to precision deep strike and doing a lot of damage damage, and then something too hard for them to handle comes up, even with precision weapons...and like a cave troll, you then bring up the heavy and have light go long and wide to protect it while it pounds away...rinse and repeat.

[Huba]

Huge grain of salt for now, but too big not to mention. UA GS was reporting RU "leaving some settlements", so... 

 

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Putting on my rosy tinted glasses here; if the Russian Federation shows signs of crumbling, could we make lifting of sanctions contingent on mutual control over the nukes and start a new round of deescalation? The Russian nukes are controlled and successively decomissioned (maybe not fully to be realistic) and the West follows suit to some extent.

I like the idea but we need a functioning central authority that actually has control of them first.  There are all sorts of de-escalation schemes we could try but if we get a dozen fractured sub-states/duchys/whatever and 6000 nukes floating around then everything get so much worse.  My honest bet that if it comes to it, we will see a UNSCR happen pretty quick as the grown-ups rush into to secure them, but my that has breathtaking points of failure.

[billbindc]

57 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's an interesting bit of interesting speculation.  Remember when we discussed the reports that the US helped Ukraine with its plans for an offensive and the US talked Ukraine out of doing something larger than Kherson?  We thought that was a little odd to get out there in the open.  Well, it's not so odd if it was part of a deliberate disinformation campaign:

Steve

There will be some very interesting books written long after this war that will reveal the level of planning and integration between the US/NATO/Ukraine in the conduct of this war. 

[sburke]

9 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

WTF?

 ...during a visit to Kyiv, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had conveyed Joe Biden’s message about the need to start negotiations with Putin.

MoD Reznikov:

Kyiv is not accepting Western partners’ recommendations to start "peace" talks with the Russian Federation and demands a complete end to the occupation of Donbas and Crimea.

The options ‘as of 24 February’ no longer exist. It must be as of 1 December 1991 [Ukraine’s internationally recognised state borders]. Go out," concluded Reznikov [Reznikov used English when saying the words "Go out" - ed.].

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/10/7366954/

 

I wouldn't read too much into that.  The US is fully committed to Ukraine.  This could be just f'n with Russia.  It all doesn't matter until Russia actually cracks and realizes the game is up and they need peace more than Ukraine.

[akd]

Claims on both RU Telegram and from UKR officials that Russian forces have pulled out of Svatove, Luhansk Obl.  Maybe confusion based on repositioning forces, but if true, then their defense along the Oskil north to the border is already collapsing.

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by akd

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

I wouldn't read too much into that.  The US is fully committed to Ukraine.  This could be just f'n with Russia.  It all doesn't matter until Russia actually cracks and realizes the game is up and they need peace more than Ukraine.

"We are crazy and they donn't have any control over us!" seems to be the message. 

[danfrodo]

Over 5 pages to review when I got down to PC this morning.  Wow, great news, great discussions.  Y'all are really quite something.

Huba posts video of huge burning fuel dump in Belgorod -- end the war you fools!

We've had collapse, started local then snowballed to an entire front -- which is what we've always hoped would happen.  Weakened sector gets hit and while some pockets tried to hold out, were left stranded as all neighbors ran away.  Cascading disaster.  Now we're getting reports of RU troops fleeing behind the new front and on other fronts.  Is the bad news reaching other fronts and causing already brittle morale to shatter? 

And this is only the opening band!  The headliner is Kherson, where a much greater force is stranded and has no way out.  Even the most brainwashed are gonna have a hard time keeping their denial systems intact when this disaster happens. 

And once again in human history, the needs/desires of one man take precedence over the needs of millions (~150 million in this case).  Some space alien watching this has got to be saying "WTF is wrong w these creatures?  They actually have intelligence yet they accept this kind of insanity, over & over & over again".

[billbindc]

14 minutes ago, sburke said:

I wouldn't read too much into that.  The US is fully committed to Ukraine.  This could be just f'n with Russia.  It all doesn't matter until Russia actually cracks and realizes the game is up and they need peace more than Ukraine.

Blinken is doing exactly what the US should...showing the world that our side of this war will entertain reasonable talks. That does not in anyway push Ukraine into anything and Ukraine too is doing what they should...showing the world the strength of their resolve. 

Also, there's plenty of discussion of how to end this war behind the scenes and part of that discussion is about whether or not Ukraine really wants or needs the LDR/DNR territories back. The rebuilding program when this is all over is going to be massive and those places will require a lot of it. While the population is going to transfer in part back to Russia if this all collapses, not all will and many will be quite hostile to the Ukrainian government. 

What you are seeing from Ukraine and Blinken is careful positioning. That's all.

[Haiduk]

UKR troops in Vovchansk

 

[Huba]

30 minutes ago, sburke said:

I wouldn't read too much into that.  The US is fully committed to Ukraine.  This could be just f'n with Russia.  It all doesn't matter until Russia actually cracks and realizes the game is up and they need peace more than Ukraine.

What officials say:

 

[chrisl]

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The most common argument for the mighty tank I have heard is that "there will be tanks until something comes along that can provide the same capability".  This is so narrow that it borders on nonsensical. The capability a tank delivers could be delivered by multiple integrated systems so it is disaggregated across them and not a single "thing".  Further if the employment costs of armor get too high, we will simply figure out how to live without them until we develop a replacement technology(ies)…just like we did with cavalry.  The question is not "is the tank dead or alive?", the question is "are we entering into a capability gap phase of warfare?"  If so will it be symmetrical?  How fast can we close that gap and how?  Those are the real questions.

I honestly think what we may see is a bunch of light/medium formations/units buzzing around, linked to precision deep strike and doing a lot of damage damage, and then something too hard for them to handle comes up, even with precision weapons...and like a cave troll, you then bring up the heavy and have light go long and wide to protect it while it pounds away...rinse and repeat.

I've been thinking about this for a while from the technology side and what you really have to do is ask what the tank does for you and how to replace it, like you did here.  And then reframe the question in those terms.  I think the real question is "What's the future of direct fire for ground forces?"  The "ground forces" part is important because we've already seen direct fire disappear in the Navy (WW II was the transition), and in the Air Force, where if you see the enemy plane visually before it's smoking on the ground you probably effed up somewhere.  It hasn't happened on the ground because, as I think you pointed out, war always comes down to a guy in a hole in the ground with a gun.  Somebody has to actually take and hold areas, and it's that guy and his friends.  

Tanks are just a way to bring fire against that guy in the hole, because until recently, indirect fire was imprecise enough that clever guys can make their holes in the ground fancy enough that when the "boom" stops they can come back out with their guns to defend the hole against the other guys who want to sit in them.  But modern tech is at a point where we can almost identify all the holes with remote sensors (air and space) and send each hole its own targeted munition.  Tanks are/were a way to bring up HE for addressing harder defenses and masses of guys, mobile MG pillboxes for addressing moving masses of guys, and AP sources for addressing the tanks that are there to do the same things to your guys.  But it's also a big heavy target with a very demanding logistical tail, and you have to protect the tail as effectively as the tank or you just have big monument to build a park around when it breaks down or runs out of fuel.  And now every squad (in some armies) is carrying a missile that can destroy that tank from the horizon just by pointing in the general direction and pushing a button.  

A swarm of loitering munitions with long dwell time can supply the targeted HE on-demand.  Or a MLRS with PGMs if you need a lot of bang a little slower.  Drones are at a point where they can knock on the door of a bunker like a land shark and wait til you open the door before blowing up.

A swarm of lightly armored UGV with swappable modules can provide a lot of the other services:

• MG without a head that has to be kept down.
• CIWS for defending against the other guy's loitering munitions
• Rocket launcher for close (a 100 m up to a few km over the horizon) fire against various targets, including residual tanks
• Rescue vehicle to get the guys in the hole out to medical care quickly
• Contribute to the Borg spotting network, because it can have eyes in every direction at all times.

[The_MonkeyKing]

42 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

WTF?

 ...during a visit to Kyiv, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had conveyed Joe Biden’s message about the need to start negotiations with Putin.

MoD Reznikov:

Kyiv is not accepting Western partners’ recommendations to start "peace" talks with the Russian Federation and demands a complete end to the occupation of Donbas and Crimea.

The options ‘as of 24 February’ no longer exist. It must be as of 1 December 1991 [Ukraine’s internationally recognised state borders]. Go out," concluded Reznikov [Reznikov used English when saying the words "Go out" - ed.].

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/10/7366954/

 

I one were to take this in good faith: Negotiations are always good, doesn't mean anything has to be agreed on. Like the negotiations when the war started...

[kraze]

46 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Putting on my rosy tinted glasses here; if the Russian Federation shows signs of crumbling, could we make lifting of sanctions contingent on mutual control over the nukes and start a new round of deescalation? The Russian nukes are controlled and successively decomissioned (maybe not fully to be realistic) and the West follows suit to some extent.

No "mutual" concessions to Russia. Ever. Hasn't the lesson been learned?

It doesn't matter who is in power in Russia - he will always be a fascist dictator because russians will accept no other.

Russia itself must cease existing. History shows time and again that you can't appease an empire after defeating it - it will always want revenge.

Edited September 11, 2022 by kraze

[chrisl]

2 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I one were to take this in good faith: Negotiations are always good, doesn't mean anything has to be agreed on. Like the negotiations when the war started...

Since Russia seems once again to be the largest supplier of arms to the UA, stopping those arms deliveries from RU could be a starting point...

[Cederic]

[chrisl]

I've been seeing some tweets (not yet verified) that Russian lines are collapsing faster than the panicked Ukrainian forces can keep up with them.

[Ultradave]

53 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I read somewhere (heck, probably this thread months ago) that 1/3rd of power from US civil nuclear reactors is reprocessed Russian nuke uranium.

Used to be half. That program ended however. But it ended because we "burned up" thousands of nuclear warheads. See my post on this.

Dave

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Cederic said:

That is the funniest meme I've seen in a long time!  Thanks!

Steve

[Haiduk]

Operators of 8th SOF regiment captured in Kharkiv oblast full set of Orlan-10 complex - drones, control station, antennas and documentation. UAVs belonged to 15th army aviation brigade of 6th AF/AD Army, Western military districst

I think, after some researches, our EW assets could be more easily to supress theese UAVs.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Haiduk

[The_MonkeyKing]

Russian vendetta.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, chrisl said:

I've been seeing some tweets (not yet verified) that Russian lines are collapsing faster than the panicked Ukrainian forces can keep up with them.

That is another symptom of collapse.  The side in collapse can move faster to the rear than the other side can get things in gear for unexpected advances.  Always.  And that's the whole reason why the collapsing force runs away... they know it will work, but only if they start running before the enemy starts moving.

The video a few days ago of the MASSIVE amount of abandoned tanks in Izyum is another sign of collapse.  When one thinks of breakthrough operations of the past (in particular the Eastern Front), tanks were used as the means of getting the cut off force back in contact with the main force.  At least until the tanks were no longer functional.  It is possible these tanks were not functional for any number of reasons, such as lack of fuel.  In which case they were obviously left behind because there was no choice.  However, I expect something very different happened in this case.

The motivation of the Russian forces in Izyum was to do what?  Return to Russian lines in the best possible condition so that they can then turn right around and smash the Nazis in the nose?  Or was it to save their own skins, damn the consequences?  I suspect the latter.

OK, ask yourself this simple question... if you are a tanker and you know (or THINK you know) that your path of retreat is under observation by drones and/or well armed infantry who can rain down HIMARS, loitering munitions, Javelins, or any of the other nasty weapons Ukraine has, would you really want to chance driving a tank as part of a formation of tanks?  Might that not attract some attention and then sudden death?  If you had the option to go in a civilian Lada or on foot, wouldn't you gauge your odds of survival being better?  I think you would.

This is another element of the "death of the tank" or the new importance of PGM, ISR, and other acronyms.  What happens when a heavy force loses confidence in the inherent qualities of maneuver and protection?  It seems to me that merely the threat of PGMs is enough to tip the balance.

And this gets at The Capt's question about how to defend a heavy force against the new array of threats.  It really seems that is the second question to ask.  The first question is if it is even possible to defend a heavy force against such threats?  Inherently, I think the answer is no.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Russian vendetta.

Sadly, that was predictable. 

I think the US should give Ukraine ATACAMS with a restriction to limit it to targeting Russian utilities, tit for tat.  Russia knocks out a power station, Ukraine knocks out two on Russian soil.

Steve

[Harmon Rabb]

5 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Russian vendetta.

When RU can't beat UKR on the battlefield RU take their anger out on the civilian population. This pattern seems to be consistent.

 

[Splinty]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sadly, that was predictable. 

I think the US should give Ukraine ATACAMS with a restriction to limit it to targeting Russian utilities, tit for tat.  Russia knocks out a power station, Ukraine knocks out two on Russian soil.

Steve

Since I can't give you a "Like" directly, I'll give you one from here .