How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

14 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Strela -10 does not have an optical guidance channel. It has Tunguska and SA-8 Gecko.

It has. Even the missile has photocontrast receiver: https://missilery.info/missile/strela10m

As I know most successful MANPADs in struggle with Orlans are western LMM Martlet, having both laser and IR  guidance 

Edited September 24, 2022 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Just HIMARS. Or how it called in Ukraine "Сhimera"

 

[Battlefront.com]

23 minutes ago, pavel.k said:

Frankly i have poor feeling about NATO. It behave or at least looks like a scared bunch of politicians.
NATO had a solid informations that Russia is going to invade Ukraine and yet it was declaring loudly no intervention. So it practically gave a green light to invasion.

This is all very incorrect.  First, NATO, the US, and to some degree Europe tried to stop the invasion by making it clear to Putin that there would be massive consequences.  The US explicitly stated that if Putin invaded that the US would flood Ukraine with weapons.  Privately and publicly Putin was warned of dire economic sanctions, including being cut off from SWIFT.  This was a huge "red light", not a "green" or even "yellow" light.

Putin chose to ignore all of this because, as we now understand, a) he thought he could win fast and painlessly, b) he thought there was far more reluctance within NATO countries to isolate Russia, and c) there were considerations for his actions that go way beyond Ukraine (regime stability, thoughts of legacy, hatred of Ukraine, etc.)

NATO has no agreement with Ukraine, therefore it is not designed to protect it or any other nation from harm.  To station NATO "tripwire" forces in Ukraine without Ukraine having NATO membership would be problematic for sure.  It would also have complicated the whole concept of Article 4 and 5.  Individual member countries could have put in forces, but they would not necessarily have the backing of NATO if fired upon.

The concern was that Putin would see any tripwire force as an act of aggression.  It would, in fact, "prove" that 20+ years of distorted, paranoid ramblings about NATO "aggression" were accurate.  So much so that putting tripwire forces in place might have caused Putin to attack instead of backing down.

Nope, as imperfect as the NATO response might have been, overall it handled the situation correctly.

In the future I hope that NATO appends its charter to allow forces to be deployed at the invitation of a country that believes it is at risk of being attacked by Russia.  Article 4 and 5 would apply to such cases.  That is the sort of thing that was not in place for February.

Steve

 

[Zeleban]

5 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

It has. Even the missile has photocontrast receiver: https://missilery.info/missile/strela10m

As I know most successful MANPADs in struggle with Orlans are western LMM Martlet, having both laser and IR  guidance 

The rocket's photocontrast receiver receives a different spectrum of waves than standart thermal receivers. This allows you to filter out heat traps. It does not involve manually guiding a missile through an optical channel, like ATGMs do.

[Haiduk]

UKR claimed for today 4 Russian jets - 2 Su-25, Su-30SM and Su-34

SU-30SM (though Russians claimed this is just compressor surge)

As if Su-34, downed with Igla MANPAD, by SOF operator

Bad quality video, but it's claimed Ka-52 shot down

Partially such high losses are confirmed by Russian Fighterbomber TG channel: "Fu...g day"

And this:  "Attention, the question to trouser-stripe-holders [meant "generals"], where we will mobiulize jets if all go on as today?"

[Grigb]

Small update just to keep everyone on the same page

• No new reliable info regarding Karpivka-Ridkodoub-Nove fighting
• RU counter-attacked and claimed they captured Tavilzhanka (top left corner)
• RU situation at Yampil is very difficult for RU (no details)
• Confusing info regarding Noveselivka and Drobishevo - RU claim everything is fine. I feel it is bad. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This plus the discussions we had before put into perspective something I have been going on about for some time...options.  The trouble with doing a proxy war with irrational nuclear power is that as you compress their options - and we have definitely been doing that - they keep falling back until they get to the only one left, nuclear weapon employment.

We have piled up the costs on this, and you note, have clearly articulated them - yet, at least on the surface, it still looks like Russia considers them a viable option.  Further, at what point is Russia at the "well nothing left to lose"?

This is my point.  The more bad news Putin gets, the fewer options he has left to him.  Nukes aren't a great option, for sure, but when you're out of options...

We have to remember that Putin is in no small way fighting for his life.  If he is defeated in full, he's dead.  So if he is facing for sure defeat then he might try his last option and hope for the best.

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The problem with being able to call BS on Russia in this circumstance is that we have zero history to pull on - "I don't know general, I have been in as many nuclear wars as you".  Every nuclear power has a theoretical red-line but we have never pushed one to that point. We came close back in Cuba but that wasn't a shooting war.

I have to believe that someone in the chain of command is going to see that their survival and best interests are in putting a bullet in Putin before it comes to that and a saner head will prevail but based on this entire war I do have doubts.

I personally think the chances of Putin getting a strike executed are very low.  However, as you and I keep saying... it isn't zero.  What we do about that is obviously up for debate as there is no sure path forward.  However, it's helpful to not adopt a position and ignorance and denial of reality to start in that debate.

Steve

[billbindc]

42 minutes ago, dan/california said:

So will the drunk, broke gambler push his last three chips into the pot? or not? I understood every sentence but the last one?

I think the prospect of being ejected from relations with even the likes of North Korea will be too much for Russian elites to stomach. Putin my decide to try it but my suspicion is that the systema won't go along. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Small update just to keep everyone on the same page

• No new reliable info regarding Karpivka-Ridkodoub-Nove fighting
• RU counter-attacked and claimed they captured Tavilzhanka (top left corner)
• RU situation at Yampil is very difficult for RU (no details)
• Confusing info regarding Noveselivka and Drobishevo - RU claim everything is fine. I feel it is bad. 

 

Any idea which Russian units are supposedly counter attacking at Tavilzhanka?

Steve

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is all very incorrect.  First, NATO, the US, and to some degree Europe tried to stop the invasion by making it clear to Putin that there would be massive consequences.  The US explicitly stated that if Putin invaded that the US would flood Ukraine with weapons.  Privately and publicly Putin was warned of dire economic sanctions, including being cut off from SWIFT.  This was a huge "red light", not a "green" or even "yellow" light.

Putin chose to ignore all of this because, as we now understand, a) he thought he could win fast and painlessly, b) he thought there was far more reluctance within NATO countries to isolate Russia, and c) there were considerations for his actions that go way beyond Ukraine (regime stability, thoughts of legacy, hatred of Ukraine, etc.)

NATO has no agreement with Ukraine, therefore it is not designed to protect it or any other nation from harm.  To station NATO "tripwire" forces in Ukraine without Ukraine having NATO membership would be problematic for sure.  It would also have complicated the whole concept of Article 4 and 5.  Individual member countries could have put in forces, but they would not necessarily have the backing of NATO if fired upon.

The concern was that Putin would see any tripwire force as an act of aggression.  It would, in fact, "prove" that 20+ years of distorted, paranoid ramblings about NATO "aggression" were accurate.  So much so that putting tripwire forces in place might have caused Putin to attack instead of backing down.

Nope, as imperfect as the NATO response might have been, overall it handled the situation correctly.

In the future I hope that NATO appends its charter to allow forces to be deployed at the invitation of a country that believes it is at risk of being attacked by Russia.  Article 4 and 5 would apply to such cases.  That is the sort of thing that was not in place for February.

Steve

 

Most of the flaws in the NATO response came about because too much, not all, but too much, of NATO believed the Russian assessment that Kyiv would fall in three days. They were afraid of getting a brigade or two caught in country that was falling apart around them, and that it would be infinitely worse than just staying out. Boris said bleep it and gambled on a max effort at ATGM shipments, the Russian assessment of the Ukrainian government and military integrity was epically wrong, and here we are. The Russians assessment of their own forces was out to lunch too, and since we stole that from them too....

 

[pavel.k]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is all very incorrect.  First, NATO, the US, and to some degree Europe tried to stop the invasion by making it clear to Putin that there would be massive consequences.  The US explicitly stated that if Putin invaded that the US would flood Ukraine with weapons.  Privately and publicly Putin was warned of dire economic sanctions, including being cut off from SWIFT.  This was a huge "red light", not a "green" or even "yellow" light.

Putin chose to ignore all of this because, as we now understand, a) he thought he could win fast and painlessly, b) he thought there was far more reluctance within NATO countries to isolate Russia, and c) there were considerations for his actions that go way beyond Ukraine (regime stability, thoughts of legacy, hatred of Ukraine, etc.)

NATO has no agreement with Ukraine, therefore it is not designed to protect it or any other nation from harm.  To station NATO "tripwire" forces in Ukraine without Ukraine having NATO membership would be problematic for sure.  It would also have complicated the whole concept of Article 4 and 5.  Individual member countries could have put in forces, but they would not necessarily have the backing of NATO if fired upon.

The concern was that Putin would see any tripwire force as an act of aggression.  It would, in fact, "prove" that 20+ years of distorted, paranoid ramblings about NATO "aggression" were accurate.  So much so that putting tripwire forces in place might have caused Putin to attack instead of backing down.

Nope, as imperfect as the NATO response might have been, overall it handled the situation correctly.

In the future I hope that NATO appends its charter to allow forces to be deployed at the invitation of a country that believes it is at risk of being attacked by Russia.  Article 4 and 5 would apply to such cases.  That is the sort of thing that was not in place for February.

Steve

 

Then I am truly uninformed. Thanks for the explanation.

[CHEqTRO]

Lets not forget that the russians have more strategic capacity just short of nukes. Full chemical release across the frontline would probably be more devastating that the usage of single Tac nukes, for example; and althought it would probably still trigger NATO conventional intervention, it would probably go better with the rest of Russia "allies" than direct usage of nukes.

Would love to see the current Russian army operating under NCB conditions thought XD. Still, some limited usage against cities, a la Assad, is possible.

Edited September 24, 2022 by CHEqTRO

[billbindc]

50 minutes ago, pavel.k said:

Frankly i have poor feeling about NATO. It behave or at least looks like a scared bunch of politicians.
NATO had a solid informations that Russia is going to invade Ukraine and yet it was declaring loudly no intervention. So it practically gave a green light to invasion. If it would demonstrate its power and will to fight, invasion would be probably canceled. They had several months to prepare for it.

This is profoundly wrong. The US was bluntly telling Russia what the repercussions of a Ukraine invasion would be from approximately August of 2021 right up until February 24. It was in part doing that through NATO. And NATO was rather feverishly preparing for that eventuality despite the reservations of several of the larger constituent nations. Did you really think the tidal wave of aid Ukraine began to receive within hours of the invasion was thrown on the truck that morning? Put another way, that you didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't happening and if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be talking about Ukrainian offensives until sometime next year if at all.

[Haiduk]

19 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

The rocket's photocontrast receiver receives a different spectrum of waves than standart thermal receivers. This allows you to filter out heat traps. It does not involve manually guiding a missile through an optical channel, like ATGMs do.

Photocontrast channel of guiding also called optical. 

Also in the list of Strela-10 launcher composition are pointed two optical viewfinders: https://www.kaznu.kz/Content/ЗРК «Стрела-10»/page1.html

Боевая машина 9А34 (9А35) предназначена для размещения, подготовки  и пуска ракет (рис. 2).

БМ представляет собой многоцелевой тягач легкий бронированный (МТ-ЛБ), на котором размещены:

- пусковая установка (ПУ) с четырьмя направляющими;

- средства прицеливания (визир грубой наводки и оптический визир);

Also here: НРЗ производит запрос государственной принадлежности цели. Аппаратура оценки зоны оценивает параметры движения цели. В момент входа цели в зону пуска в оптическом визире оператора загорается лампочка ЗОНА, что является разрешением на пуск ракеты.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Haiduk

[Letter from Prague]

58 minutes ago, pavel.k said:

Frankly i have poor feeling about NATO. It behave or at least looks like a scared bunch of politicians.
NATO had a solid informations that Russia is going to invade Ukraine and yet it was declaring loudly no intervention. So it practically gave a green light to invasion. If it would demonstrate its power and will to fight, invasion would be probably canceled. They had several months to prepare for it.

I am hearing a lot of voices about how NATO is dead and was fake all along lately (but luckily Russian still believe in it), from a lot of different people around here. The argument being: "West could have chased Russians from Ukraine by end of March, but they decided to send some outdated weapons instead - because the West would rather watch millions of Ukrainians die than upset Russia. And if Ukrainian lives aren't worth anything, why would Estonian or Latvian or Polish or Slovak lives would be? Yes, NATO exists on paper, but so existed all the defence pacts before Munich Agreement."

The new popular topic is how after the referendums and nuke threats, West will make Ukraine give up any day now, cuz "there's nothing we can do, nukes after all", and go back to buy Russian gas.

I'd love to know what to tell those people. Some of it is nonsense (I'm pretty sure Javelins aren't outdated and Russian gas isn't on the table for years to come) and some of it is matter of perspective - not everyone sees why starting a hot war between nuclear nations might be ill advised.

At the same time, I understand those people. I get where they're coming from.

EDIT: I see several answers happened while I was writing this.

_________________

 

In other news, the sh*tferendums are pulling in interesting company, like this lady from Slovakia's "Homeland" party. Czech commies are also there. I heard about German ultra-righting party people being there, but I don't know enough about German political landscape to comment. I'd wish anyone who shows up legitimising this thing a stray GMLRS but they are too precise for that.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Letter from Prague

[Calamine Waffles]

59 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Something more generalized about tank combat and in particular about T-64BV mod.2017 we can get only after the war, all what we know now is just small parts of mosaic. 

What I found slightly incorrect in your article after brief reading:

- "Nizh" ERA doesn't protect against tandem HEAT

- not "remontmy rot", but "remontnaya rota"

Yeah, no doubt, I just think it is interesting to see what both countries chose to invest in for their upgrades.

Really? Ukrainian Defense Review says it protects against tandem HEAT, but I will defer to you.

Ah, thank you for the correction.

[pavel.k]

47 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

NATO will go to war, if there's no other option left. Apart from that I think your post is ill-informed and unfair. NATO responds, it doesn't provoke.

Yes, i am uninformed, as Steve explain to me.
But i would not call it provocation but prevention. And i think prevention is better than reaction, especialy if we are talking about nuclear tabu. As we see Russians understand to the force and not to the words.

[billbindc]

38 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This plus the discussions we had before put into perspective something I have been going on about for some time...options.  The trouble with doing a proxy war with irrational nuclear power is that as you compress their options - and we have definitely been doing that - they keep falling back until they get to the only one left, nuclear weapon employment.

We have piled up the costs on this, and you note, have clearly articulated them - yet, at least on the surface, it still looks like Russia considers them a viable option.  Further, at what point is Russia at the "well nothing left to lose"?

The problem with being able to call BS on Russia in this circumstance is that we have zero history to pull on - "I don't know general, I have been in as many nuclear wars as you".  Every nuclear power has a theoretical red-line but we have never pushed one to that point. We came close back in Cuba but that wasn't a shooting war.

I have to believe that someone in the chain of command is going to see that their survival and best interests are in putting a bullet in Putin before it comes to that and a saner head will prevail but based on this entire war I do have doubts.

Here's the thing...Russia as part of an axis of the authoritarians is one thing. Russia without any friends at all is something else. It is deeply jarring to the Russians what's happening to them when the go to meet with Chinese officialdom now. The 'alliance without limits' conversation is now dominated by the PRC MoFA folks looking across the table frostily saying "You have to find a reasonable way to end this war soon". Putin may have had grandiose visions of a Russkiy Mir dancing in his head but even he knows Russia must have *some* allies. In other words, going nuclear doesn't solve anything and is just as likely to get him a bullet for breakfast than not. 

[Haiduk]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Any idea which Russian units are supposedly counter attacking at Tavilzhanka?

Steve

Russians write about units of 20th CAA. Likely something combined from different units, beaten near Balakliya-Kupiansk.

According to last Russian TG posts, despite the order for 20th CAA "stand to the death", enemy units have been beginning "planned regrouping" from Drobysheve and Lyman. As I know UKR units on this direction represented by National Guard, SOF and likely some elements of 66th mech.brigade

[Haiduk]

4 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

Yeah, no doubt, I just think it is interesting to see what both countries chose to invest in for their upgrades.

Really? Ukrainian Defense Review says it protects against tandem HEAT, but I will defer to you.

Ah, thank you for the correction.

In the article meant that "Duplet" ERA is suitable against tandem warhead. Though, "Duplet" is just two layers of "Nizh"

[Grigb]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Any idea which Russian units are supposedly counter attacking at Tavilzhanka?

Steve

Unfortunately, nothing regarding unit.

3 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Russians write about units of 20th CAA. Likely something combined from different units, beaten near Balakliya-Kupiansk.

Could be, but I understood they were talking about RU counter-attack at Karpivka-Redkodub-Nove. 

[Letter from Prague]

It seems being mobilised is not a reason to enter EU, according to Poland, Baltics and Finland.

Seems a lot of people are angry at Russians for only starting to care about the war once it affects them personally (though technically I'm pretty sure the sanctions affected everyone already).

[sburke]

10 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

I am hearing a lot of voices about how NATO is dead and was fake all along lately (but luckily Russian still believe in it), from a lot of different people around here. The argument being: "West could have chased Russians from Ukraine by end of March, but they decided to send some outdated weapons instead - because the West would rather watch millions of Ukrainians die than upset Russia. And if Ukrainian lives aren't worth anything, why would Estonian or Latvian or Polish or Slovak lives would be? Yes, NATO exists on paper, but so existed all the defence pacts before Munich Agreement."

The new popular topic is how after the referendums and nuke threats, West will make Ukraine give up any day now, cuz "there's nothing we can do, nukes after all", and go back to buy Russian gas.

I'd love to know what to tell those people. Some of it is nonsense (I'm pretty sure Javelins aren't outdated and Russian gas isn't on the table for years to come) and some of it is matter of perspective - not everyone sees why starting a hot war between nuclear nations might be ill advised.

At the same time, I understand those people. I get where they're coming from.

EDIT: I see several answers happened while I was writing this.

_________________

 

In other news, the sh*tferendums are pulling in interesting company, like this lady from Slovakia's "Homeland" party. Czech commies are also there. I heard about German ultra-righting party people being there, but I don't know enough about German political landscape to comment. I'd wish anyone who shows up legitimising this thing a stray GMLRS but they are too precise for that.

I'd make these folks lives miserable as soon as they try and come home.  Oh didn't you hear, we are doing random full body cavity checks for anyone who goes to Russia or Russian occupied Ukraine.  Just follow that officer through the door on the left.

[Grigb]

Confirmed - UKR are using drones as observers for MANPADs teams.

[Haiduk]

Elves? )