How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Letter from Prague]

3 minutes ago, sburke said:

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.

I am just reading up on it, and if Russia counts as "foreign hostile power" this might literally be treason as defined by our laws. But who knows, it is in lawyer-speak.

[Zeleban]

1 минуту назад, Хайдук сказал:

Фотоконтрастный канал наведения также называют оптическим. 

Также в составе пусковой установки «Стрела-10» указаны два оптических визира:  https://www.kaznu.kz/Content/ЗРК «Стрела-10»/page1.html

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

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

- пусковая установка (ПУ) с направленными направляющими;

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

Также здесь:  НРЗ производитель запроса государственных расходов на цели. Аппаратура оценивает измерение параметров движения цели. В момент обнаружения цели в пуске в оптическом визире владелец загорается лампочкой ЗОНА, что является пуском на ракеты.

 

An optical seeker is the same as a thermal seeker. An optical guidance channel is a completely different thing. AT-4 Spigot ATGM has an optical guidance channel. But a missile with a thermal homing head does not have an optical guidance channel. Optical sights are needed in Strela 10 to detect and aim the homing head at the target, after which the head captures the heat of the target and the corresponding launch permission appears in the sight. Here is a detailed manual for Strela 10: https://www.kaznu.kz/Content/ЗРК «Стрела-10»/page3.html

[Haiduk]

Longer video has appeared of Su-30SM crash

 

[Haiduk]

10 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

An optical seeker is the same as a thermal seeker. An optical guidance channel is a completely different thing. AT-4 Spigot ATGM has an optical guidance channel. But a missile with a thermal homing head does not have an optical guidance channel. Optical sights are needed in Strela 10 to detect and aim the homing head at the target, after which the head captures the heat of the target and the corresponding launch permission appears in the sight. Here is a detailed manual for Strela 10: https://www.kaznu.kz/Content/ЗРК «Стрела-10»/page3.html

Well, what is optical guidance? Photocontrast channel can select the target on background of the sky. 

Here is about Strela-10 in Syria - there is noted this SAM can detect UAVs with photocontrast channel only on 3,5 km range, because thermal channel (as well as in Igla MANPAD) was almost useless in conditions almost zero thermal contarst of targets: https://uc.od.ua/columns/1533/1231999

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Ну а что такое оптическое наведение? Фотоконтрастный канал позволяет выделить цель на фоне неба. 

Вот про Стрелу-10 в Сирии - там отмечено, что этот ЗРК может обнаруживать БПЛА с фотоконтрастным каналом только на дальности 3,5 км, т.к. тепловизионный канал (как и в ПЗРК "Игла") был практически бесполезен в условиях почти нулевой тепловизионной контрастности целей :  https://uc.od.ua/columns/1533/1231999

Do not confuse the concepts of guidance and homing - they are completely different things. A missile with a thermal or optical (it's the same) head has an autopilot that guides the missile to the target, according to the thermal (optical) signal from the target, and the operator cannot control the missile - this is called homing.

The AT-4 ATGM missile does not have an autopilot and does not have the ability to independently fly to the target. She has an optical guidance channel, with the help of an optical sight, the operator must control the missile until it hits the target. This is called guidance.

Osa missile has the ability to be guided both from the radar and manually using optical guidance by the operator (if you look at the osa interior, you can see a TV monitor near the radar screen, using this monitor the operator can manually aim the missile to avoid interference from electronic warfare). Tunguska has only optical missile guidance (the operator must manually control the missile until it hits the target)

 

 

[dan/california]

Belgian Prime minister PICKS A SIDE!

 

Edit: This pretty strong for a country that only has a government about two thirds of the time.

Edited September 24, 2022 by dan/california

[Grigb]

RU rumor - Putin will try to imitate Stalin purges

Quote

There will be no criminal cases against Dmitry Bulgakov [the chief of rear support of the Ministry of Defense], otherwise they would have to be initiated under article 210.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and this is a direct blow to the authorities. Regarding the rest, from Monday, the rear support of the Ministry of Defense across the country will experience very serious anti-corruption actions with a criminal continuation and ending in "penalty fights" on the front line, if you're lucky.

This is not the start of the personnel purges of the Ministry of Defense, that will start after November 10. So far, only optimization.

 

 

[billbindc]

 

Per my earlier comments, here's Ireland going out of its way to force a public discussion on the idea of kicking Russia out of the UNSC. That's a *very* unusual sort of gesture from a country that's normally very cautious in foreign policy. 

[OldSarge]

7 minutes ago, Grigb said:

RU rumor - Putin will try to imitate Stalin purges

 

 

While it is certainly needed, it does seem a bit late in the game for that. Putin should've been cleaning out the corruption in the organization from top to bottom before the SMO was even a pipe dream. I guess finding scapegoats to blame for the dear leader's failures is the tradition.

[Sojourner]

Éirinn go Brách

слава україні

[Zeleban]

 

There is a mass development of hand-to-hand combat skills for consckripts. 

[Zeleban]

Obviously, in case of a shortage of firearms, you need to rely on hand-to-hand combat. What a wise decision by the Russian General Staff

[Grigb]

6 minutes ago, OldSarge said:

While it is certainly needed, it does seem a bit late in the game for that. Putin should've been cleaning out the corruption in the organization from top to bottom before the SMO was even a pipe dream. I guess finding scapegoats to blame for the dear leader's failures is the tradition.

I do not think he wants to do it but RU Nats demand blood, so somebody has to go under the bus. On the other hand, this could be just a test of public opinion, and nothing might happen at all.  

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

In other words, going nuclear doesn't solve anything and is just as likely to get him a bullet for breakfast than not. 

Sure, that's the logical and rational conclusion from someone like us... "I can't win this, so I'm not going to hit the red button".  However, that's not necessarily what is going on in Putin's mind.  He might think there's more chance of him not getting a bullet for breakfast if he hits the red button.  And hey, if he's wrong then he's dead anyway, so what's there to lose?  For all we know Putin has adopted Hitler's "the Germans don't deserve to live" attitude.

Since the start of the war there's been discussions about if Putin is a rational actor or not.  So far the actions he has taken are rational, however they have often been counter productive.  Him f'n around with the Zaporizhzhia nuke plant is a prime example.  His actions not only put everybody at risk of a massive nuclear disaster, but it also made him look like a complete reckless madman in many people's eyes.  He gained NOTHING from this, despite the extremely high risks.  Yet he did it anyway.

Things that we've looked at and said "that's got no chances of working" have been tried by Putin anyway.  Which means Putin's decision making process is not the same as ours.  Rational or irrational, clearly it is different.  Therefore, personally I'm not comfortable making an assumption that Putin views tactical nukes the same way we do.  That uncertainty should be taken into consideration.

Steve

[pavel.k]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

 

I hope it will implement soon, because seeing that terror and genocide almost over the fence and not being able to prevent it,  is killing me inside. Donating money to arm Ukraine is not helping me anymore.

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, pavel.k said:

I hope it will implement soon, because seeing that terror and genocide almost over the fence and not being able to prevent it,  is killing me inside. Donating money to arm Ukraine is not helping me anymore.

There is precedent for this sort of thing.  The war in Yugoslavia finally got NATO to act.  It could do so again, and will if certain things happen (tac nuke, chemical weapons, etc).  What I'd like to see is something more proactive for the next situation that comes up.  Sadly, there will be a next one.

I've also made sure to donate money to civilian humanitarian groups.  I do feel like I'm helping people, even if in in a small way.  Which reminds me I'm due for another round of giving.

Steve

[dan/california]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is precedent for this sort of thing.  The war in Yugoslavia finally got NATO to act.  It could do so again, and will if certain things happen (tac nuke, chemical weapons, etc).  What I'd like to see is something more proactive for the next situation that comes up.  Sadly, there will be a next one.

I've also made sure to donate money to civilian humanitarian groups.  I do feel like I'm helping people, even if in in a small way.  Which reminds me I'm due for another round of giving.

Steve

The outcomes of this one are going to weight rather heavily on the next one. The only thing more trashed than the Russian army is the Russian Army's reputation. The only credible threat against the Baltics or Finland would basically START with nuclear weapons, or threats thereof. Everyone knows NATO airpower could decimate the Russians in a week otherwise. Central Asia is a whole different problem and I assume the relevant people at the State department are working 24/7 on a plan to keep the lid from coming all the way off. Glad that isn't me.

It might  be time for a whole thread on Taiwan...

Edit : Oh, and a game, did I mention that part.

Edited September 24, 2022 by dan/california

[Grigb]

If you ever wondered how propagandists call Wagnerite retreat:

Quote

The forces of the "Wagnerians" in the east of Bakhmut expanded the control zone, moving deep into the Dacha Cooperative to the north of Patrice Lumumba Street.

They continue to run deeper into Cooperative cottages. 

[FancyCat]

Piece coming out in the Times, https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1573772034181668867.html

Interesting perspective, what happens as units mix, will Russia divide the mobilized from the recently occupied regions from those in the LPR and LNR? And with the recent Ukrainian offensive and Russian mobilization, how will Russia keep them from running? Russia will need lots of personnel for blocking troops and what happens if the majority of Russian troops are mobilized themselves? 

Quote

 We went to the first Ukrainian checkpoint after Russian-held territory in Zaporizhzhia. All the men we spoke to said they were fleeing mobilisation into the Russian army. A few things: As of Thursday, men between 18-35 are banned from leaving Russian-held Zaporizhzhia to Ukraine OR to Russia / Crimea. Some still managed to bribe their way out. Even neutral / pro-Russian people we spoke to by phone inside the occupied territories said they would try to escape mobilisation. Not pro-Russian enough to die, as one person put it. Zaporizhzhia and Kherson have only been under occupation since this spring. The situation is different to Donetsk and Luhansk. People still have Ukrainian TV and, while internet connections are bad, they can get information from outside the Russian state media universe. Almost everyone we spoke to estimated (this is obviously very vague) that around 60% of people still in occupied Zap/Kherson are pro-Ukrainian, 20% don't care, 20% are pro-Russian. But again: not pro-Russian enough to die. Nataliya, a young woman we met at the checkpoint, told us that the men in her village had decided that if the Russians were stupid enough to mobilise them and give them guns, they'd turn them against the occupiers. Bravado or not, clearly these guys would not be a fighting asset for the Kremlin. You hear stories like this in the liberated territories. In Izyum, we met a psychologist who told us that the "Russian" soldiers at the checkpoint by her house were (cont) Actually pro-Ukrainian. They were miners from Luhansk who had been called off their shift and sent to become soldiers. They told her that they planned to drop their weapons and run away as soon as they heard the Ukrainians were coming. And they did. In occupied Zaporizhzhia now, Nataliya said, the Russian soldiers were violent, drunk and lecherous. She knew a couple of women who had left their husbands for them. But this did not always turn out well for the occupiers. One Russian soldier, mad with grief after his Ukrainian mistress left him, shot himself in the head outside a greengrocer’s.  “I walked by and thought: one down,” she told us. Full piece in @thetimes tomorrow with pictures by @azavallis and additional reporting by Viktoria Sybir and Oleksii Kulyuk

 

[Butschi]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is precedent for this sort of thing.  The war in Yugoslavia finally got NATO to act.  It could do so again, and will if certain things happen (tac nuke, chemical weapons, etc). 

The obvious difference between Yugoslavia and Ukraine though is that Serbia had no way to retaliate. I can't imagine, NATO would have intervened had Serbia had nukes (and the means to deliver them to NATO members). Honestly, how come so many here are so conviced that NATO is going to intervene in case Russia uses nukes? I mean intervene beyond more sanctions and more weapons?

Really, I did ask the same question before in this thread but got nothing beyond non-proliferation and what people would like to see. Given that NATO right now does everything to not get involved directly, do you really believe that once Putin has demonstrated that he is not bluffing, that he is not just threatening but really willing to use nukes, that NATO goes "Oh well, now we actually know Putin is not bluffing we go all in and risk not just a regional nuclear escalation but a global one?". Talking about options, the only option remaining to Putin in case NATO intervenes directly and is not scared by tac nukes is strategic nukes.

In case someone is going to say: "But nuclear deterrence only works as long as you don't use your nukes." - That is only half the truth. Mutual Assured Destruction only works if the other side must be sure you are going to retaliate even if it means your own death, too.

As before, that's an honest question because I can't seem to grasp the logic here.

[akd]

Breakthrough without reserves to stabilize would certainly explain the massive loss of RUS tac aviation today.

[Letter from Prague]

2 minutes ago, Butschi said:

The obvious difference between Yugoslavia and Ukraine though is that Serbia had no way to retaliate. I can't imagine, NATO would have intervened had Serbia had nukes (and the means to deliver them to NATO members). Honestly, how come so many here are so conviced that NATO is going to intervene in case Russia uses nukes? I mean intervene beyond more sanctions and more weapons?

Really, I did ask the same question before in this thread but got nothing beyond non-proliferation and what people would like to see. Given that NATO right now does everything to not get involved directly, do you really believe that once Putin has demonstrated that he is not bluffing, that he is not just threatening but really willing to use nukes, that NATO goes "Oh well, now we actually know Putin is not bluffing we go all in and risk not just a regional nuclear escalation but a global one?". Talking about options, the only option remaining to Putin in case NATO intervenes directly and is not scared by tac nukes is strategic nukes.

In case someone is going to say: "But nuclear deterrence only works as long as you don't use your nukes." - That is only half the truth. Mutual Assured Destruction only works if the other side must be sure you are going to retaliate even if it means your own death, too.

As before, that's an honest question because I can't seem to grasp the logic here.

That is the question that has always been open, even during the depth of cold war: "If Russia nukes Berlin and whatever else, but not the US, will US retaliate or will they let it slide because otherwise their cities get nuked?"

Declassified documents from Warsaw pact plans from Poland show that Russia believed so, because it saw NATO as empire serving the US, not as pact of equals, and sacrificing colonies is to be expected. Meanwhile US would sometimes say "yes, we would launch everything" and sometimes "we're not telling" and I think there were some declassified documents as well but who knows if that was a psyop.

____________

Meanwhile, is this new: 

 

 

[Vacillator]

12 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Given that NATO right now does everything to not get involved directly

I think we know why that is though?  If direct involvement is required, I think direct involvement will happen.  If it's not too late of course.

[sburke]

12 minutes ago, Butschi said:

The obvious difference between Yugoslavia and Ukraine though is that Serbia had no way to retaliate. I can't imagine, NATO would have intervened had Serbia had nukes (and the means to deliver them to NATO members). Honestly, how come so many here are so conviced that NATO is going to intervene in case Russia uses nukes? I mean intervene beyond more sanctions and more weapons?

Because if we don't, we guarantee they will do so again.  In fact, we incentivize them to do so again.  There is no good logic NOT to do something.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, that's the logical and rational conclusion from someone like us... "I can't win this, so I'm not going to hit the red button".  However, that's not necessarily what is going on in Putin's mind.  He might think there's more chance of him not getting a bullet for breakfast if he hits the red button.  And hey, if he's wrong then he's dead anyway, so what's there to lose?  For all we know Putin has adopted Hitler's "the Germans don't deserve to live" attitude.

Since the start of the war there's been discussions about if Putin is a rational actor or not.  So far the actions he has taken are rational, however they have often been counter productive.  Him f'n around with the Zaporizhzhia nuke plant is a prime example.  His actions not only put everybody at risk of a massive nuclear disaster, but it also made him look like a complete reckless madman in many people's eyes.  He gained NOTHING from this, despite the extremely high risks.  Yet he did it anyway.

Things that we've looked at and said "that's got no chances of working" have been tried by Putin anyway.  Which means Putin's decision making process is not the same as ours.  Rational or irrational, clearly it is different.  Therefore, personally I'm not comfortable making an assumption that Putin views tactical nukes the same way we do.  That uncertainty should be taken into consideration.

Steve

What I would suggest is that it looks like China is trying to create some space for a climb down. They are being unusually forthright in telling him that nukes must be taken off the table publicly. Privately, they are also almost certainly laying out alternative scenarios where Xi will work to soften the conditions for Russia in a loss. China could probably also do quite a bit to safeguard Putin's life if things start to come truly unstuck. I do agree that Putin is recklessly escalatory but I don't think, thus far, that he's gone off the deep and...including at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. The impression that he might have no limits on his craziness was precisely the point he was trying to make.