How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Peregrine]

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

"Funniest" mobilization video so far:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/xmu32l/second_army/

 

Nothing says "esprit de corps" more than a shared determination to wear pants correctly.

 

[sross112]

49 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

... is for Ukraine to say,  "And?" and keep on killing Ivans. 

No one here has talked about the UKR response. I personally highly doubt Ukraine will roll over and capitulate.  Theyll talk,  sure. But also, why should they?  Give in to one nuke and the ****ers will nuke you again when they want something and UKR  say No. Russian is a mafia and operates/thinks like one, so giving them what they want just emboldens them to grab even more. 

Ukraine has already suffered so much at the hands of Putin that, honestly, a nuke is just a different weapon.  The end result, as Putler has stated and kept to, is the erasure of Ukraine as a functional, independent nation.  That's what his army is attempting to do and a nuke is simply a continuance of that. 

Yes,  a nuke is a drastic escalation of weaponry, but Ukraine is already "in it" for keeps.  So **** it, nuke away. UKR will still keep killing Ivans. There's plenty of rocks in Ukrainian soil. 

There's a sociological threshold where the enemy's weaponry is truly irrelevant and the principle of resistance  is overwhelming. UKR crossed that lintel after Kyiv. 

The West worrying about nukes is cute. UKR has the measure of Ivan and will never, ever give in.

It just leads to even more killing and cruelty by those B#stards. 

So why bother. 

Agreed. To me it would be like using a nuke on the Taliban. Maybe lets out some pent up aggression and looks pretty from a distance, but it sure isn't going to win the war or keep the rest of them from fighting. Actually would have the effect you mention of just further steeling an already steely resolve.

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Our best hope on the nuke front is that Putin isn't using the same calculator that he used going into this war.  That one obviously needs new batteries.

The second best hope we have is that if Putin issues the order to detonate a nuke that it triggers a coup right there and then.

Third best hope is the nuke doesn't detonate.

I don't think there's much else in the mix right now.

From the little I know about nuclear deployment, it would take Russia longer and more hoops to get a tactical nuke sent on its way vs. ICBMs.  I'm thinking this because ICBMs are, theoretically, ready for launch at any time.  A tac nuke requires a system to get into position and the shell/missile to be transfered from a secured facility out to the launcher.  That takes time and more people.

Man it sucks to think about this stuff, however the fact that we keep coming back to it indicates that the general feeling here is that the end of the Putin regime is near.  Days or weeks, maybe a couple of months.  And so we're inevitably drawn to thinking about how things end.

Back to The_Capt's concern about Russia breaking up and 6000 nukes being handled by a lot of new people... that's a very serious long term scary thought.  But it is less scary than Putin, the guy who has controll of them right now, ordering one or more to be used.  I'd rather us not have to think about either scenario, but since we do I'm not sure which one is worse.

Steve

From what we've seen of the RA so far I wonder what sorry state their missile forces are in. After some of the recent mobik videos I have visions of silos half submerged in water and mobile missile launchers as rusty as some of the AKs being handed out. Not that I want to find out, but I'm wondering if it is more dangerous to Russia or the target if they try to fire one off.

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

The atrocities in Bucha etc,  Esp the children,  really helped turn the conversation from the Swiss type (we do nothing to get involved in anything) to WTF Are These Langers Doing,  We Cant Stay Silent. 

Irish neutrality is not based on cowardice or a desire to absent ourselves from the flow of world events and its dangers. After all, we have a steady and well regarded (albeit very limited capability) UN force. 

Instead it's based on:

(1) knowledge that in big events, its the little players that get destroyed fast and often suffer disproportionate losses compared to the big boys,

(2) no heavy industry, shp yard capacity or financial wherewithal for a proper navy.  We have a navy but it's not much more dangerous than US Coast guards,  and nowhere near as good as their cutters. 

(3) following from 1 & 2 above,  the sensible course is to stay out of the way of the bigger elephants, don't kick anyone's testicals and basically don't draw unwanted attention to yourself. We dont have the forces, terrain or socio-political capacity to resist an outright attack. Give us an insurgency, we'll make the 1916ers proud. But that implies a successful invasion... 

The other factor is that Ireland is a non-permanent member of the UNSC right now and its diplomats have put in some pretty solid performances which the call for Russia to be booted out of the UNSC is its most recent example.

[sross112]

23 minutes ago, dan/california said:

There is a reason every defense contractor worthy of the name working on laser systems frantically. It is the only way to kill the bleeping things at an affordable price.

 

Whatever the cost is to shoot them down is affordable. This cost analysis has been brought up before in this thread and I get that it seems not cost effective to shoot down $100k drones with a $1m missile. However, the cost of not shooting down said drone is way higher. That $1m missile is chump change compared to your $25m AA platform or a who knows how much ammo depot.

On top of that, the soldiers lives might have a price tag for some, but for me the cost of defending them and mitigating losses is pretty hard to put a $ on. The whatever cost to kill each drone is really inconsequential to the exponential cost of not killing it. So, whatever it takes.

I am probably too sensitive to these types of analysis as I've been the boots on the ground. Hate to think that the lives of my brothers would be considered to be of less value than a missile. I also have two sons, one in college and the younger a senior in high school that is considering joining up. Hard for me to see it from an academic point of view I guess.

[Raptor341]

51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Our best hope on the nuke front is that Putin isn't using the same calculator that he used going into this war.  That one obviously needs new batteries.

The second best hope we have is that if Putin issues the order to detonate a nuke that it triggers a coup right there and then.

Third best hope is the nuke doesn't detonate.

I don't think there's much else in the mix right now.

From the little I know about nuclear deployment, it would take Russia longer and more hoops to get a tactical nuke sent on its way vs. ICBMs.  I'm thinking this because ICBMs are, theoretically, ready for launch at any time.  A tac nuke requires a system to get into position and the shell/missile to be transfered from a secured facility out to the launcher.  That takes time and more people.

Man it sucks to think about this stuff, however the fact that we keep coming back to it indicates that the general feeling here is that the end of the Putin regime is near.  Days or weeks, maybe a couple of months.  And so we're inevitably drawn to thinking about how things end.

Back to The_Capt's concern about Russia breaking up and 6000 nukes being handled by a lot of new people... that's a very serious long term scary thought.  But it is less scary than Putin, the guy who has controll of them right now, ordering one or more to be used.  I'd rather us not have to think about either scenario, but since we do I'm not sure which one is worse.

Steve

I don’t have much to add here on the nuclear weapon discussion overall other than A, If used, the West must respond for the many reasons discussed over the last few days and B, UKR will keep up the fight regardless. 
 

I’ve quietly been considering @The_Capt’s concerns regarding the possible break up of the Russian Federation and it is one of the only points that I disagree with him on. The ability of the wider world (including the PRC) to deal with fractured states (by diplomacy or force) is far greater than a united Russia and might actually allow for a chance to de-arm at least some of the areas in question. Of many the possible outcomes this one worries little given the amount of attention that would be given to securing the same. 
 

This being said, I respect your concern @The_Captand take your outlook seriously. Time will tell, but this is just my feeling on it as it currently stands. 
 

Hell, at least I can help find the underwater ones. 
 

 

[Raptor341]

6 hours 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.

I’m glad you said this. In truth I've felt this way since the first week of the war. Honestly I’ve felt strongly drawn to releasing from my current service just to help more directly - - I joined to defend Canada, her Allies, and hopefully punch a nazi or, in my case, two. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for the call to action is far harder than I thought - my experience this summer definitely increased my respect for the Cold War warriors who had to stand this watch for a long time. 
 

Again, thank you to all the extremely thoughtful posting and discussion on this thread. Back to it. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Raptor341

[dan/california]

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Freehold-Second-Book-1-ebook/dp/B00HW1TV6O/ref=sr_1_6?crid=1KVMAHQFP9CLY&keywords=michael+z.+williamson&qid=1664077466&s=digital-text&sprefix=%2Cdigital-text%2C109&sr=1-6

 

https://www.audible.com/pd/Freehold-Resistance-Audiobook/1705296424?qid=1664076543&sr=1-1&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1&pf_rd_p=83218cca-c308-412f-bfcf-90198b687a2f&pf_rd_r=FP051X345QFXCJGDBJE5

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BEQLTZY?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_tkin_0&storeType=ebooks&qid=1664077514&sr=1-7

The above are links to three books a science fiction series. First things first, the author has a screw loose, but then most sci-fi authors do. All of them were written well before this war, but it is almost eerie how he got some things about what has happened in Ukraine eerily correct. There are other parts that are so exactly opposite you almost think it was planned if it wasn't written before the war. He also has some thoughts about what happens when the weaker side decides it isn't getting any help. Did i mention he had a screw loose... All that said some of the things I have been the most right about were basically based on these books. Some of the things I have been wrong about, well by and large I am really happy to have been wrong, and hope i STAY wrong. FWIW

[Calamine Waffles]

8 hours ago, Haiduk said:

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

That's honestly surprising, means Nizh would not protect against something like Kornet or RPG-29 and would be worse than Kontakt-5.

Although, from what I read from Tarasenko, it does provide some protection, just not if the warhead strikes perpendicular to the blocks.

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Calamine Waffles

[dan/california]

56 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Whatever the cost is to shoot them down is affordable. This cost analysis has been brought up before in this thread and I get that it seems not cost effective to shoot down $100k drones with a $1m missile. However, the cost of not shooting down said drone is way higher. That $1m missile is chump change compared to your $25m AA platform or a who knows how much ammo depot.

On top of that, the soldiers lives might have a price tag for some, but for me the cost of defending them and mitigating losses is pretty hard to put a $ on. The whatever cost to kill each drone is really inconsequential to the exponential cost of not killing it. So, whatever it takes.

I am probably too sensitive to these types of analysis as I've been the boots on the ground. Hate to think that the lives of my brothers would be considered to be of less value than a missile. I also have two sons, one in college and the younger a senior in high school that is considering joining up. Hard for me to see it from an academic point of view I guess.

I agree with everything you just said and have written things with that theme a number of times. In fact the first time I brought up a similar issue was probably fifteen years ago and involved using Javelins on insurgents, Steve was convinced they weren't worth the missile. If you need to kill it/them now, today, you use what you have and bleep the cost. It isn't what it cost, it is the damage it/they can do. We may have to do a lot of that to get through the war in Ukraine. That said if they can make you shoot million dollar missiles at $25,000 dollar drones, it is going to be an EXPENSIVE war.  We really need a better plan for the next war, when the standard drone swarm is twenty five, or fifty, even or a hundred of the buggers. That is on the drawing board, and in more than one country.

Edited September 25, 2022 by dan/california

[LongLeftFlank]

6 hours ago, Grigb said:

Rybar posted a new update. And it is very interesting. He confirmed what we talked about previously

• UKR made successful attack toward Karpivka-Redkodub-Nove breaking through RU defenses [22/23-Sept]
• RU counter attacked re-capturing Karpivka and Nove [24-Sept]
• UKR left a force at Redkodub to defend against RU counter attack [24-Sept]
• But the large UKR mech force is moving North toward Borove-Svatove highway [24-Sept]

But the most interesting part is:

While I am not sure how capture of Borove-Svatove highway can affect RU units at Lyman, the whole situation smells like something we saw very recently. Do not want to hype but...

P.S. I do have one idea about the importance of the highway

• What's if road Lyman-Kremina is already cut by UKR forces or at least very dangerous to use by supply columns? UKR forces have been in the area for a sufficiently long time. In this case Lyman area is quietly supplied directly from Svatove.
• We know there is RU path through Nove-Makiivka-Svatove
• Also, there should be a path from Borove-Svatove highway down to Lyman as well.
• UKR already cut path at Nove 
• If UKR move to the highway they can cut path through highway.

Great reporting and imagery, as always mate!

For RU, shifting substantial forces (and their all-important artillery) to these now hot zones, including the north (remember, Kupyansk was the primary LOC hub) has got to be a real headache. Hence, they are risking (costly) TacAir strikes. Ivan still seems to be on the back foot!

HeliosRunner took a mapping break today, but he seems convinced Yampil is firmly .

[LongLeftFlank]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Per Steve's request, I have backed off the OT video memebombing. But this is too good to miss, for those who like dags...

 

 

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

 

OMG that is funny, that so ridiculously over the top funny.

[LongLeftFlank]

On 9/23/2022 at 8:56 PM, LongLeftFlank said:

Option 2: After a breakthrough in the Barvinok - Bohorodychne area, the main group should break through in a straight line towards Dar'ivka.

 

There are two difficulties here:

1. the AFU prefers to advance on roads, and there are fields here. But as long as it's dry, this shouldn't be an obstacle. There are about 24 km to cover, it can be done in a day. There is bocage (mixed woodland and pasture) in the area, which will help with concealment.

2. The second problem is possible Russian Army strongholds in settlements and villages that would have to be bypassed. This means that forces must be allocated to attack them.

The route avoids large population centres. The Russians usually defend them, neglecting the smaller ones.....

....in both cases the key will be a breakthrough of the first line of Russian defence, but I think the AFU can pull it off. They have already done it, only they did not develop the offensive further. Now they should concentrate on one powerful strike and then everything will work out. Especially since there is time to move important units, such as reconnaissance or assault units from Izyum.

 

...I've mainly steered clear of the periodic The Tank Is Dead / No It Isn't do loop, but these Luttwak tweets (and fine, EL is  better at strategy than pure military) seems topical.

Question: what makes heavy tanks more valuable in the south?  I take it he is assuming a break-in to prepared positions, as opposed to shredding an undermanned front....

- superior cross country ability

- ability to shrug off flank shots and near miss 152mm

- high velocity direct fire cannon

- [what else]

What would a brigade of M1s or Challies, say, bring to a 'breaking up' of the Kherson bridgehead, using the referenced scenario as an example?

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[dan/california]

24 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...I've mainly steered clear of the periodic The Tank Is Dead / No It Isn't do loop, but these Luttwak tweets (and fine, EL is  better at strategy than pure military) seems topical.

Question: what makes heavy tanks more valuable in the south?  I take it he is assuming a break-in to prepared positions, as opposed to shredding an undermanned front....

- superior cross country ability

- ability to shrug off flank shots and near miss 152mm

- high velocity direct fire cannon

- [what else]

What would a brigade of M1s or Challies, say, bring to a 'breaking up' of the Kherson bridgehead, using the referenced scenario as an example?

 

The latest models with active protection could actually stay in sight of the enemy long enough to get superiority of fires, and advance in much steadier fashion. North and west of Kherson is just pancake flat, with almost no cover. T series tanks just can't attack successfully in that environment. The can't find defenders fast enough, don't shoot on the move well, and are vulnerable to a LOT of ATGM systems. I mean if CMBS is any guide you DO NOT want to get shot by a Metis, or Kornet in a T series tank. The hunter-killer thermals on the Abrams shorten the time to engage targets a LOT. Combine that with trophy APS, and the defense needs a lot ATGMs to hold a given section of line, and that density makes them better artillery targets. Throw in the fact that Abrams vs T72 is just NOT a fair fight. The one problem the Abrams doesn't solve is mines, they have to have the correct engineering support against mines. I assume the Russian have been laying them around Kherson like they were sunflower seeds.

 

I will note that a lot of the Abrams advantages would be less significant against a better armed opponent, but against what the Russians have brought to this party they really would bring crushing advantages to bear if used well. And the Ukrainians seem to use most things well, most of the time.

Edited September 25, 2022 by dan/california

[Aragorn2002]

3 hours ago, Peregrine said:

Nothing says "esprit de corps" more than a shared determination to wear pants correctly.

 

That one has for sure rape on his mind.

[LongLeftFlank]

53 minutes ago, dan/california said:

And the Ukrainians seem to use most things well, most of the time.

 

...Well, excepting their occasional (?) habit of driving mounted IFVs right up to within 50 metres of the enemy foxholes.

That works for me in CM (new or old) pretty much never! But who knows, it might work for them sometimes/usually?  (in video non veritas)

Edited September 25, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[dan/california]

12 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...Well, excepting their occasional (?) habit of driving mounted IFVs right up to within 50 metres of the enemy foxholes.

That works for me in CM (new or old) pretty much never! But who knows, it might work for them sometimes/usually?  (in video non veritas)

I think it is EXTREMELY unusual to have troops as bad as most of the Russian Army in a CMBS game. Honestly I am not sure it is possible, Steve brought up needing a lower category today, actually. When they really can't shoot straight, getting close enough to just finish them makes a lot of sense. Of course it is unfortunate if you try it against one the rare batches who CAN shoot straight, very, very, unfortunate. When you read about Russian Soldiers shooting maybe 10 rounds a month in training it makes sense.

Edited September 25, 2022 by dan/california

[LongLeftFlank]

28 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

That one has for sure rape on his mind.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/13dc5bef-7971-4b0a-8bc9-04d7bf57e547

OK, noted, and no longer disagreeing.

But might you and kraze possibly find it in yourselves to contribute something about the actual war here, just now and again?

Edited September 25, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Letter from Prague]

 

Seems more HIMARS fun lately. Staying in hotel in Cherson seems ill-advised. 

Meanwhite, things are going well in Russia:

I don't know if this is real, but it is extremely funny if so:

EDIT: just a fun addition, this guy can probably go to olympics with this level of mental gymtastics:

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Letter from Prague

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

OK, noted, and no longer disagreeing.

But might you and kraze possibly find it in yourselves to contribute something about the actual war here, just now and again?

The ignore option is there for a reason, LLF and JonS. It would spare all three of us a lot of irritation. Don't get me wrong, I'm flattered by your constant attention, but it's really not necessary. I'm pretty sure Kraze feels the same. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Grigb]

Small update - in latest Rybar English speaking post (cannot post link right now) he says at Ridkodub UKR advancing toward Borove-Svatove highway reached operational space means UKR broke through RU defenses completely and now have freedom of maneuver. 

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Grigb

[poesel]

9 hours ago, billbindc said:

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.

China could just park a nice private jet at Scheremetjewo airport with idling engines. Ready for a single passenger with entourage for a one-way trip to China.

Not a fair outcome, but I doubt anyone would mind if Putin would just 'go away'. The net result - depending of course on his successor - would be much better for everyone.

[Letter from Prague]

22 minutes ago, poesel said:

China could just park a nice private jet at Scheremetjewo airport with idling engines. Ready for a single passenger with entourage for a one-way trip to China.

Not a fair outcome, but I doubt anyone would mind if Putin would just 'go away'. The net result - depending of course on his successor - would be much better for everyone.

The problem is, if Putin leaves, he might be alive, but not longer the person who is getting most attention in the world. Ego is a terrible thing.

[Bulletpoint]

13 hours 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. 

"Hey, this is not what we signed up for..."

This would fundamentally change the purpose of NATO. It would go from a general defensive alliance to being an anti-Russian alliance.

And why would countries sign up for full NATO membership if they knew they could end up getting automatically involved in wars to protect non-NATO countries?

Why would they sign up if they could stay "neutral" but just invite NATO to come protect them if they ever had the need?

[poesel]

43 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

The problem is, if Putin leaves, he might be alive, but not longer the person who is getting most attention in the world. Ego is a terrible thing.

I never said he would leave voluntarily.

Like Sun-Tzu said: 'never put your enemy in a position where he can't flee'. If Putin had that exit and the situation (for him) gets very dire - internally or externally - he had a way out beside pressing the red button. Additionally, it is a way to remove him without regicide. That makes it easier for possible conspirators - at least if China promises to never let him back Napoleón style.