How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[akd]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I am also someone that thinks the "sparks" are optical effects caused by water.

You can see the burning fragments hitting the road surface, flashing and continuing to burn:

 

They are blown right to left by the strong wind in that direction.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, sross112 said:

I think everyone has a pretty good idea who is responsible, but the powers that be are probably awaiting proof. Once concrete evidence is there they have two options:

1. Go public with it and whatever their responses will be. My guess would be more sanctions and stuff like that as once they go public there will be a howl not to escalate. Probably increased hardware support as well.
2. Stay quiet and hit back quiet. Cyber warfare probably the best for this. Especially if they could knock out stuff as an exponential tit for tat. By this I mean establish a ratio for the kremlin. You knocked out power to this island, we take down 5 of your plants, permanently if possible. That is the only thing Russia understands is strength. You have to hurt them more than they can hurt you otherwise their asshattery will persist and if you accept it you encourage it.

#1 puts NATO on a fast track to open war with Russia.  Therefore, I expect #2 to be the selected course of action for as long as possible.  One can always shift into #1 mode at any time, so might as well play out #2 first.

The important thing is there has to be a response of some significance.  I think NATO is up for that.

3 minutes ago, sross112 said:

This is a big fail on NATO and western supporters. Ukraine should have a better AA umbrella by now. It is a defensive weapon, not escalatory, and their is a documented need to protect civilians. There can be absolutely no negative to supplying Patriots or whatever they need to stop this crap.

Yeah, I've not understood the reluctance to provide Ukraine with more sophisticated air defenses until very recently.  It is a "defensive weapon" after all.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm willing to eat crow if I'm wrong, but I still think it was a truck bomb.

I'm willing to eat crow by favoring a missile   However, I am not 100% convinced that it isn't a truck bomb.  I just think of the two the truck bomb is less likely.

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

If you claim it was a missile, I would like to ask two questions:

1: How could one single missile cause such an enormous explosion? An ATACM carries only 250 kilos of explosives. I do not think that is enough to cause this level of damage.

I think it was a Hrim-2 which is about 2x the warhead of ATACMS and has better range as well.

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

2: If it was a missile, why only ONE missile? There's still plenty of bridge left. Why not strike it again and cut the bridge completely? Did Ukraine only own one single missile?

Because Ukraine likely only has 1 or 2 Hrim-2 ready for use.  These things take a long time to build.

We also have to remember what happened to the Dnepr bridges.  Ukraine didn't even try to destroy them in one go even though it could have.  Instead, it wanted to hamper instead of cut off supplies so as to encourage even more resources to get moved into Kherson before cutting off Russia's ability to reinforce failure.  Therefore, even if it had multiple missiles to go, it might not have wanted to use them for strategic reasons.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

34 minutes ago, akd said:

You can see the burning fragments hitting the road surface, flashing and continuing to burn:

Yup, saw all that and I do like Oliver Alexander's possible explanation.  However, the truck and car weren't vaporized and therefore their materials went somewhere.  Further, the truck was likely fully loaded with something and that something also would blow outward and then come back down onto the bridge because of the winds.  I don't know what bits of truck and cargo coming back to Earth in the middle of a massive fireball look like, but I'm not ruling out that is what we're seeing.

I did find that powered aluminum would behave in a similar way to what we see.  I don't know if that goes for aluminum truck panels under such circumstances.  My point is that there's likely more than one explanation for the shower of burning debris we're seeing:

Steve

[poesel]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

Hopefully people in EU will just get really angry and we'll see more pressure on RU and more support for UKR. 

I'm waiting for that, too. But as for Germany, there is currently nothing.

The strikes on NS1&2 didn't faze anyone because we weren't getting gas from there anyway. The railway thing...., well - a 3h outage with the Deutsche Bahn is quite a common happenstance. Nothing new.

So don't count on public outrage, yet.

[Combatintman]

6 hours ago, kraze said:

Hence why I say it's us or them. There can be no other outcome. Everybody who says that Russia should keep existing is explicitly taking the russian side and suggesting Ukraine should cease existing. Even if hypocritically pretending to be "civilized".

Either with us or without us .... congratulations on winning comedy hour with a false dichotomy.  I support a Ukrainian victory, I have a flushable toilet and know how to use it, so I tick the civilization box if that is the measure by which civilization has been judged occasionally in this thread.  I am not and never have suggested that Ukraine should cease existing, and I am not taking the Russian side.  So "hypocritically" shall I take a dump on the floor for expressing this view?

[acrashb]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

As much as I still favor a missile strike, I am definitely not ruling out truck IED yet.  I think the truck is the less likely of the two, but there's not much to suggest it isn't at least possible.

Here is some risk-based food for thought in favour of the truck hypothesis.

When Ukraine planned this operation, secondary to blowing the bridge but still front and centre is continuing to shift Russia's internal narrative that they can win the war.  Striking and failing, on Putin's birthday, would shift the narrative in the wrong direction, so the planning would include as a top priority the need for near certainty of success.

A single missile - there was only one explosion - does not bring that level of certainty.

Everything is an estimate, so let's go with estimates. A four-lane highway would be about 14 metres across.  Let's say 16 to be generous. 

If HRIM-2, no-one (in my searching) knows the CEP.  But if it is as good as ATACMS (very unlikely), it's as small as 10 meters - and remember that this is a radius, not a diameter. Let's say 20 meters because a) HRIM-2 will not be as good and b) the ATACMS CEP is unpublished, to the best of my knowledge.  So the CEP is 40 metres in diameter.

For simplicity (my ability to do calculus is long gone) we can treat the roadway as circular.  This would mean that the likelihood of a missile missing the roadway is significantly greater than 50%.  If we stretch the road out into, you know, a road, then it's still around 50%.  If you add in the railway, aim at the middle and hope for the best, we are still hovering slightly below 50% for a strike.  Let's say 30% for a single missle to miss, to be generous.

Two missiles are then .3*.3 == 9% likely to miss.  Three missiles, 3%, and four missiles less than one percent.
The previous highly-accurate missile strikes on bridges were GMLRS, which has a small CEP, say 15 meters, and they used multiple missles.

Even if my numbers are significantly off (e.g., if the HRIMS-2 is in fact as accurate as the smallest CEP I've found for ATACMS, or Russian roads are a lot wider than typical ones), using a single missile is fairly likely to miss, so if this is a missile attack then the hypothetical Ukrainian planner either says "let's wait until after Putins b-day" or "let's send three or four missiles".

Since it was on Putin's b-day and there was a single explosion, that makes a missile less likely than a truck bomb with a GPS trigger and an unwitting (there is no evidence to date that Ukraine can generate suicide bombers) driver.  

Granted the truck bomb requires human assets to pull off, I'm of the view that there is enough chaos in Russia, particularly near-ish to the front, to make it relatively credible.  And if it fails, it does so silently, or at least not spectacularly, and not necessarily on Putin’s b-day.

The train would be easier to sabotage, I guess, but trains are stationary in more predictable, and hence more guardable, locations.  Perhaps there were multiple irons in the fire and the truck bomb worked first.  At that point, the slow-moving train that burned becomes a happy bonus, like a weevil in one’s biscuit.

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by acrashb

[keas66]

4 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Either with us or without us .... congratulations on winning comedy hour with a false dichotomy.  I support a Ukrainian victory, I have a flushable toilet and know how to use it, so I tick the civilization box if that is the measure by which civilization has been judged occasionally in this thread.  I am not and never have suggested that Ukraine should cease existing, and I am not taking the Russian side.  So "hypocritically" shall I take a dump on the floor for expressing this view?

Well I would kind of suggest "existence" is being meant in a more subtle way here ?  Russia -  if allowed to continue in its current political form - will simply keep trying  exactly what is is doing now until it succeeds or until it no longer "exists" in its current form . There has to be a change in view/perspective at the top in Russia  for anything to change . Until that happens Kraze is kind of on point .

[Grossman]

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

#1 puts NATO on a fast track to open war with Russia.  Therefore, I expect #2 to be the selected course of action for as long as possible.  One can always shift into #1 mode at any time, so might as well play out #2 first.

The important thing is there has to be a response of some significance.  I think NATO is up for that.

Yeah, I've not understood the reluctance to provide Ukraine with more sophisticated air defenses until very recently.  It is a "defensive weapon" after all.

Steve

Given the Russian reaction, attacks on Kiev etc, it only increases western revulsion. It means greater western involvement the deployment of air defences, the Germans sending tanks, the Poles looking at more active participation.  Putin is quite mad, and the Russian psychology along with it. Ukrainians are fighting for their right of independence, for western values. The West has to ensure the Ukrainians succeed. Biden talks of an off-ramp. It is Russian forces retreating behind their old borders. Let them sort themselves out. We leave them to it, and sanctions remain 

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, acrashb said:

The train would be easier to sabotage, I guess, but trains are stationary in more predictable, and hence more guardable, locations.  Perhaps there were multiple irons in the fire and the truck bomb worked first.  At that point, the slow-moving train that burned becomes a happy bonus, like a weevil in one’s biscuit.

 

Don't have much of an opinion yet with the lack of any solid info, but regarding trains, we used to hop freight trains on our way to school.  They frequently are moving not much better than walking speed in unguarded locations.

[acrashb]

46 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't know if that goes for aluminum truck panels under such circumstances. 

It would not.  Powdered aluminum, a key ingredient in fun-with-thermite, burns the way it does because of the very high surface-area-to-volume ratio.  It's the same concept for any dust / powder explosing, like in a grain elevator.  The grain doesn't go boom, the grain dust does.

[acrashb]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

Don't have much of an opinion yet with the lack of any solid info, but regarding trains, we used to hop freight trains on our way to school.  They frequently are moving not much better than walking speed in unguarded locations.

Well, so did some of my friends, so you've got me there  I don't have much of an opinion either, as I said, it's all estimates.  Just adding 'risk managment' for a single middle into the fray, I don't think it's been mentioned earlier.

At the end of the war as things become declassified, there will be some fascinating reading.

Edited October 10, 2022 by acrashb

[Bufo]

 

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

And then US subs also strangely stop communicating? Or is it only the US that knows the location of Russian subs at all times, and not the other way around? If so, what's the point for Russia to even operate submarines?

Given the kind of performance we've been seeing from the Russian military, it's entirely possible they don't have a clue where their own subs are, let alone anybody else's.

[Artkin]

1 minute ago, Bufo said:

 

And this is exactly why I'm signing up ASAP. 

[Mattias]

A really excellent listen. Theiner has some great insights into hardware issues, and in particular regarding artillery. Both technically and politically interesting. The Crimean Bridge discussion follows Steve’s train of thought - though the conclusion lands in ATACMS being the weapon used.

 

 

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, akd said:

You can see the burning fragments hitting the road surface, flashing and continuing to burn:

 

They are blown right to left by the strong wind in that direction.

I've watched those videos more than once.  There's nothing burning on the deck.  All those fireflies are water droplets.

edit: I see what you think are things hitting and continuing to burn.  It's big drops splashing on the deck and making little droplets that flash. They're not continuing to "burn".

Edited October 10, 2022 by chrisl

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

I think everyone has a pretty good idea who is responsible, but the powers that be are probably awaiting proof. Once concrete evidence is there they have two options:

1. Go public with it and whatever their responses will be. My guess would be more sanctions and stuff like that as once they go public there will be a howl not to escalate. Probably increased hardware support as well.
2. Stay quiet and hit back quiet. Cyber warfare probably the best for this. Especially if they could knock out stuff as an exponential tit for tat. By this I mean establish a ratio for the kremlin. You knocked out power to this island, we take down 5 of your plants, permanently if possible. That is the only thing Russia understands is strength. You have to hurt them more than they can hurt you otherwise their asshattery will persist and if you accept it you encourage it.

Yeah, I was thinking same thing.  US/NATO will respond in public w sanctions, increased support.  But behind the scenes will be cyberattacking electric grid, internet, etc.  When the cell phones don't work all day in Moscow folks might start to reconsider their choices.

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, acrashb said:

It would not.  Powdered aluminum, a key ingredient in fun-with-thermite, burns the way it does because of the very high surface-area-to-volume ratio.  It's the same concept for any dust / powder explosing, like in a grain elevator.  The grain doesn't go boom, the grain dust does.

I don't know how aluminum panels behave when explosively "disassembled" and exposed to extremely high heat and wind added to the equation.  Probably not what we saw, but my point is that I doubt there is only one explanation for what we see on the video.  Especially given we have no idea what was inside that truck.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Mattias said:

A really excellent listen. Theiner has some great insights into hardware issues, and in particular regarding artillery. Both technically and politically interesting. The Crimean Bridge discussion follows Steve’s train of thought - though the conclusion lands in ATACMS being the weapon used.

Yikes, that is a long podcast!  And here I am without an 8 hour drive in my near future (just did a couple last week though!).

Steve

[Combatintman]

20 minutes ago, keas66 said:

Well I would kind of suggest "existence" is being meant in a more subtle way here ?  Russia -  if allowed to continue in its current political form - will simply keep trying  exactly what is is doing now until it succeeds or until it no longer "exists" in its current form . There has to be a change in view/perspective at the top in Russia  for anything to change . Until that happens Kraze is kind of on point .

Subtlety is rarely on show in his posts.

[Bufo]

13 minutes ago, Artkin said:

And this is exactly why I'm signing up ASAP. 

Signing up for what?

[Battlefront.com]

37 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Here is some risk-based food for thought in favour of the truck hypothesis.

When Ukraine planned this operation, secondary to blowing the bridge but still front and centre is continuing to shift Russia's internal narrative that they can win the war.  Striking and failing, on Putin's birthday, would shift the narrative in the wrong direction, so the planning would include as a top priority the need for near certainty of success.

Agreed.  Which, in my opinion, is the primary reason for putting truck bomb lower down on the list.

37 minutes ago, acrashb said:

A single missile - there was only one explosion - does not bring that level of certainty.

Correction... there was only one HIT.  We don't know if another missile, or more, hit the water as a MISS.  All we have for visual evidence is what the Russian government has allowed to be released.  Since their chosen narrative is "truck bomb" they certainly aren't going to give us CCTV of missiles striking water.

37 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Everything is an estimate, so let's go with estimates. A four-lane highway would be about 14 metres across.  Let's say 16 to be generous. 

If HRIM-2, no-one (in my searching) knows the CEP.  But if it is as good as ATACMS (very unlikely), it's as small as 10 meters - and remember that this is a radius, not a diameter. Let's say 20 meters because a) HRIM-2 will not be as good and b) the ATACMS CEP is unpublished, to the best of my knowledge.  So the CEP is 40 metres in diameter.

CEP based on Saki appears to be somewhere around 15m.  If the roadway is 16m across then the chances of a miss are extremely low given that this is a linear target where error in probably 6 out of 8 directions results in a hit and theoretically error in the other 2 is might still result in a hit.

We also should not assume the guidance system used was purely Ukrainian.

37 minutes ago, acrashb said:

For simplicity (my ability to do calculus is long gone) we can treat the roadway as circular.  This would mean that the likelihood of a missile missing the roadway is significantly greater than 50%.  If we stretch the road out into, you know, a road, then it's still around 50%.  If you add in the railway, aim at the middle and hope for the best, we are still hovering slightly below 50% for a strike.  Let's say 30% for a single missle to miss, to be generous.

Two missiles are then .3*.3 == 9% likely to miss.  Three missiles, 3%, and four missiles less than one percent.
The previous highly-accurate missile strikes on bridges were GMLRS, which has a small CEP, say 15 meters, and they used multiple missles.

Even if my numbers are significantly off (e.g., if the HRIMS-2 is in fact as accurate as the smallest CEP I've found for ATACMS, or Russian roads are a lot wider than typical ones), using a single missile is fairly likely to miss, so if this is a missile attack then the hypothetical Ukrainian planner either says "let's wait until after Putins b-day" or "let's send three or four missiles".

Since it was on Putin's b-day and there was a single explosion, that makes a missile less likely than a truck bomb with a GPS trigger and an unwitting (there is no evidence to date that Ukraine can generate suicide bombers) driver.  

Granted the truck bomb requires human assets to pull off, I'm of the view that there is enough chaos in Russia, particularly near-ish to the front, to make it relatively credible.  And if it fails, it does so silently, or at least not spectacularly, and not necessarily on Putin’s b-day.

The missile was more likely to fail in its execution, but more likely to be executed.  Truck bomb more likely to succeed in its execution, but less likely to be executed.

However, the point I keep coming back to is...

37 minutes ago, acrashb said:

The train would be easier to sabotage, I guess, but trains are stationary in more predictable, and hence more guardable, locations.  Perhaps there were multiple irons in the fire and the truck bomb worked first.  At that point, the slow-moving train that burned becomes a happy bonus, like a weevil in one’s biscuit.

If Ukraine was unable to use missiles or didn't like the odds of a hit, the truck concept should NOT have been their first pick for an alternative.  Train would be significantly easier to pull off.  So if this was a truck bomb, then there's something we're not taking into our calculations that would favor it over a train.

Steve

[Haiduk]

HIMARS vs artillery/MLRS

 

[FancyCat]

 

Quote

Tyry suggests that the explosive payload may have included Russian-made thermite incendiaries. (The Russians have used these extensively in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians have captured unfired Russian thermite rockets; see thread below on this topic.)