How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Taranis]

"Ukrainian soldiers fire a mortar at the front line near Bakhmout, Donetsk region, October 27, 2022. EFREM LUKATSKY / AP"

* seems our old 120mm PM-43


"A Ukrainian soldier carries a shell with a written message to the Russian army. EFREM LUKATSKY / AP"



"This city in the Donetsk region, in eastern Ukraine, has been a priority target for the Russian army for months. EFREM LUKATSKY / AP"



"According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, “extremely fierce fighting” is taking place “near Bakhmout”. EFREM LUKATSKY / AP"

[danfrodo]

35 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

It does sound pretty reasonable - at face value.

I suspect the cynicism comes from the fact that US practice for decades seems to have been to be willing to shovel pallet loads of money in to 'their' side without much concern for efficient use, and the people who want to cut off the money hose usually frame it in terms of wanting to be responsible with the tax money and to use of effectively.

So it's not the meaning of what he said that gets a reaction. It's people thinking that what he says sounds like the standard 'code' for "let's stop doing this". 

Some may actually care about oversight.  Some are clearly and demonstrably using 'oversight' to try to aid Putin.  Senator Rand Paul, for example, was so pro-Putin leading up to and into this war that he would've been banned from this forum as a RU troll.  But when he delayed a UKR aid bill he said it was about oversight, which was utter bulls--t given his uber pro Putin public words on the senate floor -- like saying Ukraine was part of Russia and Russia had every right to recover its own territory.  

Some anti-UKR are just simply uber-naive pacifists who think that because war is always bad that it's also always unnecessary (and they are often right, oddly enough) -- easy to say in a free country.  But some are, for whatever reason, pro-Putin/pro-autocracy -- I am guessing they are paid for that support through 'campaign contributions' via some lobbyist cut-out organization.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Next time your CM AFV's optics are yellow or red from damage, this T-80BV will remind you why it's realistic.

 

[The_Capt]

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nope, the key element that was wrong with the plan wasn't the capabilities of the Russian forces to drive down paved roads and land at friendly controlled airports.  That they could do.  The flaw was they sucked at everything else.  A few thousand light infantry, punctuated with heavier forces here and there, was sufficient to kill the plan dead within a single day.

Here I have to diverge.  The plan was doomed by bad strategy both political and military - capability only guaranteed it.  This is why I claim no prescience before the war because until we saw the actual strategy could the outcome become clearer.  For example and one you used, if Russia had focused solely on the Donbas and limited objectives we would likely be seeing a very different outcome, sucky tactical capability and all.  It was the absurd political objectives misaligned with strategy and reality that killed this thing, the UA’s ability to reinvent warfare made sure it was going to happen faster and across a broader set of possible outcomes - to the point I am note sure how the RA could have pulled this off as they were built for another war entirely.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ah, but you're injecting Western thinking into this and that's the sort of mistake we all made when assessing what Russia was going to do with all the forces it put against Ukraine's border.

It isn’t western thinking it is military professional thinking, something Russia lacked.  Find me a military school of thought, east or west where this was a good idea.  A lot of this is arguing with simple physics and some pretty simple rules of war - like effective concentration of forces, unity of command and selection and maint of the aim for starters.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

But Russia is an autocratic state headed by a guy who made it clear he wanted Ukraine before he died.  They planned out something that could theoretically work, provided Ukraine didn't resist.  Putin said "I like that idea!", then asked his intel people if they thought it was feasible.  Because the glorious leader was obvious keen on the idea, and Russia has a lot of windows, the intel people came back and said "yes, we believe Ukraine won't resist".  At that point the general staff produced a plan that was more of a parade than a military operation.

I agree but you are really stretching the concept of an effective plan here.  A term I employ is “relative rationality”, sure from inside the Russian bubble it was a great plan, we love this plan!  But inside that bubble was mass delusion reinforced by an autocrat who does not tolerate dissent.  Just because everyone opinion the room believes it is a great plan doesn’t mean it is in reality…the last 7-8 months have been a glorious testimony to that fact.  A plan based on fantasy does not have merit, even if they really believed in that fantasy.

Relative rationality and progressive unreality are absolute poison to military planning - trust me I have flogged enough majors with this over the years.  A “good plan” is aligned with reality, certainty and capability.  It ensures the certainty one is pursuing is going to be well communicated, supports a position of stronger negotiation and keeps the sacrifice to a min.  The Russian strategy had none of that, except in this world they totally made up.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ah, but if you had a cadre of people and power behind you who planned on which publications were necessary to make this dream happen, and that cadre said they could bribe and/or threaten the decision makers and influences to support your desires, then it could work because the goal is to become a super model, not BE a super model.  I'd say it could result in a "solid plan".  Except for the fact that too many people found your looks so objectionable that the bribes and the threats didn't work.  That's where things went wrong, not with the plan itself.

Steve, no I do not buy into the post-truth world.  Bribe, lie, cheat and murder may get me on a runway in Paris but reality is going to come crashing down sooner than later.  Reality is squishy, I get that, but it is not that flexible, nor is a plan so detached from it.  I can see how you might come to the conclusion that IF Russia had a good relative plan but tactical capability sucked THEN military capability was the determinative factor.  

But Russia did not have a good or viable strategy that aligned the capability they had (means) with the operation (ways) to achieve viable objectives (ends).  I think we are coming at this from opposite directions.  Here is some test questions:

- If Russia had a better strategy, say to solely focus the crappy capabilities it had to take the entire Donbas and far more limited objectives would it have worked, even with UA resistance?  Would it have met better  and more realistic political objectives?

-If Russia had better capability would it have been successful in its extant strategy?

- If the UA had poorer capability, say similar to,what they had in 2014 would the extant Russian strategy work?

- And finally what about the UA strategy?  What would have happened if they had sought decisive battle (which is very western combined arms) for example?

What is becoming clear to me that we have a spectrum of Russian sucking but in different places and levels.  Some, such as a broken strategy, were definitive. Others such as bad capability or operational systems were contributing. The same applies to the UA but here their capability to resist appears more definitive as it destroyed Russian strategy - UA strategy was less dependent on Russian capabilities.  A different Russian strategy that took into account UA resistance may have worked, different Russian capability not so much - we noted that even modern western militaries would have a problem with the UA right now. 

A bad UA strategy would have killed this thing too but they aligned theirs with their capabilities very well, and then those capabilities adapted and evolved very quickly. Russia a rigid strategy that stifled evolution, hell they are pretty much zombie operations in the Donbas right now.

So it comes down to much more than Russia sucking - where did they suck and why.  What impact did sucking at certain levels of warfare have?

It also comes down to how much Ukraine did not suck, excelled in fact.  And then the comparative collision of those two systems. 

[danfrodo]

16 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Next time your CM AFV's optics are yellow or red from damage, this T-80BV will remind you why it's realistic.

 

Plus the barrel damage.  We've all seen complaints that CM barrel damage isn't realistic.  This photo begs to differ.  Are those 30mm autocannon hits?  50 cal AP?

[NamEndedAllen]

14 hours ago, Artkin said:

I don't disagree. It's just hugely ironic. 

Understood. Just too often leads into the darkness that is gratefully,refreshingly not engulfing this spectacularly superb nexus of well-informed decent people from all over the planet.  

[danfrodo]

DailyKos UKR war summary for today.  Nothing particularly new.  Fighting up & down Svatove front.  RU keeps attacking and allegedly losing lots of men and material, as per earlier posts here today.  Kherson now looking like siege of a town filled w hapless conscripts.  Hopefully they'll shoot their masters and surrender en masse under pressure from UKR, poor supplies, and weather.

LIBERAL SITE, ENTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL.  Strayeth not off thine UKR summary path.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/27/2131612/-Ukraine-update-The-idea-that-Ukraine-has-no-choice-but-to-take-Kherson-in-a-great-battle-is-wrong

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

In reading the article it says he thinks we should be sending more weapons both sooner and faster. Pretty sure that is what a bunch of us here have been saying since the beginning.

Then goes on to say that he thinks there should be oversight of the money being sent. In the last few days there have been several conversations on here that talked about the pallets of cash to Afghanistan that either disappeared or weren't spent the way they were intended. Overall the gist was those pallets were a waste. Isn't it reasonable to want to make sure that the actual money sent is being used for what it is meant for and trying to keep the graft and corruption to a minimum? Haven't we pointed out how corruption is a rot that will mess up the entire system if let go unchecked? 

The way I interpret this is just responsibility and accountability. I don't know why anyone on either side of the political isle wouldn't think that is a good thing. I know as a taxpayer I want my taxes used responsibly by our government and lawmakers. I didn't see anywhere in the article about cutting off support or sending less, just having oversight on the money and how it is used. 

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If it weren't for partisan politics and media spinning it would probably sound pretty reasonable to most people, but this is the world we live in. So I suppose I should get down off my high horse of reasonableness, responsibility and accountability (terms that surely show my antiquated 20th century boomer coerced mentality) and start flinging mud at one side or the other no matter what they say or do. 

Luke Coffey debunks the claims made on accountability definitively here: 

https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/ten-myths-us-aid-ukraine-luke-coffey

These points are well understood to be true on the Hill which should put the positioning going on in a fairly unflattering context.

[akd]

I love the idea of Russia raising a militia in Kherson that just turns out to be more partisans:

 

[Haiduk]

On 10/26/2022 at 7:21 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, this is just too funny to not post (note slight typo in the translation should read "Bombed Donbas" instead of "Dombed Bonbas")

 

@fireship4

This is mockery meme ) Russians, who positioning themeselves like "defenders of Russian language" often in real show own terrible analfabetizm. They often write on the walls "For DoMbas!", insted "Donbas". Also Russian propaganda all time was repeating "Ukraine bombed Donbas", so because of words "bombed" and "DoMbas" sound similar, the twisted meme "Dombed Bombas" has appeared ) 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Haiduk

[MikeyD]

"LIBERAL SITE, ENTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL" As opposed to con sites that just post Russian talking points?

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

In reading the article it says he thinks we should be sending more weapons both sooner and faster. Pretty sure that is what a bunch of us here have been saying since the beginning.

Then goes on to say that he thinks there should be oversight of the money being sent. In the last few days there have been several conversations on here that talked about the pallets of cash to Afghanistan that either disappeared or weren't spent the way they were intended. Overall the gist was those pallets were a waste. Isn't it reasonable to want to make sure that the actual money sent is being used for what it is meant for and trying to keep the graft and corruption to a minimum? Haven't we pointed out how corruption is a rot that will mess up the entire system if let go unchecked? 

The way I interpret this is just responsibility and accountability. I don't know why anyone on either side of the political isle wouldn't think that is a good thing. I know as a taxpayer I want my taxes used responsibly by our government and lawmakers. I didn't see anywhere in the article about cutting off support or sending less, just having oversight on the money and how it is used. 

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If it weren't for partisan politics and media spinning it would probably sound pretty reasonable to most people, but this is the world we live in. So I suppose I should get down off my high horse of reasonableness, responsibility and accountability (terms that surely show my antiquated 20th century boomer coerced mentality) and start flinging mud at one side or the other no matter what they say or do. 

In a perfect and honest, straightforward political world, I believe you would be 100% correct. And I truly hope you are. Unfortunately, we have learned through bitter experiences time after time that not verifying after trusting is disastrous. MAYBE he is meaning what he is saying, but far too often politicians on all sides wield these fiscal responsibility statements as fig leaf propaganda used only while fighting whatever the other side is doing. So I *hope* this is a rare instance of complete sincerity, but wait for verification after the upcoming elections. Too cynical? Probably. The price of living long enough!
 

 

[dan/california]

Some actual maps for the first time in a while.

[danfrodo]

12 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

"LIBERAL SITE, ENTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL" As opposed to con sites that just post Russian talking points?

Some people have ignored this warning and wandered from the path into the dark woods and have seen things they cannot unsee.  And then they comment about the content that is NOT what I linked to.  So I keep putting this warning.

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Some actual maps for the first time in a while.

Good info, thanks.  My optimistic view is that by attacking RU is helping UKR by losing lots of resources that would otherwise be dug in or a mobile reserve.  But that is probably little comfort to those getting attacked near Pisky & Bakhmut.  Kinda almost as if some dictator is ordering pointless attacks, but why would a super genius order stupid things, especially in an existential fight against the forces of Satan?

[Haiduk]

18 hours ago, Calamine Waffles said:

The brigade received the traditional equipment of air assault brigades – Kozak MRAPs, BTR-3E armored personnel carries and T-80BV tanks. The equipment, in all fairness, seems to be taken out directly from a storage yard and we all gotta hope it gets some love before it goes to the front.

Hm.... I doubt we had Kozaks and BTR-3DA (E doesn't produce since 2015) in storages. And more doubt we could produce them during the war (though Kozaks are possible... maybe). I think all this staff was taken from other air-assault and maybe National Guard brigades (then it can be and BTR-3E1 too), which suffered losses, but received western vehicles. 

Also I've seen 71st yager infantry brigade was moved under Air-assault Command and also became air-assault.

About 45th air-assault brigade, mentioned in the article it's mysterious unit. During the ATO/JFO in 2016 this brigade was established on the base of 88th separate airmobile batatlion of 79th airmobile brigade (since 2017 - air-assault), moved to Bolgrad (Besarabia, Odesa oblast). Brigade participated at the war on Donbas, but like and 46th air-assault brigade involved personnel and vehicles of other air-assault brigades. In November 2018 88th separte air-assult battalion was moved to new-formed 35th Marines brigade and became 88th separate air-assault battalion in it composition. Since this time I didn't hear mentions about 45th air-assault brigade. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Haiduk

[Huba]

11 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Good info, thanks.  My optimistic view is that by attacking RU is helping UKR by losing lots of resources that would otherwise be dug in or a mobile reserve.  But that is probably little comfort to those getting attacked near Pisky & Bakhmut.  Kinda almost as if some dictator is ordering pointless attacks, but why would a super genius order stupid things, especially in an existential fight against the forces of Satan?

Somebody posted this topographical map in one of the comments. Makes understanding the situation on the Luhansk front easier:

 

[Jammason]

3 hours ago, chrisl said:

It's hard enough to maintain a lot of insight and oversight with big aerospace contractors when you're not in a war zone and you can even have a group of people on site for an extended period.  Doing it in a war zone is a non-trivial task.  The mitigating factor for a lot of the Ukraine aid is that the bulk of it actually is spent domestically where you can have as good of oversight as is possible while the aerospace contractors put together all the fancy stuff, with the transportation costs being the main overseas part of the expenses.  Direct cash aid tends to be a smaller part of the aid budgets (though not trivially small) and is probably hard to oversee, but even that is likely to go through established aid organizations to help refugees and displaced persons.

The question of how allocated funds will be spent effectively is a good one, and one that this group might actually have fun with. Here are my thought-starters wrt reconstruction funds. I’m purposely leaving out funds for military hardware (which are comparatively easy) and those earmarked for humanitarian & medical aid. I’m also missing farm rehabilitation, which is significant. Note I’ve put “mine clearing” under defense related civil engineering, but this effort may be a pre-condition for a lot of reconstruction projects, especially the previously mentioned farm rehabilitation.

I’m breaking out reconstruction costs into three main areas, and am suggesting they are each individually funded by an oversight group, but are administrated separately, with staff that understands the breadth of domain-specific issues:

1) Building reconstruction, e.g.:
- Houses
- Apartments
- Educational facilities
- Hospitals
- Shops/shopping centers
- Administrative buildings

2) Transit/Infrastructure, e.g.:
- Bridges
- Roads
- Power generation facilities
- Oil depots
- Railways
- Airports

3) Civil Engineering Defense, e.g.:
- Walls/fences/checkpoints
- Border surveillance
- Port/shoreline surveillance
- Mine clearing

Each of the independent bodies follows a similar process, a high-level summary of which looks like this:

A. Assess damage

B. Prioritize reconstruction, using RICE guidance where it fits (i.e. projects scored on Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort; essentially “bang for buck”)

C. Identify areas of overlap where cost savings allow for (slightly) lower priority projects to be done alongside higher priority projects, re-sort list

D. Ballpark cost estimates for highest priority projects

E. Report cost estimates to oversight group. They allocate a single tranche of $X billion to cover Y projects

F. Funds go into escrow account

G. Competitive bidding process begins. Contractor can see real money is there, this gives them confidence to bid and allocate resources.

H. Bids chosen; minimally required down-payments are released.

I. Funds are released from escrow every X weeks and/or as project milestones are achieved

Repeat process for as many tranches as budget allows.

While many of you will no doubt point out the naïveté of my thinking, please point out how the above is worse than pallets of cash.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Jammason

[dan/california]

Have I mentioned that Belarus is the linchpin of this whole thing? Have I mentioned that the AFU General Staff is smarter than all of us? Allow to mention both of those things AGAIN, and ask you to ponder what happens in Moscow if Lukashenko's long delayed date with a lamp post happens?

[NamEndedAllen]

41 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Some people have ignored this warning and wandered from the path into the dark woods and have seen things they cannot unsee.  And then they comment about the content that is NOT what I linked to.  So I keep putting this warning.

That must have been about 1,000 pages ago. Everyone has seen the warning many times over, and are capable readers. So, enough already!

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

That must have been about 1,000 pages ago. Everyone has seen the warning many times over, and are capable readers. So, enough already!

Dude, I totally respect you and your posts and we agree on things politically -- we're even in the same lovely state (I'm on the wet side, where are you?).  I see that this is bugging you.  Does it matter whether I put that or not?  I actually think it's kinda funny, but I can see it's having an adverse affect for you.  

OK I'll not put it there next time --  but when I link to to that site w/o warning and someone gets mad about it I'll send them to you .  I'll say "Sir, would you like to speak with a manager" 

Anyway, thanks for your posts on the forum, keep 'em comin'.  

[Haiduk]

After yesterday strike at fuel train in Shakhtarsk Russian TV showed reportage how local firemen heroically rescued dozens of tank-cars. Today next three HIMARSes hit the same station where theese resqued tank-cars remained standing. As result of strike next portion of tank-cars were set on fire with fuel tanks of fuel depot on this station. One missile also reportedly hit deploymnet place of "Dizel" tank battalion near railway station, also causing fire.

This second strike took place about 8 hour ago, this fire is burning to this time

 

 

 

 

[Haiduk]

Mech.company on M113, Kahrkiv oblast, probably recent video

 

[Haiduk]

Improvised HMMWV-based tank destroyer )

 

[Huba]

33 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Have I mentioned that Belarus is the linchpin of this whole thing? Have I mentioned that the AFU General Staff is smarter than all of us? Allow to mention both of those things AGAIN, and ask you to ponder what happens in Moscow if Lukashenko's long delayed date with a lamp post happens?

I just watched an interview with Anna Maria Dyner, who is an analyst in Polish Institute of International Affairs, about the situation in Belarus. Very unfortunately, Youtube didn't translate it, and it was a very good material. Ms. Dyner is really professional and one of the better experts in the subject. Let me summarize some of the most important points:

- there's now around 10K Russian soldiers in Belarus (compared to 30K during the February invasion). Most of them are conscripts. It looks like they are there mostly for basic training, before being moved to units in Ukraine.

- Russia keeps ravaging Belarusian arms depot, for example they took away up to 90 T-72s.

- Lukashenka keeps talking about risk of NATO (really Polish and Lithuanian) invasion. In her opinion this is his tactic to retain the army in the country and not allowing it to be used in the invasion. He also recently issues more and more calls for peace and negotiations. His strategy is obviously aimed at remaining in power after the war, and for that it is an imperative to not be dragged in the active fighting.

- Given Lukashenka's weakness and dependence on Russia, as a trade-off he's allowing Russia to do what it pleases on Belarusian territory. This is likely to only increase.

- There's a very substantial (if not very active) resentment against Lukashenka in the society and parts of the army, especially after 2020. A little known fact, since February more than 200K Belarussians has left the country, it is almost 3% of the population. OTOH, any possible opposition leaders are imprisoned or exiled, there's nobody to start an uprising/ revolution.

- To sum it up, she finds it very unlikely that Belarusian army will enter the conflict. It is also unlikely that anything changes there, unless Russia collapses.

Original material (in Polish):