How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, JonS said:

I would tend to believe that farmboys and yokels would have a more-than-passing understanding of how to look after themselves in poor conditions.

I agree they'll do better.  First off, they will bring their own winter kit as the Russian military isn't providing much.  They will have good stuff at their homes they can use for a while.  It won't likely last through the winter, but it will get them started off better than the boys from the cities who are more likely to have "bourgeois" winter clothing instead of classic functional stuff.

I also think the farmboys will do better with improvising stoves and what not to stay warn compared to the city boys, who might do silly things like try to burn books and wet grass to stay warm.

However, I still don't see this working out well overall.  Even if the new mobiks mostly take care of their winter needs themselves, they won't likely do as well as the average Ukrainian unit on the other side.  Especially if the Russians continue to use them in suicide charges or forget to feed them as they seem wont to do.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

 My sense is that it is definitely a factor - the average Russian soldier is likely on a less steep slope than say a US one.  But how much have we seen is a lack of discipline and training, and how much is baked in?

I think this and the support from the chain of command are the key points.  Dumping untrained people into the middle of a warzone without much of any support is more likely going to produce men who behave according to basic survival.  Especially if many of those men are not mentally fit for service to being with (Russia is definitely not targeting the best and the brightest).  I'm not even talking about the violent criminals, but people who are simply on the edges of society to start with.

We have seen instances of Russian units behaving more-or-less properly.  For example, there were reports from Ukrainian civilians that some of the Russian paras that moved into Bucha to replace the horrid 64th MRB were appalled at the things that had been done to the people there.  I remember seeing videos of a Russian officer peacefully negotiating with a Ukrainian farmer at the beginning of the war in order to ensure nobody got hurt while his unit was there.  There's probably more than I could think of, but the point here is it is probable that the Russian units that behave correctly are the ones that are well trained and internally cohesive.  The problem for Ukrainians is there were precious few of those before the war started and they largely killed them all since then.  I doubt there is any Russian unit at the front today that is anything but less professional than when the war started.

Steve

[Kinophile]

Also,  time didn't trying to get sheltered and warm is time not spent facing and watching the Ukrainians. 

Strong Ukrainian logistics this winter will be a long term force multiplier as the winter deepens,, with the converse true for Russia.

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

So, US GI uniforms in WWII were, AIUI, primarily manufactured from cotton. Really nice and snappy uniforms, but ... cotton is known as the thief-of-heat for a reason. British Battle Dress was manufactured from wool. Wool when it's wet is super uncomfortable but retains heat. Cotton does not.

Anecdata: McDonald, in Company Commander describes being fed with hamburgers. In the Ardennes. In January. And that was a treat as fresh cooked meals were irregular. British infantry units received stews and casseroles routinely. Unappetizing stews, perhaps, but more nourishing and warming than an occasional cold hamburger.

The British learnt a LOT during WWI about maintaining mind and body in the field in terrible conditions. I'm not sure the US really had the same opportunity to learn from first hand experience, given that US ground forces didn't really enter battle in significant numbers under their own command - and logistics - chain until spring/summer 1918.

Also, in NWE at least, the US and UK occupied very different terrain. During the particularly severe winter of 44/45 the British occupied a broadly coastal area, from Liege up to the English Channel, while the US occupied higher alpine-ish terrain in the Ardennes and Alsace-Lorraine. So, on the one hard the British were occupying lower terrain with average temperatures moderated by proximity to the ocean, but their AO was notoriously damp. The US meanwhile was occupying higher, drier terrain, but dealing with significant snow and the raw cold that came with it.

Plus, of course, the US ground forces in NWE were somewhere between 2-3 times the size of the Commonwealth forces, much more if you just count UK formations.^ That alone would account for a marked divergence in raw numbers.^^

I think you are undoubtedly correct that there is a data capture and classification mismatch - how could there not be when dealing with very different national medical systems? - but nevertheless I can credit that there was a marked difference in cold weather outcomes and NBI-rates between the US and the UK.

 

^ although I suspect that the medical data will be from the Commonwealth forces overall. Although 21AG included Canadian, Polish, Czech, etc, forces, and was highly heterogeneous from that perspective, from the perspective of equipment, organisation, and logistic (incl medical) support they were extremely homogeneous.

^^ Comparative force sizes in Italy were much more balanced - again as long as the Commonwealth forces are counted in toto, and not just UK formations.

Very good points about the uniform materials and WWI experience, I certainly would not be surprised if Commonwealth forces did have better cold weather outcomes than their U.S. counterparts, all things being equal. My main point was that even correcting for the different numbers involved to get a more relevant rate stat, the disparity still seems far too extreme if it were a true apples to apples comparison (if we divide the 182x difference for the ETO by 3, we still have a sixtyfold difference, which would be a bit eyebrow-raising if we were comparing completely different eras, rather than contemporary peer-level allies).

[JonS]

12 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

we still have a sixtyfold difference, which would be a bit eyebrow-raising if we were comparing completely different eras, rather than contemporary peer-level allies).

oh, I completely agree that there is also almost certainly a data capture and classification mismatch - kinda like the problems with trying to make sense of German AFV KO data from WWII.

[Fernando]

2 hours ago, JonS said:

So, US GI uniforms in WWII were, AIUI, primarily manufactured from cotton. Really nice and snappy uniforms, but ... cotton is known as the thief-of-heat for a reason. British Battle Dress was manufactured from wool. Wool when it's wet is super uncomfortable but retains heat. Cotton does not.

Well, The U.S. army entered the war in wool pants, wool shirt and a cotton Field Jacket O.D. (nicknamed "M41 Jacket" by collectors), which was lined in wool. A sweater in wool was also used and the greatcoat was made in wool indeed. The Mackinaw was also made in cotton but had good wool linning, and most models a nice wool collar. Thae tanker jacket also had a good wool linning and wool cufs and collar. The Tanker Jacket and the Mackinaw was loved by the troops. 

The new M43 uniform was certainly made in cotton, but it was the first layer system. The M43 pants were designed to be worn OVER the wool pants, the field shirt in wool was never replaced by a cotton one, and the M43 jacket was designed to be worn over an IKE jacket (which was made in wool, by the way) or even the M41 jacket (which was lined in wool), as can be seem on some wartime pics. A liner/jacket was designed to be worn under the M43 jacket and over the wool sweater which was worn over the wool shirt. That M43 liner was lined in alpaca or similar. 

After the war, as a rule, the smarter British Battledress look was copied by many  west armies, for dress uniforms mostly, while the U.S. layer system was widely copied and used for field uniforms.  

In short, the American system was quite good, modern and well-thought. OTOH it seems there were big problems to deliver the uniforms in time (ammo, new troops, weapons etc. had priority), and, IIRC, there was a  huge shortage of protecting footwear, which caused many unnecessary loses.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Fernando

[Haiduk]

Several days of icy rains over most part of Ukraine. Day and night temperature is from 0 to +3, but because of wind and humidity over 95 % it feels like below zero. 

UKR positions, damaged by shellings somewhere near Bakhmut. Soldier says at the begining of video: "...and here is our 5* appartment"

UKR soldiers returned to Bakmut from forward positions

Edited November 26, 2022 by Haiduk

[kevinkin]

Pretty good concise student article on the attrition war - missile exchanges vs costs and ultimate effects:

 https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/11/26/ukraine_can_beat_russia_in_the_bombardment_war_of_attrition_866862.html

AKA ... 

"It's the battlefield stupid". You can't get rid of Putin, or similar regimes, without giving Russia's elites the military catastrophe their deserve. The current missile war appears almost like a death wish. 

 

 

[Taranis]

 

[paxromana]

37 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Pretty good concise student article on the attrition war - missile exchanges vs costs and ultimate effects:

 https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/11/26/ukraine_can_beat_russia_in_the_bombardment_war_of_attrition_866862.html

Pretty awful, actually ... his knowledge of the Battle of Britain and Sealion are, frankly, completely wrong.

Sealion was a fantasy. The Germans didn't have the shipping to stage it, couldn't land more than the equivalent of three divisions in three widely separated beacheads with little or no transport or heavy weapons and then couldn't even send resupply for a week after those landings AND the shipping was so slow it would have taken a WHOLE DAY NIGHT CYCLE to cross the Channel and the Rhine River Barges that were the bulk of the shipping had such low freeboard that they could be swamped by anything more than a light chop ... or a British MTB passing by at high speed.

Those were Kriegsmarine assessments ... Hitler 'solved' these problems by telling the Kriegsmarine experts to stop telling the Army that Sealion was impossible.

As for the Battle of Britain, around 55% of the RAF was never committed ... it was held in reserve north of the maximum fighter range for the Germans but would have been able to sortie over the beaches from essentially unassailable airfields if the Germans had attempted a landing.

As for loss rates ... the Luftwaffe was losing more aircraft and aircrew than it could replace for most of the campaign (and, overall) while the RAF could draw on graduates from the Empire Air Training Scheme which was massive and production rates of aircraft ramped up to increasingly replace losses faster than the Luftwaffe could.

Based on the writers flawed knowledge of these matters you've got to wonder what else he has not the slightest clew about (such as his specific numbrs of the different types of Missiles in Russia's arsenal ... I thought the 'best guess' was that no-one really knew/knows).

Not impressded.

[Haiduk]

22 minutes ago, Taranis said:

 

The same unlocked video:

 

[paxromana]

31 minutes ago, Taranis said:

That's not even in the same Ballpark - unless it was actually aimed another vehicle of screen to the right?

Edited November 26, 2022 by paxromana

[Huba]

33 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Pretty good concise student article on the attrition war - missile exchanges vs costs and ultimate effects:

 https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/11/26/ukraine_can_beat_russia_in_the_bombardment_war_of_attrition_866862.html

AKA ... 

"It's the battlefield stupid". You can't get rid of Putin, or similar regimes, without giving Russia's elites the military catastrophe their deserve. The current missile war appears almost like a death wish. 

 

 

There's a lot of small factual inaccuracies in this article - ranges of certain weapon types are different, some important types like Kh-59 are note mentioned at all, it is Shahed 131, not 136 that is being launched at UA etc.
Comparison of the costs of missiles vs antimissiles IMO misses the crucial point that most of what is being fired comes from existing stocks, which once depleted can't be replaced nowhere near fast enough to meet  the demand, therefore the monetary value of a single round is not very important in the overall equation - it is not the money, it is the availability that matters.
The point about military opportunity missed by expanding the missiles at the civilian infrastructure is true only if we assume that RU is able to use this missiles effectively - which it probably isn't due to ISR disadvantage. Still it would probably yield more gain if they concentrated on attacking transport infrastructure like bridges and overpasses I guess.

Now the main point that UA can relatively easily win the missile attrition war is IMO very true, assuming that the estimates of RU arsenal size and missile production speed is more or less correct. 

[akd]

6 minutes ago, paxromana said:

That's not even in the same Ballpark - unless it was actually aimed another vehicle of screen to the right?

Passes directly over the tank in front on the road.

[Haiduk]

Next example of Russian losses near Bakhmut

 

Though, one UKR civil volunteer, who supplies soldiers there has written in Twitter that he knew level of UKR casualties around Bakhmut for all time of battle already exceeded losses of Rubizhe, Siverodonetsk and Lysychansk taken together and almost near the total losses of UKR troops in ATO for 8 years - officially MoD claimed 2665 KIA for 2014- Jan 2021 (w/o other force structures, it can be about 600-700 more).

 

Enough brutal video how UKR troops terrorize Russians near Bakhmut with drone bomblets (especially right one)

https://twitter.com/small10space/status/1596403807730155521/video/2

Edited November 26, 2022 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Left - WWI photos, right - Bakhmut, present days

 

[FancyCat]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I agree they'll do better.  First off, they will bring their own winter kit as the Russian military isn't providing much.  They will have good stuff at their homes they can use for a while.  It won't likely last through the winter, but it will get them started off better than the boys from the cities who are more likely to have "bourgeois" winter clothing instead of classic functional stuff.

I also think the farmboys will do better with improvising stoves and what not to stay warn compared to the city boys, who might do silly things like try to burn books and wet grass to stay warm.

However, I still don't see this working out well overall.  Even if the new mobiks mostly take care of their winter needs themselves, they won't likely do as well as the average Ukrainian unit on the other side.  Especially if the Russians continue to use them in suicide charges or forget to feed them as they seem wont to do.

Steve

There were reports of conscripts getting robbed, either by their instructors or by more senior enlisted (including one instance where a brawl occurred and the newly conscripted won) so unless Russia has managed to stamp this out, which isn't likely, I would wager since cities and their inhabitants are generally more powerful, wealthy, and connected (overall rather individually), personnel connected from urban regions will have greater voice in maintaining the connections needed to push back on corruption and lack of supply vs personnel from rural regions, which are generally poorer overall and with less connections to power structures that might keep corruption from sapping their supplies.

No supporting data, just conjecture on my part.

[Haiduk]

According to GUR (Intelligence Directorate) information, Russians are bringing 8 Kh-101/Kh-555 missiles for a day to Engels airbase, where Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers are deployed. Reportedly Russians prepare about 100-missile salvo, so if that, they might be ready to 5-7th Dec. But likely they will strike on next week, mixing different missiles

 

[akd]

Dude surrenders to a drone:

 

[FancyCat]

 

 

[kevinkin]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Now the main point that UA can relatively easily win the missile attrition war is IMO very true, assuming that the estimates of RU arsenal size and missile production speed is more or less correct. 

And that Russia is firing at the wrong type of target in any event. Stick to the battlefield.  

[Haiduk]

 

Edited November 26, 2022 by Haiduk

[kevinkin]

1 hour ago, paxromana said:

Sealion was a fantasy.

I think the writer would agree with you. As long as the Brits used their resources properly reserving enough to defend against an unlikely crossing. Germany's fantasy quickly became a reality when they directed their resources at the wrong targets - civilians. The writer is drawing a similar conclusion with Russia wasting attacks on civilians. In either war, production was/is a limiting factor and a focus on either civilians or the battlefield did not/ will not matter in the end. However, a focus on military targets is more efficacious because, given sufficient support, populations can be very durable. 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

The same unlocked video:

 

Ah, something all CM players are very well aware of.  The only thing worse than having your ATGM team fire and miss is having the enemy notice you fired and missed!

Steve

[The_Capt]

56 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Oh my that is the real pain right there.  And there is nowhere to go but down.

Edited November 26, 2022 by The_Capt