How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

Von Der Leyn casually mentioned that Ukraine has lost "more than 100K military officers killed"  I guess the original message, before she haplessly distorted it was that Ukraine suffered 100K casualties, which sounds realistic. Why on earth would she disclose this number to the general public remains a secret though, I doubt it was arranged with UA side.

 

[Ultradave]

20 hours ago, Huba said:

On the contrary - if that breakdown is correct, Ukraine is almost out of the woods regarding the missile threat.

- Iskanders are the most dangerous of all of these, by far - the stock is almost depleted and they really have to keeps some for an emergency. Same is the Kinzhal
- Onyx while super potent as anti-ship weapon, has only 300 km range or so, and that's with the high-low flight profile. 
- S300 is purely a terror weapon, and not relevant to attacks on the infrastructure, and so is mostly the Kh-22
- Kh35 is way too short ranged to be useful against most of the UA territory

That leaves Kh555, Kh101 and Kalibrs. Given that in last attack Russians fired more than 100 of these, they have enough juice for only a few more waves.

This may be the solution to the breakdown of the INF Treaty between the US and Russia. Russia won't have any more left to eliminate, and it's not like we've resurrected or developed a substitute for Pershings since we canned the treaty. Put the treaty back in place before Russia can rebuild after this is over.

Dave

[edit] this was intended to be facetious. sorry for the confusion. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Ultradave

[Huba]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

and it's not like we've resurrected or developed a substitute for Pershings since we canned the treaty

Oh, but you are doing exactly that, only better  AFAIK these are also to be launched from modified Zumwalts, and perhaps at some point from the subs:

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Huba

[kevinkin]

4 hours ago, Kinophile said:

RUSI higher level overview of the UKR and RUS performances in the war so far. 

Thanks. A couple of items jump out.

First I never realized the (wide?) use of armor in an indirect fire role within the UA. Makes a heck of a lot of sense given an overall theme of the analysis is the importance of dispersion and mobility. 

The value of this technique is that it allows  tanks to concentrate fire over a wide area while they can manoeuvre without the protection and screening needed by artillery pieces. Ukraine therefore planned to use armour as mobile reserves supporting its formations, capable of offering blunting fire against enemy movements and to support counterattacks if conditions permitted.

And this march order is really not new. Been used since the development of Alexander's system that integrated light and heavy infantry and cavalry. Even the old sword and shield tactic is similar. 

Ukraine therefore planned to use armour (heavy cavalry) as mobile reserves supporting its formations, capable of offering blunting fire against enemy movements (light infantry and cavalry) and to support counterattacks if conditions permitted. 

The above techniques were also use to take back ground and hold ground. The writers mention the importance of stockpiling weapons. This is true for a continental war. But for a naval / air war vs China, the number of trained people to technically able to deploy firepower might be the key resource to stockpile.  

Given the numbers deployed along the front, is this battlefield more or less concentrated compared to WW2 along the same terrain? My gut says less, but let's crunch the numbers. 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by kevinkin

[LongLeftFlank]

On 11/29/2022 at 2:40 AM, hcrof said:

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2022/11/25/here-russian-tanks-are-mostly-fodder/

****

Ukraine has used troops as very effective, quasi-spec ops units even without the involved training. Technological advances, combined with what might be seen as a downgrade in C&C, add considerably to capabilities, especially AT. The UA had little choice but to do so in a battlefield that was fragmented and fast moving from the start. Yooks are good at force spreading, mainly to prevent artillery losses. Their early successes gave them a high level of trust in what “islands” of forces not under full control could achieve. They decided early on that this type of structure would work very efficiently against the somewhat lumbering doctrine of the Russians. 

Generally it is a combination of very efficient communication based on parallel, real-time reporting, simulcast information from drones and a low level command structure that is selectively aware of the battle planning. We have seen in Ukraine the implementation of these tools at a lower level, even at a partisan level. The Russians do not seem capable of instituting the same structure. 

We are droning them to death, taking-out personnel and either destroying, damaging or forcing abandonment of vehicles and armor. Often the same drone that finds something also destroys it. Drones are largely being democratized throughout the UA force structure. 

Fixed stuff is dead. Slow stuff is dead. Moving stuff without overhead detection and defense is dead. A drone you cannot hear or see can watch your every move, and deliver kinetics or call them in.

UA is integrating tactical drones and precision artillery with US satellite data, which is levels above what the Russians have. This gives them a battlefield view that is both precise and deadly. In addition, they can better plan their logistics for a battle, and can stunt the Russian supply lines. The Yooks are getting positional info on company level elements.

The UA has managed to get quite adept at deciding the Russian’s options for them. More like, they are planning the Russian’s mistakes, and then forcing them to make them. They are doing a lot of stunts to try to drive Russian forces into areas where they can more easily be dealt with. Lot of variable ground here, forest, fields and some high ground. They are either trying to channel them into an area blocked from all sides to kill, or to wait-out and force a surrender. They are also not firmly committing their forces to one specific area, which keeps their option for mobility and quick reaction to changing events open.

Breaking interconnections between Russian units is key to killing their ability to launch an effective offensive. Out in the open, the Russians don’t seem to be able to survive against the Yook’s mobility and back area limiting of their supply routes. Trying to supply a mobile force takes a lot of planning and mobility in itself. They have to hunker down in order to fight. If you can reach into and behind fixed defensive positions, they have no viability and become temporary positions you will have to fall back from. That is why you have to stay on the offensive.

They are trying to hide in some locations. We also noted they are working per doctrine to build defensive lines, three to four elements deep. But, they don’t seem to realize that they are fighting a 3-dimensional war, and if they cannot cover their top and rear and flanks, they will die…in fact, if they cannot project force forward and to their flanks, their defensive positions will wither against a highly mobile force working in multiple dimensions. Fixed defensive positions have always been vulnerable, but now more than ever, you have to project force to defend that position. 

Russian tanks are mostly fodder. Any kind of launch system, even APCs, are a higher priority target. Roving teams with AT (anti-tank) weapons, a bit of balls and drone support are taking them out almost at will. Present AT is portable enough that in a five man crew, we always try to carry two. We don't have a dedicated Javelin gunner as we can all use them. At first, I was the only one with Stinger experience, but they are easy to learn to use too. We usually carry just one. Tanks, more than wheeled vehicles are noisy and leave a very obvious trail that drones can see, follow, and pinpoint. Tanks hiding in the forest tend to keep their engines running (for quick escape and it is cold), which creates a thermal bloom that is obvious.  

If the Russians had used traditional (and doctrinal) infantry support of armor it would have increased the stand-off distance for Yook AT guys, but unless wide ranging and combined with forward (and rear:) recon, infantry will not defeat man-portable kinetic drones.

Large numbers with flank protection is the future of the tank, or with US style air cover to first shape the battlefield. The Russians never had that opportunity here. The Yooks generally control the air based on drones and ground forces with fairly cheap weapons, and the integration of those assets. Detection and defeat of drones at a lower military unit level is key to adapting. Drones themselves will be what detects and defeats both man-portable AT and drone antiarmor systems.

The Russian armor is moving too fast to target accurately, and is in a practical sense, being used as mobile artillery. Armor is outpacing infantry, and infantry is doing a lot of ducking and hiding. The Yooks range killing fire into their rear support elements, which gives front-line Ivans a sense of unease that they have a less safe place to retreat to, as well as messing up logistics. We then have the AT means to thin them out before they pull off a total retreat.

Another thing that is going on with the Russians is the direct embedding of Spetsnaz into infantry groups. That is fine, but they lose their main purpose, which is mobility, fast assault and ability to separate from the enemy. They become cannon fodder like everyone else. 

They kept moving small units forward, 20 – 50 troops at a time, more like probing actions than a real attack. Every time they moved on us we unloaded on them and they would fall back, leaving guys dead or wounded. A least half of them appeared to have been killed by the hail of 82mm mortar fire. Yook artillery finally got a solid position where they were staging. If they would have sent enough of them, and they had fire discipline they could have caused us some trouble. One also has to consider their command competence here. The Russians will learn and will likely try to change, but in practice, can they do so?

The Yooks are very good at using tanks as damned accurate artillery pieces. It seems they have retrofitted tanks with laptop computers to pull target solutions.

The weather will open-up some opportunities for fast tempo attacks, especially on units degraded by the weather and on the defensive. Keeping-up probing attacks, ambushes and fires to supply lines is critical. 

The killing is going to increase dramatically, especially in the winter. The Yooks have no plan to back-off. This is where technology and equipment will prevail. Cut-off their supplies, their escape, and lock them in-place with substandard kit, and kill them with every means available, but primarily heavy guns and ordnance. Those that don’t die kinetically, freeze or starve.

Winter will hinder the Russians much more than it will us. The Yooks have offensive capabilities that are not weather dependent, and I can guarantee the Russians will tend to bunch-up to shorten their supply lines. They will likely hunker down more into static positions, and by that time, we should have enough long range kit to make their existence a living hell. They will be starting fires, or trying to using wet wood and fuel from their vehicles, which will show on thermals. They will also be in groups for warmth and that false feeling of moral support you get when other humans are close, even when you are all in the same process of dying. They will be in vehicles with engines running…noise, sound, a thermal signature, with no outside cover to warn them of a roving team with AT. We can detect them by smelling food cooking. Troops eating at the same time are less alert. About 30 mins after a meal people get sleepy. 

The reality is it does not normally get horrendously cold in the east, the record being like -15F, and in January an average in the high teens. The problem is the freeze/thaw cycles which means you get wet then you freeze. So, is really about managing body temp and trying to stay dry. A point here though, it does not have to get terribly cold to kill you if you are not prepared. 

We will be needing 5000 – 6000 calories to keep warm. We have one-man bivvy shelters, a ground cloth and decent sleeping bags. Once the ground freezes this will have to do. When bedded down, keep weapons and ammo away from body heat. Icing is a major problem for both helo and fixed wing drones, and battery power can be greatly reduced…I have heard by up to 70%.

Mission structure is largely based on working in heavy forests, rivers and swampy areas….although doctrinally it is generally applicable to most areas, and is not much changed in the 50+ years I have been doing this stuff… albeit on an on-and-off basis. The big difference maker is drones. Not only are they a large part of our intel resources, but also constitute our air support and counter-targeting requirements. However, in the areas I am talking about here, drones are not as effective. The Russians are using the forests and swamps to hide forward supply dumps, CPs and troop combat support and rest areas. The tracks are obvious, but then you draw a lot of blanks with overhead surveillance, so you have get some feet on the ground. 

We tend to go small. Small is quieter, has less of a physical signature, and more importantly, is highly mobile. In this environment, mobility means survivability.

We got chewed by air earlier on, not so much now. In this area, almost every outfit has some AA.

Part of the inherent risk is mines – although they will usually be in relatively dry areas or very shallow water. Another is local recon teams, although they tend to stay close to home. [With one group] we noticed they did not keep a point and drag, just a single file several feet apart. We mined (MON-50s) a trail that they used every outing to return home. I wired the mines in series about 10 feet apart, ten feet off the trail so the blast and fragment paths would overlap at the center….and the system attached to a breakwire. 

With time and some effort, any mine field can be cleared by deactivation, picking and moving, or blown in-place. But it's very hard to do that even under minimal covering fire, especially artillery.

There are places where they will have to use the roads. Those are mined, as are the field approaches. God help anyone who uses the ditches for cover. We planted over 5000 lbs of linear explosives wrapped with nail gun belts. 

We only move at night, and are well equipped with thermals to keep track of equipment, humans and even with some limited success, drones. Here, reduction of the muzzle flash is more important than any reduction in sound signature. We of course stay away from trails, which are kinda rare here anyway. 

Natural reflectivity and shine is a killer. Flat black spray paint and dirt is the cure. Multi cam, if NIR (near-infrared), is generally a good compromise here. I don’t really care much for hanging bush on me, it exaggerates movement too much; ok in a hide. 

Thermal is the real problem. It is very hard to avoid. In a hide, get behind stuff that is also sorta warm, and a heat reflective blanket covered by a wool blanket is somewhat effective. The Taliban used that method in Afghanistan. Wool is an amazing material. But, on the move…hard to protect against.

I have no idea why, but in these stressful situations, if you keep your eyes on someone long enough, they seem to sense it. I know that sounds crazy, but it was a thing that was passed along in Vietnam.

We went in as far as we could in an SUV, then humped it the rest, at night. Carried the heaviest loads to date, over 100 pounds each. We did manage to get fuel, simply by stopping at an open service station. We had to pool money to get the tank full, and we kept a careful eye on the owner

We managed our first fully successful supply run by quadcopter drones. Magazines and food...one of the drones can carry ten fully-loaded AK mags.

Thanks for bringing me to this blog!

What an epic human being!!!!  76 year old USNA grad, intel/specops in Vietnam and Kurdistan (and Gawd knows where else).  Practical expertise in EOD, NBC and EW, and has been employing all those skills at the sharp end with a SpecOps recon squad in Ukraine since March (Irpin, Popasna, Bakhmut, Lyman, Kreminna).

As a lesser mortal, I have a rare down day (traveling), so I just read through it all from the beginning. My key notes/quotes are embedded above.  Direct from the front lines, a lot of the same trends that have been being discussed here.  Highly recommended.

[Ultradave]

30 minutes ago, Huba said:

Oh, but you are doing exactly that, only better  AFAIK these are also to be launched from modified Zumwalts, and perhaps at some point from the subs:

 

We haven't fielded anything yet and the Russians have though. So there is an opportunity. Of course I doubt the Russians will be interested since their main goal whenever this ends will be to replenish what they expended.

My comment was more intended to be facetious. Once we withdrew from the treaty rather than make an attempt to close loopholes or negotiate better compliance, the door was pretty much closed to restarting it. Things have moved on. 

Dave

[Taranis]

Talks about Ka-52 and Mi-28 :

 

[Zeleban]

10 hours ago, OldSarge said:

For the US, as long as the country a citizen is fighting for isn't engaged in hostilities toward the US then it is legal. There are several notable examples:  Lincoln Battalion (Spanish civil war), Kosciuszko Squadron (Polish-Soviet war), The Flying Tigers (China-Burma pre-WWII), Eagle Squadron (during BoB). The US Government doesn't encourage or sanction it though.

 

Were the countries to which the units you listed belonged recognized as accomplices of terrorism?

In your opinion, can a US citizen who is fighting for the country an accomplice of terrorism be punished?

[kraze]

14 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Were the countries to which the units you listed belonged recognized as accomplices of terrorism?

In your opinion, can a US citizen who is fighting for the country an accomplice of terrorism be punished?

If USA recognized Russia for what it is - sure. But just yesterday they mentioned they won't do it.

[FancyCat]

Wagner has affiliated entities claimed to have interfered illegally with U.S elections to start. Also corruption, etc. Good place to start drawing up a broad government action against Wagner which I believe is already underway.

If confirmed, I guess that is one benefit of extremely poor conscripts and soldiers, you can pay them with land. Houses. The property of the native inhabitants. Certainly for these people, if they stay on past Ukrainian liberation, they should get deported no question if they don't accept some sort of loyalty oath to Ukraine.

This person's followup tweet I was not aware of, many Ukrainians were encouraged/pressured? to go to the Russian controlled portion of Outer Manchuria, with the result of a abortive attempt to create a "Green Ukraine" republic during the Russian Civil War.

 

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, kraze said:

If USA recognized Russia for what it is - sure. But just yesterday they mentioned they won't do it.

 

Okay, I'll put the question differently. Can US citizens who fought for a country recognized by the European Union as an accomplice of terrorism be punished (extraditioned and punished)?

[OldSarge]

37 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Okay, I'll put the question differently. Can US citizens who fought for a country recognized by the European Union as an accomplice of terrorism be punished (extraditioned and punished)?

I'm not a lawyer, so I can only offer an opinion. There are some finer, more nuanced points under the law, like being a commissioned officer in foreign service as opposed to a mere grunt. Or if the person holds dual citizenship, etc.

Hypothetically, if a natural-born US citizen were to be captured fighting for the RA they would probably be on their own WRT the applicable laws of their captor. I doubt anyone in the State Department would be exerting much effort on their behalf, beyond confirming their status and notifying family.

Edited November 30, 2022 by OldSarge
Spelling

[danfrodo]

7 minutes ago, OldSarge said:

I'm not a lawyer, so I can only offer an opinion. There are some finer, more nuanced points under the law, like being a commissioned officer in foreign service as opposed to a mere grunt. Or if the person holds dual citizenship, etc.

Hypothetically, if a natural-born US citizen were to be captured fighting for the RA they would probably be on their own WRT the applicable laws of their captor. I doubt anyone in the State Department would be exerting much effort on their behalf, beyond confirming their status and notifying family.

Hopefully they will get what they deserve:  A spot on SBurke's list, preferably by US-supplied ordnance of some sort.  

While 'legally' they are not abetting terror for money, we all know that this is exactly what they are doing. 

[OldSarge]

3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Hopefully they will get what they deserve:  A spot on SBurke's list, preferably by US-supplied ordnance of some sort.  

While 'legally' they are not abetting terror for money, we all know that this is exactly what they are doing. 

I wouldn't have a problem with that solution, c'est la guerre.  It would save us the trouble of bringing him to trial.

[cesmonkey]

From today's War In Ukraine YouTube channel video:

Quote

Summary: situation south of Bahmut becomes very negative for Ukrainian forces.

Key areas:

•  North Lugansk: no changes
•  North Donbass: Russian troops captured Kurdyumivka.
•  Central Donbass (Donetsk West): no changes.
•  Zaporizhya: no changes.

 

[Huba]

This is very interesting,assuming it's not just propaganda, but I don't see a reason to believe so. The drone under the construction that she presents is obviously a large platform and an optionally manned one - at least at this stage, perhaps it's a test design with the "bridge" to be removed later. And half a ton payload sounds just about right to be able to totally wreck any BSF ship it rams, or to lay mines on the approaches to Sevastopol.
Also, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a (semi-?)submersible fashioned along the lines of the narco boats.

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Huba

[dan/california]

6 hours ago, Ultradave said:

This may be the solution to the breakdown of the INF Treaty between the US and Russia. Russia won't have any more left to eliminate, and it's not like we've resurrected or developed a substitute for Pershings since we canned the treaty. Put the treaty back in place before Russia can rebuild after this is over.

Dave

 

I would simply question if ANY treaty with the current Russian government is worth the paper it is written on. 

[Pete Wenman]

Some interesting insights to the recent RUSI report

 

P

 

[Beleg85]

About recent von der Leyen comments:

Even if close to the turh, we don't know how much of it could be WIA and civilians.

[dan/california]

13 minutes ago, Pete Wenman said:

Some interesting insights to the recent RUSI report

 

P

 

Still reading, but this report is well worth your time.

[Vanir Ausf B]

12 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Still reading, but this report is well worth your time.

It's a gold mine of information and lessons learned. Required reading.

• At the height of the fighting in Donbas, Russia was using more ammunition in two days than the entire British military has in stock. At Ukrainian rates of consumption, British stockpiles would potentially last a week. Of course, given that the UAF fielded more than 10 times as many operational artillery pieces as the British Army at the beginning of the conflict, it might take more than a week for the British Army to expend all its available ammunition. All this demonstrates, however, is that the British Army lacks the firepower to deliver the kind of blunting effect that the UAF achieved north of Kyiv. The oft-cited refrain of the UK Ministry of Defence that these deficiencies are not a problem because the UK fights alongside NATO allies would be more credible if the situation were much better among any of the UK’s European allies. It is not, except in Finland. Nor – as Ukrainian troops discovered to their surprise – are ammunition, charge bags and other essential consumables consistent between NATO artillery systems; there is an inadequate capacity to draw on one another’s stocks.

[Yet]

8 hours ago, Huba said:

Von Der Leyn casually mentioned that Ukraine has lost "more than 100K military officers killed"  I guess the original message, before she haplessly distorted it was that Ukraine suffered 100K casualties, which sounds realistic. Why on earth would she disclose this number to the general public remains a secret though, I doubt it was arranged with UA side.

 

hmmm ukraines counter on russias losses is at 89000. We know it is hard to get accurate numbers, but seeing russian situation and mobiks,... i hoped/expected the ratio to be 1:2 or more instead of 1:1

Edited November 30, 2022 by Yet
spelling

[Beleg85]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:40 PM, hcrof said:

Relevant discussion on tanks in Ukraine:

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2022/11/25/here-russian-tanks-are-mostly-fodder/

I know the Russians are "using them wrong" but the interviewee emphasizes that they are so visible on the battlefield they are very vulnerable.

Truly, great read. But if this volunteer is indeed so old, what he is doing on the frontlines (or even close to it)?

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Beleg85

[dan/california]

https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf

I didn't think I could be any more angry at the the Russians, but this reports details on the intentional savagery of the Russian occupation plan for Ukraine has proven me wrong, read pages ten and eleven.

[Huba]

1 hour ago, Yet said:

hmmm ukraines counter on russias losses is at 89000. We know it is hard to get accurate numbers, but seeing russian situation and mobiks,... i hoped/expected the ratio to be 1:2 or more instead of 1:1

AFAIK Ukrainians report the number of killed, not overall casualties, though it is not very believable. The 100K number seems to come from gen. Milley, who said that "Russians suffered 100K casualties, and Ukrainians probably a similar number", or something like that. We'll know after the war I guess.