How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

Since this is a game forum, every once and a while it is good to mention games

Obviously I've talked a lot about what CM can tell us about warfare and how it can inform us about tactical outcomes which translate into operational outcomes which then influence strategic outcomes.  The discussions about what to give Ukraine for weaponry brings up a different type of game we're all familiar with... Real Time Strategy.

When the enemy is at your gates and you're losing forces at an uncomfortable rate, what are your production strategies?  Do you opt for those better units that take 2x as long to make and 4x as many resources *or* do you go for the ones that can be cranked out faster at less cost?  If you want to win, you go with the ones that can be cranked out faster with less impact on your resources. 

Even with the aid of NATO, Ukraine's ability to build and field newly equipped units is finite.  Accelerated trainings and specialization are possible, but the more of it that is attempted at once means something else has to get sacrificed.  Pointing to training of a few dozen PzH2000 and HIMARS crews as if that could be easily duplicated for large numbers of tanks overlooks the fact that the reasons for the PzH2000 and HIMARS successes is because they were exceptional to start with.

Here's a flowchart I made back in April.  It is as true today as it was back then:

Steve

[holoween]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Sure you could compress training on conversion but risks go up dramatically.  For example a driver with a weeks training is not going to have time to know how to handle mine ploughs and rollers, so first hillock taken to fast is going to knock out minefield breaching capability. 

Neither exists as an upgrade to the leo2 in the german army thats done by specialized vehicles and crews.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Then there is river crossing/snorkeling - that is a major hurdle and training bill not to get crews drowned...but there are no rivers in Ukraine...no problem.

Snorkeling is not something usually trained. Its got quite limited use cases and if you want to use it for an operation you have to peplan it in advance quite a bit so training the crews on it then is the way to go.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

  As to your logistical plan of "send back to Poland", if the drivers and crew are lightly trained that is going to happen a lot more often because they will not know 1) how to avoid damaging the vehicle and 2) how to do first line repairs.  And then there is the "how do you train maintainers?" issue but why confuse the issue with facts?

1 they arent easily damaged. Outside of enemy action a freshly trained crew isnt going to damage the tank much more often than a seasoned crew.

2 you dont. your readiness rate is simply going to be lower as you have to ship them back until you have managed to train up the maintenance crews.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

To take 100 Leo 2s and turn them into a coherent fighting force e.g. a Regiment or Battlegroup, that can do what everyone here wants them to do, from crew training, through troop and squadron, to combat team and battlegroup and finally in a formation context is going to take 6-12 months at best, if you do not want the thing flopping around the battlefield breaking itself.  OR, here is a crazy idea...we give the UA the equipment it is already trained on and organized to fight on as a priority.  We then pepper in critical systems that provide immediate payoff and can play to the ISR strengths we are also providing and give the critical range extensions - e.g. HIMARs.  We will take risks with some systems but wholesale re-tooling of the UA ground force while it is in contact in the middle of a war is a very dumb idea.

If you want to create essentially a armoured brigade from scratch yes youre going to take well over a year if you want to get them to nato standards. However noone is doing that. All the training for ukrainian soldiers in western countries is training up seperate pieces.

Giving them equipment they are already used to is done with priority (ringtausch) but there is only so much kit around.

Getting ukrain 100leo2s is also incredibly unlikely give the generally low inventories. Realisitcally were looking at a western battlaion size (44 tanks) with 10-15 spare tanks to keep the battalion up to strength while the damaged ones are send to the west.

No that doesnt give ukraine a formation that can run over the russianss as the us was running over iraq but that still gives them a fairly powerfull unit.

[kevinkin]

100s of million of people don't play on World Cup teams and they are discussing the tournament - just not here. Many here vote and are taxpayers and do have an influence on policy - sometimes larger than would be expected. Think of our banter as a potential force multiplier. The back and forth debate, if civil, can educate and education informs the tax payer. Some of what seems to be personal here is not. Some of the worst arguments are within family.  You will not find a better thread on the war anywhere. From tactical to strategic. From technical to humane - this is where to be. And many posts come with sources to back up the writers thoughts. 

[Twisk]

I don't think that it cannot be talked about here. I actually think the discussion here is usually very valuable. But over the last fews days I've seen the discussion start to get needlessly personal and that doesn't benefit anyone.

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, Twisk said:

True and I think some topic drift is fine but this isn't just topic drift. Its topic drift with a helping of petty sniping and people getting way too personal about this.

There is an interesting discussion about Leopard tanks but this isn't just a discussion about tanks but also an undercurrent that people here are somehow personally responsible for the actions of nation-states. User's aren't waving the Budapest memorandum in the faces of national leaders and users here aren't personally stopping Ukraine from taking control of a vast fleet of modern armor.

Yes, I want people to take a deep breath and remember that we are all on the same side and share the same overriding goal... having Russia knocked out of the imperialism business.

The overall point that Ukraine, and by extension it's citizens, need to keep in mind is that Ukraine isn't entitled to anything.  Not legally and not even morally in any meaningful sense.  The West stands by, and even sometimes actively supports, really bad things that happen in this world.  Some of them involve deaths that make this war look quaint by comparison.  Ethiopia is one that is currently going on and you don't see them getting 1/1000th of the attention of the big nations that Ukraine gets. 

Context is important and the West's support of Ukraine should not be judged without it.  No nation in the course of my entire life has received more aid more freely more readily and more quickly than Ukraine has.  And not by a little bit, but by a massive margin.  Whatever criticisms are leveled at the West generally, or key nations specifically, need to be viewed through this truth.

Ukraine should never grovel for what it doesn't get, but it should also not be ungrateful for what it does get.  Western aid is dependent on the good will of the Western populations which, sadly, are not fully in support of aiding Ukraine for one or another reason.  It is not in Ukraine's best interests to shift Western opinion towards the anti-support groups.  Because the governments will ultimately follow the people's lead.

Ukraine needs to be fed and fed regularly in order to win this war without a decade of struggle.  Biting any hand that is helping feed the war effort is not helpful.  Quite the opposite.

Steve

[Kinophile]

Think I'm gonna give y'all a breather for the rest of the day...

Besides, I've got some of my birthday cake to finish off! Strawberry &  Cream meringue FTW

 

[JonS]

41 minutes ago, holoween said:

1 they arent easily damaged. Outside of enemy action a freshly trained crew isnt going to damage the tank much more often than a seasoned crew.

Well, Leos must be made of unobtanium then. Every other AFV and tracked vehicle ever has been surprisingly fragile, requiring constant maintenance - and care while being used - to keep in running order.

Sure, you aren't going to ding the glacis by dropping a screwdriver on it, they aren't easily 'damaged' in that way. But there is an awful lot more to a tank than just the glacis.

Edited December 15, 2022 by JonS

[Haiduk]

Cooperative investigation of Reuters and RUSI has revealed that despite sanctions, Russian manufacturer STC, which produces Orlan UAVs is still receiving parts and electronic components via a network of intermediary companies. Often theese companies established by Russians, who have foreign citizenship. One of bigger supplier - Asia Pacific company from HonKong, esablished by Russian citizen Anton Trofimov

STC could import parts of American Altera, Xilinks, Texas Instruments, Microchip Technology, Analog Devices, Linear Technology, European STMicroelectronics, NXP Semiconductors,  Japanese Renesas Electronics and Saito Seisakusho

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/global-supply-trail-that-leads-russias-killer-drones-2022-12-15/

Edited December 15, 2022 by Haiduk

[FancyCat]

NATO has and is providing bridge laying equipment, mine clearing equipment, and maintenance and repair vehicles to get combat vehicles back for repair, so certainly, Ukraine and NATO are aware and prepping for current and future logistical demands on Ukraine due to NATO deliveries, whatever they may be. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by FancyCat

[Zeleban]

6 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Cooperative investigation of Reuters and RUSI has revealed that despite sanctions, Russian manufacturer STC, which produces Orlan UAVs is still receiving parts and electronic components via a network of intermediary companies. Often theese companies established by Russians, who have foreign citizenship. One of bigger supplier - Asia Pacific company from HonKong, esablished by Russian citizen Anton Trofimov

STC could import parts of American Altera, Xilinks, Texas Instruments, Microchip Technology, Analog Devices, Linear Technology, European STMicroelectronics, NXP Semiconductors,  Japanese Renesas Electronics and Saito Seisakusho

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/global-supply-trail-that-leads-russias-killer-drones-2022-12-15/

It turns out that in the modern world, special permits are not needed to provide their industry with details of any complexity. So the sanctions don't make any sense. And how much was the noise about it

[FancyCat]

a part of a longer twitter thread looking at why Bakhmut might not be senseless for Russia to take. summed up as Russia still has combat potential, and intends on using it for further offensives. 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, JonS said:

Well, Leos must be made of unobtanium then. Every other AFV and tracked vehicle ever has been surprisingly fragile, requiring constant maintenance - and care while being used - to keep in running order.

Some evidence suggests that Leo2s are more difficult to keep in service than Abrams.  At least that's what I remember as the main reason why the Poles opted for Abrams from distant USA rather than Leo's from their neighbor.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Cooperative investigation of Reuters and RUSI has revealed that despite sanctions, Russian manufacturer STC, which produces Orlan UAVs is still receiving parts and electronic components via a network of intermediary companies. Often theese companies established by Russians, who have foreign citizenship. One of bigger supplier - Asia Pacific company from HonKong, esablished by Russian citizen Anton Trofimov

Just a couple of days ago the US announced arrests and charges against 7 Russians connected with complex schemes to get around sanctions against high tech exports:

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-charges-seven-in-russian-smuggling-ring-01670966109?refsec=topics_afp-news

I know I said this about sanctions when this war started... they are never going to be perfect, therefore Russia will continue to get some supply of things needed to keep its industry going.  However, sanctions make it more difficult, expensive, lower volume, and less certain.  We need to keep in mind what Russia's capabilities would be like if there were no sanctions in place.

Steve

[holoween]

16 minutes ago, JonS said:

Well, Leos must be made of unobtanium then. Every other AFV and tracked vehicle ever has been surprisingly fragile, requiring constant maintenance - and care while being used - to keep in running order.

Sure, you aren't going to ding the glacis by dropping a screwdriver on it, they aren't easily 'damaged' in that way. But there is an awful lot more to a tank than just the glacis.

So during 2 years ive seen 4 issues that stopped tanks from running. 1 was a blown cylinder on a driving school tank (failure at 9am back in action at 2pm with replaced powerpack at the slow workpace of civilian contractors), one was the engine controll unit failing on one of ours. And 2 hydraulic pump failures. one caused the tank to go to depot becaue the tc decided to ignore warning lights and caused the breaks to overheat and burst into flames and one was fixed in 15min.

Yea they require constrant maintenance but that depends on a lot of factors. usually we simply take one day per week on exercise as maintenance day but that has a big margin of error for wear so skipping it isnt a big deal.

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Just a couple of days ago the US announced arrests and charges against 7 Russians connected with complex schemes to get around sanctions against high tech exports:

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-charges-seven-in-russian-smuggling-ring-01670966109?refsec=topics_afp-news

I know I said this about sanctions when this war started... they are never going to be perfect, therefore Russia will continue to get some supply of things needed to keep its industry going.  However, sanctions make it more difficult, expensive, lower volume, and less certain.  We need to keep in mind what Russia's capabilities would be like if there were no sanctions in place.

Steve

Yep. And the point of sanctions isn't...and practically never can be...to stop virtually everything from getting through. It is to reduce quantity and to raise the relative price. So far, Russia is paying a very heavy price already and will that price will keep increasing as the conflict continues: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12092

[Sojourner]

Ahhh, sanctions... a way for a country to feel good without actually doing anything.

The irony is that cutting off the supply of Big Macs and KFC is doing them a favor.

 

[holoween]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Some evidence suggests that Leo2s are more difficult to keep in service than Abrams.  At least that's what I remember as the main reason why the Poles opted for Abrams from distant USA rather than Leo's from their neighbor.

Steve

I cant speak for the Abrams but id be surprised if its much different.

The issue the Poles had were more that they were sold for very cheap with the agreement that KMW gets to do all upgrades. The Poles want to do their own which KMW sais they have to certify with them which the Poles dont like hence the switch.

If they really didnt like them why would they ask for more during the Ringtausch programm?

[OldSarge]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Just a couple of days ago the US announced arrests and charges against 7 Russians connected with complex schemes to get around sanctions against high tech exports:

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-charges-seven-in-russian-smuggling-ring-01670966109?refsec=topics_afp-news

I know I said this about sanctions when this war started... they are never going to be perfect, therefore Russia will continue to get some supply of things needed to keep its industry going.  However, sanctions make it more difficult, expensive, lower volume, and less certain.  We need to keep in mind what Russia's capabilities would be like if there were no sanctions in place.

Steve

You beat me to it!

The interesting thing that I caught is that Russia is employing the FSB, seems to indicate a certain level of desperation.

Edited December 15, 2022 by OldSarge

[Huba]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

Some evidence suggests that Leo2s are more difficult to keep in service than Abrams.  At least that's what I remember as the main reason why the Poles opted for Abrams from distant USA rather than Leo's from their neighbor.

Steve

It was hard to maintain and upgrade due to lack of spare parts and other issues with industrial cooperation between PL and DE. Without getting into too much details, it seems that both parties are to blame for it, to various degree, but in the end the main reason for Poland choosing M1 was political not technical.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

a part of a longer twitter thread looking at why Bakhmut might not be senseless for Russia to take. summed up as Russia still has combat potential, and intends on using it for further offensives.

 

And to this I say... not important.  Russia has shown absolutely no ability to exploit whatever it takes.  Popasna was fought over for months, the Russians took it, people sqwaked about the strategic implications, and here we are months later and they still haven't secured the first obvious goal of the Popasna breakthrough.  Russia is fighting and dying for nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Ukraine, on the other hand, is achieving much by fighting this fight.  First, it's killing lots of Russians.  Since that is its most important goal, that's a good thing.  Second, it's keeping the Russians concentrated in an area that isn't very important.  Rule #1 in war is never interrupt your enemy when it is making a mistake.

For sure defending Bakhmut is costly for Ukraine.  The casualties being generated are depressingly high.  But giving up the terrain doesn't ultimately save those lives, it just means Russia has a chance to kill them somewhere else.  So as futile and stupid as the Russian actions are, Ukraine is obligated to challenge them even if it is painful.

Bakhmut might be the single best example of why war, as a concept, is stupid.

Steve

[FancyCat]

Nothing wrong with journalists uncovering sanctions running, the key is for the government to take notice and bust them, which as the arrests indicate is occurring.

[Beleg85]

Long thread about Wagner:

 

[Twisk]

Any sort of sanctions will have holes but I think its important to remember that having to find a loop hole is usually less efficient than if the items could be bought in the clear. It sort of strikes me as saying that the strategic bombing of Germany did nothing because German tank production increased year over year despite it. Yet ignoring that production would be even higher without the bombing.

I'm sure Russia is able to get a good amount of supplies through loop holes but its almost certainly at a higher cost/lower rate than if they could just get them on the market free and clear.

[billbindc]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/12/15/a-looming-russian-offensive

This was posted above and I just got around to reading it. Color me somewhat skeptical that Russia is going to generate 200,000 battleworthy soldiers any time soon. Does anyone have any hard data pro/con?

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, holoween said:

I cant speak for the Abrams but id be surprised if its much different.

I would also be surprised.  My recollection of the excuse the Poles gave seems to be correct, but not surprisingly it was probably more politics than technical reasons for the choice of the Abrams.

In any case, the point is that the current frontline tanks in NATO service are all fussy, expensive beasts to keep in service.  If there's no support infrastructure reasonably available to keep them in service, then they would be a liability for Ukraine rather than a benefit.

I also agree with you that the notion of outfitting an entire Ukrainian brigade with Leo2 is ridiculous.  Not even remotely feasible.  A battalion is more likely the maximum that can be practically achieved.  Therefore, much of the timeline and resources being talked about are not relevant.  But also not relevant is the likely impact of a battalion's worth of Leo2's.  Which I've been saying for pages now... Leo2s or no Leo2s, the war is not going to change either way.

I think giving Ukraine 100 Leo1s might have more of a positive impact.  I think giving them dozens of Marder2s would as well.  But even then, I don't think any of this is a "game changer".

Steve