How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I gotta be brutally honest here, and with due respect to the good general - the last person I would trust with an assessment of armour performance and trajectory within this war and beyond is a modern armoured general officer.  Or even a Cbt Arms officer at this point.  History is filled with examples of service general officers seeing what they want to through the lens of their service culture.  Cavalry hated tanks.  Battleship captains slagged carriers. 

I mean I am sure the man knows what he is talking about but I have heard so much biases coming out of western land forces on this one.

I am waiting for an assessment of what the tank is actually doing because nothing is matching what doctrine says, or at least very little.  I mean the RUSI report of tanks in the indirect role blew my mind.  I don't think the tank is dead but its role is definitely going to evolve - we talked about that a few times now.

Like I said, the subject was more around the PL army procurement plans than tactics, though he said that the role has changed and there's no going back to the way we used tanks before.

As for "doctrinal" tank actions, at this point we for sure know that:

- it was an armoured UA brigade that defended Chernihiv during initial RU invasion, and there was regular armor on armor action there

- I heard multiple mentions of battalion level meeting engagement during UA push on Izium from the north, that ended in thorough defeat of RU armor. Also, tank led the initial assault on Balakliya during the same operation.

- armor led the push along Dnipro shore from Zolota Balka to Mylove

Obviously we don't know the details, and won't know for quite some time, but tanks were clearly present and on the lead in basically every operation during this war where things were happening at any higher pace. 

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Twisk said:

I do want to remind everyone that opinions in this thread are not determining whether Ukraine gets more or less support. Unless half the forum members are actually prime ministers and presidents and have kept mum about that for all these years. The discussion about what countries are/are not doing should be a whole lot more detached for that reason. No one here is pulling any strings and regardless of what we say this forum isn't changing the facts on the ground.

So maybe we should all step back from this sniping and recalibrate the discussion.

I am not sure where everyone is from but the opinions on this thread kind of do impact the war.  First of all some are close to policy makers and are drawing on this conversation to inform decisions at higher levels.  Second, and more importantly, we live in western democracies so the opinions of the people count very much.

I totally agree on trying to keep it above the belt, but informed decision is central to the democratic process and every conversation matters.  Western democracies are not ruled by prime ministers and presidents - we rule them.  And small conversations like the one's here are happening all over the internet and in every bar.  If forum members go forth with a better view of the truth, or as best we can determine, then we have in some small way tried to make things better.  This is why mis/dis information really needs to be hit hard, all of it. We cracked down on Bio Black sites, economic myths and a boatload of Russian lies and propaganda being pushed from some circles.

We can be passionate, we can disagree but we should never become an echo chamber or any value we have in the bigger conversation, that will impact foreign policies at some point, will be lost.  

[Sojourner]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

I think I may have hurt myself rolling my eyes so hard at this....

So yeah, I was obviously exaggerating about the not doing anything, but it would be nice if sanctions were actually enforced rather than enriching black marketeers. In the Barron's article Steve linked above, seven were charged but four are still at large. And one guy was stopped in October and stopped again in November before he was arrested in December. I thought I knew what "stop" means, guess I'll have to go dig out my copy of the OED.

Sorry, I guess I get a little impatient and cranky when I read about Russian torture chambers for children...

https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/ombudsman-childrens-torture-chamber-found-in-liberated-kherson

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

Like I said, the subject was more around the PL army procurement plans than tactics, though he said that the role has changed and there's no going back to the way we used tanks before.

As for "doctrinal" tank actions, at this point we for sure know that:

- it was an armoured UA brigade that defended Chernihiv during initial RU invasion, and there was regular armor on armor action there

- I heard multiple mentions of battalion level meeting engagement during UA push on Izium from the north, that ended in thorough defeat of RU armor. Also, tank led the initial assault on Balakliya during the same operation.

- armor led the push along Dnipro shore from Zolota Balka to Mylove

Obviously we don't know the details, and won't know for quite some time, but tanks were clearly present and on the lead in basically every operation during this war where things were happening at any higher pace. 

Here's where things get tricky.  Ukraine has tanks and they are going to use them in combat.  They are most likely going to use them for key battles, both offensive and defensive.  And so they did.  But how much of an impact did the tanks have?  Or more unknowably, how different would the battles have developed if the tanks were there?  I suspect Balakliya, for example, would have gone down almost exactly the same as it did if there weren't tanks involved.  I suspect Chernihiv would have held on without tanks.  So on and so forth.

That said, of course if I had a choice between having tanks and not having tanks I'd take tanks.  However, I'd have a Plan B handy that didn't rely upon tanks because I no longer trust they can do their jobs effectively.

Steve

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

Obviously we don't know the details, and won't know for quite some time, but tanks were clearly present and on the lead in basically every operation during this war where things were happening at any higher pace.

So we have three battles on that list, it is a leap to say "they have been on the lead in every operation during this war". 

They were leading the RA, and that did not go so well.  On the UA side, there is simply too much real estate being covered for tanks to "lead"  The Kherson corrosive effort was 125 kms long and the UA did not have a series of armoured punch throughs.  At Kharkiv the graphics I saw had SOF and Light Infantry leading the breakout while armour held the shoulders.  North of Kiev artillery blew the hell out of the Russia advance, very few tank actions but the ones that were, were intense.

That RUSI report was also vague - tanks important...in the indirect fire role?

I cannot come to the conclusion that "amrour leads" in this war, when we have seen way too much evidence of RA failures and UA light infantry with UAS linked back to artillery do a lot of the heavy lifting.  Combined arms is happening but when and where, and why is critical to answering the future of tanks question.  And again, who cares about freakin tanks?  The future of military mass itself is in the wind at this point- Disperse, Dig or Die  

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

So yeah, I was obviously exaggerating about the not doing anything, but it would be nice if sanctions were actually enforced rather than enriching black marketeers. In the Barron's article Steve linked above, seven were charged but four are still at large. And one guy was stopped in October and stopped again in November before he was arrested in December. I thought I knew what "stop" means, guess I'll have to go dig out my copy of the OED.

Sorry, I guess I get a little impatient and cranky when I read about Russian torture chambers for children...

https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/ombudsman-childrens-torture-chamber-found-in-liberated-kherson

I have the same feeling about corporate criminal activity.  So much of what goes on is easily detected and not difficult to prosecute.  But the resources needed to enforce the laws are focused elsewhere.  And so corporate criminality is a routine part of our lives.

Steve

[holoween]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

Great to hear from someone w actual hands-on experience, thanks much for sharing that. 

What do you think of Leo2 vs T72?  -- I mean relative lethality, mobility, survivability

Since all my hands on knoledge of the t72 comes from steel beasts i dont feel qualified to give a indepth comparison.

Lack of reverse speed is probably the t72s biggest failing. lack of thermals is equally significant. laser dot not being in line with the primary sight really limits long range engagement speed and moving target accuracy. Biggest quality is probably the HE-FRAG rounds. they make them far more effective vs infantry targets compared to 120mm HEAT. 120mm HE airburst will flip that but that isnt in widespread use.

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Sorry but I see a lotta of points of failure here. 

1. In combat anything that can be damaged will be.

2.  Shipping back to Poland for second line is going to be just crazy.  You are going to have half those tanks out of battle in a few weeks while they slowly wind their way back across the Polish border.  The UA does not have the German Army's setup.

Agreed

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

3.  River crossing are key - the RA died on at least on of them.  Take a look at the map fo southern Ukraine a lot of water features and fording is one thing but snorkeling is going to be needed. 

The issue with snorkeling is there are only limited places where its even viable. For germany they were mapped out during the cold war but ukraine? if not you need specialists that know how to scout a site and prepare it. Bridging equipment seems like a better way to go at least generally.

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

4.  Mine breaching.  I do not get the German Army's approach on this one.  Both Canada and the Fins are employing them on theirs.  In Ukraine this won't be optional in the least.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiler_(Panzer)

We use speciualized equipment for specialized jobs. The tank you posted isnt going to go at any speed during an attack so youre spending far more time in the open. If you know there is a minefield breaching it with a specialized vehicle is better.

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am not worried by the "limited kit" issue either to be honest - pretty low risk to take there.

Still not convinced that Leo 2, M1s or whatever MBT is the way to go here.  The UA is using their tanks for indirect fire right now so something is really going on there.  The time and resources to create a fighting formation in the UA with all this kit is just not reasonable, and it might not make a serious difference.

Leo2 is actually equipped for indirect fire. Noone ever trains it but its in the manuals.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, holoween said:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiler_(Panzer)

We use speciualized equipment for specialized jobs. The tank you posted isnt going to go at any speed during an attack so youre spending far more time in the open. If you know there is a minefield breaching it with a specialized vehicle is better.

I have seen this...lotta dirt big target.  Well I do not think that will do in the Ukrainian environment to be honest.  So need to solve for mine warfare.

[holoween]

Just now, The_Capt said:

I have seen this...lotta dirt big target.  Well I do not think that will do in the Ukrainian environment to be honest.  So need to solve for mine warfare.

Every other mineclearing vehicle si going to be a slow and obvious target. So preemtive smoke and covering units are essential.

If you want to go fast use explosives.

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Steve, I would like to think that at least some significant number of my fellow patriotic taxpayers are supporting massive war fighting aid not because of any sense that Ukraine is entitled to it (wherever that odd couching came from), and not solely morally motivated either. Rather, it is because the stark danger to Europe itself, the structures that support the relative prosperity snd freedom of Europeans and by extension, Britain, the USA, Canada - Western Civilization as we have known or deduced it to be. Russia’s actions are a threat to us all. It doesn’t take a weatherman to see the gale force winds so reminiscent of 1939.

And everything you have correctly observed points to the importance of ending the Russian invasion sooner. Nothing is more likely to erode voter support than another long, grinding, seeming endless morass war lasting not months but years. 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, holoween said:

Every other mineclearing vehicle si going to be a slow and obvious target. So preemtive smoke and covering units are essential.

If you want to go fast use explosives.

Explosive line breaching..you are now speaking my language.

I have done a complex minefield breach (so 400m deep with AT ditch) onto a defensive position (wire and trenches) with plows and rollers, AEV/AVLB in 7 minutes from "mine strike, mines strike" to infantry inside the wire and in the trenches.  Guys in Germany had it down to below 5 minutes.  A lot faster than the flail - but no where near as cool as MCLC.

Edited December 15, 2022 by The_Capt

[dan/california]

19 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

So yeah, I was obviously exaggerating about the not doing anything, but it would be nice if sanctions were actually enforced rather than enriching black marketeers. In the Barron's article Steve linked above, seven were charged but four are still at large. And one guy was stopped in October and stopped again in November before he was arrested in December. I thought I knew what "stop" means, guess I'll have to go dig out my copy of the OED.

Sorry, I guess I get a little impatient and cranky when I read about Russian torture chambers for children...

https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/ombudsman-childrens-torture-chamber-found-in-liberated-kherson

There needs to be a massive operation to intentionally feed the Russians bad parts. There were some real successes with that pre 1991, and then Stuxnet of course. A whole batch of missiles that didn't work would really increase the pressure. If they blew the launching aircraft to dust bunnies that would be even better. There are innumerable less dramatic things that could be made to go wrong with real effort.

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by dan/california

[Huba]

36 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So we have three battles on that list, it is a leap to say "they have been on the lead in every operation during this war". 

They were leading the RA, and that did not go so well.  On the UA side, there is simply too much real estate being covered for tanks to "lead"  The Kherson corrosive effort was 125 kms long and the UA did not have a series of armoured punch throughs.  At Kharkiv the graphics I saw had SOF and Light Infantry leading the breakout while armour held the shoulders.  North of Kiev artillery blew the hell out of the Russia advance, very few tank actions but the ones that were, were intense.

That RUSI report was also vague - tanks important...in the indirect fire role?

I cannot come to the conclusion that "amrour leads" in this war, when we have seen way too much evidence of RA failures and UA light infantry with UAS linked back to artillery do a lot of the heavy lifting.  Combined arms is happening but when and where, and why is critical to answering the future of tanks question.  And again, who cares about freakin tanks?  The future of military mass itself is in the wind at this point- Disperse, Dig or Die  

I specifically mentioned an action that is happening at any noticable speed, not all action. Tanks are not "leading the war" but are leading actions in the few cases where we saw things not being a tedious slog.
Now achieving proper conditions for manoeuvre to be possible is clearly quite hard in this conflict, hence the static lines, artillery duels, corrosive tactics etc. But at the end, there were  cases where breakthrough and exploitation happened and was done by armor in as "classical" way as possible. 
My point being, tanks are surely less central to the whole affair than they were in 1941 or 1973, they are more and more just another tool in the box, and not The Tool. Still in certain situation the banal mix of mobility, resilience to damage, firepower and pure shock value is needed, and we hardly see anything that can replace armor in this crucial application, can we now? Evolution - active protection, more engagement in 3rd dimension/ countering flyers, indirect, unmanned etc are the obvious directions of evolution, but I don't see the extinction happening.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Huba

[dan/california]

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I have seen this...lotta dirt big target.  Well I do not think that will do in the Ukrainian environment to be honest.  So need to solve for mine warfare.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/09/ukraine-is-using-mine-rolling-tanks-like-this-to-ram-russian-armored-vehicles/

Not sure about the details of this article, but the Ukrainians are clearly thinking about the mine issue. The rollers are probably less effective that plow, but much quicker. 

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari has warned],

He sends me emails urging me to collect a very large amount of money, if I just follow a few simple steps. Credible?

[Huba]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's where things get tricky.  Ukraine has tanks and they are going to use them in combat.  They are most likely going to use them for key battles, both offensive and defensive.  And so they did.  But how much of an impact did the tanks have?  Or more unknowably, how different would the battles have developed if the tanks were there?  I suspect Balakliya, for example, would have gone down almost exactly the same as it did if there weren't tanks involved.  I suspect Chernihiv would have held on without tanks.  So on and so forth.

That said, of course if I had a choice between having tanks and not having tanks I'd take tanks.  However, I'd have a Plan B handy that didn't rely upon tanks because I no longer trust they can do their jobs effectively.

Steve

IMO singling out tank from general "armor" is not the most productive approach, though it is the apex predator in the mix. When you look at the military procurement at the moment, you can be sure that all the responsible people share the sentiment from the highlighted sentence. 

[kevinkin]

 

4 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

collect a very large amount of money

Go for it ... and deposits over 10K USD get a free case of Chinese motor oil. 

The Nigeria 10Y Government Bond has a 14.595% yield.

10 Years vs 2 Years bond spread is 281.8 bp.
Normal Convexity in Long-Term vs Short-Term Maturities.

Central Bank Rate is 16.50% (last modification in November 2022).

The Nigeria credit rating is B-, according to Standard & Poor's agency

 

 

[NamEndedAllen]

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

A Leo2 gives Ukraine a slightly better version of something they already have and it would be on a small scale.  Not going to amount to anything.  ATACMS, on the other hand, would likely put further stress on Russia's stumbling war effort.  That could translate into meaningful impact.  So if I had to choose between giving Ukraine Leo2 or ATACAM, it would be ATACAM hands down.

The thing is Russia is losing this war with what Ukraine already has.  Adding ATACMS to the mix won't likely end Russia's ability to wage war any sooner than without ATACMS.  Russia will adapt as they did to HIMARS.  Assuming that Ukraine didn't use ATACMS in a way that provoked Russia into switching gears into all out conventional or nuclear war.  Either of which would be very bad.  Which is, like it or not, the concern of NATO governments.

Steve

Thanks. Well, I’m not touching the Leo Wars here! That’s why I highlighted ATACMS, as representative of systems to reach just the next layers where Russians have had re-organize - due to the existing HIMARS/new artillery. Wouldn’t pushing them back even farther once again contribute to a similar set of happy events including evacuating, abandoning the most forward positions or losing them? I’m not trying to be argumentative - I just haven’t grasped why another similar increase in reach would not result in similar benefits. I hadn’t thought that their transportation net, HQs, supply depots are already all pushed back into Russia itself

[dan/california]

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's where things get tricky.  Ukraine has tanks and they are going to use them in combat.  They are most likely going to use them for key battles, both offensive and defensive.  And so they did.  But how much of an impact did the tanks have?  Or more unknowably, how different would the battles have developed if the tanks were there?  I suspect Balakliya, for example, would have gone down almost exactly the same as it did if there weren't tanks involved.  I suspect Chernihiv would have held on without tanks.  So on and so forth.

That said, of course if I had a choice between having tanks and not having tanks I'd take tanks.  However, I'd have a Plan B handy that didn't rely upon tanks because I no longer trust they can do their jobs effectively.

Steve

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/world/europe/bakhmut-ukraine-russia-war.html

This article gives an example of how dependent the PGM based approach is on good communications. The guys with the high grade thermal imager just couldn't get and keep good communications with the battery they were working with. And they were trying two or three different ways, including Starlink, which by the way the Pentagon needs to buy. So by far the biggest reason too still have tanks, or something, capable of significant direct fires is that it eliminates one kind of failure point. Of course it creates a bunch of others with tankers full of fuel, and so on.

I am envisioning a everything old is new again situation where an entire element of the signals corps is devoted to laying temporary fiber optics, and various kinds of laser based systems to avoid such problems. Just like they once laid telegraph, and then telephone lines.

Edit: the example above is from Bakmuht, and presumably the jamming there is turned up to 11, by both sides.

Edited December 15, 2022 by dan/california

[NamEndedAllen]

48 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am not sure where everyone is from but the opinions on this thread kind of do impact the war.  First of all some are close to policy makers and are drawing on this conversation to inform decisions at higher levels.  Second, and more importantly, we live in western democracies so the opinions of the people count very much.

I totally agree on trying to keep it above the belt, but informed decision is central to the democratic process and every conversation matters.  Western democracies are not ruled by prime ministers and presidents - we rule them.  And small conversations like the one's here are happening all over the internet and in every bar.  If forum members go forth with a better view of the truth, or as best we can determine, then we have in some small way tried to make things better.  This is why mis/dis information really needs to be hit hard, all of it. We cracked down on Bio Black sites, economic myths and a boatload of Russian lies and propaganda being pushed from some circles.

We can be passionate, we can disagree but we should never become an echo chamber or any value we have in the bigger conversation, that will impact foreign policies at some point, will be lost.  

Very good to hear. And wise words. 
I believe similar recent comments here are more concerned with the sharpness of tone, than with the extremely valuable thrashing of ideas and proposals that do serve as you indicate: Sharing valuable reports and information, then winnowing out the worst and emphasizing the best. Fact is, that doesn’t require absolutely convincing any particularly entrenched holder of a bad idea. Rather, ensuring that the majority here see the best facts and reasoning. 

If stamping out and annihilating every last instance of a bad idea were possible, politics at least in the USA would be far more rational than today!

[NamEndedAllen]

56 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

So yeah, I was obviously exaggerating about the not doing anything, but it would be nice if sanctions were actually enforced rather than enriching black marketeers. In the Barron's article Steve linked above, seven were charged but four are still at large. And one guy was stopped in October and stopped again in November before he was arrested in December. I thought I knew what "stop" means, guess I'll have to go dig out my copy of the OED.

Sorry, I guess I get a little impatient and cranky when I read about Russian torture chambers for children...

https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/ombudsman-childrens-torture-chamber-found-in-liberated-kherson

Sanctions, like war plans and everything else in life will never be perfect. But they sure do help.

[holoween]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I gotta be brutally honest here, and with due respect to the good general - the last person I would trust with an assessment of armour performance and trajectory within this war and beyond is a modern armoured general officer.  Or even a Cbt Arms officer at this point.  History is filled with examples of service general officers seeing what they want to through the lens of their service culture.  Cavalry hated tanks.  Battleship captains slagged carriers. 

I mean I am sure the man knows what he is talking about but I have heard so much biases coming out of western land forces on this one.

I am waiting for an assessment of what the tank is actually doing because nothing is matching what doctrine says, or at least very little.  I mean the RUSI report of tanks in the indirect role blew my mind.  I don't think the tank is dead but its role is definitely going to evolve - we talked about that a few times now.

So for the question of tanks being obsolete.

What is a tank supposed to do?

Why cant it do that currently?

Why does this not apply to other AFVs?

What do you replace it with?

[Simcoe]

32 minutes ago, holoween said:

So for the question of tanks being obsolete.

What is a tank supposed to do?

Why cant it do that currently?

Why does this not apply to other AFVs?

What do you replace it with?

That last question is the big one. 

Any attack must be mechanized if yoru enemy has artillery.

You need a big gun that can engage other big targets from a long distance. 

It must be heavily armored to give it a better chance of surviving the survivable hits.

You can't have anything light because it can't have the last two points.

I don't think it's realistic to expect you'll always be able to neutralize enemy artillery and heavy weapons all the time.

[Vet 0369]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I am not sure where everyone is from but the opinions on this thread kind of do impact the war.  First of all some are close to policy makers and are drawing on this conversation to inform decisions at higher levels.  Second, and more importantly, we live in western democracies so the opinions of the people count very much.

I totally agree on trying to keep it above the belt, but informed decision is central to the democratic process and every conversation matters.  Western democracies are not ruled by prime ministers and presidents - we rule them.  And small conversations like the one's here are happening all over the internet and in every bar.  If forum members go forth with a better view of the truth, or as best we can determine, then we have in some small way tried to make things better.  This is why mis/dis information really needs to be hit hard, all of it. We cracked down on Bio Black sites, economic myths and a boatload of Russian lies and propaganda being pushed from some circles.

We can be passionate, we can disagree but we should never become an echo chamber or any value we have in the bigger conversation, that will impact foreign policies at some point, will be lost.  

When I was working for a pretty significant U.S. Government Agency, I read a saying in a in a CocaCola bottle cap that I felt applied to the propensity of “group think” of most Agency Managers. The saying was, “When everyone’s thinking the same thing, someone’s not thinking!”

[dan/california]

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

They read the thread...