How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm puzzled why they would conscript firefighters etc. for the war. Surely they must still have vast resources when it comes to manpower at least. Even after the exodus.

I remember hearing recently that Russia has 450,000 inmates in their prison system - I doubt they are finished recruiting there yet?

And vast numbers of other poor and disadvantaged Russian men of various ages. I don't think Putin is going to limit himself to just the young, fit, healthy ones.

Who knows, maybe the conscription goals are not tailored for population density, and Sakhalin needs to mobilize them to make the quotas. Maybe some sort of corruption had removed all numbers of people to government salaries or pensions or whatnot.

Interesting that police might not be exempt. Who conducts the mobilization and monitors the conscripted, if not the police? Maybe Russia is finally prioritizing the infrastructure of trainers and associated personnel throughout Russia so police aren't as needed at least in catching fleeing mobilization.

If true, Putin and co are betting on winning or freezing the war, and betting on short term measures. In the environment they are choosing to make their decisions, while I'm sure Ukraine can defeat the offensive, it is perfectly feasible for Russia to launch a very stupid offensive in Ukraine.

 

[Combatintman]

The Eyes on Russia Map produced by the Centre for Information Resilience has been updated.  For those not aware of it, it claims to show verified open source data.  For fans of geolocation, it looks a pretty good resource:

Eyes on Russia Map

 

 

[FancyCat]

Something to ponder in terms of Polish-Ukrainian rapprochement, is the example of Franco-German unity, one of the driving engines of the EU and European unity. I mean when we review history, I mean the current unity is not that fated, and I think sometimes we forget that these two powerhouses of Europe were usually more at each other's throats than not, so the fact they put their long held enmity to become near immensely close allies and friends after one of their most destructive periods of warring, should be a powerful reminder that countries are not fated to clash with one another.

There will be sore spots, and Ukraine and Poland have a lot to do, but I firmly believe the EU will serve as the decisive factor promoting peaceful integration and cooperation in Ukraine and Poland and the rest of Europe.

The success of the European Union is directly counter to Putin's dream of a revitalized Imperial Russia, more so than NATO. Nukes can always protect and threaten against NATO but Russia was losing Ukraine and Belarus against domestic unrest propelled by the EU on their borders, not the threat of a U.S led NATO invasion of them.

[FancyCat]

A document is circulating stating that Russian local authorities in Moscow, Crimea should offer free land to servicemen and families of such including those deceased, land in those territories. Part and parcel of ethnic cleansing is the replacement of the existing population. A reminder that not only is Russia depopulating and forcibly moving populations in occupied regions, they are also moving in settlers.

Any peace settlement that does not take into account the population changes in Ukraine as a result of crimes against humanity would be a disaster for signaling to Russia that this is unacceptable. Any referendum in the Donbas or Crimea should allow the displaced rights to vote for example and strip the right from those who moved in since 2014.

https://news.yahoo.com/putin-decides-gift-land-crimea-135405502.html

 

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm puzzled why they would conscript firefighters etc. for the war. Surely they must still have vast resources when it comes to manpower at least. Even after the exodus.

I remember hearing recently that Russia has 450,000 inmates in their prison system - I doubt they are finished recruiting there yet?

And vast numbers of other poor and disadvantaged Russian men of various ages. I don't think Putin is going to limit himself to just the young, fit, healthy ones.

Well, *IF* the report is accurate (and it might not be) the possible answer is that Russia realized that rounding up the dregs and low hanging fruit of Russian society did not yield very good soldier material.  If so, then this more evidence that Russia was desperate for bodies to keep their front from collapsing, not something they thought was otherwise a good idea.

Again, *IF* this is accurate it reinforces the notion that Russia is trying to get serious about rebuilding its military.  Conscripts and homeless guys aren't going to do that.

Obviously heavy on the speculation, but logically it fits together with what we know.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

A document is circulating stating that Russian local authorities in Moscow, Crimea should offer free land to servicemen and families of such including those deceased, land in those territories. Part and parcel of ethnic cleansing is the replacement of the existing population. A reminder that not only is Russia depopulating and forcibly moving populations in occupied regions, they are also moving in settlers.

Any peace settlement that does not take into account the population changes in Ukraine as a result of crimes against humanity would be a disaster for signaling to Russia that this is unacceptable. Any referendum in the Donbas or Crimea should allow the displaced rights to vote for example and strip the right from those who moved in since 2014.

https://news.yahoo.com/putin-decides-gift-land-crimea-135405502.html

 

I look at it from a different perspective.  For the past 8 years Russia has been encouraging Russians to move to Crimea.  That included stolen land being resold cheap or given away.  A LOT of those Russians left Crimea since the start of the war, especially those who figure Russia is going to lose.  This has got to be putting a strain on keeping Crimea functional.  Again, demographics are a problem for Russia generally, so a large outflow of people from any one area is going to create even worse problems.

This "heroes get land" scheme is a good idea from the Russian perspective.  It gives an incentive for Russians to fight in Ukraine and a bribe to get them to move to Crimea.  Seeing as it is all stolen land/property anyway, it comes at no real cost to the Russian state.

Steve

[sburke]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm puzzled why they would conscript firefighters etc. for the war. Surely, they must still have vast resources when it comes to manpower at least. Even after the exodus.

especially with their ongoing problem with careless smokers and shoddy electrical work...

[Huba]

Just started to read it, I'll prepare a little summary when I'm done:

 

[billbindc]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm puzzled why they would conscript firefighters etc. for the war. Surely they must still have vast resources when it comes to manpower at least. Even after the exodus.

I remember hearing recently that Russia has 450,000 inmates in their prison system - I doubt they are finished recruiting there yet?

And vast numbers of other poor and disadvantaged Russian men of various ages. I don't think Putin is going to limit himself to just the young, fit, healthy ones.

A significant consideration in conscription for this Russian Army is that they don't really have the resources or the logistics to equip them properly. Rounding up the indigent, the incarcerated, etc is going to get you recruits that in addition to their many other disadvantages will not be able to buy themselves sleeping bags, boots, rations, etc. Recruiting the middle class, the fit and more capable lessens those problems. 

[Billy Ringo]

16 minutes ago, Huba said:

Just started to read it, I'll prepare a little summary when I'm done:

 

How is it that he's not imprisoned or shoved down a flight of stairs?    Absolutely brutal criticism of the Russian military which I've not seen to this extreme except for those outside of the reach of Russia. 

[Battlefront.com]

23 minutes ago, Huba said:

Just started to read it, I'll prepare a little summary when I'm done:

 

I wound up skimming the long rant because it is, well, a rant   Some very good things in there that confirm what we've long since known:

1.  using tanks as artillery is a sign of desperation and, at best, a short term solution to whatever problem is preventing real artillery from being in the fight.

2.  His main blame for the lack of artillery is ammunition shortages.  He pointed to something we've been noticing since last Spring, which is hundreds of shell craters in empty fields with NO signs of Ukrainians anywhere.  We've talked about how this came about and Murz mentions it too.  Basically, officers issuing orders so they can check off boxes for other officers.  Effectiveness is never the point.  So the Russians have blown through massive amounts of irreplaceable ammo for nothing.  Then, on top of that, they "gave" the Ukrainians large amounts of ammo in Izyum and other places when they retreated.  That was a funny comment   He didn't emphasize all the ammo blown up by HIMARS and other strikes, but obviously that's in the mix too.

3.  He also lamented the disappearance of professionals at the front.  Whether it be the ability to use an ATGM system or command an infantry attack, he's saying that there isn't anybody left that can do much more than shoot a rifle in a general direction.

4.  His criticism of Russian communications capabilities is, not surprisingly, still something he harps about.  According to him they are using point to point field phones now, not even central switching.  Dunno how true it is, but we do know Russian communications have sucked throughout this war and, as he put it, there's no mechanism in the Russian military for fixing problems like this.  Gets too many people into trouble, so it's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink.

5.  Calling all the stupid little attacks "mini-Verduns" is quite accurate and a pretty good way of characterizing them.  The main criticism is that what is left of Russia's infantry capabilities is being thrown away along with the untrained mobiks.  He, like us here, think that Russia should be rebuilding it's forces instead of pissing them away in stupid attacks.  But that's not the Russian way, and therefore pissing them away is going to continue.

6.  Various points he compliments the Ukrainians for fighting much smarter and more competently.  Drones in particular, but generally with offensive ops, defensive ops, etc.

His ultimate conclusion is that Ukraine is going to launch a counter offensive this winter and it will cut through the Russian lines like a "knife through butter" (is how he put it).  The primary reason why is that Russia is spent and doing nothing to address that fact.

There's nothing in this Murz rant we haven't seen from him or from the battlefield, but reading this you get the sense he sees the endgame is in the making and whatever Russia could theoretically due to change it is not being done.  Good

Steve

[kevinkin]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

using tanks as artillery is a sign of desperation and, at best, a short term solution to whatever problem is preventing real artillery from being in the fight.

I recall the US army used tanks in a direct fire artillery role both in Italy and Korea to smash hill top terrain. It's an option and terrain dependent. In the table top that is Ukraine, it would be a sign that standard equipment is having some sort of problems. The US went as far as building ramps to increase the elevation of the guns. Pretty sure the tactic found its way into field manuals. In those days, direct fire was still the most accurate since the results were right in front of the gunners and observers. 

[Huba]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I wound up skimming the long rant because it is, well, a rant   Some very good things in there that confirm what we've long since known:

1.  using tanks as artillery is a sign of desperation and, at best, a short term solution to whatever problem is preventing real artillery from being in the fight.

2.  His main blame for the lack of artillery is ammunition shortages.  He pointed to something we've been noticing since last Spring, which is hundreds of shell craters in empty fields with NO signs of Ukrainians anywhere.  We've talked about how this came about and Murz mentions it too.  Basically, officers issuing orders so they can check off boxes for other officers.  Effectiveness is never the point.  So the Russians have blown through massive amounts of irreplaceable ammo for nothing.  Then, on top of that, they "gave" the Ukrainians large amounts of ammo in Izyum and other places when they retreated.  That was a funny comment   He didn't emphasize all the ammo blown up by HIMARS and other strikes, but obviously that's in the mix too.

3.  He also lamented the disappearance of professionals at the front.  Whether it be the ability to use an ATGM system or command an infantry attack, he's saying that there isn't anybody left that can do much more than shoot a rifle in a general direction.

4.  His criticism of Russian communications capabilities is, not surprisingly, still something he harps about.  According to him they are using point to point field phones now, not even central switching.  Dunno how true it is, but we do know Russian communications have sucked throughout this war and, as he put it, there's no mechanism in the Russian military for fixing problems like this.  Gets too many people into trouble, so it's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink.

5.  Calling all the stupid little attacks "mini-Verduns" is quite accurate and a pretty good way of characterizing them.  The main criticism is that what is left of Russia's infantry capabilities is being thrown away along with the untrained mobiks.  He, like us here, think that Russia should be rebuilding it's forces instead of pissing them away in stupid attacks.  But that's not the Russian way, and therefore pissing them away is going to continue.

6.  Various points he compliments the Ukrainians for fighting much smarter and more competently.  Drones in particular, but generally with offensive ops, defensive ops, etc.

His ultimate conclusion is that Ukraine is going to launch a counter offensive this winter and it will cut through the Russian lines like a "knife through butter" (is how he put it).  The primary reason why is that Russia is spent and doing nothing to address that fact.

There's nothing in this Murz rant we haven't seen from him or from the battlefield, but reading this you get the sense he sees the endgame is in the making and whatever Russia could theoretically due to change it is not being done.  Good

Steve

Yeah, what You said  
Edit:

Murz is also very critical of the Ru attempts at building forticifactions ( The Faberge Line). Everything seems to be there materials-wise, but he gives multiple accounts of the actual work being shoddy, to say the least.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Huba

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

I recall the US army used tanks in a direct fire artillery role both in Italy and Korea to smash hill top terrain. It's an option and terrain dependent. In the table top that is Ukraine, it would be a sign that standard equipment is having some sort of problems. The US went as far as building ramps to increase the elevation of the guns. Pretty sure the tactic found its way into field manuals. In those days, direct fire was still the most accurate since the results were right in front of the gunners and observers. 

Yup, and there's documentation of US forces (and others, IIRC) doing this in WW2.  Ukraine is also doing some of it in this war.  Murz clearly stated that it is in the Russian manuals and traditionally crews are trained to do it.  His point is that it's not supposed to be used as the routine form of artillery support for a bunch of reasons.  The most important is one we talked about many pages back... wear and tear on the barrels.  Tank barrels are not designed for prolonged rapid firing shells.  They will wear out and when that happens... no more tank at the front.  Do that enough and suddenly the force is without artillery and tanks.

Steve

[danfrodo]

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I wound up skimming the long rant because it is, well, a rant   Some very good things in there that confirm what we've long since known:

1.  using tanks as artillery is a sign of desperation and, at best, a short term solution to whatever problem is preventing real artillery from being in the fight.

2.  His main blame for the lack of artillery is ammunition shortages.  He pointed to something we've been noticing since last Spring, which is hundreds of shell craters in empty fields with NO signs of Ukrainians anywhere.  We've talked about how this came about and Murz mentions it too.  Basically, officers issuing orders so they can check off boxes for other officers.  Effectiveness is never the point.  So the Russians have blown through massive amounts of irreplaceable ammo for nothing.  Then, on top of that, they "gave" the Ukrainians large amounts of ammo in Izyum and other places when they retreated.  That was a funny comment   He didn't emphasize all the ammo blown up by HIMARS and other strikes, but obviously that's in the mix too.

3.  He also lamented the disappearance of professionals at the front.  Whether it be the ability to use an ATGM system or command an infantry attack, he's saying that there isn't anybody left that can do much more than shoot a rifle in a general direction.

4.  His criticism of Russian communications capabilities is, not surprisingly, still something he harps about.  According to him they are using point to point field phones now, not even central switching.  Dunno how true it is, but we do know Russian communications have sucked throughout this war and, as he put it, there's no mechanism in the Russian military for fixing problems like this.  Gets too many people into trouble, so it's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink.

5.  Calling all the stupid little attacks "mini-Verduns" is quite accurate and a pretty good way of characterizing them.  The main criticism is that what is left of Russia's infantry capabilities is being thrown away along with the untrained mobiks.  He, like us here, think that Russia should be rebuilding it's forces instead of pissing them away in stupid attacks.  But that's not the Russian way, and therefore pissing them away is going to continue.

6.  Various points he compliments the Ukrainians for fighting much smarter and more competently.  Drones in particular, but generally with offensive ops, defensive ops, etc.

His ultimate conclusion is that Ukraine is going to launch a counter offensive this winter and it will cut through the Russian lines like a "knife through butter" (is how he put it).  The primary reason why is that Russia is spent and doing nothing to address that fact.

There's nothing in this Murz rant we haven't seen from him or from the battlefield, but reading this you get the sense he sees the endgame is in the making and whatever Russia could theoretically due to change it is not being done.  Good

Steve

This is all very damning for RU capabilities but doesn't even include the elephant in the room: IT'S WINTER.  Some RU troops have proper clothing, shelter, etc.  But lots don't.  And when the ground freezes we're back to sectors where all the above issues are at play plus sick, weakened, demoralized rabble expected to hold ground under attack by angry, motivated, well armed, real soldiers.  That's the thing about a front.  If it's weak some places, it's weak in all places unless the enemy is heavily channeled due to terrain, like right now w mud.

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, Huba said:

There's nothing to geolocate there - the video is edited from separate shots of him in the cabin, and views of the ground. Not on one you can see Shoigu AND anything going on outside the cabin. This video is as fake as it can get.

That's my point,  geolocate the flight,  prove its not at the front. I'm 100% in agreement it's assembled footage from different cameras on different days/flights. The "stock"  footage of the "front"  might  be geo-datable to a much earlier date,  where the  ground filmed is now different in appearance and has been for a time. 

Essentially were talking degrees of and sources of how the fake video was constructed. 

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

2.  His main blame for the lack of artillery is ammunition shortages.  He pointed to something we've been noticing since last Spring, which is hundreds of shell craters in empty fields with NO signs of Ukrainians anywhere.  We've talked about how this came about and Murz mentions it too.  Basically, officers issuing orders so they can check off boxes for other officers.  Effectiveness is never the point.  So the Russians have blown through massive amounts of irreplaceable ammo for nothing.  Then, on top of that, they "gave" the Ukrainians large amounts of ammo in Izyum and other places when they retreated.  That was a funny comment   He didn't emphasize all the ammo blown up by HIMARS and other strikes, but obviously that's in the mix too.

I'd say this is the source of those daily ISW comments about "routine shelling along the entire front"!

[Kinophile]

47 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, and there's documentation of US forces (and others, IIRC) doing this in WW2.  Ukraine is also doing some of it in this war.  Murz clearly stated that it is in the Russian manuals and traditionally crews are trained to do it.  His point is that it's not supposed to be used as the routine form of artillery support for a bunch of reasons.  The most important is one we talked about many pages back... wear and tear on the barrels.  Tank barrels are not designed for prolonged rapid firing shells.  They will wear out and when that happens... no more tank at the front.  Do that enough and suddenly the force is without artillery and tanks.

Steve

A nice example of how I imagine the effects of "corrosive warfare" doesnt stop at the items destroyed, and continues on to indirectly affect the enemy military systems and tactics.

• The HIMARs destruction of RUS artillery logistics reduces RUS artillery RoF (1st order corrosive effect)
• The only other tubes available are tank tubes, soooo
• A Tank becomes used as artillery (2nd order corrosive effect - tanks that could be used as tanks instead used as arty)
• Tank now firing more often than tanks usually do = rapidly increased barrel wear and usage of tank HE shells (3rd order CE)
• Tank finally gets reassigned back to direct support role, but barrel is now shot out so now less accurate (4th order CE).
• Tank is targeted by ATGM, sees and shoots but misses, doesnt kill the ATGM crew, so tank dies. (final effect)

This is where enemy action forces a cascade of damage that goes from externally forced (the HIMARS strikes) to internally sustained and maintained along a path of military necessity, because indirect fires are required, so something must shoot.

Ref Italy, my personal  impression is that it wasnt a "lack" of Allied artillery that drove the use of tanks, it was usually  the hilariously height-scaled terrain in many mountain areas. Sometimes Allied artillery couldn't angle enough to accurately fire over particular ridges. Also, putting a tank on an opposing ridge was often faster, more accurate and if lucky, higher than the opposing positions.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Kinophile

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

cascade of damage

That's a great phrase for getting my thoughts together.  A cascade of damage that leads to ineffective combat response leading to local collapse then broader collapse.  This is my great hope. 

8 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Ref Italy, my personal  impression is that it wasnt a "lack" of Allied artillery that drove the use of tanks, it was usually  the hilariously height-scaled terrain in many mountain areas. Sometimes Allied artillery couldn't angle enough to accurately fire over particular ridges. Also, putting a tank on an opposing ridge was often faster, more accurate and if lucky, higher than the opposing positions.

And w a gazillion sherman tanks that were mostly stuck doing nothing due to terrain, why not?

[Bulletpoint]

11 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Tank now firing more often than tanks usually do = rapidly increased barrel wear and usage of tank HE shells (3rd order CE)

At least it gets to shoot.

I'm reminded of the Israeli general who said something along these lines about the Yom Kippur War: "If each Arab tank had just fired once, we would have lost".

[Kinophile]

The 7 decade old American volunteer in Ukraine was ambushed, finally. 

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2022/12/17/we-are-too-old-and-mean-to-die-this-way/

Got out, no fatalities at least. Very clean and clear description. Very detailed too.

The speed and accuracy of the UKR arty response is very intriguing. My amatuer instinct says 777s? Esp with the economical aspect of it - 2 x impact rounds to stir them up and break them out of cover, followed by 1 x airburst to cheesegrater them as they try to escape.

No hollywood spray n pray with the arty here. Sounds like the hostiles were about max 25m away, if the airburst was close enough to do damage to his own unit.

Also interesting how the RUS were specifically not spetsnaz, and seemed to know what they were doing. The lack of a flank attack on the Ukraine recon patrol to seal the trap implies some caution on the Ivans part, which ironically cost them everything.

What could they have been? Airborne? Maybe the guy cant say because that would then infer which sector he's in.

Also interesting how he seems to be the effective XO/2inC of the group, not just a specialist, valued older guy. By his account he naturally stepped into command, organized the mop up then stepped forward once the impact site was secured. Then lead the whole patrol (I think its a 6 man team?) back to base over 2 days.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Kinophile

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

instinct says 777s?

Not necessarily. Speed of response is mostly to do with the overall system, not the final delivery system. How quickly can a target be identified and located? How quickly can that be sent to a firing  battery? How quickly can the target location and description be turned into orders for the guns (bearing, elevation, and ammunition)? None of that is affected by the gun being used. Accuracy is down to the overall system too - how well defined is the target location? How well surveyed is the gun position? How well known is the current met conditions? Again, none of that is affected by the gun being used.

Precision is down to the gun - a shot-out 777 or Ceasar will be just as imprecise as a clapped out old D-30. But even then, the ground the gun is sitting on matters too - soft and slippery ground will allow the gun to move each time it fires, affecting precision. But a tight new D-30 on a good platform should be repeatably precise.

Edited December 19, 2022 by JonS

[Huba]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

That's my point,  geolocate the flight,  prove its not at the front. I'm 100% in agreement it's assembled footage from different cameras on different days/flights. The "stock"  footage of the "front"  might  be geo-datable to a much earlier date,  where the  ground filmed is now different in appearance and has been for a time. 

Essentially were talking degrees of and sources of how the fake video was constructed. 

Here you go

 

 

[Eddy]

Not sure if this has been posted yet but I found the latter part of this interesting (first part explains what an integrated AD is so you won't learn anything new – or anything at all really)

Around about 40 mins they talk about why Putin is pushing for something before late spring and what is bubbling up in the Russian economy/society. It puts a bit of flesh on the bone of what a Russian home front ‘collapse’ (for want of a better word) could look like.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Eddy said:

Not sure if this has been posted yet but I found the latter part of this interesting (first part explains what an integrated AD is so you won't learn anything new – or anything at all really)

Around about 40 mins they talk about why Putin is pushing for something before late spring and what is bubbling up in the Russian economy/society. It puts a bit of flesh on the bone of what a Russian home front ‘collapse’ (for want of a better word) could look like.

Damn, that was REALLY good.  Long time followers of this thread have seen me talk about this since the early days of the war.  However, my knowledge of what is going wrong and how it will play about within Russia is more intuitive.  His description of the collapse of contractual obligations gives me something specific to keep in mind.  As a business guy, this same thing could happen to any country.  Like currencies, economies generally function based on faith more than anything else.  A loss of faith is death.

Notice that he's describing yet more corrosion warfare, but economic in this case.

Steve