How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

13 minutes ago, Kraft said:

I think UA withdrew completely what could be withdrawn from Soledar today or yesterday.

Red boxes are geolocated areas of Wagner presence, in the videos there was not even gunfire in the background.

I hope UKR got all the soldiers out.  And so we all wait to see what this means.  Was it just a way for UKR to get RU to expend men and (allegedly) short artillery on a relatively insignificant piece of terrain?  This assumes that UKR has something better to do w its forces.  Cold next couple days then back to very warm & mud.  So it might be a while before we can see what, if anything, UKR has up its sleeves.

[Vet 0369]

9 hours ago, Taranis said:

Personally, I don't find it impressive at all (but still interesting). I don't see how they can set their sights properly while locked in a shelter. This would mean (which the video does not show) that the vegetation is removed during the adjustment and orientation and so are visible... And then, to carry out that, it is necessary to have a position already prepared, at the present time (UAV & Co), I do not see how the Ukrainians could not notice the preparation. At 2:49 watch how he pulls the trigger like crazy... If he does that for real, he'll shoot around the corners. I know it's training, but one of the lessons of this war is that you have to disperse the men and the means. There the guys learn to leave in column and to shoot in line... The necessary realistic conditions therefore leave something to be desired.

I totally agree! I saw no sign of aiming stakes, which while not absolutely needed for a “hastily” setup solution for direct firing, (I had 60mm M2 gunners who could just Jan the ball on the base into the ground, fire a round for range, and proceed to adjust fire for effect by “Kentucky wind age.” In fact my M60 machine gun squads usually had to protect their Asbestos gloves, used for changing barrels, from other mortar sections from stealing them. The gunner used the glove to protect his hand from the heat of the mortar tube.

[Vet 0369]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

NICE!  UAV deliveries is something we've not discussed at all in this massive thread.  It is obviously something that we'll be seeing a lot more of in the years to come.  It's not efficient for most forms of resupply, but when you need to get a spare part, radio, or something else specialized (OK, sugar too!) then these drones could be the #1 method for solving the problem.

The NATO forces are all experimenting with cargo carrying UGVs because they can do a lot more than UAVs, including acting as weapons platforms instead.  However, I do know that there is interest in rotary based UAVs that can mimic a helicopter's capacity.  But from what I can tell such a vehicle is getting attention only recently compared to UGVs.

Steve

They don’t have them yet, but I don’t think they are far off. A company in Vermont, U.S.A. contracted Austin Meyers, the creator of Laminar Research (LR), to design a fully electric dual-rotor aircraft to transport transplant organs from one hospital to another. It has to carry a pilot, a passenger, and the organ for transplant. Austin Meyers used the Plane Maker program of the LR flight simulator X-Plane to design and test the proof of concept and flight model for the copter. The company in Vermont built the prototype and performed actual flight testing. I understand the FAA might be flight testing it within the next few months. I’ve actually flown it a bit in X-Plane 12, and it’s pretty amazing.

[Fenris]

More DIY, guided AT UAVs footage.  Will be interesting to see how this tech develops and is used.

 

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, billbindc said:

You couldn't find a more perfect illustration of how Putin's ruling methodology...pitting sectors of the system against each other competitively...is gutting Russia's ability to fight the war in an efficient and effective fashion. Clausewitz said that "war is not merely a political act" but this is war as only a political act. 

Well put.  Just like Goering trying to impress Hitler by making his own land army because he was falling out of favor.  We all know how well that turned out.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Simcoe said:

I'm just not sure if it was necessarily a fault of Obama.

For sure it was not.  However, as has been clearly demonstrated by this war... sometimes it is American leadership that makes the difference.  Obama put his finger into the air, felt how strong the headwinds were, and decided to use his political capital elsewhere.  I'm sure Europe was relieved.

Ironically, when I designed the backstory for CMSF I recognized there would be little interest in waging a war in Syria for a variety of reasons, including the then 6 year war in Iraq and Afghanistan not going so well.  This is why I had Europe's most cherished cultural and political centers directly attacked by terrorists based in Syria.  I figured that would be the only way they would put up conventional forces to invade Syria.  I'm not convinced it would be enough, but hey... we were in need of a backstory for the game we wanted to make, not trying to be Nostradamus.

5 hours ago, Simcoe said:

If the military industrial complex said "let's let this one go" the analysis must have looked really bad.

They likely saw the chances of getting a war in Syria as so low it didn't make sense to waste lobbying money on trying to get one.

3 hours ago, Raptor341 said:

This is a strong point for me personally - the collective West let the opportunity go in Syria and now everyone continues to pay for it. Leadership isn’t easy, and often I think these kind of things require action because someone else who you like even less (Russia) might take action in your absence. By giving up the initiative to act Russia gained control of much of the theatre. 

Perhaps it would have been a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t, but if you don’t take action and then the problem lands on your doorstep (Europe) you are affected regardless. The thought of what would have happened if the West didn’t act in 2022 is almost certainly a darker future that I really don’t even want to contemplate, yet must to help understand why acting is important in the first place. 
 

Definitely a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with Syria.  It pretty much exists in most military interventions, even ones that are easily won.  There are usually long term problems that come about and, at the time of the decision, often no clear cut need to engage in war.

To get this back on topic, Putin's second biggest mistake of this war (the first being underestimating Ukraine's capabilities and resolve) was launching an invasion so large, so unnecessary, so unjustified, and so cruel that the West saw the situation as almost exclusively "damned if you don't".  Had Putin instead launched a smaller war in Donbas, an expanded hybrid operation, or a naked coup attempt (which would have no doubt failed) then Russia might very well have faced another 2014/15 type reaction.  Which amounted to getting most of what Putin wanted without having to pay too high a price in the short term.  In fact, this is the situation many in the West (including myself) was afraid of in the months before the war. 

It's difficult to conclude that this war is in any way "good" for Ukraine, but long term it might be better for Ukraine to have this war instead of the war a smarter Putin could have launched.  It pains me to put it in such a way given how f'n horrible this war is, however there is a case to be made for it.

Steve

[kevinkin]

Brief mid-war report on HIMARS effectiveness in the two UA counter-offensives:

https://www.businessinsider.com/fighting-in-eastern-ukraine-showed-benefits-and-limitations-of-himars-2023-1

Does the west have another magic bullet in the chamber and what would that be? Note, HIMARS directly impacted a RA doctrinal weakness. Perhaps we can just out bid Prigozhin. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nxr2KaynZI

Or maybe a large clandestine electronic warfare campaign aimed to screw up tactical and operational networks. NATO armor at proposed levels won't do it completely. Need something the backward RA just can't deal with for a few months. Seems that Wagner and Crimea are prime targets and Putin's Center of Gravity. Not as a source of strength, but a critical vulnerability affecting his internal politics. I mean, what the f does he have left to show for? 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1720064/Russia-war-in-Ukraine-frontline-Challenger-2-tanks-Crimea-land-bridge

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-could-strike-devastating-blow-putin-crimea-1773386

Well the press is eyeing up Crimea. 

 

[Taranis]

"Ukrainian army tanks in the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine. EVGENIY MALOLETKA / AP"

* seems T-64BV

[Zeleban]

1 hour ago, kevinkin said:

Does the west have another magic bullet in the chamber and what would that be?

 

Of course there is, a whole magazine of bullets. Every type of NATO aircraft weapons is such a magic bullet. Aviation is the main strike force of NATO, so special attention was paid to its strike capabilities.

[Huba]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

 

Of course there is, a whole magazine of bullets. Every type of NATO aircraft weapons is such a magic bullet. Aviation is the main strike force of NATO, so special attention was paid to its strike capabilities.

Or any ground-launched PGMs of substantially bigger range than GMLRS. This can happen any day with ATACMS, just needs political will - but tanks first I guess.

[The_MonkeyKing]

2 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Does the west have another magic bullet in the chamber and what would that be? Note, HIMARS directly impacted a RA doctrinal weakness. Perhaps we can just out bid Prigozhin. 

Longer range and heavier precision missiles is the easiest magic. Example ATACMS

I cannot really think of other "magic bullet" class ones. Not even western air frames.

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

Of course there is, a whole magazine of bullets. Every type of NATO aircraft weapons is such a magic bullet. Aviation is the main strike force of NATO, so special attention was paid to its strike capabilities.

I actually think western air frames would not be such a big deal at least in the short and medium term. UKR is not going to be able to compete with RUS air force. The airspace is going to stay contested and practically denied for both. Western air frames would raise the UKR anti air capacity even further and reduce the need for ground based AA systems. But you can achieve "close enough" results by just providing overwhelming amounts of ground based AA. (this might just not be as cost efficient) Also planes would impose more cost and attrition to RUS air force, more so than just being denied to operate.

The best UKR could aim to do with the air frames would be same as Finnish air force. Finland would use its air force as the other half of its air defence network. The other half is ground based AA. The other mission in Finnish air force has is doing long range precision strikes, JASSM and the likes.

Even if UKR gets air frames it doesn't mean they are getting example JASSM as well. And there are ground based long range precision fires as well. 

[LongLeftFlank]

3 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Brief mid-war report on HIMARS effectiveness in the two UA counter-offensives:

https://www.businessinsider.com/fighting-in-eastern-ukraine-showed-benefits-and-limitations-of-himars-2023-1

Does the west have another magic bullet in the chamber and what would that be? Note, HIMARS directly impacted a RA doctrinal weakness. Perhaps we can just out bid Prigozhin. 

 

Yeah, Kofman continues to underimpress me with his analysis.

So let me see if I have this right?  A long range first-shot-kill-precise artillery system that

1. gives Ukraine the equivalent of tactical air superiority to a depth of dozens of kms,

2. forcing Russia to (inefficiently) disperse, well, pretty much everything, totally screwing their already b0llxed logistical chain 

3. is yesterday's news? because it didn't also provide a Swiss army knife tin opener to level the VDV hedgehogs around Kherson?

Edited January 13, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 minute ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Yeah, Kofman continues to underimpress me with his analysis.

So let me see if I have this right?  A long range first-shot-kill-precise artillery system that

1. gives Ukraine the equivalent of tactical air superiority to a depth of dozens of kms,

2. forcing Russia to (inefficiently) disperse, well, pretty much everything

3. is yesterday's news? because it didn't also provide a Swiss army knife tin opener to level the VDV hedgehogs around Kherson?

Clearly HIMARS is not a magic bullet.

New systems always have the most impact when first introduced. As did HIMARS. Now RUS has adapted and the efficiency of HIMARS has taken a hit. Also it is passively effecting RUS all the time, they have to operate more carefully, at least requiring more skill to get the same results as before.

HIMARS could be replaced by other capabilities. Example RUS has systems like the Smerch, it uses more of dump rockets to achieve same capability.

Most importantly is UKR was lacking this category of capability almost entirely. No way how hitting targets within this range with any sort of ammo stockpile that would last.

[LongLeftFlank]

21 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

RUS has systems like the Smerch, it uses more of dump rockets to achieve same capability.

Noted, thanks. All the more argument for UKR (and your own  army for that matter) to keep itself largely organised as 'flat' light infantry battalions with lean logistical tails to hold a 'denuded front', drawing on small mech units as needed for counterattack / fire support.

But maintain a small number of heavy tank + sapper brigades tasked with breaking into and dismantling enemy prepared defences once fire superiority is gained.

...Could that in turn imply that about 150 current tech Western MBTs (with 100 deployable at a given time) could be about all Ukraine really needs? (and can probably sustain at present btw)

(apologies if this is blindingly obvious; I've had a long week at work)

Edited January 13, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Bulletpoint]

On 1/11/2023 at 2:43 PM, Beleg85 said:

 

Interesting to rewatch this one again now.

[kevinkin]

11 hours ago, Zeleban said:

Aviation is the main strike force of NATO, so special attention was paid to its strike capabilities.

The thing is that NATO is not going to give just a single type of a/c to Ukraine. The idea is to deliver strike packages that contain SEAD/DEAD ; AEW; JASSM (USAF or USN) ; F35 ; and multi-role F/B. A week of 24/7 with those packages and the RA would not exist in Ukraine. Their AD could not deal with the number of in-comings, let alone their precision. This is not a insurgent army, but a old fashioned conventional army to be destroyed. However, there is the escalation piece to mull over. One off A10s and choppers, maybe. No, the magic bullet is something more subtle. Typhoid Jane in Russian foxholes just as an analogy.  

Edited January 13, 2023 by kevinkin

[Zeleban]

2 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I actually think western air frames would not be such a big deal at least in the short and medium term. UKR is not going to be able to compete with RUS air force. The airspace is going to stay contested and practically denied for both. Western air frames would raise the UKR anti air capacity even further and reduce the need for ground based AA systems. But you can achieve "close enough" results by just providing overwhelming amounts of ground based AA. (this might just not be as cost efficient) Also planes would impose more cost and attrition to RUS air force, more so than just being denied to operate.

And Ukrainian aviation will not need to enter the Russian air defense strike zone due to the range of American aviation weapons. GBU-39, for example, has a range of 110 km, and so with almost every type of NATO aircraft weapon. Soviet means for destroying ground targets are unusually poor. Therefore, the Russians do not use their aviation - it will have to enter the Ukrainian air defense strike zone.

 

2 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

HIMARS could be replaced by other capabilities. Example RUS has systems like the Smerch, it uses more of dump rockets to achieve same capability.

Never compare HIMARS with Smerch. Ukraine had Smerch and it did not lead to significant results. Smerch missiles do not have GPS correction. Their accuracy is comparable to the accuracy of "Katyusha" during the Second World War. Therefore, for Smerch, missiles with a cluster warhead are used, while each segment has a weak damaging effect on buildings.

[Butschi]

22 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

A week of 24/7 with those packages and the RA would not exist in Ukraine.

If Merriam Webster ever needs a new definition for "hubris", here is a perfect example.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Butschi

[Zeleban]

24 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

One off A10s and choppers, maybe.

What is the difference between A-10C and F-16 ground weapons? The beauty of NATO air armament is its versatility. It is compatible with virtually any NATO aircraft, be it the F-35 or the Super Tucano.

27 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

The thing is that NATO is not going to give just a single type of a/c to Ukraine.

Yes, yes, just like infantry fighting vehicles or air defense systems or tanks. All this equipment terribly escalated the conflict.

[Zeleban]

3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Now RUS has adapted and the efficiency of HIMARS has taken a hit.

The guys from Makeevsky vocational school can argue with you

The fact that the media stopped publishing reports on the use of HIMARS does not mean that their effectiveness has fallen. Here's from the latest...

 

[Kraft]

Supposedly dead Wagner PMCs using MM-14 camo, but with white armbands?

Their MT-LB was hit and the occupants neutralized as seen here:

Not sure what to make of it. Maybe they planned on removing their white armbands once near UA positions? 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Kraft

[kevinkin]

46 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

What is the difference between A-10C and F-16 ground weapons

You are right about the the F16 versatility : it's faster, higher flying and can have an AA loadout and a  CAS loadout on the same flight. The F16 can carry A-120Ds, HARMs and JASSM too. Don't forget about the powerful radar that enhances everything. The A10 is a more tactical/operational system, while the F16 is more operational/strategic. Use the A10 to kill armor and dug in lines of troops. Use the F16 to interdict those troops and provide air cover as well. You can have various F16s ready on the flight line with different kill capacities. Kill tank groupings/staging areas, not single AFVs. While I would continue to fund the A10, the F16 is more of a Swiss army knife. That said, don't hold your breath. Even the A10 would take time to have an effect on the ground situation. Maybe not until next year I am afraid. But with expedited training earlier. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by kevinkin

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Yeah, Kofman continues to underimpress me with his analysis.

So let me see if I have this right?  A long range first-shot-kill-precise artillery system that

1. gives Ukraine the equivalent of tactical air superiority to a depth of dozens of kms,

2. forcing Russia to (inefficiently) disperse, well, pretty much everything, totally screwing their already b0llxed logistical chain 

3. is yesterday's news? because it didn't also provide a Swiss army knife tin opener to level the VDV hedgehogs around Kherson?

And he, and others, keep trying to turn Kherson into a defeat…why is beyond me.

Magic bullet - Masses precision beats everything.  Double down on precision fires.

At this point anything that can hit with precision at the 100km range.  So more HIMARs obviously.  Self loitering munitions - Switchblade 600 (has the same warhead as the Javelin), Spike NLOS.  And there are rumours of next-gen precision DPICM, now would be a good time for them to show up.  Artillery delivered scatterable AT mines were in that last package which is another really good idea.  Unlike massive western fleet injections (tanks, AFVs and/or AirPower) these things can start doing what needs to be done immediately, killing more Russians in depth and the UA does not need months of training and new logistics system to support them. 

The Russian logistics system can only adapt so much before it buckles, we have already proven that.  I would focus on Russian guns, EW and logistics.

Edited January 13, 2023 by The_Capt

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Yeah, Kofman continues to underimpress me with his analysis.

So let me see if I have this right?  A long range first-shot-kill-precise artillery system that

1. gives Ukraine the equivalent of tactical air superiority to a depth of dozens of kms,

2. forcing Russia to (inefficiently) disperse, well, pretty much everything, totally screwing their already b0llxed logistical chain 

3. is yesterday's news? because it didn't also provide a Swiss army knife tin opener to level the VDV hedgehogs around Kherson?

Kofman is a very smart guy. He's also a very arrogant smart guy who is worth hearing but with the caveat that for all his knowledge he's been more wrong than right on this war.

[The_MonkeyKing]

 

Interesting new podcast episode with a Ukrainian colonel.

Probably the most interesting single point was that Invading Crimea has historically never really been that hard after the mainland UKR was taken under control.