How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

 

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

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.

Well I would have stuck “relatively” in that assessment somewhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_campaign

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_offensive

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by The_Capt

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

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...

Amount of ammo dumps flying in the air has decreased.

And in the data I cannot see any jumps one way or the other correlating with HIMARS introduction:
https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine

hard to say conclusively one way or the other.

2 hours ago, Zeleban said:

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.

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.

100km is still too close, especially when you have to fly high altitude to have that range.  Also ground based long range weapons exist and those might not be given UKR even if planes area.

As I understand it UKR never had any meaningful amount of ammo for the Smerch or even Uragan. But yes, HIMARS is very good replacement for those in any case. 

[Zeleban]

21 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

100km is still too close, especially when you have to fly high altitude to have that range.  Also ground based long range weapons exist and those might not be given UKR even if planes area.

Do you think approaching 100 km to the front line is dangerous? How can you shoot down a plane at such a range (which put active radio interference). And at what distance from the front line should this air defense system be located?

 

Do you really think that the Russian air defense system is immune to SEAD?

Edited January 13, 2023 by Zeleban

[Kinophile]

Lol

 

[Huba]

15 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Do you think approaching 100 km to the front line is dangerous? How can you shoot down a plane at such a range (which put active radio interference). And at what distance from the front line should this air defense system be located?

I think he meant that 100km range air-launched weapons like SDB or JDAM-ER won't allow you to strike deeper than with GMLRS. I wonder though what would be the point of supplying Ukraine with Western jets and not including at least some such weapons - not necessarily JASSMs, but at least some JSOWS or SLAMS? Without such weapons, these jets will be forced to attack tactical targets along the front (which in itself can probably be done with JDAM equipped MiGs) or air defence - which is nice but apart from protecting critical infrastructure rather pointless in such SAM-heavy environment.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Huba

[billbindc]

38 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

 

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.

I think the question isn't whether it's possible to take Crimea but rather whether or not it's efficient. Taking it creates greater escalation risks, effectively concentrates Russian forces on a smaller front, simplifies the MOD's supply problems and is likely quite expensive in men and materiel. If corrosion is more effective than maneuver for Ukraine then I would say there's a great argument for forcing Russia to exhaust more resources trying to find water and deliver the logistics needed to barely hold on to it.

[FancyCat]

 

 

[Huba]

7 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I think the question isn't whether it's possible to take Crimea but rather whether or not it's efficient. Taking it creates greater escalation risks, effectively concentrates Russian forces on a smaller front, simplifies the MOD's supply problems and is likely quite expensive in men and materiel. If corrosion is more effective than maneuver for Ukraine then I would say there's a great argument for forcing Russia to exhaust more resources trying to find water and deliver the logistics needed to barely hold on to it.

OTOH, losing Crimea might very well become a Putin-toppling event, which in turn seems to be a prerequisite for a political solution to the conflict. The reasons for vs against UA attempting to take it were discussed here in length multiple times, IMO at the end it will boil down to relative strength of both sides - I can't imagine UA not attempting it in a situation when they think they could pull it off.

[kevinkin]

5 minutes ago, Huba said:

rather pointless in such SAM-heavy environment.

Yes, for a week or so the battlespace would have to be washed clean by dedicated SEAD/DEAD aircraft. If possible, try saturating Russian logistics and conscript moral with precision ground based fires first. A lot depends on how much ammo is stock piled. So smart targeting might be the magic bullet. Or call it the magic sledgehammer. If HIMARs is forcing dispersal, the critical vulnerability now could be preventing concentration before deployment. So mining minor feeder roads with arty might be nice. The Capt mentioned this above. 

[The_Capt]

56 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Amount of ammo dumps flying in the air has decreased.

And in the data I cannot see any jumps one way or the other correlating with HIMARS introduction:
https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine

hard to say conclusively one way or the other.

100km is still too close, especially when you have to fly high altitude to have that range.  Also ground based long range weapons exist and those might not be given UKR even if planes area.

As I understand it UKR never had any meaningful amount of ammo for the Smerch or even Uragan. But yes, HIMARS is very good replacement for those in any case. 

Not sure how accurate this data is but it does show a notable increase starting in what looks like late Aug, Sep.  Which would make sense in line with the Fall offensive.  Does this show ammo dump strikes or actual RA guns lost?  
 

Edit: Really interesting site.  That is Oryx’s guns lost.  Here are really interesting ones.

Edited January 13, 2023 by The_Capt

[Kraft]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Not sure how accurate this data is but it does show a notable increase starting in what looks like late Aug, Sep.  Which would make sense in line with the Fall offensive.  Does this show ammo dump strikes or actual RA guns lost?  

Actual visually confirmed and geolocated artillery pieces/SPG/MLRS/.. losses. So not ammo dumps but rather counter battery, drones,.. Iirc "lost" here includes captured.

I'd argue that we have a clear break where the Ru losses slope increases, compared to the parity situation before. How much of this is captured and a result of frontage movement would need a new graph.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Kraft

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Huba said:

OTOH, losing Crimea might very well become a Putin-toppling event, which in turn seems to be a prerequisite for a political solution to the conflict.

I doubt that the loss of any territories can cause the removal of Putin. Stalin during the Second World War lost vast territories, millions of Soviet citizens died, but in 1941-1942 there was not even an attempt to remove Stalin. We all see the bullying Putin inflicts on the Russians. As it turned out, they are ready to dutifully endure any oppression and humiliation without even trying to resist it. And then suddenly, for the sake of some piece of land, they must rise up? I highly doubt it.

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Actual visually confirmed and geolocated artillery pieces/SPG/MLRS/.. losses. So not ammo dumps but rather counter battery, drones,.. Iirc "lost" here includes captured.

I'd argue that we have a clear break where the Ru losses slope increases, compared to the parity situation before. How much of this is captured and a result of frontage movement would need a new graph.

And then there is stuff not seen.  Guns are back from the lines so seeing all the destroyed ones through OS is going to be problematic.  Oryx is likely the best there is Unclass, but they are not seeing everything.

[Kinophile]

27 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Beavers FTW! 

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I doubt that the loss of any territories can cause the removal of Putin. Stalin during the Second World War lost vast territories, millions of Soviet citizens died, but in 1941-1942 there was not even an attempt to remove Stalin. We all see the bullying Putin inflicts on the Russians. As it turned out, they are ready to dutifully endure any oppression and humiliation without even trying to resist it. And then suddenly, for the sake of some piece of land, they must rise up? I highly doubt it.

We'll have to wait and see of course. OTOH losing some god-forsaken base on the Chinese border was a spark that caused the revolution in 1905, didn't it? Not regime-ending, but big enough to resolve the war ASAP and concentrate all efforts at internal stabilization. Same happened in 1917 more or less. Also, Putin is no Stalin, the historical analogies can only get us this far. Perhaps the fury after Sevastopol falls will give him a heart attack? That would be a very elegant solution

[Kinophile]

6 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I doubt that the loss of any territories can cause the removal of Putin. Stalin during the Second World War lost vast territories, millions of Soviet citizens died, but in 1941-1942 there was not even an attempt to remove Stalin. We all see the bullying Putin inflicts on the Russians. As it turned out, they are ready to dutifully endure any oppression and humiliation without even trying to resist it. And then suddenly, for the sake of some piece of land, they must rise up? I highly doubt it.

Yah exactly.  He'll just add it to the stupid imaginary grievances vomit that he spoonfeeds them every day. Everyone loves being the victim,  its the perfect excuse for any behaviour. 

[Zeleban]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

We'll have to wait and see of course. OTOH losing some god-forsaken base on the Chinese border was a spark that caused the revolution in 1905, didn't it? Not regime-ending, but big enough to resolve the war ASAP and concentrate all efforts at internal stabilization. Same happened in 1917 more or less. Also, Putin is no Stalin, the historical analogies can only get us this far. Perhaps the fury after Sevastopol falls will give him a heart attack? That would be a very elegant solution

There is no need to compare the soft and dreamy Tsar Nicholas 2 and the tough and pragmatic politicians like Stalin or Putin. It was thanks to repression that they achieved the extraordinary obedience of the people. Nicholas 2 looks like a naive schoolboy against their background

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Having recently done battle with some beavers, and seen countless examples of their handiwork, this is something I easily understand

Steve

[Harmon Rabb]

Someone is not very happy about the prospect of Ukraine getting Western made MBTs.

Something tells me Putin will not be taking General Solovyov's advice when Western made tanks do get sent to Ukraine.

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Someone is not very happy about the prospect of Ukraine getting Western made MBTs.

Something tells me Putin will not be taking General Solovyov's advice when Western made tanks do get sent to Ukraine.

Nuclear weapons are the last and most trump card in Putin's deck. And given that Putin is more of a poker player than a chess player, he will save this card for the very last, hopeless situation.

 

 

In the meantime, be content with empty threats of a nuclear strike.

[kevinkin]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

done battle with some beavers

I read that biologists consider the beaver the best at engineering their environment compared to all other mammals. So bring on those furry sappers!. They know who to fight for. Ants are pretty good to. But leave them to the RA. I hear the conscripts run from them.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by kevinkin

[kevinkin]

2 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Putin is more of a poker player than a chess player

Many chess masters have taken on poker in recent years. Can be more lucrative if you are not a super GM (top 15). All things equal, a poker player would make a better general since poker involves reading human behavior and chess is a finite problem. I bet Putin sucks at poker. He just tells his handlers to give him the cards he needs.   

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I doubt that the loss of any territories can cause the removal of Putin. Stalin during the Second World War lost vast territories, millions of Soviet citizens died, but in 1941-1942 there was not even an attempt to remove Stalin.

Huge difference... the Soviet Union's existence was undeniably under threat of foreign occupation.  Thanks to the Third Reich's policies and the nearly 19th Century society, Soviet propaganda had an easy time of convincing the people that wouldn't be a good thing.

21 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

We all see the bullying Putin inflicts on the Russians. As it turned out, they are ready to dutifully endure any oppression and humiliation without even trying to resist it. And then suddenly, for the sake of some piece of land, they must rise up? I highly doubt it.

This is the big question, isn't it?  One thing that is pretty clear is that Putin isn't taking the traditional Russian willingness to suffer and die for granted.  He's been exceedingly cautious and devious about this from the very start of the war by simply calling it a "Special Military Operation". 

From what we can see from the outside the internal propaganda is cranked up to 11 to install the sort of urgency and loyalty to the state that Stalin was able to whip up and use.  Certainly nearly 10% of the Russian population, much of it military aged, didn't leave the country ahead of serious privations.

Putin has shown he understood that the Russians were getting "soft" thanks to Western influences.  We'd say it was due to the influences of a free, just, prosperous, and peaceful way of being.  Putin would privately agree, but publicly state it was due to homosexuality, atheism, and materialism.  Over the years we've heard more and more of this out of the Kremlin as its way of trying to "toughen" the people back to Soviet standards.  Or in Western terms, brainwash them into being good little cogs in his machine.

It is noted that one of the primary reasons Putin had to sit on Belarus and destroy Ukraine is that the "rot" (as he sees it) is spreading into Russia.  Your country's continued example of setting higher goals for itself is, all on its own, a massive threat because a major (deliberate) side effect is undermining the very zombie like loyalty to the state that Putin needs from the Russian people in this war.

To summarize... I am 100% confident that the Russian people have neither the mindset nor incentives to sacrifice for Putin like they did Stalin.  What isn't known is how much can Putin behave like Stalin before there is an uprising of some sort.  Losing Crimea would almost certainly give us a definitive answer.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

yes indeed, fight aggressive wars to toughen the Russian people into.... fighting aggressive wars. QED