How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, JonS said:

I think this is right, but the thing is that this really isn't physically sustainable for very long. Soldiers could keep up that for maybe 96 hours before they just, well, stopped. Stopped by falling asleep while driving, falling asleep eating, falling asleep looking through a weapon scope, falling asleep mid-radio message, falling asleep refuelling or re-loading, falling asleep mid-poo. And the guys that don't just falling asleep will be hallucinating, hard, which isn't going to generate good outcomes.

I think it's likely that forces will draw back from each other in order to give themselves enough time to OODA. So, no-mans land becomes something like 100km deep. Maybe some snake eaters are wandering around in there, but they'll be moving very slowly since there's so much EM being dumped into the space that an overly dramatic eyeroll would be noticed. At 100km, practically all barrel artillery is out of range and all ATGMs are out of range. The only things with sufficient legs are stuff like missile systems like ATACMS and air power, and the breadth of no-mans land provides enough time to sense and engage those before they get anywhere interesting. That way the human stuff can occur - eating, planning, sleeping, rehearsing, resupply, maintenance, and such like - with reasonable safety and security.

The obvious problem then becomes, well, ok, how do I as an attacker cross 100km of sensor-dense no-mans land and then break into and through the enemies defended zone? How do I achieve surprise? How do I concentrate? How do I feint?

Steve's 'bobbing and weaving' is part of the answer, but I believe you'll also need to break open some good, recent WWI histories and see how they overcame essentially the same problem 100 years ago. Then update and apply their answers in a modern context.

 

 

What you are saying sounds plausible and the obvious answer is autonomous machines. Terminator starts to look less and less like sci-fi...

[Huba]

Breaking with the LOTR metaphors for a moment, Estonia kinda resembles this character:

CV90s are rather unexpected:

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Huba

[Bulletpoint]

10 minutes ago, Huba said:

Breaking with the LOTR metaphors for a moment, Estonia kinda resembles this character:

Who is that?

[Huba]

15 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Who is that?

Lyanna Mormont from the Game of Thrones - head of one of the noble houses and one of the most ballsy characters in the whole saga, who routinely pulled a lot more weight than you'd expect from a 10 year old girl.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Huba

[Bulletpoint]

19 minutes ago, Huba said:

Lyanna Mormont from the Game of Thrones - head of one of the noble houses and one of the most ballsy characters in the whole saga, who routinely pulled a lot more weight than you'd expect from a 10 year old girl.

 

 

They grow up so fast

Feels like 1219 was just yesterday.

[FancyCat]

Either escalation is actually a worry on Scholz's part, or this is a weak attempt at slowing aid to Ukraine. As the below shows, he risks damaging NATO and trust in Germany.

 

[Mattias]

Just in. Sweden sends Archer, CV 90 (Not specified but clearly indicated Swedish ”C” model - or possibly “D”) and more NLAWs to Ukraine.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Mattias

[FancyCat]

In insisting on "NATO unity" and "lockstep" (ignoring he's basically telling all of Europe they don't matter vs the U.S), and insisting on American tanks alongside German tanks, he's devaluing Article 5.

Also if he was truly worried of escalation, wouldn't he be saying no NATO state should be providing tanks? Not asking for the U.S to provide it first?

So instead he's seeking a insurance policy against Russian retaliation, implying Article 5 isn't worth jack ****.

What a idiot. Sorry, the logic just simply does not calculate. He's breaking NATO unity, not preserving it.

 

[Tux]

2 hours ago, Huba said:

Free the Ariete! Failing that, free the Centaurs! At the end it will turn out that Scholz is a hero - by doing absolutely nothing he'll force all the European nations and Americans to send their tanks to Ukraine. I can respect that

Tongue in cheek, but it really starts to look like an organized action.Olaf takes the blame, but it cuts short the discussion about sending tanks in other countries - we have to push the Germans, don't we? 

There’s also such a racket going on about MBTs I doubt anyone really notices much of what else gets committed any more…

 

But I now see that point has already been made. That’ll teach me to shortcut reading the whole thread!

Edited January 19, 2023 by Tux
Update

[Lethaface]

15 minutes ago, Mattias said:

Just in. Sweden sends Archer, CV 90 (Swedish ”C” model) and more NLAWs to Ukraine.

 

Now that's some serious package. 

[Butschi]

14 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

In insisting on "NATO unity" and "lockstep" (ignoring he's basically telling all of Europe they don't matter vs the U.S), and insisting on American tanks alongside German tanks, he's devaluing Article 5.

Also if he was truly worried of escalation, wouldn't he be saying no NATO state should be providing tanks? Not asking for the U.S to provide it first?

So instead he's seeking a insurance policy against Russian retaliation, implying Article 5 isn't worth jack ****.

What a idiot. Sorry, the logic just simply does not calculate. He's breaking NATO unity, not preserving it.

 

Criticize Scholz as much as you like but keep it civil and tone it down a bit, will you? This is not helpful for any kind of productive discussion. There are other places on the internet that are better suited for just ranting and spewing hatred.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Butschi

[Zeleban]

19 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Also if he was truly worried of escalation, wouldn't he be saying no NATO state should be providing tanks? Not asking for the U.S to provide it first?

I have always been amused by the rhetoric that tanks are much more dangerous than self-propelled howitzers. Although reality shows that the opposite is true. You physically feel how the external corrupting mechanism of Russia has strained. Having learned about the powerful aid package to Ukraine, Russian officials immediately used all their connections in the German government to achieve at least a slight delay in the aid package. It will be a small victory, but it will be.

[Zeleban]

6 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Criticize Scholz as much as you like but keep it civil and tone it down a bit, will you? This is not helpful for any kind of productive discussion. There are other places on the internet that are better suited for just ranting and spewing hatred.

No one expresses disrespect to the participants of the forum. And politicians exist to criticize them. It is strange that you are so actively defending Scholz - a completely toothless politician, without a clear plan for further action

[Maciej Zwolinski]

16 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

What a idiot. Sorry, the logic just simply does not calculate. He's breaking NATO unity, not preserving it.

I do not think he is an idiot. Neither is he just looking after a pacifist section of his electorate - the ugly indecision and backtracking, the obvious lack of spine and manly parts is likely to hurt him and his party in all sections of the electorate, he must see that. Therefore there must be something more behind this.

My pet conspiracy theory is that he is scared stiff of some heavy-duty Russian kompromat against people high up in SPD, which could undermine that party for years to come. Like e.g. proof that Schroeder was a Russian asset not only after he left his office, but also when he was the Chancellor. Obviously, that is just a conjecture, but those things always are.

[FancyCat]

15 minutes ago, Butschi said:

spewing hatred.

Calling a politician a idiot is spewing hatred?

[Kraft]

20 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Criticize Scholz as much as you like but keep it civil and tone it down a bit, will you? This is not helpful for any kind of productive discussion. There are other places on the internet that are better suited for just ranting and spewing hatred.

What would you call his behavior? Do you think he truly belives M1s are the only way to deescalate Leo2 deliveries after challenger 2s are on the way?

Or may it be that he is yet again making up another goal post to delay support at the expense of Ukrainian lifes?

I think calling him an idiot is still a nice evaluation, because it assumes no malicious intent. Considering his party's obvious love for Putin, I'd call him something different.

At this point he is doing more damage than Orban to the EU and Nato.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Kraft

[Huba]

9 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I do not think he is an idiot. Neither is he just looking after a pacifist section of his electorate - the ugly indecision and backtracking, the obvious lack of spine and manly parts is likely to hurt him and his party in all sections of the electorate, he must see that. Therefore there must be something more behind this.

My pet conspiracy theory is that he is scared stiff of some heavy-duty Russian kompromat against people high up in SPD, which could undermine that party for years to come. Like e.g. proof that Schroeder was a Russian asset not only after he left his office, but also when he was the Chancellor. Obviously, that is just a conjecture, but those things always are.

I don't even own a tinfoil hat, but that wouldn't surprise me one bit, this is getting harder and harder to explain. It looks like Austin - Pistorius meeting was not successful in breaking the stalemate too:

BTW, in one hour Polish MoD will hold a press conference and announce the next military package from PL, rumored to be the biggest one yet. Fingers crossed for MiGs.

[Holien]

OK now for something different a bit of recent history in the Kherson region before it was retaken.

Ukraine The peoples Fight

http://www.ollylambert.com/ukraine-the-peoples-fight

I managed finally to find time to watch this documentary which is available on the BBC iPlayer and hopefully will become available elsewhere if you don't use a VPN.

Interesting insight to a small unit operating on the front line trying to kill Russians and not very effectively.

Off the top of my head some interesting things to watch out for...

1.  Shows secret command centre trying to gather intelligence from those behind Russians lines. Good interview with one of the volunteer members.  This was IMO really useful to see.

2. Shows a small "Special forces" unit set up by a member of the Ukrainian parliament who was a former SFO.

• Shows the problems of trying to run this unit with volunteers with not military experience - Watch them RTFM on a mortar.

• Shows poor mortar skills and failure to hit after repeated attempts a tank they were after.

• Shows a stable front and the Russians just dug in and not really attempting to patrol the area.

• Shows a police military unit and some success they had but failure to displace mortar after shooting

• Shows the SFO team have a "good safe house" but don't seem to have anyone keeping an eye open when resting not too far from front.

Really worth watching as it shows the problems Ukraine is facing and yet they are winning with what they have!!!

Really shows why training is vital and I hope the new forces being rotated in with that training should start to make a difference.

BBC link - restricted unless you know how to use a VPN

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001grdw

 

 

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

46 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

In insisting on "NATO unity" and "lockstep" (ignoring he's basically telling all of Europe they don't matter vs the U.S), and insisting on American tanks alongside German tanks, he's devaluing Article 5.

Also if he was truly worried of escalation, wouldn't he be saying no NATO state should be providing tanks? Not asking for the U.S to provide it first?

So instead he's seeking a insurance policy against Russian retaliation, implying Article 5 isn't worth jack ****.

What a idiot. Sorry, the logic just simply does not calculate. He's breaking NATO unity, not preserving it.

 

I think this angle is interesting. I had not considered that Scholtz might simply be doubting in the fundamental credibility of Article 5.

If we assume he does, then I think his actions make more sense, in a Cold War game theory kind of way. Insisiting that the US gets more actively involved, so it will also take the fall if Russia decides to attack Germany.

Maybe he wants to avoid a situation where Russia nukes only Western Europe, but doesn't launch towards the US. Then the USA would have to make a quick decision whether to retaliate, and lose everything, or not retaliate, and "only" lose Europe - but still see a Russia likely devastated by UK and French weapons.

Please note that I am not suggesting that the USA would not honour Article 5. But the US has long range radars that would tell them whether something was coming their way, and just enough time to decide whether and how to respond. Germany doesn't have this option.

[Huba]

6 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think this angle is interesting. I had not considered that Scholtz might simply be doubting in the fundamental credibility of Article 5.

If we assume he does, then I think his actions make more sense, in a Cold War game theory kind of way. Insisiting that the US gets more actively involved, so it will also take the fall if Russia decides to attack Germany.

Maybe he wants to avoid a situation where Russia nukes only Western Europe, but doesn't launch towards the US. Then the USA would have to make a quick decision whether to retaliate, and lose everything, or not retaliate, and "only" lose Europe - but still see a Russia likely devastated by UK and French weapons.

Please note that I am not suggesting that the USA would not honour Article 5. But the US has long range radars that would tell them whether something was coming their way, and just enough time to decide whether and how to respond. Germany doesn't have this option.

If Russians were up for nuking somebody ,there are other countries that are both "easier" targets, and more deserving due to their involvement in supporting UA. If, despite that, this is a way he/ they think, would Germany itself be willing to honor the Article 5, have some manure fallen into the ventilator?  No way to know, but this stance is really not reassuring, especially if explained that way.

In other news, awesome Excalibur hit, taking out SPG, towed gun and the nearby crew:

 

[Lethaface]

5 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think this angle is interesting. I had not considered that Scholtz might simply be doubting in the fundamental credibility of Article 5.

If we assume he does, then I think his actions make more sense, in a Cold War game theory kind of way. Insisiting that the US gets more actively involved, so it will also take the fall if Russia decides to attack Germany.

Maybe he wants to avoid a situation where Russia nukes only Western Europe, but doesn't launch towards the US. Then the USA would have to make a quick decision whether to retaliate, and lose everything, or not retaliate, and "only" lose Europe - but still see a Russia likely devastated by UK and French weapons.

Please note that I am not suggesting that the USA would not honour Article 5. But the US has long range radars that would tell them whether something was coming their way, and just enough time to decide whether and how to respond. Germany doesn't have this option.

Could be.

I think he's just scared and trying to hold on to daddy/mommy's pants before stepping into the unknown without 'support'. That's even mostly serious, anyway I think he's mainly scared of internal political consequences compared to Rus actually declaring war or nuking Germany.

But, all speculation.

[Huba]

Reportedly the French parliament is at this very moment debating sending Leclercs to Ukraine - not if they should do it, but how to solve the logistical challenges. @Taranis care to comment/ confirm that?

 

[chuckdyke]

The lesson don't depend on others to equip your army.

[Holien]

On 1/18/2023 at 4:54 AM, Battlefront.com said:

This is something that CM can help sort out.  Explore the possibilities from the safety of a chair

After watching hundreds of videos and reading all kinds of first and third hand evaluations, I have some suspicions of how to deal with this new lethal battlefield.

First, let's identify and rank the most important systems and why:

1. ISR (in particular small drones) - if you have this, everything else becomes easier and more effective.  Even if your guys are all buck naked and without weapons, at the very least you can keep them alive by directing them away from the enemy and pass on information that might make the next unit have better luck.
2. Coms - if you aren't able to quickly and efficiently pass information around outside of your immediate positions, then you're not going to be very effective.  You also won't be able to take advantage of most anything else in this list.
3. PGMs on call - one drone team with a radio can ruin just about any plan the enemy might have.  Period.  Doesn't matter what delivers the PGM, only that it is delivered when it is called for and lands where intended.
4. Dumb artillery on call - not as good as PGMs for some tasks, but given enough of it and of the right caliber it can be just as good or (for widely dispersed targets) better.  But it's more difficult, less likely to succeed, and has a greater chance of being countered.
5. AT weapons - the more capable the better, the greater the number the better.  Sure, it is optimal to have Javelins and NLAWs, but if you have a large number of short range one shot weapons you've got options when combined with ISR and coms.  Especially if the enemy doesn't have dismounted infantry to worry about.
6. Plentiful infantry - as with any battlefield since the dawn of time, the side with more soldiers has a theoretical advantage over the one with fewer.
7. Heavy AFVs - these can be a liability, perhaps even a death sentence, if not handled correctly for the circumstances.  However, when handled correctly they have the opposite effect.  Obviously more capable vehicles are better, however an armored light wheeled vehicle with a M2 mounted on it can be all a force needs to get the job done.

In parallel to this is the quality of the soldiers involved.  Conscripts with all of this stuff aren't going to know how to use it effectively, so a better unit with less capabilities has a better chance of coming out ahead in an engagement.  Being a really good unit with all of this stuff is, obviously, optimal

For sure there are other things like close air support, EW, mine rollers, etc. that any force would like to have on hand, but the above are the things I see as the core of any offensive or defensive capable force.

 

As recently discussed, fixed positions eventually mean death if the enemy has the right forces invested.  Ukraine has found that out, though Russia's lack of PGMs means it has taken a decade's worth of ammunition production to get make much progress.  If Russia had the same ability to deliver PGMs as Ukraine does, we might actually see Russians advancing more than a few meters a day.  Either way, though, when Russia wants to take out a Ukrainian defensive point it can, even if it is horribly inefficient and wasteful.  Mass still has power.

The solution to static death is dynamic life.  Or at least a chance of life.  A force that has all of the stuff I listed off above, defensive or offensive, has what it needs to keep moving around enough to remain combat capable when engaging the enemy.  Especially if the enemy is weak in some areas or, better still, completing lacking.

I see success coming from a force that can successfully bob and weave long enough to land effective blows.  A defensive force must be prepared to flex so as to not be wiped out in a static position.  Force the enemy to commit, slow it down, then smash it with PGMs, AT, plentiful small arms fire, and/or AFVs.  Move tactical positions frequently, even if it means temporarily moving to less desirable ground.  Being in the best location doesn't matter if a PGM lands a meter or two away because you stayed too long.

An offensive force does pretty much the same thing, except when it bobs and weaves it favors stepping forward whenever possible.  Eventually it needs to be able to punch so hard that the opponent is out of the way completely.  And that, finally, is where AFVs in numbers becomes useful.  Not necessarily to engage directly, instead cover ground quickly and keep momentum going.  The more mass the better ONLY IF there is ISR to match and/or the enemy lacks it.  Otherwise the attacker is likely going to lose a lot of vehicles.

In a traditional 2:1 or 3:1 attack vs defender the favored side will be the one with better the better ISR, Coms, and PGMs combo.  Engaging offensively without proper ISR or Coms is just asking for defeat even if everything else is favorable.  Defense is also likely to fail, but it has more room for error.

Obviously this is all pretty crude, but I think it's a fairly fair assessment.

Steve

This is one of the best posts I have read in trying to get to the bottom of what is working.

Should be included in a military training manual for future wars...

[poesel]

42 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Neither is he just looking after a pacifist section of his electorate - the ugly indecision and backtracking, the obvious lack of spine and manly parts is likely to hurt him and his party in all sections of the electorate, he must see that.

It does not hurt in 'all sections of the electorate'. If it would, he would behave different. There is a lot of internal pressure on him to send tanks. But it is not huge, and _his_ electorate is mostly for NOT sending tanks.

Also, he is not spineless. Quite the opposite. Without a spine, he would have caved in long ago.