How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[JonS]

13 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Didn't realize the crappy range of the gun

Oh, I assume the round will go a lot further than 1km, but the thing about direct fire is that it's, well, direct. In a cluttered environment, you're rarely going to see further than about a km, and even that's probably optimistic in most cases and without careful in-person recce.

Faster is obviously better than slower, but in terms of the onion theory of defence, vehicle speed will be one of the thinnest layers.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d90363_a2a81acaeef5412a879a14bd10c104eb~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_390,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/d90363_a2a81acaeef5412a879a14bd10c104eb~mv2.png

(Note that vehicle speed doesnt feature anywhere in that diagram, although you could perhaps infer it as contributing to 'don't be acquired' and 'don't be hit')

Edited January 19, 2023 by JonS

[Huba]

54 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

If properly this can be done as secure or even more secure compared to 'papertrail' procedures. But indeed some of the data can be very harmful in the wrong circumstances. Especially if combined.

Have all of that in PL. Well, registering  the company gotta be done by website, not app, but I carry all my documents in digital form; only banks and few other  institutions require physical documents. There's two level verification and what not ( where it's needed) , I never heard about any security issues with the system. 

Since some time we are also not required to carry any car related documents - traffic cops get the registration/ insurance info from the database and your license data based on personal ID number or name and date of birth. May sound Orwellian to an American I guess, but it's really really convenient. 

In other news, it seems the tank debate will be solved soon:

He also added that DE decision regarding their own vehicles will be dine in upcoming days. IMO they will allow both transfer from other countries, and will join too. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Huba

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Huba said:

If Scholz finally says "Nein!" tomorrow, I wonder if Morawiecki will follow with his promise to act unilaterally. I'd say it would be much funnier if we didn't say nothing, and denied that the Leopards that appeared in Ukraine are ours - after all, you can buy these in any tank shop, right?

Leave aside for the moment the question of the actual value of modern NATO main battle tanks. I am not in any way saying it is a settled debate. But lets get back to it separately from this weeks political criss of the moment.

The apparent dead end status of the Leopard debate brings me back pretty quickly to the idea of Britain sending the entire Challenger 2 fleet to Ukraine. Not because it is the best solution to getting Ukraine NATO MBTs quickly, but because it is the most politically doable solution to getting Ukraine NATO MBTs quickly. Then in the medium turn Germany commits to supplying both Britain and Ukraine with Leopards as soon as it can practically be done, or the German arms industry is simply dead and buried. Because no one is ever going to trust them to come through when the chips are down, ever again. If the Germans decide they are out of the arms business, it then becomes a fascinating question whether Britain and Ukraine go with the Korean tank, or the Abrams long term.

Please note I am essentially assuming the most of the Challenger 2 fleet would be effectively expended winning the current war. This includes ammo depletion, barrel wear, using up whatever the hardest to get spares are, as well as actual combat.

How effective the Challengers proved to be would of course have a massive effect on what everyone does after the war.

Edit: Or maybe Scholz is in the process of blinking? We shall see...

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by dan/california

[Butschi]

"The new German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius does not see the delivery of U.S. Abrams main battle tanks to Ukraine as a condition also for the possible deployment of German battle tanks. "I am not aware of any such junket," the SPD politician said in an ARD "Brennpunkt" program this evening.

Asked whether Germany would supply battle tanks without the U.S., Pistorius said that was a question Chancellor Olaf Scholz was discussing with U.S. President Joe Biden. "I'm pretty sure we'll get a decision on that in the next few days. But I cannot tell you today what that will look like." But the fact is that Germany is acting in coordination with its most important NATO partner, the United States, as it has in recent months, he said." (translated from spiegel.de)

Also, the latest poll seems to show a small majority of Germans in favour of giving tanks to Ukraine.

I saw several speculations that it might be Leopard 1s not 2s if MBTs are to be delivered, though. Would make sense, as the Bundeswehr is apparently already unable to equip one of its own battalions with Leopard 2s and Leopard 1s could probably be delivered from industry stocks much faster than Leo 2s.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Butschi

[Thomm]

Leopard 1: First in CM or in Ukraine?

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I saw several speculations that it might be Leopard 1s not 2s if MBTs are to be delivered, though. Would make sense, as the Bundeswehr is apparently a already unable to equip a whole battalion with Leopard 2s and Leopard 1s could probably be delivered from industry stocks much faster than Leo 2s.

This might be a great opportunity to make the Ringtausch (spelling?) sxheme really work. I bet many states would be willing to commit much more with perspective of getting replacements cheaply, say partially by through EU funding. NL seems to be willing to finance some Leo2 purchases as well. I guess the scheme could be also applicable to Leo1, maybe Greeks would be willing to chip in that way, they have a huge stock. And RM/ KMW would be over the moon In any case, fingers crossed! 

[Beleg85]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/19/cia-william-burns-zelensky-ukraine-russia/

Third round is very clearly coming closer...It is good sign that West took Russian mobilization efforts seriously.

 

[MikeyD]

10 hours ago, Huba said:

...but how to solve the logistical challenges

I recall a US official saying during the Iraq war that 1 year of combat service equal six years of normal use. Ukraine has collected a lot of disparate equipment and they've been months at the front. You've got to wonder what logistics headaches they're experiencing as stuff starts to break from wear-and-tear. A Humvee is not a KraZ Spartan, is not a Dozor-B, is not a Kozak. Everything has their own set of spare parts, or maybe they don't.

[Harmon Rabb]

Who's thirsty, boys?

Edited January 20, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[Huba]

That's kinda disappointing... OTOH imGLSDB can be hiding under "HIMARS ammunition" entry, it has to be produced anyway and it will take time. Question is, was it ordered? 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Huba

[panzermartin]

Apparently Greece has been asked to provide all, or part of their older Leo2A4 s fleet ~170 tanks I think. But these are older with no sophisticated defenses. Turkish ones suffered much in Afrin from Russian made ATGMs. 

[FancyCat]

34 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/19/cia-william-burns-zelensky-ukraine-russia/

Third round is very clearly coming closer...It is good sign that West took Russian mobilization efforts seriously.

 

Interesting reminder that U.S aid is not infinite in this article noting that Congress will have trouble passing further aid for Ukraine. It's important for Scholz to realize the U.S may not be in a position to take the lead and that Europe will have to lead without the U.S in some respects.

[kevinkin]

https://www.the-sun.com/news/7175119/russian-intelligence-ship-hawaii-coast-monitored-us-coast-guard/

Nothing out of the ordinary. But reminds me of the morning we saw a Russian trawler off the coast of Sandy Hook near Earle NWS at day break. This was before the 200 mile fishing limit was enacted in 1976. It's almost a certainty that the ship was fishing for intel, not food for the masses back home. 

[Beleg85]

Curious article about the guy who everybody thought was a traitor but Budanov claims he was working for Ukraine...those who watched first round of negotiations may remember him as only guy in the suit, as well as from his later mysterious death.

Not strictly military thing, but worth reading. A lot of "?" in this story:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-spy-or-ukrainian-hero-the-strange-death-of-denys-kiryeyev-11674059395

Edited January 20, 2023 by Beleg85

[cyrano01]

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

Great summary. Should ground based anti-air weaponry appear in there somewhere. The medium and high level missile coverage does seem to have pretty much prevented the exercise of manned air power in line with much pre-war expectation. That's on top of using your surface to air defences to kill the incoming missiles that are doing the jobs that airpower might have been expected to do.

[cyrano01]

10 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Elections and polls are my bet too. Kompromat is dramatic and exciting, but elections are the true fear of every politician. It takes a lot to beat that fear and take a chance with your political career. 

People have done it and succeeded, yet the fear is always an anchor around their necks. 

But sometimes you just should. 

Sounds like 'the curse of Jean-Claude Junker,' who said (when discussing potentially unpopular EU financial reforms),

' We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.'

 

[dan/california]

Wallace has been a rock from the very beginning. HIS place in the history books is going to be one to envy.

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

The thing is, Scholz scholzing it like this makes complete sense for him and the SPD because it doesn't alienate the leftist base of his party, it doesn't make the electorate go crazy (remember, Scholz was only "forced" to send the tanks by the evil warmongering Americans ), and it also manages overall escalation risks with Russia by showing the West as weak and fragmented. In the worst case of direct NATO-Russia military escalation, Germany will have the least responsibility for it. That's Scholz's thinking, in essence.

This feels very close to a reality.

Maneuvering through the competing needs and demands, into a nice, responsibility-free grey zone of deniability, plausibility,  electibility and of course, unaccountability. Excellent domestic politicking empty of any actual principles. 

The Scholz Shuffle, everyone. 

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, Huba said:

Here's a zoomed-in vid:

And picture of Pantsir on another building, with distinct Flakturm feel. I was mistaken regarding apartment blocks, these are reportedly all on public buildings, a much more sensible approach.

I think Putin had those systems put up on roofs so that if the Ukrainians attack they won't be abandoned and towed away by Ukrainian farmers

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, poesel said:

The last sentence is wrong. Polls have a lot to do with it.

I definitely overstated my point.  Of course opinion polls have something to do with what the SDP and Scholz are doing.  Even autocrats tend to pay attention to polls to some degree, even if it is just to know when to start executing people to improve morale

And to be clear, my previous post on possible kompromat was intended to be provocative more than anything.  I definitely do not think the only reason Germany policy is what it is because Putin has a bunch of videotapes of German politicians rolling in money with all the hookers and coke that the Russian MoD could spare (apparently not many, given their war fighting abilities). As with everything in politics, I don't think anything is simple or comes down to any one thing.

Having said that, I do wonder how much of a role kompromat is playing in Germany.  We know Russia thinks the world of this stuff and we know that Germans have been disproportionally involved with a lot of questionable deals with Russia.  It would shock me if Russia didn't have some things on some people and is using it.  Like Butschi, I don't even think the kompromat is even necessarily illegal.  Could just be embarrassing, like releasing pictures of Scholz on Putin's private yacht sipping Champaign with him in 2018.  Definitely not a good look these days.  Stuff like this might "help" reinforce positions that might already exist for other reasons.

10 hours ago, poesel said:

I really hate having to defend Scholz here and I won’t. But you are interpreting too much into this. The mood in Germany is different from this forum and likely different from the country you live in.
Also, I can’t leave Butschi stand alone here

I appreciate you Germans sticking together for collective defense.  Note that this Forum does not recognize Articles 4 or 5

Seriously though, I would like your take on this question:

If a large part of Germany, and an even larger part of the SDP, are against sending heavy weapons to Ukraine, then why is Scholz unable to articulate a policy that is both consistent with this view AND clearly stated?  Why is Scholz instead often making a muddled mess of everything by making statements that quickly fall apart, then doing it all over again and then again and then again?  Why does he not just say what the policy is, be honest about the differences in a way that scores points at home and respect abroad for his honesty, and then stick to it?

He is single handedly making Germany look untrustworthy, weak willed, and confused to those of us abroad.  That really isn't the way of past German leaders and the ruling parties of the past, is it?

I have my own ideas as to why (and no, not kompromat), but I want to hear what you think is the reason first.

Steve

[Fenris]

Couple of recent tweets, is the first one correct?

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

"President Duda announces that Poland will transfer 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine."

If this is true, then Scholz has a more immediate problem on his hands than possible Russian nuclear attacks... German credibility.

As was said a bunch of pages ago, Scholz is forcing Germany to look weak, inconsistent, and a little unreliable as a NATO partner.  Now it is possible that Poland has just said "Germany said no, but we're going to do it anyway.  What are you going to do about it?".  WHEN this happens (because if not today, it seems to be coming) Scholz will have to choose between retroactively approving of an action he explicitly said "no" to *or* attempting to punish Poland for taking the tanks it paid for and providing them to Ukraine at no cost over German objections.  The first option makes Germany look weak, the second option makes Germany look to be more interested in supporting Russia's interests than Ukraine's or Poland's (Poland is next to Ukraine, so it has no small amount of "skin in the game").

For sure one explanation for all of Scholz' odd behavior is that he, and his advisors, simply have really bad judgement of the dynamics of the current situation, therefore are making dumb decisions that bite them in the arse.  Put another way, the decades Scholz and his crew have spent in politics didn't produce good politicians.

It's entirely possible as this happens all the time in politics.

Steve

[dan/california]

11 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Couple of recent tweets, is the first one correct?

 

 

The Baltic States understand that. the time to break the Bears teeth is now, and the place is in Ukraine. And they are not half bleeping it either.

[dan/california]

50 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think Putin had those systems put up on roofs so that if the Ukrainians attack they won't be abandoned and towed away by Ukrainian farmers

Steve

That is really, REALLY funny!

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

The thing is, Scholz scholzing it like this makes complete sense for him and the SPD because it doesn't alienate the leftist base of his party, it doesn't make the electorate go crazy (remember, Scholz was only "forced" to send the tanks by the evil warmongering Americans ), and it also manages overall escalation risks with Russia by showing the West as weak and fragmented. In the worst case of direct NATO-Russia military escalation, Germany will have the least responsibility for it. That's Scholz's thinking, in essence.

Sorry, just saw this!  This is what I hinted at that I was suspecting.  Or at least as a strategy, not necessarily in detail like you said.  And that is...

Scholz is trying to pelase everybody and in the end will likely please nobody.  This isn't 2014/15 where Germany was able to spank Russia a little bit, making allies and some domestic elements happy, but in the end doing very little to truly damage Russia, which pleased powerful domestic elements and avoided getting Russia upset at Germany.  That worked for Merkel because overall Western action was more words and long term stuff.  That is absolutely not the sort of situation that exists today.

If Scholz thinks he can keep trying to please everybody for much longer, someone is going to get upset enough to do something about it.  Poland might be the start of that.

Steve