How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

Just now, danfrodo said:

Great points, TheCapt.  The only thing I'd differ w is that UKR has only made significant gains over well entrenched RU forces was in Kherson, where RU left because of logistics not because UKR shoved them out.  But my point here is still irrelevant to the other points made by TheCapt. 

Which brings up the question about why does UKR want leo2s so badly?  Maybe they have overly optimistic about what they would gain?

I still think better IFVs can make a big difference.  basically because upgrade in firepower & off road mobility.

Right now I would prioritize IFVs/AFVs as well.  At minimum they make decent battlewagons, and they can provide the intimate support needed for the infantry when given a chance.  

My issue with the entire tank hijack going on is that it could very well be pre-programming failure through good intentions.  The pipe is only so big, the support is finite.  If the UA already has everything else they need to kill Russians when and where they want to then start thinking about the heavier longer-term stuff.  In ten years I would not be surprised to see Ukraine armed better than Iraq was, and much less likely to drop those weapons and run at the first sign of trouble.  It is linking that strategic end-state into the middle of this war because we all "want to see something happen" is where things get risky.  

As to signaling and demonstrations of resolve, well I would argue that the billions in defence dollars flowing has that one covered.  As to scaring the Russians, I think the entry of western tanks is in Putin's favor to be honest.  It reinforces his entire narrative that "NATO is attacking Russia", and I do not believe for a hot second that the RA is worried about 50 Leo2s or M1s.  Now I do believe that they are very concerned about Patriots and GLSDBs, along with the UA soldiers pay cheques.  

[billbindc]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Correct, but that's just what I'm talking about.  Prigozhin is a shameless opportunist, not a military strategist.  He is currently sitting in the corner instead of the lime light in part because Bakhmut has been such a disaster.  Imagine his delight if Ukraine pulled out of Bakhmut and appeared to be making a new defensive line further west, leaving a couple rings of suburbs minimally defended.  Do you not think a guy like that would order his forces into the void to seek new glories for his political ambitions even if his commanders smelled a trap?  I do.

Again, I don't think Ukraine will do such a thing.  I was just citing this as an example of "thinking outside of the box" alternatives to bleeding good Ukrainian units white standing in front of Bakhmut.

Steve

The stand in Bakhmut is definitely hurting Prigozhin in Moscow and it's eating away at what armed force he might be able to deploy in an domestic Russian power struggle. That itself is a good outcome for Ukraine and likely an additional bonus to fixing Russian forces, culminating the regular RA this winter, etc. This war ends when Russia can't sustain it politically or militarily. The shaming of the ultras goes in that direction.

[The_Capt]

Just now, dan/california said:

I poked the internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular rather hard on this and I cannot find a reference to the program later than 2017. No clear indication of what happened. I think a guided 120mm mortar round makes a LOT of sense. Either they hit some sort of engineering road block they didn't think was worth the time and money to get past? Or it is so amazing it has been classified top secret? Or the wrong congress-critter lost an election and the contractor hasn't rounded up another one? Or? I would really like to know...

There are other options:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMM_120

https://www.army.mil/article/183491/army_developing_laser_guided_precision_mortar

And that is what is available open source.

[Battlefront.com]

This looks to be footage from the ground that matches the drone footage of Russian "Terminators" in action.  The vehicle filmed from, however, is not a Terminator.  Not sure what as I don't recognize the gun barrel.  Wheeled vehicle for sure, so BTR-82A is best guess for me.

 

[dan/california]

 

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

There are other options:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMM_120

https://www.army.mil/article/183491/army_developing_laser_guided_precision_mortar

And that is what is available open source.

The Israelis have been a great disappointment throughout the Ukraine situation. Although some corners of the internet are convinced they are doing more than they are saying. A guided 120mm mortar round makes so much sense you would think that there would be a dozen different kinds in common usage, but it seems to have repeatedly been that next thing on the list that didn't get bought. 

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Autoplay on an iPad with Safari browser.

 

22 minutes ago, poesel said:

Also autoplay with Firefox on Mac

Damn.  Well, I am using a Mac with Firefox and it isn't doing autoplay for me, but it sure did do it before.  Windows/Chrome seems good as well.  Interesting.

OK, I'll keep insisting that people put Reddit links only in this thread.  Shame, I thought it was fixed.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

 

Anybody notice that the other channels are all drone footage of geographical places?  So is that all Russians have to choose from... propaganda and nature channels with only the occasional Ukrainian hacking to spice things up?

Steve

[Huba]

5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

There are other options:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMM_120

https://www.army.mil/article/183491/army_developing_laser_guided_precision_mortar

And that is what is available open source.

There are documented cases of 120mm cluster munitions being used to a similar effect. A very nasty solution, but seems to work... 

 

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Huba said:

There are documented cases of 120mm cluster munitions being used to a similar effect. A very nasty solution, but seems to work... 

 

The aversion to shipping Ukraine every cluster munition in inventory ought to be the next political battle.

 

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

 Those poor shivering HUMMVs and MRAPs took back half of what Russia tried to grab in less than a year, which according to almost every western military doctrine should be impossible.

 

I don't fully buy this, to be honest...

They were the tip of the spear against a fractured and mislead defense. My impression  is that when they ran into heavy resistance that hung on then those lighter units backed off and kept moving,  while heavier, tank reinforced units crushed those resistance points. 

The Kharkiv offensive slowed and stopped as the RUS forces solidified and hardened with better lead heavier armor/mech components,  which blunted and stopped the lighter UKR forward penetration elements. 

So yes the HMMVVs broke through, but it was the follow on heavier elements, using tanks, that prevented the RUS defense from recovering. Outrunning the logistics distance for those heavier sections slowed them down, which meant the forward elements couldn't call on hheavies to crush local hard points. Without that heavier follow on punch behind them they lost their latent power to keep moving. Something had to take care of islands of resistance,  and if that something wasn't there quick enough then the islands started to form zones and lines. 

 By the time the logistics  caught up to the heavies the moment had passed and it was now infeasible for the light penetrative units to make progress without serious losses. 

I do agree that the tank faces another iteration in the future,  with unmanned autonomy a critical factor in both its threat envelope,  its attack profile and its defense formatting. 

But that's the future,  and probably 5 years to a decade away to have a platform that truly incorporates those elements into its fundamental design principles. 

Right here and now,  tanks are the heavy punch. It doesn't matter that tanks are not doing Tank v.  Tank work. That doesn't negate the usefulness of a platform with 125mm cannon, superb vision,  excellent communication,  solid mobility and tough armor. 

The initial dose of Leos is small but even if they're not fighting Ts directly,  everything else in that platform is supremely useful. MBTs are heavy work in every sense, but they will be indespensible for final victory -  as will a lot of other systems.  

All that said, personally I do agree that a bucket load of Bradleys,  Strykers,  Drones,  long range artillery and good ISR will have a more immediate effect,  right here and now. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Kinophile

[DesertFox]

 

 

[Zeleban]

An interesting video of the use of the MT-12 "Rapier" gun by Ukrainian marines. The HEAT shells for this gun have a bright red tracer for correcting shooting. Looks very impressive

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

One thing which I think will be interesting to see unfold is who exactly sends what kind of tanks. Leo2A6 is much more capable compared to 2A4. The same goes for M1A2SEPv2 (or 3) vs the M1A1SA.

Will be interesting to see just WHICH M1s are sent, from which source and batch, and how long it takes to get them ready:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-tanks-in-u-s-inventory-have-armor-too-secret-to-send-to-ukraine
“The armor issue will put limits on how fast the U.S. government can supply any Abrams to Ukraine, whatever the source for those tanks might be. Even if the M1s for Ukraine are pulled from storage and rebuilt, it's far more likely than not that they will have armor packages that will need changing. This is a complex process, as evidenced by recent publicly available contract documents related to the sale of Abrams tanks to Poland.”

 

 

[Zeleban]

Direct hit on Thor M2. It looks like the shell did not explode, but it pierced through the hull and went into the ground

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

BTW, it seems that Reddit has turned off the super annoying autoplay for embedded links.  I am putting that to the test with my previous post.  I am not seeing autoplay, how about you guys?

Steve

duckduckgo blocks these things anyway for me.

[Zeleban]

 

Russians develop tactics to fight Abrams and Leopards

[Seedorf81]

Great footage of what a loader does in a Leopard(1)-tank.

Made me wonder:

Being a commander, gunner or driver in a tank? Yes, I can get that.

But being a voluntary loader in a tank????? You have to be at least a little crazy, I suspect!

[NamEndedAllen]

56 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I don't fully buy this, to be honest...

They were the tip of the spear against a fractured and mislead defense. My impression  is that when they ran into heavy resistance that hung on then those lighter units backed off and kept moving,  while heavier, tank reinforced units crushed those resistance points. 

The Kharkiv offensive slowed and stopped as the RUS forces solidified and hardened with better lead heavier armor/mech components,  which blunted and stopped the lighter UKR forward penetration elements. 

So yes the HMMVVs broke through, but it was the follow on heavier elements, using tanks, that prevented the RUS defense from recovering. Outrunning the logistics distance for those heavier sections slowed them down, which meant the forward elements couldn't call on hheavies to crush local hard points. Without that heavier follow on punch behind them they lost their latent power to keep moving. Something had to take care of islands of resistance,  and if that something wasn't there quick enough then the islands started to form zones and lines. 

 By the time the logistics  caught up to the heavies the moment had passed and it was now infeasible for the light penetrative units to make progress without serious losses. 

I do agree that the tank faces another iteration in the future,  with unmanned autonomy a critical factor in both its threat envelope,  its attack profile and its defense formatting. 

But that's the future,  and probably 5 years to a decade away to have a platform that truly incorporates those elements into its fundamental design principles. 

Right here and now,  tanks are the heavy punch. It doesn't matter that tanks are not doing Tank v.  Tank work. That doesn't negate the usefulness of a platform with 125mm cannon, superb vision,  excellent communication,  solid mobility and tough armor. 

The initial dose of Leos is small but even if they're not fighting Ts directly,  everything else in that platform is supremely useful. MBTs are heavy work in every sense, but they will be indespensible for final victory -  as will a lot of other systems.  

All that said, personally I do agree that a bucket load of Bradleys,  Strykers,  Drones,  long range artillery and good ISR will have a more immediate effect,  right here and now. 

This entire “Tanks: Yes or No” debate here and in the public space has been enormously frustrating, not least because it usually clouds the larger question.  It too often takes on just that kind of rigid un illuminating yes/no posture, even here. And too often, twisting what is said into an extreme positions. @The_Capt and Steve among others have been clear about what are more crucial needs for the AFU than tanks. OTOH, most people here have not insisted Western tanks will sweep into Moscow and crush Putin into messy blood pudding.

But whether here or in the noisy public debates and finger pointing, There is a better discussion hidden by it all. Why haven’t the political and military leadership at the very least in the USA clearly and forcefully laid out their vision for the Big Picture of re-arming the AFU over time? Instead of engaging in micro tennis match type back and forth volleys about specific weapons? 

Explain to the public - and pointedly to Russia - that not only is the West committed to ensuring Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and that it will not permit Russia to succeed in its illegal invasions of sovereign nations. But that the West’s delivery of weapons is designed to create a new AFU equipped to withstand anything Russia can throw at it. That the vision that our tax dollars are funding is much much more than this month’s big shopping cart of weapons and munitions. Most people’s eyes glaze over as soon as they see those lengthy lists littered with arcane acronyms and obscure model numbers. Unlike our forum members, they just see dollar signs. Billions and billions of them. Tell them there is a mighty PLAN! Tell them that it takes time to build a modernized military, that the Ukrainians are bravely defending their homeland with today’s tranche, but that this will be a long war against the worst evil since Hitler’s SS raped its way across Europe etc etc. Therefore we will be building up Ukraine progressively while it is in the fights for its very survival. Over time, and as training and planning takes place, tanks, planes and ships will be delivered. These will not be thrown thoughtlessly into the inferno and lost! Remind the public of this each time more delivers are made. Emphasize that they are rolling out inexorably, as planned over time so as to be best employed in Ukraine’s, and arguably Europe’s survival and victory over this heinous attack that threatens all of us who stand for freedom.

Or something like that! Because the public doesn’t get inspired by long lists of acronyms. Show them and Russia the big picture, emphasize that there is the plan is unfolding. Stop batting back and forth for months on end about this tank or that! 

Edited January 25, 2023 by NamEndedAllen

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Anybody notice that the other channels are all drone footage of geographical places?  So is that all Russians have to choose from... propaganda and nature channels with only the occasional Ukrainian hacking to spice things up?

Steve

If I'm not mistaken the nature is part of zelensky's speech so multiple channels got taken over.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

They were the tip of the spear against a fractured and mislead defense. My impression  is that when they ran into heavy resistance that hung on then those lighter units backed off and kept moving,  while heavier, tank reinforced units crushed those resistance points. 

Ok, but how about some proof?  I have watch multiple videos like this one that do not back up your impression:

This one shows the light forces not only at the break through but basically taking off on the heavies.  Now perhaps the heavies stayed back to clean up but the breakout at Kharkiv was done by light forces?  Down at Kherson there was more grinding and no breakthrough.  We did get reports of more combined actions but nothing like we would expect to see, and definitely no real tank-v-tank action to speak of.  We have the RUSI report which does not mention armored breakouts, or even break in battle occurring.  The best we get is UA adapting armor for "indirect fire":

Traditional tank doctrine would see its employment in the direct fire zone. However, during
the years of the war in Donbas, the tankers of the UAF changed traditional approaches and
developed techniques for indirect fire. For this task, high-explosive fragmentation projectiles
are usually used. This requires the use of special guidance devices – an azimuth pointer and a
side level. The use of modern technologies, in the form of graphic and calculation complexes,
developed in Ukraine with the function of automated transmission of information to other
tanks participating in the combat mission, made it possible to achieve high accuracy at distances
of up to 10 km and reduced the time for calculating fire corrections to a few seconds. This
technique blurs the line between tanks and artillery. The value of this technique is that it allows
tanks to concentrate fire over a wide area while they can manoeuvre without the protection
and screening needed by artillery pieces. Ukraine therefore planned to use armour as mobile
reserves supporting its formations, capable of offering blunting fire against enemy movements
and to support counterattacks if conditions permitted. 

This is nuts btw.

So this working assumption of armor still breaking hardpoints is not really supported.  I am sure it happened but not on the scope and scale we would expect.  Report after report of lighter infantry and artillery doing the heavy lifting.  Now this may be because the UA has a lot more light infantry and made a virtue out of necessity; however, we also know it worked in combination with a precision fires campaign and historic use of ISR.  I mean given that the UA still has over 1000 working MBTs, we should be flooded by reports of traditional combined arms manoeuvre, but we are seeing surprisingly little.  And again the one side that did try out their heavy "Plan A" got blasted off the battlefield.   

"But at Kharkiv the RA defence was already rotten", sure...any good ideas what "rotted it"?  Because it wasn't armor or heavy mass.  We keep coming back to this "well tanks must be doing something", well I expect they are but for the life of me I cannot figure out exactly what.  What is becoming clear is that they are not doing their traditional role or at least a not a lot of it.  Why not?  Is still unclear.

Edited January 25, 2023 by The_Capt

[Harmon Rabb]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, but how about some proof?  I have watch multiple videos like this one that do not back up your impression:

This one shows the light forces not only at the break through but basically taking off on the heavies.  Now perhaps the heavies stayed back to clean up but the breakout at Kharkiv was done by light forces?  Down at Kherson there was more grinding and no breakthrough.  We did get reports of more combined actions but nothing like we would expect to see, and definitely no real tank-v-tank action to speak of.  We have the RUSI report which does not mention armored breakouts, or even break in battle occurring.  The best we get is US adapting armor for "indirect fire":

Traditional tank doctrine would see its employment in the direct fire zone. However, during
the years of the war in Donbas, the tankers of the UAF changed traditional approaches and
developed techniques for indirect fire. For this task, high-explosive fragmentation projectiles
are usually used. This requires the use of special guidance devices – an azimuth pointer and a
side level. The use of modern technologies, in the form of graphic and calculation complexes,
developed in Ukraine with the function of automated transmission of information to other
tanks participating in the combat mission, made it possible to achieve high accuracy at distances
of up to 10 km and reduced the time for calculating fire corrections to a few seconds. This
technique blurs the line between tanks and artillery. The value of this technique is that it allows
tanks to concentrate fire over a wide area while they can manoeuvre without the protection
and screening needed by artillery pieces. Ukraine therefore planned to use armour as mobile
reserves supporting its formations, capable of offering blunting fire against enemy movements
and to support counterattacks if conditions permitted. 

This is nuts btw.

So this working assumption of armor still breaking hardpoints is not really supported.  I am sure it happened but not on the scope and scale we would expect.  Report after report of lighter infantry and artillery doing the heavy lifting.  Now this may be because the UA has a lot more light infantry and made a virtue out of necessity; however, we also know it worked in combination with a precision fires campaign and historic use of ISR.  I mean given that the UA still has over 1000 working MBTs, we should be flooded by reports of traditional combined arms manoeuvre, but we are seeing surprisingly little.  And again the one side that did try out their heavy "Plan A" got blasted off the battlefield.   

"But at Kharkiv the RA defence was already rotten", sure...any good ideas what "rotted it"?  Because it wasn't armor or heavy mass.  We keep coming back to this "well tanks must be doing something", well I expect they are but for the life of me I cannot figure out exactly what.  What is becoming clear is that they are not doing their traditional role or at least a not a lot of it.  Why not?  Is still unclear.

One possibility is that they are holding their armor as an emergency reserve, and really don't want to commit it until they are SURE there is more coming. Something like this happened with the Ukrainian Totchka-U missiles. They had moderate number of them they were holding back in case something truly went south on them. When they got HIMARS in meaningful quantity we didn't just see the GMLRS itself come raining down. The AFU also used all their Totchkas as fast as they could fire them basically.  It was a notable addition to the fireworks. Armor could work the same way, emphasize could. But with a couple of NATO standard units as a strategic reserve the AFU might finally be willing to attempt a truly massed armored attack against whatever piece of the Russian line looks weakest. 

 

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

BTW, it seems that Reddit has turned off the super annoying autoplay for embedded links.  I am putting that to the test with my previous post.  I am not seeing autoplay, how about you guys?

Steve

It autoplayed for me, unfortunately.

Windows, Firefox, using adblocker (uBlock Origin)

Edited January 25, 2023 by Bulletpoint

[kevinkin]

23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

are not doing their traditional role

I will quickly throw out that no-man's land along key routes is heavily pockmarked with shell holes that might be limiting AFV mobility - especially heavy MBTs. These are already vulnerable on the modern battlefield moving at normal rates. But throw in all those shell holes, damp ground and only light stuff can move out of cover and survive without being sitting ducks. this will tend to make avenues of approach more predictable as well. If this observation is true, then using MBTs a mobile artillery makes sense. Let's not forget, traditional CAS for armored thrusts does not exist. Learning how to support  armored assaults with drones and precision ground launches is work in progress. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by kevinkin

[Haiduk]

Dnipro city under Kh-22 missiles strike now again. 5 Russian Tu-22M3 launched missles. No info in this time about place oh impacts and casualties.

Before this Shakheds were launched. Part of them were engaged over Dnipropetrovsk oblast.