How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[holoween]

1 minute ago, poesel said:

IIRC the conversion from A4/5 to A6 is quite extensive and time consuming. I'd rather take them as is. The A4 is more than good enough for this war and you'll never get back the lost time.

The big conversion is a4 to a5.

[Huba]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

More ammo could be in next year's budget.  Given that it might be a couple of years before all of the truck mounted systems are installed, it makes sense.

The other possibility is that Poland has taken a lesson from this war... whatever you think is the number you need on hand, it's probably not enough.

Steve

This is already a multi-year purchase plan. The quoted $10.5 billion is around 1/3 of total annual MoD budget, including the planned increases, extra-budgetary financing etc. There's no way US could come up with 10K missiles during a single year anyway, this is about as much as you can produce at the moment (again, after all the planned production capacity ramp-up), and there's UA to supply. 
Perhaps at the end of the decade (if we don't go bankrupt in the meantime) we'll be able to build up sufficient ammo stock for this number of HIMARS - but it has to include setting the GMLRS production locally, otherwise we should pursue the Korean options. Which I think might be the whole point of this announcement (apart from totting the nice round number in the election year) - building leverage in negotiations with ROK regarding the technology transfer and further ammunition procurement.

[Battlefront.com]

39 minutes ago, JM Stuff said:

After all the time, that Steve is on line, commenting days and nights about the real situation in Ukraine, and following in direct the real metamorphosis of the Ukrainian army, with the new material from western and over europa countries, I would like really to see the real choice, that he will make to presenting the new module, having only the 
spoiled for choice,
(embarra du choix), to added the news weapons and vehicles, I think we can be surprise about his choice.

Cheers

I'd probably be doing this anyway as the historian in me is fascinated by it.  I spent considerable time following the 2014/2015 war day to day as well.  However, you are correct that there is a professional simulation interest being served by all of this time spent.  Simulating things you have a deep understanding of tends to result in a better product

Steve

[Lethaface]

13 minutes ago, poesel said:

IIRC the conversion from A4/5 to A6 is quite extensive and time consuming. I'd rather take them as is. The A4 is more than good enough for this war and you'll never get back the lost time.

The 2A6 would be for the 'next war'. I mean if it's possible to send a good number of similar enough 2A4/5 in good condition in a decent timeframe, I agree.
However it seems the 1A5s are filling in that 'role'.

If it's going to be 18 2A4 variant X in March, 3 of another variant in April, 8 in May, 9 in June etc; you get my point.
How I understand is that virtually all vehicles will need some sort of refurbishment before getting send to Ukraine (or rather before being able to be employed by Ukraine). So some extra time spent to ensure we are not unnecessarily sending hodge-podges and upgrading optics/armor package seems like a wise thing to me.

Or perhaps I can phrase it more sharply, send similar packages as they are doing now with the 1A5. Decent numbers, training / ammo / logistics included. If we can do that for 2A4 but not for 2A6 (or that takes +1 year) then yes I agree. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

9 minutes ago, Huba said:

This is already a multi-year purchase plan. The quoted $10.5 billion is around 1/3 of total annual MoD budget, including the planned increases, extra-budgetary financing etc. There's no way US could come up with 10K missiles during a single year anyway, this is about as much as you can produce at the moment (again, after all the planned production capacity ramp-up), and there's UA to supply. 
Perhaps at the end of the decade (if we don't go bankrupt in the meantime) we'll be able to build up sufficient ammo stock for this number of HIMARS - but it has to include setting the GMLRS production locally, otherwise we should pursue the Korean options. Which I think might be the whole point of this announcement (apart from totting the nice round number in the election year) - building leverage in negotiations with ROK regarding the technology transfer and further ammunition procurement.

That sounds like a reasonable explanation imo. 

[DesertFox]

7 minutes ago, poesel said:

IIRC the conversion from A4/5 to A6 is quite extensive and time consuming. I'd rather take them as is. The A4 is more than good enough for this war and you'll never get back the lost time.

That´s correct. With A5 the Leo got hunter-killer mode, meaning cmd and gunner were able to independantly aquire targets via thermal. A6 got the L55 gun amongst other improvements.

Imho instead of upgrading to A6 (will take months if not years) it would be better to deliver L44 A4s and A5s and equip them with APFSDS silver-bullets (M829A1 and successors) instead of tungsten DM 33/43/53, if possible of course.

[Kinophile]

23 minutes ago, holoween said:

The big conversion is a4 to a5.

What's the major work? Hull modifications? 

[DesertFox]

1 minute ago, Kinophile said:

What's the major work? Hull modifications? 

Turret armor and 2nd thermal unit for commander.

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, DesertFox said:

That´s correct. With A5 the Leo got hunter-killer mode, meaning cmd and gunner were able to independantly aquire targets via thermal. A6 got the L55 gun amongst other improvements.

Imho instead of upgrading to A6 (will take months if not years) it would be better to deliver L44 A4s and A5s and equip them with APFSDS silver-bullets (M829A1 and successors) instead of tungsten DM 33/43/53, if possible of course.

At the danger of starting another 'tank week', but imo the 2A4 doesn't offer much the 1A5 doesn't have. 

It's the 2A5/6 where the big improvements are.

[DesertFox]

1 minute ago, Lethaface said:

 but imo the 2A4 doesn't offer much the 1A5 doesn't have. 

Nope, I am not going to bite. You can compare 1A5 and 2A4 all over the internet. The sources are plenty.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Lethaface said:

At the danger of starting another 'tank week', but imo the 2A4 doesn't offer much the 1A5 doesn't have. 

It's the 2A5/6 where the big improvements are.

I acknowledge the 'tank week' risk, but this deserves an answer. The big difference is in pure firepower, with modern ammunition it can easily kill any RU tank, while 105 will struggle with even T-72B frontally. Not that tank battles are a common situation, though the Western tanks specifically might be used in situations where these might be more likely. 
Also, with enough Kontakt hung upon it, Leo2 should offer a very robust protections against everything except for the modern heavy ATGMs like Kornet, which are not that common.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

That would require knowing what they want/need to get out of it first. 

Going from what's posted in this thread / around the world, the logical goal of a new general offensive for Russia could be to achieve an outcome on the ground which they can hold on to and or an outcome they can sell internally as a 'hard fought victory' - Before Ukraine has the chance to utilize the supposed newly trained and well equipped brigades.
In one phrase I'd say Russia is looking to shape the conditions for an endgame to the war, followed up by digging in and pushing for negotiations while continuing the terror campaign. 

If they don't get what they need out of it, it would mean the turn is back to Ukraine without Russia having the defensive positions / situation they feel they need to push for the endgame. More pressure on the 'social contract' between the Kremlin/Putin and some of the people. Nationalists going rogue?

Inside Ukraine, I'd say an opening for Ukraine to exploit and take back another couple of % of lost land?

I've been wondering what Putin actually hopes to achieve w this offensive.  Lethaface seems to sum up the political end.  I also suppose that Putin wants to spoil UKR offensives by drawing those forces into the meat grinder.  If he can do that, even at huge loss disparity, I suppose he would call that a win.  He would backfill the trenches w next pile of mobiks cannon fodder while UKR would lose higher quality units, at least in his mind, so he's trading junk for cash and has an endless supply of junk.  So far this seems to be working against him as he's burning up men & material at a much higher rate than UKR, while UKR is working w economy of force and it remains rather suspicious that UKR's best forces are ....somewhere????

If he does nothing, he faces a big spring counteroffensive and so he's trying to counter that.  Maybe hurts him more than UKR but I picture the conversation being about 'doing something' and not just 'sitting there waiting to be punched'.  

BTW, Bakhmut weather next 7 days shows highs at or just slightly above freezing, w lows well below.  Ground will stay solid it looks like.

Edited February 8, 2023 by danfrodo
addition

[pintere]

1 hour ago, Degsy said:

"Russian media reports that Russian nationalist mercenary Igor Mangushev, who called for the genocide of Ukrainians, performed on stage with the skull of an alleged defender of Mariupol, and was shot in the skull under unclear circumstances, died in the hospital. https://t.co/pLon0oBvxC

— NOËL (@NOELreports) February 8, 2023"

More information about Mangushev's shooting in the latest Mark Galeotti podcast here  "In Moscows Shadows". Start listening at the 9 minute mark. In summary,  Mangushev's car was shot up at a checkpoint presumably to stop it, then he received a 9mm bullet in the back of his head, fired down at an angle of 45 degrees. So, either suicide or Alternative Dispute Resolution  по русски then.

The irony is just too much. May he rest in hell!

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, DesertFox said:

Nope, I am not going to bite. You can compare 1A5 and 2A4 all over the internet. The sources are plenty.

Yeah I did already a while back ;-), but I haven't memorized everything. Anyway both have thermal optics for the gunner but not for commander. Both don't have hunter-killer mode as you described it. The 1A5 has an upgraded FCS. 

So my impression is that the 2A4 has better armour and a better gun, but it will still be penetrated by any ATGM the Russian army fields today. And the same probably goes for the tank munitions Russian tanks use (not sure about the T-62s though).
So the 2A4 has advantages but they don't really mean much in todays war. I was curious if I'm missing something (not) obvious.

[Battlefront.com]

39 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

That would require knowing what they want/need to get out of it first. 

I think we have enough evidence, direct and implied, to conclude that Russia's goals for sometime now have been fairly consistent:

1. generally cause Ukraine as much pain and suffering as possible to soften them up for negotiations
2. take all the terrain of Luhansk and Donetsk as designated by prewar maps
3. declare victory
4. dig in and freeze the conflict
5. rebuild the military for future operations (not just in Ukraine)

Not surprisingly, it seems you have come to similar conclusions.

This is a logical way for Putin to end the war with something resembling a win.  Obviously it isn't a win, but being able to say that is what controlling the media and people's ability to express themselves is for

39 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

If they don't get what they need out of it, it would mean the turn is back to Ukraine without Russia having the defensive positions / situation they feel they need to push for the endgame. More pressure on the 'social contract' between the Kremlin/Putin and some of the people. Nationalists going rogue?

Yeah, that's the sort of stuff I'm asking about.  If the above is Russia's only play, and they're too weak to pull it off, then what will the consequences be?  Because there are always consequences.

Since the beginning of the war I've only put out very loose and vague concepts of what failure will mean to the Putin regime.  Now that it appears we're finally getting to the endgame, I'm wondering if we're any closer to figuring out what the most likely outcome of failure is.

Based on what we're seeing I think the most plausible chain of events for 2023:

1. this winter offensive fails to achieve anything even close to what Russia feels it needs
2. Russia will not surrender, but instead continue to fight defensively
3. Ukraine will have some successes in the coming months, perhaps not spectacular like the Kharkiv or Kherson operations, but still obvious and damaging (see separate point below)
4. whatever negative things are going on within Russia that Putin is worried about will get worse.  Especially if losses are so bad that a large desperation mobilization is once again required to keep the front from collapsing
5. someone will make a move to take power away from Putin.  This need not be an outright coup.  It could be something negotiated, as I've just speculated about Gazprom's entrance into the PMC arena
6. Russia's maximalist demands for a peace deal will soften, at first only superficially, but as things get worse there will be meaningful concessions
7. Ukraine may reject negotiations, but it might also decide a pause has more advantages than disadvantages
8. whether the war ends this year or extends into next year depends on Putin's continued ability to wage war, both politically and militarily

This is broadly how I see things going this year.  However, there is one MASSIVE wild card in the deck... Russian military collapse.  We've discussed this hundreds of times and it is still an extremely real possibility that Putin has managed to (barely) avoid at least 3 or 4 times so far.  There's only so many times one can dodge a bullet.

One scenario is that the costly failure we expect this winter offensive to be will sap so much strength away from Russia's ability to defend itself that when Ukraine goes on the offensive some sector of front, large or small, will be torn open.  Unlike Russia, Ukraine has shown an ability to exploit such a situation to a meaningful extent.

What happens then?  When a similar situation happened in 2022 Putin had to not only do a hasty partial mobilization, throwing tens of thousands of lives away, but he also had to withdraw forces from Kherson.  And all that did was stabilize the situation.  Is it viable for Putin to do this again?  I'm not so sure that it is for a host of practical and political reasons.

So if throwing bodies at the problem was the only solution he came up with in 2022 when Ukraine tore into his frontlines, and bodies aren't available in the quantity he needs to stop another offensive in 2023, then what?  Collapse seems quite plausible.

Steve

[holoween]

24 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

What's the major work? Hull modifications? 

Switch from hydraulic to electric turret drives, New turret armour, Thermal immager for the commander, reworked driver hatch, Spall liners, Navigation system, Reversing camera for the driver.

A6 is only the new gun.

[DesertFox]

That could mean Eurofighters Tranche 1 in the not so distant future. We´ll see.

 

Defence Secretary ‘is actively looking at’ fighter jets ‘which is what Ukraine needs most now’ for a ‘long term solution’ - London Business News | Londonlovesbusiness.com

[Lethaface]

14 minutes ago, Huba said:

I acknowledge the 'tank week' risk, but this deserves an answer. The big difference is in pure firepower, with modern ammunition it can easily kill any RU tank, while 105 will struggle with even T-72B frontally. Not that tank battles are a common situation, though the Western tanks specifically might be used in situations where these might be more likely. 
Also, with enough Kontakt hung upon it, Leo2 should offer a very robust protections against everything except for the modern heavy ATGMs like Kornet, which are not that common.

That was my impression as well, although IIRC there exists rather decent 105mm APFSDS ammo, but I'm not into the exact penetration numbers or RHA mm numbers for the T-72B.

From CMSF2 I remember the Canadian Leo1A5 (Mexas variant IIRC) doesn't have big problem KO'ing the Syrian (monkey) T-72 models. @The_MonkeyKing posted about a test he did yesterday with it against the Syrian T-90SA (monkey) model in CMSF2. Which has Kontakt-5 ingame. 

IIRC Russia has plenty of Kornet launchers, can the 2A4 withstand AT-7? 
I'm firing up CMSF2 to freshen up my knowledge, all the assets are in there.

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

IIRC Russia has plenty of Kornet launchers, can the 2A4 withstand AT-7?

IIRC plain 2A4 should just be able to withstand it when hit in the turret or hull front. But I'm absolutely positive that UA Leo2 will look more like this (except with sights remaining uncovered  )

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, Huba said:

IIRC plain 2A4 should just be able to withstand it when hit in the turret or hull front. But I'm absolutely positive that UA Leo2 will look more like this (except with sights remaining uncovered  )

Good Lord I do love tanks.  Is that not absolutely beautiful?  

[Bannon]

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

 

Imo all the low number Leo2 variants getting pulled from (dusty) storages around europe now, should be round up in Germany (or wherever the required work can be done) is and converted to 2A6 before being send to Ukraine. 

I am curious … what is involved in upgrading to an export version of the 2A6.

I posted before reading the entire thread where this has already been mostly answered. Mea maxima culpa!

Edited February 8, 2023 by Bannon

[Beleg85]

13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

What also baffles me is just how hard Putin is tying things in knots to avoid mobilization.  We had all sorts of machinations - weird incentives and big payout contracts, prisoners, Wagner, Syrians-Chechens-and even freakin Afghans (?!), soft “partial mobilization”, and now more PMCs.

I honestly think Putin is more afraid of large scale mobilization than anyone else.

Yes, definitelly. On the other side though, once mobilized they threw recruits into meatgrinder without slightest problems, Chechnya-style. Despite various promises, not a sign of any systemic effort to shield them from usual ordeal.

13 hours ago, billbindc said:

Clearly, this issue is different and I think the reasons are obvious. Economically, he cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. Nabiullina is probably the most capable person in the Russian government and she's become notably brooch-less. I am convinced that his Finance Minister is telling him that Russia simply won't be able to fight the war if he strips too many working age men out of the economy. Wagner, Gazprom, convicts, etc all look like Putin's attempts to solve that chicken and egg problem she's presented to him.

In addition, mobilization has obvious political implications. Putin knows Russian history. He knows that if he really goes for hard mobilization in the core areas of metropolitan Russian ethnicity and then doesn't win handily the spectre of 1917 will be lurking below the surface of Russian politics. I think it terrifies him.

Worth to note that document about Gazprom did not specify anything about Wagner-like military PMC, just some facility-guard duties. It may of course be used at the front (It's Russia after all) but too early to tell what they really wonna do; perhaps it's even effect of some infighting within the system and Gazprom bosses trying to keep Tsar's attention.

I like Dan's explanation with creating token force for "wealthy banana youth" from Muscovy and St.Petersburg. Sounds legit for now.

7 hours ago, Huba said:

This is all speculation though, and our MoD might very well be just crazy and plans to buy it all for some reason, perhaps bloating the forces to even more insane levels. It's hard to tell, cause the ex-Soviet culture of extreme secrecy is still present in MoD/ Army...

Edit:
There might be one way for this insanity to make sense. At the moment the older RM-70 are to be pushed down to brigades and used as DPICM dispensers. If these were to be replaced by HIMARS there ( around 20 more battalions) and we were to buy up the whole remaining US M26 stock/ start production of similar rockets locally, this perhaps would (very arguably) make some sense. 

I don't think they are that crazy; it would have been extremely controversial and costly decision even for oil sheikhs from the Gulf, so it is probably well grounded. There must a method in this shopping spree, probably agreed on highest levels between USA and PL and connected to long-term strategic goals.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Beleg85

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Worth to note that document about Gazprom did not specify anything about Wagner-like military PMC, just some facility-guard duties. It may of course be used at the front (It's Russia after all) but too early to tell what they really wonna do; perhaps it's even effect of some infighting within the system and Gazprom bosses trying to keep Tsar's attention.

This is my interpretation of it as well.  There is no incentive for Gazprom to raise a private army and use it for things other than protecting Gazprom interests.  Therefore, it is highly unlikely it will be used like Wagner.

I posted more detailed speculation on this a few pages ago.

Steve

[Lethaface]

36 minutes ago, Huba said:

IIRC plain 2A4 should just be able to withstand it when hit in the turret or hull front. But I'm absolutely positive that UA Leo2 will look more like this (except with sights remaining uncovered  )

My rudimentary quick tests with CMSF2 showed that ingame the 2A4 turret is actually rather decent against AT-3D/4C/5A/5B/AT-7 and even AT-13. It doesn't like AT-14 though.

Hull varies more (lower/upper etc) and didn't really like AT-13 and the BMP-2 launched AT-5A and BRDM launched AT-5B ingame.

So overall protection is a bit better than I remembered in CMSF2, but it doesn't like modern ATGMs. And of course every bit always helps, but I don't think those Kontakt-1 ERA bricks will do much against tandem heat rounds. 
They will be effective against the ubiquitous RPG rounds though. Although they will probably also put them on the 1A5s :D.

The only 1A5 ingame is this one, didn't think it was really relevant to test it against ATGMs because the ERA. Would be cool if German industry has some ERA packages laying around for it :

[mosuri]

Russia's revenues down, spending up:

Russia's Jan budget deficit widens as energy revenues slump

There's always the piggy bank to break into:

Russia rainy day fund shrinks by $38 bln as government plugs deficit

And business profits can be mobilized:

Authorities may increase taxes on businesses for the first time since the start of the war (Google Translated)

So nice to have plenty of good news