How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

 

 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, and I think that may be one reason why Russia hasn't risked it's aircraft over Ukrainian lines.  It's one thing to take the risk if you know there's a potential payoff, but what in this war should lead Russia to think they can achieve that?

The best they could hope for is a couple of limited dumb carpet bombing runs over very limited sections of front.  It might even work, but even that would be limited due to the scale of the frontlines.  And my guess is that if they put 100 aircraft in the air only 90 of them would return to base.  10% loss for loosening up a couple of tiny sections of front?  I think even the Russians might not see that as attractive.

What Russia needs, but isn't capable of doing, is ripping open very large sections of Ukrainian front.  I'm talking about 10-20km gaps in multiple places.  This war has shown Russia having problems cleaning out even a couple hundred meters of frontage even with concentrated artillery and mechanized forces.  I don't think some dumb bombs have any hope of improving their track record.

Steve

So while one can throw convicts and poorly trained saps into a meat grinder.  Modern fixed wing military aircraft are another matter entirely.  These are a strategic military resource that takes a long time to come back from losses and cost an obscene amount of money.  Further when it comes to airpower Russia has a lot bigger set of problems to worry about - e.g. the integrity of the largest sovereign airspace on the planet.  As to right now it looks like Russia has already lost coming up on 6% of it effective fixed wing fleet:

https://www.wdmma.org/russian-air-force.php#:~:text=Current Active Inventory%3A 3%2C652 Aircraft&text=The following represents an overview,in its active aircraft inventory.

(About 1230 - Excluding tac aviation, trainers and transport)

So the risk calculus with respect to airpower is dramatically different. 

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, JonS said:

This sentence does not make sense. Individually, the words are sensible, but put together like this the describe an impossible outcome, something like "intelligent labrador."

Oddly the Labrador part describes in general terms my interactions with the members of this particular combat arm, present company excepted of course.

[JonS]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

average load is around 30,000 liters of fuel, if you take the smaller and larger capacity rigs and split the difference.  Let's say they purchased 2000 trucks for this mobile reserve concept.  That is 60,000,000 liters of fuel that Russia can't strike with missiles and the supply is readily transportable to any place that needs it. 

60M litres ... that's, what; almost enough gas to run an Abrams platoon for about 30 minutes?

Edited February 16, 2023 by JonS

[JonS]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

of course

Of course.

I don't need a gun. I just need a hammer and a nail.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think you missed his point.  Which was that for more than a century many in Europe wanted Germany "weak, divided and confused" so that it wouldn't pose a threat to their own countries.  In some respects, people got what they wanted. 

If that was the point, it was a bad point. It referenced Eastern Europe, i.e. countries leaving the Communist regime in 1990s.  I know the Polish situation firsthand, but I will go out on the limb and assume that in other countries from behind the Iron Curtain the sentiment was similar as the conditions were substantially similar. Namely, we were fed Soviet propaganda about Germany being always thinking about invasion, German tanks being always ready near the border etc. and we assumed there was some truth in this - and most of the people loved the idea. Most people in the late 80's I knew were happy at the prospect of the mighty Bundeswehr in their Balkankreuze-marked Leopards, funded with US imperialist money, driving over the borders and crushing Soviet peace-loving workers and peasants  under the tracks. 

If there were any countries which wanted Germany "weak, divided and confused" that is probably the attitude of Western neighbours of FRG in the 1950s or 1960s. Not to mention the fact, that Eastern European attitudes had exactly zero influence over how Germany developed, as opposed to e.g. what the US, UK and France did in their occupation zones.  But given Aragorn2002's long displayed prejudices against Eastern Europe, facts are irrelevant vs the thesis, that it is always our fault.

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, JonS said:

60M litres ... that's, what; almost enough gas to run an Abrams platoon for about 30 minutes?

And the hotplate going as well, don't forget that.

(you might not be surprised I *almost* made a snarky comment about the Abrams... but unlike you, I resisted).

Steve

[billbindc]

 

"they will be shot down en masse:

What historical precedent is there for this? The Bulge?

 

[Probus]

Has this thread already discussed the implications of BFC releasing a Black Sea update based on the events of 2022?  I am very curious to hear BFC's thoughts. @BFCElvis @Battlefront.com @Battlefront

[JonS]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

unlike you, I resisted).

I can resist anything except temptation.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

 

"they will be shot down en masse:

What historical precedent is there for this? The Bulge?

 

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So while one can throw convicts and poorly trained saps into a meat grinder.  Modern fixed wing military aircraft are another matter entirely.  These are a strategic military resource that takes a long time to come back from losses and cost an obscene amount of money.  Further when it comes to airpower Russia has a lot bigger set of problems to worry about - e.g. the integrity of the largest sovereign airspace on the planet.  As to right now it looks like Russia has already lost coming up on 6% of it effective fixed wing fleet:

https://www.wdmma.org/russian-air-force.php#:~:text=Current Active Inventory%3A 3%2C652 Aircraft&text=The following represents an overview,in its active aircraft inventory.

(About 1230 - Excluding tac aviation, trainers and transport)

So the risk calculus with respect to airpower is dramatically different. 

The post previous to yours has a source stating that Russia has made a decision to increase air support even at the risk of losses.  This could be disinformation, of course, but it could also be true.  I did put forward the notion that Russia might be desperate enough to risk more aircraft.  It's a totally plausible situation as we know the situation for Russia is quite desperate.

Which means Russia has a national strategic level decision to make.  Excluding the air force Russia has 3 guys and a rusty patrol boat guarding all of its land borders.  That's all they have left after this debacle so far.  Does Russia decided to risk winding up with 3 guys, a rusty patrol boat, and a kite are good enough to defend it's national borders?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Probus said:

Has this thread already discussed the implications of BFC releasing a Black Sea update based on the events of 2022?  I am very curious to hear BFC's thoughts. @BFCElvis @Battlefront.com @Battlefront

When we simulate the current timeframe, it will not be part of Black Sea.  The gap of time between the two settings has a major impact on force structure, weapons, and everything else.

Steve

[billbindc]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I was *just* describing the way the Japanese air forces were used starting in '44 to a friend in reference to this. In both cases, the apocalyptic language and the completely internal logic of national honor dominates. 

[DesertFox]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

yeah I think Steve missed the plural there.    hold on honey, I just grazed myself that time, let me try again!

His first shot into his cerebrum wasnt deadly enough...with his second shot into his cerebellum he finally finished himself off...

[chrisl]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The post previous to yours has a source stating that Russia has made a decision to increase air support even at the risk of losses.  This could be disinformation, of course, but it could also be true.  I did put forward the notion that Russia might be desperate enough to risk more aircraft.  It's a totally plausible situation as we know the situation for Russia is quite desperate.

Which means Russia has a national strategic level decision to make.  Excluding the air force Russia has 3 guys and a rusty patrol boat guarding all of its land borders.  That's all they have left after this debacle so far.  Does Russia decided to risk winding up with 3 guys, a rusty patrol boat, and a kite are good enough to defend it's national borders?

Steve

Or they realized that the AF is entirely useless if they don't fly, and only mostly useless if they do.  So they're going to send them to act as AD sponges to make it easier for some missiles to get through.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

The post previous to yours has a source stating that Russia has made a decision to increase air support even at the risk of losses.  This could be disinformation, of course, but it could also be true.  I did put forward the notion that Russia might be desperate enough to risk more aircraft.  It's a totally plausible situation as we know the situation for Russia is quite desperate.

Which means Russia has a national strategic level decision to make.  Excluding the air force Russia has 3 guys and a rusty patrol boat guarding all of its land borders.  That's all they have left after this debacle so far.  Does Russia decided to risk winding up with 3 guys, a rusty patrol boat, and a kite are good enough to defend it's national borders?

Steve

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

I was *just* describing the way the Japanese air forces were used starting in '44 to a friend in reference to this. In both cases, the apocalyptic language and the completely internal logic of national honor dominates. 

It is a disturbing trend that begins to alarm.  All strategic nuclear deterrence theory hinges on one single point: a nation state is a rational player.  If you ensure to keep that state informed of the escalation threat, and keep MAD equilibrium then we are all just fine - we are pointing loaded weapons at each others heads, but we are still "fine".

It all falls apart when a nuclear power becomes a suicide state.

Now I am pretty sure Putin as a person, and the people around him are pretty much there because they are crossing strategic rivers here they cannot come back from down that road.  But the rest of the Russian people?  I am really hopeful are not and put Putin in the ground before it come to this.

[poesel]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

you left off Deutsche bank role in laundering Russian money.

Please note that the "Deutsche Bank" is a privately owned company - the name is misleading. Her biggest single shareholder is BlackRock at just over 5%.

The bank owned by the government is the "Bundesbank". Until the European Central Bank took over most of it, it had the same role as the Fed in the US. However, the Fed is not owned by the US government (but controlled... maybe... ).

[chrisl]

Just now, poesel said:

Please note that the "Deutsche Bank" is a privately owned company - the name is misleading. Her biggest single shareholder is BlackRock at just over 5%.

The bank owned by the government is the "Bundesbank". Until the European Central Bank took over most of it, it had the same role as the Fed in the US. However, the Fed is not owned by the US government (but controlled... maybe... ).

I was going to make a similar comment.  DB is just acting like a bank and doing the things that big banks do.

[Probus]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

When we simulate the current timeframe, it will not be part of Black Sea.  The gap of time between the two settings has a major impact on force structure, weapons, and everything else.

Steve

Thanks Steve.  Appreciate it.

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, billbindc said:

 

"they will be shot down en masse:

What historical precedent is there for this? The Bulge?

 

I don't think there is any quite like this.  There are multiple historical examples where the attacker lost massive numbers of aircraft. The_Capt has cited the most relevant happening in the PTO.  However, nowhere in history, that I can think of, have we seen a large number of aircraft go up against a nearly pure ground based air defense system.  Yes, I know that Ukraine has some fighters available, but ground based systems will be the backbone of Ukraine's response.

The closet example of this sort of matchup is probably late war bombing runs over Germany.  Swarms of Allied fighters protecting swarms of bombers dealing with massive amounts of flak being the primary threat:

Quote

In November 1944 Headquarters, Eighth Air Force Operational Analysis Section produced an in-depth study titled ‘An Evaluation Taken to Protect Bombers from Loss and Damage’. The results were sobering. New tactics were recommended, but many of the old methods remained. The report read, in part, as follows:

During the past year enemy flak defenses have been concentrated and our bombers faced many more guns. The percentage of bombers lost to or damaged by enemy fighters has declined sharply, while the percentage lost to flak has declined only moderately. The percentage damaged by flak has remained almost constant. As a result, there has been a steady increase in the relative importance of flak until in June, July and August 1944, flak accounted for about two-thirds of the 700 bombers lost and 98 per cent of the 13,000 bombers damaged.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/allied-heavies-vs-german-flak-why-allied-bombers-never-defeated-nazis-flakwaffe/

The Allies won the air war over Germany at a heavy cost and flak was the primary reason for it.  If we look at this war, everything is on a much smaller scale but the basic elements are somewhat similar.  The attacker (in this case Russia) has superior numbers and types of aircraft, the defender (Ukraine) has a small amount of fighters and a large amount of ground based defenses.  The Allies won the war over Germany mostly because the war ended.  If the war had gone on another year, I'm not so sure the Allies could have continued the bombing campaign without some sort of innovation not historically developed.

Steve

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, chrisl said:

I was going to make a similar comment.  DB is just acting like a bank and doing the things that big banks do.

Which is bad enough as it is and Deutsche Bank is among the more evil of the lot.

DB, btw. is the official abbreviation for Deutsche Bahn (German Railway company), which incidentally is state owned and related to Deutsche Bank only in the sense that both are good at burning money...

[FancyCat]

 

 

[danfrodo]

11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Somewhere, sometime soon there's some fellers in trenches, under attack, thinking the only support they will get will be from 50 cal HUMMVs, then one of these rolls up & lets lose.  VIVA LA FRANCE!  

[chuckdyke]

This AFV needs its own classification. NO Stabilization System is fitted. The closest equivalent is the 105mm Stryker which is not called a tank.