How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

For the CM next gen special effects files:

Shades of Ortona

 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[LongLeftFlank]

Solving for attack?

 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[womble]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Never mind a US Republican President guaranteed the integrity of the Ukraine for exchange of the nuclear weapons that country possessed. If the US renege on its guarantees it will be just about as credible as China or Russia. But without doubt the Republican party should be aware of this.

Just in case anyone else needs reminding, this is a misapprehension of the facts. What were given and accepted were "assurances", which anyone in diplomatic circles including the Ukrainians knows mean very little. But that was the price of having others clear up the mess they couldn't maintain and contain themselves.

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

....Evidence remains anecdotal, fine. Hell, we're just a bunch of gamers reading twitter and reading the tea leaves.

No we are not.  I have not posted my military resume for some very good reasons, but let’s just say it is extensive.  And there are a lot of other business experts posting here as well.  A guy I work with noted that we are one of the few professions that has to put up with this much amateur armchair quarterbacking - pretty sure chest surgeons are not on a forum trying to explain by-pass surgery to a bunch of guys who played Surgeon Simulator 2, and then get accused of “talking down”. (Who am I kidding it is 2023…)

Ok, so the “curve” you are boiling this down to appears to be a magic 65000 troops to do a break out battle in the south before the RA can (and here you get a bit muddy) - get reinforcements or Chinese-backed capability in place to deny it until the Second Coming?  So a force generation competition “curve” with some pretty vague components.  Or more simply put “the curve of the UA generating Attack faster than the RA can generate Defence” and based on your assessment Ukraine is behind that “curve”?

Ok, let’s just put all the other inconvenient facts about force generation to the side - because why would we need any of that getting in the way? - and roll straight into your simple model.

Yes, your wargaming experience has taught you well….attacking is hard and costly because you have to get out of your hole, move in the open into defences that are by-design aimed at skewing force ratios…at a tactical level.  At operational and strategic level Defence becomes far more costly because of frontage and depth.  Now if all you have to do is defend a narrow defile in Greece - with a ridiculous Scottish accent - your problem is pretty easy.  If you are defending about 800kms of frontage in depth of land you stole, from an opponent with all the ISR and accelerating levels of precision strike while your own AirPower is not working and getting blown up in strange smoking accidents…well let’s just say your Defensive curve is pretty f#cking steep.

So while we are clearly at “Amateur Pearl Clutching Day” again - oh, I tried polite, but the gods of Dunning-Kruger and “I have an internet connection” clearly rule these lands, so we are at “Grasshopper”; unfortunately you are not in range of a well aimed rice bowl being tossed at your head - just employing your adorable little model, Russia’a defensive problem is absolutely enormous.  Like epic historical big.  Way back we did some back-of-cigarette-pack estimates that the RA would need around 1.5 million troops in-country to secure that line in something that resembles completely air tight. And last I checked they are no where near that “curve”.  In fact even employing old Defensive ratios the RA would need around 20k effective troops (meaning at equal or better quality) to defend against this 65k being generated in the UA backfield…in the right location and able to react quickly enough, and supported/enabled, to counter along a 800km front.  So you tell me, in your well informed opinion, just where the RA is on their force  generation curve to solve that one?

Ok, back to UA problem. 65k troops is the number that came out of that EU report.  It is roughly 3-4 Divisions, really a modern Corps and a heavy one.  If the UA had that force today on top of what they are employing to bleed the RA white, this war would likely be over in a few weeks. In all three major UA operational offensives the UA did not need anywhere near that level of mass.  All three were variations on the theme of corrosive systemic collapses that were projected onto the RA, they were done with frankly baffling force ratio closer to 1:1 or in the case of Kyiv completely upside down.  

So what?  Well first off Attack-Defence ratios are in the wind, at least on the UA side.  They retook Kherson at a 1.5:1 attacker to defender ratio, while successfully defended Kyiv at as high as a 1:12 defender ratio.  The RA has had nearly an inverse result, massive overmatch ratios do not work, nor do traditional defensive ones.  The determinative factor appear to be ISR advantage, combined with an ability to generate ersatz Air superiority through deep precision strike.  Bottom line, there is not much good news for the RA with respect to mass.

Next, corrosive strategies are a thing.  The RA did not simply “over-extend” they were made to be “over-extended” by cutting up their entire military system front to back.  Even if they dig in - and based on the ground they have to cover, it will be shallow - they are not immune to whatever this thing is.  All those minefield are useless if the guns covering them are dead or cannot get ammo.  Nor can the RA plug holes if their C2 is slow (it is) their LOCs visible and hittable (they are) and they do not have robust logistics to sustain a counter move (they do not).

So when I hear Ukraine shooting for 65k, I do not think “hmm clearly this is what they need to win this war”, I think “hmm, Ukraine is already thinking about the next one”.  Regardless, based on the steady stream of hints - ATACMS training, whisperers of engineer equipment and a steady stream of troop training going on all over freakin Europe, I am betting the UA is actually ahead of “the curve” for a spring-summer offensive when compared the the RA problem-set.  Will it be easy? Of course not.  Is the UA demonstrating that is is near a breaking point - not even close.  The large drunken guy swinging in the bar right now looks like he also has stage 4 pancreatic cancer, and it ain’t Ukraine.

Now I would really like to unpack the southern axis Melitopol problem based on what we do know but that will have to wait a bit.

Edited March 4, 2023 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

5 hours ago, chrisl said:

I have to disagree on a bunch of that.

#1) I'm not so sure that defense is strongly favored.  Ukraine wasn't prepared to fight a static defense and had to give up a lot of territory early to trade for time.  If defense were heavily favored, Russia wouldn't have made the initial gains that it did.  When Ukraine has been on deliberate offense (Kyiv, Kharkiv, then Kherson) they've made rapid gains.  What they didn't do in any of those is attack head on.

#4) "Ukraine has done brilliantly at seizing these openings" is incorrect.  They've done brilliantly at creating those openings.  As I pointed out in #1 - Ukraine had to trade a lot of distance for time and to let Russia overextend itself in order to make the counterattack in Kyiv work.  They played that defense and counterattack to their strengths and took advantage of weaknesses of the RA (which were visible to the combination of UA, babushkanet, and NATO ISR).  They used all that ISR to devastate the column headed for Kyiv, leading to the "gesture of goodwill".  They used that ISR plus NATO materiel to create a situation around Kharkiv that Russia was forced to retreat from to avoid collapse.  They did it in parallel around Kherson to avoid getting drawn into a slow and brutal urban fight.  I suspect they're doing it again while Russia bashes its head against Bakhmut, and we'll probably see the effects when the ground gets solid again.

#5) Ukraine has solved for large scale attacks against prepared defenses.  The answer is "don't".  It's more effective for them to corrode the Russian logistics train and keep pushing the supply depots further and further back as longer range weapons come in from NATO.  The NYT thing I linked to had an indirect statement that indicated that UA CB capability has forced RU artillery back far enough that the UA supply route into Bakhmut isn't under RU fire control, despite the extent of the RU pincers (as an aside, I don't think RU has succeeded yet in any attempt to close a pincer of any size since Feb 2022)

#6) I think it's pronounced "ISR plus action at a distance", and maybe spelled "GLSDB+ATACMS".  It provides the equivalent action at a distance of a western air force, at the penalty of slightly less response speed and flexibility than you'd get with NATO style air supremacy.  Air support is really just a flavor of very long range artillery.

#7 & #8) I don't think we have evidence of difficulties of UA force generation other than them not throwing masses into frontal attacks. And that's something we've already seen that they don't really do.  They are feeding reinforcements into Bakhmut at possibly a fairly high cost because they're getting sufficient information to convince them that the relative cost is much, much higher for RU.  Aside from the body count videos, they also can get complementary information through various forms of ISR to verify the impact to the RU forces.

It's really hard to say Ukraine is "struggling to hold Bakhmut".  It's got essentially no strategic value as a geographical location to occupy.  They aren't struggling to hold it.  They're staying there because the see a long term advantage to the effect it's having in RU forces.  RU started working on it in what, August?  And they've gained how many kms at what price?  

I doubt that China is supplying 10k lancets, and it's even less likely that they'd supply as many NLAW/Jav knockoffs (which are going to be kind of sad for lack of IR detectors). I can (and sometimes do) buy a lot of cheap chinese electronics, but cheap chinese IR sensors are cheap, and there aren't expensive ones on the market.  They have no reason to restrict their export to the US, other than to hide lack of capability, because I can get US/Canada manufactured sensors.

 

 

Damn, read this after my post…my work here is clearly done.  Excellent response.

Edited March 4, 2023 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

However, I think we will have to disagree on how large a role luck (and timely Western-provided ISR?) played in 'shaping' those opportunistic counterattacks. To me your take reads like 20/20 hindsight; especially in the early days, nobody was in a position to set cunning traps. While signs of Russian  incapacity were there from the start, for those here with eyes to see it, nobody knew yet just how universal it was and how long it would last without serious attempts at remedy.

You know here I was think “nope, poor ol LLF has had enough this morning”…I can’t let this one slide.  Ok contrary cool kid…how did the UA manage to pull off three operational level offensives in which the RA basically collapsed (or in the case of Kherson “withdrew with vigour”)?

Clearly it wasn’t ISR or an ability to maul RA logistical lines at will, which shaped the RA’s already pretty brittle system.  It was not pulling them laterally all over the battlefield from Kharkiv to Kherson.  It wasn’t western sanctions because we are basically helpless.  So what was it?  Angels of Mons?  The UA passively sat around until it happened…three times, two of them simultaneously?  Oh and then just happen to have the forces to exploit at Kharkiv?

This is exactly the same as the “Russia is invincible”crowd.  They pull some weak tea opinion out of somewhere, do a drive by and then we spend pages doing all the work to disprove it.  Nope, not playing.  So present your thesis of what actually happened, citing credible sources and a logical framework or tuck your tail and get back to your squeaky toys.

[danfrodo]

25 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 A guy I work with noted that we are one of the few professions that has to put up with this much amateur armchair quarterbacking

Well, your profession, yes.  Along w epidemiologists.  And scientists in general these days.  And anyone that actually knows things based on crazy **** called 'evidence'.  But your point is well taken, folks aren't writing history books decades later questioning every choice in most other professions.

Like articles that come out saying how US could've won in Vietnam if we just used "this one simple trick", basically. 

Almost forgot:  brilliant post today.  It's almost as if you actually 'know things'.    (emojis added for clarity)

Edited March 4, 2023 by danfrodo

[kevinkin]

5 hours ago, chrisl said:

#5) Ukraine has solved for large scale attacks against prepared defenses.  The answer is "don't".  It's more effective for them to corrode the Russian logistics train and keep pushing the supply depots further and further back as longer range weapons come in from NATO.

I agree. In addition the UA needs to finds ways to increase the firepower against RA supply networks even the distribution points for tactical formations. If they can get a mix of direct and indirect fire on those tactical points, along with long range destruction of operational points, the UA can maneuver the Russian out of their prepared defenses. So it's movement not so much to occupy, but to gain a strategic barrage. (Old Napoleonic term) Get the Russian on the move and into the open and good things will take place.   

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Well, your profession, yes.  Along w epidemiologists.  And scientists in general these days.  And anyone that actually knows things based on crazy **** called 'evidence'.  But your point is well taken, folks aren't writing history books decades later questioning every choice in most other professions.

Like articles that come out saying how US could've won in Vietnam if we just used "this one simple trick", basically. 

Oh ya, forgot about the scientist…I mean climate change, right?!  That is why guys who sell out like Macgregor are so freakin toxic.  I mean every profession has quacks, but once they get on the internet and start telling some people what they already want to hear...  It is one of the reasons I have left my military resumes largely out of this whole thing, discussion should centre on evidence and focus on trying to figure this thing out collectively.  And of course we are accountable to the taxpayer in the end, so there is that…but there are days.

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Oh ya, forgot about the scientist…I mean climate change, right?!

Oh yeah?  Well, I saw a super expert ask the piercing gotcha question on that (Tucker C): "if climate change is real, how come we still have winter?"

(answer for those in question, earth spin axis tilted 23 degrees makes shorter days away from equator.  Do experiment w basketball & flashlight if you are doubtful on this)

Back on subject:  VERY MUCH looking forward to your thoughts on Melitopol axis.  I was actually looking at a map at the northern front and wonder about UKR doing a short left hook thru RU territory to bypass RU defenses.  only 5 mile penetration and then turn east another ~10 miles or so.  It's a really stupid idea probably but it was fun to think about.  The force would have left flank hanging in the wind, bad idea #1.  Would be considered escalatory, bad idea #2.  The way the border runs at the north end of the line does make it look tempting. 

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Ukr T-72 comes over to say "Hello" to the neighbours.

Very nicely done.

I get the distinct impression the drone informed the TC as to what he was about to find. He breaches the treeline, turns towards the clump of infantry (Bad infantry is bad) presses the delete button and backs off again, not outstaying his welcome.

 

Also, no tank mines that could have prevented this? Tsk! And presumably the tankers knew this, which is even worse.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Elmar Bijlsma

[sross112]

22 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

I agree. In addition the UA needs to finds ways to increase the firepower against RA supply networks even the distribution points for tactical formations. If they can get a mix of direct and indirect fire on those tactical points, along with long range destruction of operational points, the UA can maneuver the Russian out of their prepared defenses. So it's movement not so much to occupy, but to gain a strategic barrage. (Old Napoleonic term) Get the Russian on the move and into the open and good things will take place.   

So if we look at the successes that Ukraine has had, the common denominator is disruption of logistics. Kyiv and Kherson for certain. The RA had plenty of potential combat power left in both of those areas, but it was unsustainable due to their sub par logistic model that was further degraded by kinetic intervention. In the Kharkiv area I'm not so sure about it, but it appears that the RA spent everything they had there making their gains and then were unable to consolidate them with what they had left. I suppose their inability to do so would be considered another logistics fail. A little different model but maybe the root of it is the same? 

Defensively in Bahkmut I think we see the same thing. The RA is crying out for ammunition and the UA says the arty is a trickle of what it once was. Considering that massive arty was the trump card for the RA it has made the continued defense tenable this long. Success at Vuhledar may be the same. Nice work on the UA side no doubt at the tactical level, but the lack of support on the RA side may have actually been the deciding factor that made it possible. Hard to say for sure on a lot of this with the limited facts that we have though. 

Now when we try to extrapolate these models onto the land bridge and Melitopol, how does that work? How does the UA create Kyiv conditions in that large area to get the RA to fold and run for it? Or do they do more of a Kharkiv advance; degrade, displace and pursue until the defense congeals, try to repeat? Or does the UA have the mech brigades ready to exploit a hole and push deep? If they do, how do they solve for air denial over the penetration groups? 

I agree that the degradation of logistics is the primary goal in order to set conditions for UA success. I'm still trying to figure out what the success looks like, how it unfolds, and how the UA has solved for the other problems.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Oh ya, forgot about the scientist…I mean climate change, right?!  That is why guys who sell out like Macgregor are so freakin toxic.  I mean every profession has quacks, but once they get on the internet and start telling some people what they already want to hear...  It is one of the reasons I have left my military resumes largely out of this whole thing, discussion should centre on evidence and focus on trying to figure this thing out collectively.  And of course we are accountable to the taxpayer in the end, so there is that…but there are days.

for what it is worth i've experienced the same thing as a telecom engineer.  Had a mtg in 2020 with a senior partner who went all long winded on his credentials etc.  I have 30 years in building global networks, he read an article or two.  After the meeting my manager 2 levels up said "he clearly has some knowledge in this field".  My reply was "he thinks he knows a lot more than he actually does."  I retired 6 months early when I finally got fed up with his BS micromanaging.

Nothing unique about your profession except they don't make video games about building telecom infrastructure.

Edited March 4, 2023 by sburke

[TheVulture]

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

Nothing unique about your profession except they don't make video games about building telecom infrastructure.

I'm going to hazard a guess that there's at least one extremely nerdy game on the subject out there somewere.

(quick search)

Unfortunately the best I can find at short notice is https://www.cesim.com/simulations/cesim-connect-telecom-operator-simulation-game

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

Nothing unique about your profession except they don't make video games about building telecom infrastructure.

IT Mission: The 3G Roll Out.  Ya know when you think about it…

[The_Capt]

46 minutes ago, Elmar Bijlsma said:

Ukr T-72 comes over to say "Hello" to the neighbours.

Very nicely done.

I get the distinct impression the drone informed the TC as to what he was about to find. He breaches the treeline, turns towards the clump of infantry (Bad infantry is bad) presses the delete button and backs off again, not outstaying his welcome.

 

Also, no tank mines that could have prevented this? Tsk! And presumably the tankers knew this, which is even worse.

That is one weird engagement.  First off it appears that the RA are out of RPGs or any effective AT really.  Also was that the tank coax hitting those trees or were those air burst from something else (maybe the tank had frag loaded in its launchers?).

Problem with AT mines is you have to mine the front of that entire wood line…that is a lot of mines.  

Seriously bizarre, the UAS must have been the determining factor.  Whoever was flying it could probably see the RA lacked AT.

[sburke]

21 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Defensively in Bahkmut I think we see the same thing. The RA is crying out for ammunition and the UA says the arty is a trickle of what it once was. Considering that massive arty was the trump card for the RA it has made the continued defense tenable this long. Success at Vuhledar may be the same. Nice work on the UA side no doubt at the tactical level, but the lack of support on the RA side may have actually been the deciding factor that made it possible. Hard to say for sure on a lot of this with the limited facts that we have though. 

I think this ties back directly to what @The_Captis saying. If they are short of ammo in their priority assault location, what does that say about the defensive situation in the rest of that 800 km front.  It can't be good.  Add to that moving the ammo if they need to respond to a threat isn't much of an option.

The UA has a lot of experience dealing with the RA - 9 years worth.  They have had a year now of taking the best Russia had to throw at them and shown they are much more capable in this fight and are gradually upping their capabilities.  While I would certainly want them to destroy the RA faster, it is in no way comparable to how much they would like to.  As another armchair... okay couch potato strategist, my expectation is UA is still doing what they have been doing for a year, shaping the struggle in the political, economic and military fields to defeat the RA completely.  They are clearly working on multiple levels to prepare their force for an offensive.  Gaming out possible strategies with their allies, working to get the tools and capabilities they'll need, training the troops.  At every level I see them doing all the things necessary as opposed to Russia which keeps throwing barely trained troops mixed with the remnants of their best forces trying to take meters of an insignificant town as their military deteriorates.  Yeah I am impatient, but I don't see any reason to doubt the UA. On the other hand bad news seems to come every day for Russian capabilities.

Russian Cargo Plane Explodes During Pressure Test: Il-76 Candid (popularmechanics.com)

Quote

Bad Times for Russian Aircraft
Russia’s air force has had a challenging year since the invasion of Ukraine began. A recent report claims that Russia has accidentally shot down several of its own fighter jets. U.S. officials are also quoted as saying Russia is struggling to find enough pilots.

Sanctions and Russian maybe: the causes of a record number of accidents in Russian aviation - Arbat.media

Quote

After the introduction of international sanctions on the aviation industry of the Russian Federation, experts have long begun to predict a series of emergencies that will occur with aircraft operated by Russian airlines. These forecasts began to come true in 2022. The new 2023 has just begun, but it has already begun to break records for the number of accidents in the Russian aviation industry. The situation that has developed due to sanctions is aggravated by the traditional "Russian maybe".

 

[sburke]

23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

IT Mission: The 3G Roll Out.  Ya know when you think about it…

no I don't think about it.....

to quote the previously mentioned dookie in a suit (who incidentally had to show off the guitar he'd bought previously used by Pink Floyd) "why do we still have ISDN circuits?"  Keep in mind we have infrastructure in 50+ countries and in many of those ISDN is the top of their new technology capabilities and then you have to bribe someone to get it.

[chrisl]

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

However, I think we will have to disagree on how large a role luck (and timely Western-provided ISR?) played in 'shaping' those opportunistic counterattacks. To me your take reads like 20/20 hindsight; especially in the early days, nobody was in a position to set cunning traps. While signs of Russian  incapacity were there from the start, for those here with eyes to see it, nobody knew yet just how universal it was and how long it would last without serious attempts at remedy.

I think you underestimate how much the western ISR helped in both the initial defense and in the shaping operations that enabled Kharkiv and Kherson.  If you take the asymptotic limit of the US approach, the goal is to have so much ISR and such precision that you don't need more individual munitions than there are opposing people and pieces of equipment, and might need less.  See it and erase it before it sees you.  So far, that's only been provided to Ukraine in bits and pieces, but just the ISR and older portable precision has been provided has let them take back a huge fraction of Russia's gains and made even tiny additional gains incredibly expensive.  Time is on Ukraine's side in the sense that Russia will lose as long as Ukraine continues to fight, but if Ukraine wants to have something left when Russia leaves, sooner is better.  Given everything we've seen so far, my impression is that Ukraine is making rapid progress in capability generation and would prefer to wait and do something decisive rather than struggle for millimeters of gain.  Head-on pitched battles shouldn't be the desired goal of a military. Ejecting the opposing force with much less self-destruction can be achieved by other means.

[chrisl]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Solving for attack?

 

 

There's a hidden assumption: complete control of the anything more than 6 feet above the ground.  And maybe a second one of no high performance ATGMs in the trenches.

In his text he points out the huge collection of vehicles on overwatch.  The only reason they can be on steady overwatch is that they don't have to worry about getting blown up from the sky or artillery because the fly people have destroyed any artillery within range and all enemy air power has been erased.  If the enemy has artillery within range and still has radios, the overwatch is in a much riskier position.  For a nice example that doesn't involve trenches, read up on the details again of the US vs. Wagner fight in Syria. Death from above.  The next generation of this, which Ukraine is at the leading edge of, is going to be small drones with increasing autonomy and a mix of ISR and destructive capability.  See it and erase it without being seen yourself.

[sburke]

UK to provide Ukraine with twice as many Challenger 2 tanks as promised ambassador (yahoo.com)

Vadym Prystaiko, Ambassador of Ukraine to the United Kingdom, in an interview with Radio Liberty

According to Prystaiko, the UK promised Ukraine 14 Challenger 2 tanks, but following the results of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's visit to Britain in February, it was agreed that this number would double.

[dan/california]

11 hours ago, sburke said:

wasn't that dude who helped plan the defensive operations against the Russian river disaster kind of "that" dude?

 

7 hours ago, niall78 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/04/cpac-rightwing-republicans-ukraine-support-marjorie-taylor-greene

 

Worrying article in the Guardian this morning.

Lot of moaning here about German weapons and the like but this is pure fifth column action by the usual suspects in the US.

See below...

7 hours ago, niall78 said:

Are they involved with taking Russian money like the Conservatives in the UK?

Brexit was built on Putin's cash and disinformation. A cheap way to destabilise the EU and wreck the UK.

Has he got fingers in the political/media system in the States?

Putin has fingers in a great many places, his very large problem is that the war broke most of them. Or as has been stated several times, he was winning right up until he started fighting. The combination of incompetence and barbarity with which this war has been conducted has simply undone decades of work on getting the West to effectively dissolve itself. I am really quite hopeful that the trend will continue. Don't want to go deep on U.S. politics because it makes Steve twitch.

32 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

That is one weird engagement.  First off it appears that the RA are out of RPGs or any effective AT really.  Also was that the tank coax hitting those trees or were those air burst from something else (maybe the tank had frag loaded in its launchers?).

Problem with AT mines is you have to mine the front of that entire wood line…that is a lot of mines.  

Seriously bizarre, the UAS must have been the determining factor.  Whoever was flying it could probably see the RA lacked AT.

There is a fair bit of generally similar film out there. The U.A. has some combination of ISR and signals intercepts that can provide an all clear on ATGMs/RPGs right down to the platoon level. And when they find one of these weak points a tank or two show up to play "squash the mobik", love the game, hate the music. The Russians try to do this as well of course, they just aren't very good at it, so we get to grade the turret tosses for height, distance, and artistic merit.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect the Ukrainians actively create these opportunities by giving the mobiks very low percentage shots while the drone literally counts down their RPG ammo, and then....

[Elmar Bijlsma]

35 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

That is one weird engagement.  First off it appears that the RA are out of RPGs or any effective AT really.  Also was that the tank coax hitting those trees or were those air burst from something else (maybe the tank had frag loaded in its launchers?).

Problem with AT mines is you have to mine the front of that entire wood line…that is a lot of mines.  

Seriously bizarre, the UAS must have been the determining factor.  Whoever was flying it could probably see the RA lacked AT.

It does seem like someone else is firing in to his fight. Too big an effect for the co-ax. My bet would be AGL, as they already have a track record of firing by drone correction. If it's 30mm auto-cannon, I'd expect tracers.

 

Someone on the Ukrainian side really seems to have had a fivehead moment Because I'll be damned if this were just an accidental engagement. Those tankers knew exactly what they were doing. We've had more exciting footage recently, but this tickles my CM player brain more as this is the player's birds eye view advantage made real.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

we are one of the few professions that has to put up with this much amateur armchair quarterbacking - 

Count commercial production crews in there. 

Holy ****,  Client & Agency are always Soooooo insightful into the Escher-like creative cul du sac they boxed us into during prep, then have SO MANY QUESTIONS and are SO CONFUSED WHY THIS IS SO SLOW and then have SO MANY GREAT "BUT WHAT IF WE DO THIS-"... 

Ohh those little ideas they have. Soooooooo USEFUL. 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

2 minutes ago, Elmar Bijlsma said:

It does seem like someone else is firing in to his fight. Too big an effect for the co-ax. My bet would be AGL, as they already have a track record of firing by drone correction. If it's 30mm auto-cannon, I'd expect tracers.

 

Someone on the Ukrainian side really seems to have had a fivehead moment Because I'll be damned if this were just an accidental engagement. Those tankers knew exactly what they were doing. We've had more exciting footage recently, but this tickles my CM player brain more as this is the player's birds eye view advantage made real.

Fivehead?