How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, sburke said:

 

Dang, I need a new copy of Jane's just to know what a lot of this stuff is

 

Ukraine Gets Huge Boost In Deadly Drone Capabilities From U.S. (thedrive.com)

Switchblade 600 - now we are talking!

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

Hits like a Javelin but out to 40-69 km.  That Altius looks new, multi-role beast (very ISR/EW) and has a 200 nm range (!)

https://areai.com/wp-content/uploads/ALTIUS-600-22-Slick-Sheet.pdf

Jump 20 is a MALE with a 185 km range and 14 hour endurance.

https://www.avinc.com/uas/jump-20

Cant find anything on the K8 but it is by these guy (unless they mean the X8)

https://cyberlux.com/unmanned-aircraft-solutions-uas/

So if China wants to play proxy war unmanned systems…

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Agree with all but not the bold. In Kherson At least initially,  UKR seemed to go full assault but rapidly bogged down into a very solid defence network,  where the Russians seemed to turn the tables on them,  trading tactical distance for operational time. The units forming the RUS lines were no joke and heavily armed,  but as you essentially note,  a fixed defence faces inevitable destruction. So the ZSU pinned the Ivans in place and relentlessly corroded their rear areas. 

The next assault phase at Kherson seemed to be several months later when cracks finally became exploitable and direct assaults were useful. Then full on frontal assaults had good effect. 

So essentially they do run large frontage frontal assaults but in general,  and certainly still dependent on local command quality,  they are far more smart about it than the majority of Russian command cadres. They're more flexible and patient. 

But Russia has its smart tactical leaders also. I think when UKR tries an attack and runs into someone smart on te other end they are far more likely and far quicker to call off the op a d switch emphasis,  locus,  tactics or even drop it altogether. 

But Russian attacks,  man, they're the bloody gift that just keeps on giving. 

My only question on this one is, “was this designed to pull troops away from Kharkiv?”  Recall back last summer the UA signalled pretty brutally it was going after Kherson and then followed up with big stroke frontals.  This pulled depleted forces into that AO and away from the east (or at least that is a working theory) and Kharkiv happened.  The RA was really badly depleted after Severodonetsk, because that was a dumb idea, the additional lateral strain forced on them at Kherson just made it worse.

So basically I am not sure if the whole large loud costly frontals were not intentional.  We probably will not know until after the war, but I am looking out for something similar this spring-summer.

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Probus said:

With Russia focused on Ukraine, why is this not a thing:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2022/10/24/as-russia-gets-weaker-xi-jinping-may-forgo-taiwan-to-grab-eastern-russia/amp/

China should be looking North, not towards Taiwan.  Next Combat Mission may want to include this possiblity. 

Eagle, Bear, & Dragon

Why the hell would the US or West get involved?  It would finally be a war we could finally not feel guilty about letting it happen.  We could all sit back and watch 2 adversarial states bleed each other out.

Oh we would laugh and drink, take notes.  It could be a Hot Thread Part Deux….right up to the point it became a thermonuclear war. 

[billbindc]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

My only question on this one is, “was this designed to pull troops away from Kharkiv?”  Recall back last summer the UA signalled pretty brutally it was going after Kherson and then followed up with big stroke frontals.  This pulled depleted forces into that AO and away from the east (or at least that is a working theory) and Kharkiv happened.  The RA was really badly depleted after Severodonetsk, because that was a dumb idea, the additional lateral strain forced on them at Kherson just made it worse.

So basically I am not sure if the whole large loud costly frontals were not intentional.  We probably will not know until after the war, but I am looking out for something similar this spring-summer.

It definitely felt like the telegraphing was intense on Kherson. I don't think that will happen this time because it's so obvious where the next offensive must be (somewhere between Vuhledar and the Dnieper). If I had to guess, there will be multiple axes that force the RA to choose where to defend. Any one of those axes will be the main effort depending on success or failure with the whole complex being designed to force stressed Russian forces to shift from one sector to another at the mercy of ISR directed arty, etc. And don't sleep on a thrust towards Starobilsk. Northern Luhansk becomes quite hard to hold if that corridor is interdicted.

Edited March 4, 2023 by billbindc

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Some thoughts:

1.  we talk about 800km of front.  But it's really not that right now for RU.  They only have to cover the roads right now.  When the ground dries, then all the factors that will (hopefully, probably) doom RU will come into play.  Lack of ISR, arty, bad troops w bad gear in bad defenses.

2.  As was mentioned above, China would probably not invade.  It would try to get regions to declare independence and then help those regions via recognition, weapons, ISR, etc.

ChrisL:  While I do need to get out more, I was just struck by the communication and combined arms involved in this.  Single soldier in what should be a death trap, talks to his friends who use drone.  He wiggles gun and the friends shoot up the orcs.  I was really impressed.  I've seen tons of videos of drone-directed work, but this one was so very specific to just one surrounded guy.

Dude you need a mechanized intervention.  Your are hurting the ones you love.  That is still a lot of roads but the UA still have legs last we checked and leg infantry (or on quads or whatever) armed with tac UAS infiltrating your lines and sneaking into rear areas is bad.  Like murdering all my logistics bad.  So the RA cannot wish away the frontage problem.  The UA covers off with ISR, the RA does not have that much ISR…so they gotta do it the old fashion way.

[dan/california]

36 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The Russian nuclear forces are not on the same maintenance and logistical regime that covers the rest of the Russian military. Everything I've seen suggests that they are well maintained and capable...if quite inaccurate by our standards.

Fair enough...

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, billbindc said:

It definitely felt like the telegraphing was intense on Kherson. I don't think that will happen this time because it's so obvious where the next offensive must be (somewhere between Vuhledar and the Dnieper). If I had to guess, there will be multiple axes that force the RA to choose where to defend. Any one of those axes will be the main effort depending on success or failure with the whole complex being designed to force stressed Russian forces to shift from one sector to another at the mercy of ISR directed arty, etc. And don't sleep on a thrust towards Starobilsk. Northern Luhansk becomes quite hard to hold if that corridor is interdicted.

Could be if the UA has the legs.  My bet is an Eastern push to pull in RA forces and then up the centre, but doing both definitely creates a dilemma.   This is why I think Bakhmut is a clear and simple bleeding operation.  Make the RA spend as much valuable equipment as possible - every tank/AFV/truck/gun/ammo dump/CP/engineering vehicle and ISR/EW system the RA loses is one less to deal with in 2 months. This and the harder one can degrade the back end now the more likely it will fail when being stressed again.

The waves of dead Russian infantry are a side-product of the real corrosion being projected on the RA.

[kevinkin]

39 minutes ago, billbindc said:

if quite inaccurate by our standards.

But close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades or government work.

[dan/california]

34 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

*my personal answer to *"what is a  group of nuclear weapons called?" 

This is very funny!

 

1 hour ago, sburke said:

More to the point, they could have a 90% failure rate and still fk things up royally. 

This is true, sadly...

[billbindc]

20 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

But close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades or government work.

You don't build Tsar Bomba if your nukes can hit the side of a barn two times out of three.

[billbindc]

21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Could be if the UA has the legs.  My bet is an Eastern push to pull in RA forces and then up the centre, but doing both definitely creates a dilemma.   This is why I think Bakhmut is a clear and simple bleeding operation.  Make the RA spend as much valuable equipment as possible - every tank/AFV/truck/gun/ammo dump/CP/engineering vehicle and ISR/EW system the RA loses is one less to deal with in 2 months. This and the harder one can degrade the back end now the more likely it will fail when being stressed again.

The waves of dead Russian infantry are a side-product of the real corrosion being projected on the RA.

Exactly...Ukrainian info sec/warfare is pretty good but we see some of their losses and what is not in evidence is that kind of damage to the UA. Sweeney and other reporters are two or three miles behind their lines having fairly relaxed chats and Russian artillery seems mostly aimed at the front lines. Vuhledar cost somewhere north of 130 Russian platforms. Just Vuhledar. If Ukraine is generating forces to a significant degree behind the scenes then this spring is going to be really something. 

[Kinophile]

49 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

My only question on this one is, “was this designed to pull troops away from Kharkiv?”  Recall back last summer the UA signalled pretty brutally it was going after Kherson and then followed up with big stroke frontals.  This pulled depleted forces into that AO and away from the east (or at least that is a working theory) and Kharkiv happened.  The RA was really badly depleted after Severodonetsk, because that was a dumb idea, the additional lateral strain forced on them at Kherson just made it worse.

So basically I am not sure if the whole large loud costly frontals were not intentional.  We probably will not know until after the war, but I am looking out for something similar this spring-summer.

I believe we identified and discussed this around when Kharkiv blew up, we noted the massive advantage of interior lines favoured the ZSU?

The simple distance and logistical difficulties linking between the two AOs,  for the Russians,  was operationally significant at a Theatre level. I think It essentially forced the Russians to fight two very disconnected fights,  yet for the Ukrainians they could push and pull forces relatively easily? Not necessarily directly swapping in for the other,  but they could redirect the flow of gear and men far more easily. 

It would certainly suggest they needed to really throw something serious at the Ivan in Kherson, from D1 to get them to focus and commit to the defense. A lot of their "best"  airborne etc were in Kherson,  which was perfect. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

5 minutes ago, billbindc said:

You don't build Tsar Bomba if your nukes can hit the side of a barn two times out of three.

You do if you're driven by ego,  fear and blind chauvinism. 

[billbindc]

5 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

You do if you're driven by ego,  fear and blind chauvinism. 

In all seriousness, it wasn't built out of simple grandiosity. They built it because their accuracy wasn't very good. So, the corollary was to just build a much  higher yield so that accuracy mattered less. A very Soviet solution.

[Vet 0369]

5 hours ago, dan/california said:

No, the mistake was ~fifteen years before that. We should have brokered a peaceful French departure, and made The North Vietnamese a better offer than China's. 

No, the real “mistake” was made years before that when Ho Chi Minh met with FDR during WWII and asked for arms to drive the Japanese out of Occupied French Indochina. As I understand it, FDR had him given five Colt 1911A1 .45 caliber pistols because he knew any arms he sent to Ho would be used to drive out “our buddies” the French after the war. It was at that time that Ho turned to Stalin. The people of Indochina had, just 100 years earlier, driven out the Chinese after being occupied by them for 500 years. Talk about “those who fail to learn from history is doomed to repeat it.” In my humble opinion, the U.S./VietNam war resulted from the U.S. wanting to help France retain it’s colony, and a corrupt South VietNam Government refusing to comply with the negotiated agreement to hold free elections in both countries. The North did, and the South refused.

Side Note: The USA was the first Country to recognize the Sovereignty of North VietNam.when they were partitioned.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Dude you need a mechanized intervention.  Your are hurting the ones you love.  That is still a lot of roads but the UA still have legs last we checked and leg infantry (or on quads or whatever) armed with tac UAS infiltrating your lines and sneaking into rear areas is bad.  Like murdering all my logistics bad.  So the RA cannot wish away the frontage problem.  The UA covers off with ISR, the RA does not have that much ISR…so they gotta do it the old fashion way.

ah, I see your point.  But are you saying UKR could go forward now, in the mud?  I know infantry can infiltrate thru muddy fields but it seems like they could really be left hanging w/o hope without at least some HUMMVs they could get back to if wounded, and thru the mud?  If they have to walk a km in and then a km behind the lines, that's a long way to to go w wounded.  I was thinking they infiltrate and weaken defenses.   Then the machines come forward and finish things off, while also bringing all the nice logistical stuff.   Which is why I was thinking that RU still mainly only has to man the roads w fields only lightly covered. 

I am like a setup guy for you so that you can step in & knock down amateur-hour ideas.

 

[Sojourner]

A little patience, things will get interesting soon...

"The U.S. is also roughly tripling the number of Ukrainian forces it is training on advanced battle tactics at a base in Germany, to help them punch through entrenched Russian lines. At the Grafenwoehr training area, Ukrainian forces run through a five-week course that prepares them to conduct advanced combined arms maneuvers with Bradley fighting vehicles, M109 Paladins and Stryker armored personnel carriers. The first 600 Ukrainian troops completed the course last month and 1,600 more are in training."

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-weapons-russia-biden-war-0e52e87ade3d2300da8be14a3ebcc9ff

 

 

[The_Capt]

26 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

ah, I see your point.  But are you saying UKR could go forward now, in the mud?  I know infantry can infiltrate thru muddy fields but it seems like they could really be left hanging w/o hope without at least some HUMMVs they could get back to if wounded, and thru the mud?  If they have to walk a km in and then a km behind the lines, that's a long way to to go w wounded.  I was thinking they infiltrate and weaken defenses.   Then the machines come forward and finish things off, while also bringing all the nice logistical stuff.   Which is why I was thinking that RU still mainly only has to man the roads w fields only lightly covered. 

I am like a setup guy for you so that you can step in & knock down amateur-hour ideas.

 

Infantry are like sand, they get into everything - actually scratch that, I used it before.  They are like raccoons, they get into everything and steal anything not bolted down.  

So, yes, the primary role of infantry in this case would be infiltrating for recon and deep strikes.  The UA has used quads and the like, in reality this may be a SOF task with link up to partisans.  Regardless the RA have to have some sort of line security or risk taking all sorts of rear area risks.  Also if the RA are laying some sort of Putin line, they then have to cover all those obstacles or 1) risk losing engineering assets while putting in obstacles or 2) wind up having all sorts of holes cut in them by aforementioned infantry.

Now knowing the RA, they are going to stick to the roads, this is why I do not lose sleep on massive obstacles belts because they are likely not able to put them in along the frontages they need to for when things dry out, and even if they did they cannot cover those obstacles.

In your post you highlight what a single connected guy can do, well imagine having dozens of these teams in your rear areas (sburke…don’t do it).  And now throw in new self-loitering munitions making their way into this.  Nope, the frontage problem is enormous and the RA is just making it worse breaking their hands on freaking Bakhmut (which they have been imminently taking for six months now).  There are likely holes in the RA lines you could push a battalion through, and to make things worse RA C4ISR is also spotty having been shot up for a year with no real backfill, so they may very well miss the freakin battalion as it does. 

Now the real question LLF should be asking is: “what happens if China starts backstopping the RA with ISR?”

Edited March 5, 2023 by The_Capt

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, poesel said:

If you build something and test it and document it and write extensive maintenance manuals, then you don't need anyone clever anymore to maintain and use the thing.

Russians can read and are very good at following explicit orders. I'm pretty sure, the Soviets have written very, very extensive manuals when they built their nukes.

You can laugh all you want about Russian equipment. The engineers I've met were well-educated and resourceful, and quite clever in making things work with the (limited) stuff they had at hand.

Except it doesn't work out that way.  I've been in the US civil aerospace industry for a while and we think we do that, but we do lose technologies and capabilities when people retire.  

ETA: and I work with a lot of scientists and engineers from various former soviet states who are well trained, excellent engineers.  But they left starting in the early 90s and never went back - they're starting to retire from here now. The brain and resource drain in Russia is very real.

Edited March 5, 2023 by chrisl

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

No, the real “mistake” was made years before that when Ho Chi Minh met with FDR during WWII and asked for arms to drive the Japanese out of Occupied French Indochina. As I understand it, FDR had him given five Colt 1911A1 .45 caliber pistols because he knew any arms he sent to Ho would be used to drive out “our buddies” the French after the war. It was at that time that Ho turned to Stalin. The people of Indochina had, just 100 years earlier, driven out the Chinese after being occupied by them for 500 years. Talk about “those who fail to learn from history is doomed to repeat it.” In my humble opinion, the U.S./VietNam war resulted from the U.S. wanting to help France retain it’s colony, and a corrupt South VietNam Government refusing to comply with the negotiated agreement to hold free elections in both countries. The North did, and the South refused.

Side Note: The USA was the first Country to recognize the Sovereignty of North VietNam.when they were partitioned.

If I ever new that I forgot it, but wow that was was a missed opportunity. Actually I must ever have known it, because I can't imagine I would forget that one.

[sburke]

another sure sign that everything is going to plan and all is well

Putin amends law to ensure state defence orders are properly met (yahoo.com)

[sburke]

Nearly 10,000 Russian soldiers surrender via 'I want to live' hotline since its creation (yahoo.com)

Nearly 10,000 Russian soldiers have willingly surrendered themselves to the Ukrainian army via the "I want to live" hotline, Ukraine's Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War reported.

Launched in September 2022 by Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence, the 24-hour hotline allows Russians to willingly surrender themselves or their units to the Ukrainian army. Russian military personnel are held in compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

In addition to the hotline, there is also a chatbot and a website in Russian run by Ukraine's Defense Ministry with information about the program.

[Seminole]

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I like this quite a bit.  Don't wait for The Hague, prosecute the perpetrators for what they can when they can.  Kinda like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

Has the US State Dept said anything about this?

I didn’t think that sort of target was off limits.

The NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters occurred on 23 April 1999, during the Kosovo War. It formed part of NATO's aerial campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and severely damaged the Belgrade headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS). Other radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked.^[2] Sixteen employees of RTS died when a single NATO missile hit the building. Many were trapped for days, only communicating over mobile phones. The television station went to air 24 hours later from a secret location.^[3][4] NATO Headquarters justified the bombing with two arguments; firstly, that it was necessary "to disrupt and degrade the command, control and communications network" of the Yugoslav Armed Forces, and secondly, that the RTS headquarters was a dual-use object which "was making an important contribution to the propaganda war which orchestrated the campaign against the population of Kosovo".^[2] The BBC reported that the station was targeted because of its role in Belgrade's propaganda campaign

[akd]

3 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Has the US State Dept said anything about this?

I didn’t think that sort of target was off limits.

The NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters occurred on 23 April 1999, during the Kosovo War. It formed part of NATO's aerial campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and severely damaged the Belgrade headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS). Other radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked.^[2] Sixteen employees of RTS died when a single NATO missile hit the building. Many were trapped for days, only communicating over mobile phones. The television station went to air 24 hours later from a secret location.^[3][4] NATO Headquarters justified the bombing with two arguments; firstly, that it was necessary "to disrupt and degrade the command, control and communications network" of the Yugoslav Armed Forces, and secondly, that the RTS headquarters was a dual-use object which "was making an important contribution to the propaganda war which orchestrated the campaign against the population of Kosovo".^[2] The BBC reported that the station was targeted because of its role in Belgrade's propaganda campaign

The bit about actively promoting genocide in Kosovo is important…

[Battlefront.com]

55 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Has the US State Dept said anything about this?

I didn’t think that sort of target was off limits.

The NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters occurred on 23 April 1999, during the Kosovo War. It formed part of NATO's aerial campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and severely damaged the Belgrade headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS). Other radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked.^[2] Sixteen employees of RTS died when a single NATO missile hit the building. Many were trapped for days, only communicating over mobile phones. The television station went to air 24 hours later from a secret location.^[3][4] NATO Headquarters justified the bombing with two arguments; firstly, that it was necessary "to disrupt and degrade the command, control and communications network" of the Yugoslav Armed Forces, and secondly, that the RTS headquarters was a dual-use object which "was making an important contribution to the propaganda war which orchestrated the campaign against the population of Kosovo".^[2] The BBC reported that the station was targeted because of its role in Belgrade's propaganda campaign

In addition to what AKD just wrote, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The US was acting under UN Resolution 1244, which legitimized the actions taken by the US generally.  Facilitating an illegal war through propaganda or military communications puts the infrastructure firmly in the "legitimate target" category.  As for the civilian deaths, this falls into standard international laws governing warfare.  Employees directly facilitating the illegal war are legitimate targets.

Russian military in Ukraine are in violation of Ukrainian and international law the second they set foot on Ukrainian soil or move into Ukrainian airspace.  Notice that Ukraine prosecuted the Russian pilot for conducting criminal activities, not for warcrimes.  It's no different than if I went and blew up a piece of infrastructure.  The nature of the target, therefore, is not relevant in the Russia case because all acts committed by Russia are inherently illegal.

The analogy here is a police group breaks down a door of an apartment as part of a legally sanctioned raid.  Anything the police do inside is governed by the various "rules of engagement" for such a raid.  Under some circumstances they could wind up legally killing someone in the apartment and destroying lots of valuable things.  A criminal gang doing 100% of the same things as the police are 100% culpable for everything they do.  For example they can not claim "self defense" if the people in the apartment resist.

Steve