How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Ukrainians finally prove that sniping TCs in their hatches on the move from KMs away is entirely realistic:

 

Since the tank was invented speed has always been seen as a means of enhancing utility and survivability.  Not so much any more.  Which is yet another aspect of the "tank is dead" argument worth considering.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

Tyrannies, Theocracies feel threatened by democracies. The idea that a janitor has the same vote as the bishop, or the king must be truly frightening for kings and bishops. 

[Haiduk]

Video of HIMARs strike on Russian column on 11th of September. 

10:19 UAV crew has spotted single tank on the road to Kupiansk and becomes to track it

10:22  Russian tank led  UAV crew to column (8 tanks, 6 BMP-3, 1 Msta-S, 1 IMR, 4 BAT), which forming and awaiting other vehicles. Information about place of columns and it compositions transmits to command point for decision to attack. During next 15 minutes the crew provides additional recon and clarification of coordinates. For this time the column has grew on 5 BTR-82, MTLB and trucks. 

10:35 Command center didn't have artillery, which can reach this target and there is no time to redeploy. It made a decision to attack column with full load of HIMARS  - 6 missiles at last 6 tanks.

12:09 - aftermath of strike (no exact time of strike on video) - preliminary assesment - 5 targets were hit. The smoke doesn't allow to clarify results, UAV got new task, but crew have to return. 

12:16. The crew returned, smoke is mostly gone. 2 tanks were destroyed with direct hits as well as IMR, SP-howitzer and truck.

 

Heh... Manner of speech and music reminded my radio translations of 80th ))))

   

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Haiduk

[Sojourner]

20 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

AFAIK no war was declared.

Technically speaking, it's "International Humanitarian Law" or "Laws Of Armed Conflict" (LOAC).

Rhetorically speaking, what is a declaration of war?

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, akd said:

Ukrainians finally prove that sniping TCs in their hatches on the move from KMs away is entirely realistic:

 

@Battlefront.com

I propose to make in next hypothetical CM some sort of "game in the game" - FPV attacks of first person view and drone bombing simulator )   

[BletchleyGeek]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, but Kofman has been chasing shadows of things that don't exist.  His credibility is quite low as he's been wrong about this war pretty consistently since before and after the invasion.  He's not stupid or ill informed, not at all, but he does seem to be predisposed to thinking Russia is far more capable than it really is.

Definitely he sounds a lot like Peter calling wolf... yet, as recent events suggest, if the US/NATO is the (reluctant) Arsenal of Democracy, the other side may have China play the role of Arsenal of Tyranny. And like in 1941-45, when the Stumbling Colossus regained its feet and smashed the German Army in great part thanks to the arctic supply line, this "Sick Man of Eurasia" that is the Russian Federation may regain its feet too, and do even more damage.

[Sojourner]

6 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Video of HIMARs strike on Russian column on 11th of September. 

10:19 UAV crew has spotted single tank on the road to Kupiansk and becomes to track it

10:22  Russian tank led  UAV crew to column (8 tanks, 6 BMP-3, 1 Msta-S, 1 IMR, 4 BAT), which forming and awaiting other vehicles. Information about place of columns and it compositions transmits to command point for decision to attack. During next 15 minutes the crew provides additional recon and clarification of coordinates. For this time the column has grew on 5 BTR-82, MTLB and trucks. 

10:35 Command center didn't have artillery, which can reach this target and there is no time to redeploy. It made a decision to attack column with full load of HIMARS  - 6 missiles at last 6 tanks.

12:09 - aftermath of strike (no exact time of strike on video) - preliminary assesment - 5 targets were hit. The smoke doesn't allow to clarify results, UAV got new task, but crew have to return. 

12:16. The crew returned, smoke is mostly gone. 2 tanks were destroyed with direct hits as well as IMR, SP-howitzer and truck.

 

Heh... Manner of speech and music reminded my radio translations of 80th ))))

   

 

 

10:34 - An A-10 driver's wet dream

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

Rhetorically speaking, what is a declaration of war?

A preemptive strike. 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Definitely he sounds a lot like Peter calling wolf... yet, as recent events suggest, if the US/NATO is the (reluctant) Arsenal of Democracy, the other side may have China play the role of Arsenal of Tyranny. And like in 1941-45, when the Stumbling Colossus regained its feet and smashed the German Army in great part thanks to the arctic supply line, this "Sick Man of Eurasia" that is the Russian Federation may regain its feet too, and do even more damage.

Right, but that's just the point.  Kofman (and others) are looking at Russia today and thinking Soviet Union 1941 or 1942.  Others, including me, look at Russia today and think "Austrian Empire" 1917.  The difference being what potential each group thinks Russia has to rebound from these disasters.  Kofman (and others) continually think Russia is more capable than it turns out to be, so he warns that next time it might be different.  Many of us here, on the other hand, don't see where that sort of thinking comes from other than habitual thinking.

It is definitely possible that Russia can drag out this war longer.  No doubt they can cause Ukraine a lot of casualties in the process.  But all the evidence accumulated so far shows that Russia's ability to wage war is on a steep decline with no prospect for recovery.  It's heavy losses, organizational levels of dysfunction, economic weakness, and traditional longstanding shortcomings are not going to be overcome by wishful thinking.

Steve

[Beleg85]

42 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, but Kofman has been chasing shadows of things that don't exist.  His credibility is quite low as he's been wrong about this war pretty consistently since before and after the invasion.  He's not stupid or ill informed, not at all, but he does seem to be predisposed to thinking Russia is far more capable than it really is.

Steve

Curious thing is that after joined trip to Bakhmut of several analysts (Kofman including), Konrad Muzyka now firmly states he assess Ukrainian and Russian casualties as 1:1 or 1:2 and refutes 1:5 or 1:7 ratios that lately appear even in NATO and Ukrainian officials statements. There is small ****storm on his twitter for this (again), but the guy is known to be rather cautious.

So we probably should forget about any, even proximate losses count for now, which in turn make our assessments of value of holding Bakhmut rather pointless. I am afraid this city already turned into meatgrinder for both sides; still hard to tell whom it favours in long term- perhaps nobody.

[poesel]

What is China's plan if the Russian Federation disintegrates?

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

If you are going to assert that the first elections in North VietNam were not free, then you need to provide evidence that is stronger than an assertion of “I very much doubt if any elections under a Communist regime were ever free. That would be the first time.” Please provide verifiable information to support your assertion. 

I hope Wikipedia suits because I have not conducted any deeper research and frankly, cannot be bothered to. I also did not assert anything, just expressed doubt in the possibility for elections held under a military dictatorship to be actually free. It seems that doubt was well founded - at least according to Wikipedia:

"National Assembly elections were held in areas controlled by North Vietnam on 6 January 1946.^[1] Held under the 1946 constitution, they resulted in a victory for the Communist-led Việt Minh, which won 182 of the 302 seats, although the distribution of seats between parties had been decided before the elections.^[2] The ballot was not secret, and ballot papers were filled out in the presence of aides who were "to help comrades who had difficulty in making out their ballots."^{[3]"   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_North_Vietnamese_legislative_election}

Pre-distributed seats, ballot not secret, VM apparatchicks telling people what to write = not free. I rest my case.

 

[chuckdyke]

8 minutes ago, poesel said:

What is China's plan if the Russian Federation disintegrates?

Siberia? Not really belonging to Europe in their eyes. Kazakhstan moves closer to the west. I wonder why this is.

[danfrodo]

12 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I hope Wikipedia suits because I have not conducted any deeper research and frankly, cannot be bothered to. I also did not assert anything, just expressed doubt in the possibility for elections held under a military dictatorship to be actually free. It seems that doubt was well founded - at least according to Wikipedia:

"National Assembly elections were held in areas controlled by North Vietnam on 6 January 1946.^[1] Held under the 1946 constitution, they resulted in a victory for the Communist-led Việt Minh, which won 182 of the 302 seats, although the distribution of seats between parties had been decided before the elections.^[2] The ballot was not secret, and ballot papers were filled out in the presence of aides who were "to help comrades who had difficulty in making out their ballots."^{[3]"   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_North_Vietnamese_legislative_election}

Pre-distributed seats, ballot not secret, VM apparatchicks telling people what to write = not free. I rest my case.

 

Thanks for that post, MZ.  And let me add:  please, everyone, let's not go into a vietnam rabbit hole on this thread.  Things are serious in UKR right now and let's keep the communication net free of irrelevant-to-UKR chatter.   Someone really looking to dive into vietnam could start a new thread.

 

19 minutes ago, poesel said:

What is China's plan if the Russian Federation disintegrates?

I am guessing "make friends w folks that have fossil fuels?" and protect their new soveriegnty via weapons & support.  In exchange for nice oil concessions, of course.  

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, but Kofman has been chasing shadows of things that don't exist.  His credibility is quite low as he's been wrong about this war pretty consistently since before and after the invasion.  He's not stupid or ill informed, not at all, but he does seem to be predisposed to thinking Russia is far more capable than it really is.

I really do not get the Kofman hate. Apart from the initial asessment which was too favourable to Russians, and which he quickly corrected, he has been consistently close to what really happened during this war. It pains me to say, that he was closer to the truth that the majority opinion on this forum, which predicted Russians to collapse in summer of 2022, then in autumn 2022. If his credibility is low, then whose credibility is high? Maybe Ukrainians - but they do not say much in comparison. Among the analysts who cover the war the most solid ones are probably Kofman, Rob Lee, Konrad Muzyka, Jack Watling, Dara Masicot. They all pretty much say the same thing, so to single out Kofman as the low credibility guy is not fair.

[chuckdyke]

Somebody who didn't have any illusions about the gangsters just about to shoot him. Judging his age he was entitled to sit on his easy chair.

 

[JonS]

3 hours ago, Mattias said:

Is that really a thing? Aren’t the “laws of war” specifically tailored to avoid the hysterical nit picking that would ensue if war and warriors, where subjected to scrutiny under laws actually based on the assumption of decent human behaviour? I mean, common, what kind of world would that be - were people that in power, big and small, were actually held responsible for every single little trifle?

They are, but it isn't a blank cheque.

If you go out and kill someone, that person is dead and you'll soon be having some pretty direct conversations with the police.

If a soldier goes out and kills someone ... that person is just dead. AS LONG AS the killing occurred in a recognised conflict AND the killed person was a combatant AND the killed person wasn't otherwise protected (shipwrecked, wounded, in a hospital, in a cultural or other protected place, etc). In that case you'll probably be having some pretty direct conversations with some kind of legal process sooner or later.

It's not strictly reciprocal, either. Some time ago I spent some time hunting naughty people, as part of an activity covered by a UN mandate. We were 'allowed' to kill the naughty people (assuming ROEs were complied with), because we were providing security to the community, and they were trying to upend that. They were not - legally - allowed to kill anyone, since legally they were basically just civilians wandering around looking for people to murder. That included us - despite being in uniform, openly carrying weapons, etc etc, them killing us was murder.

Frankly, it took me a while to wrap my head around all that.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, but Kofman has been chasing shadows of things that don't exist.  His credibility is quite low as he's been wrong about this war pretty consistently since before and after the invasion.  He's not stupid or ill informed, not at all, but he does seem to be predisposed to thinking Russia is far more capable than it really is.

Steve

And his personal arrogance around this town does not exactly burnish his reputation.

[Seminole]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

so cause and effect is a challenge for you? 

Putin - NATO wants to dismantle Russia so I have to wage a war of aggression.

No, I think I see the cause and effect well enough.  

If Khrushchev stuck with the plan to put nukes in Cuba everyone understood that JFK would wage a war of aggression against Cuba to try and prevent it.
For some reason, some people can’t imagine that another nation would draw a line like that, beyond their own border, but drawn to affirm their own sense of security, and actually mean it.  
Imagine if Khrushchev had pointed out that the US had no right to dictate the security arrangements of their neighbors, and that they would press on regardless of US threats.  
 

What do you think the US would have done?  Just impotently watched?

[Battlefront.com]

53 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Curious thing is that after joined trip to Bakhmut of several analysts (Kofman including), Konrad Muzyka now firmly states he assess Ukrainian and Russian casualties as 1:1 or 1:2 and refutes 1:5 or 1:7 ratios that lately appear even in NATO and Ukrainian officials statements. There is small ****storm on his twitter for this (again), but the guy is known to be rather cautious.

So we probably should forget about any, even proximate losses count for now, which in turn make our assessments of value of holding Bakhmut rather pointless. I am afraid this city already turned into meatgrinder for both sides; still hard to tell whom it favours in long term- perhaps nobody.

I absolutely can not conceive of how this could be 1:1 or even 1:2 overall.  Attackers often suffer higher casualties absent advantages which Russia doesn't appear to have.  We also know that Wagner was pushing untrained and unsupported convicts and Mobiks at Ukrainian positions in "recon by death" tactics.  Even the RU Nats have aknowledged this.  On top of this, these attacks have not yielded anything resembling a breakthrough or overrun of any size, which is usually where the attacker evens up the loss ratio.

To think that this would result in just as many Ukrainian deaths is incomprehensible to me.

That said, I have no clue where the actual loss ratio is.  However, I would bet it is closer to 1:7 than it is 1:1.

Steve

[Harmon Rabb]

Some good news on the political side of things in Europe. The Estonian Reform party won 31% of parliamentary vote.

A bit concerning that the EKRE came in second place as they oppose sending military aid to Ukraine.

I'm hoping that Kaja Kallas of the Squirrel party remains PM while this war continues.

 

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I really do not get the Kofman hate.

Hate?  No.  Disappointment is a better word for me.  I thought a lot more of him before the war started.

33 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Apart from the initial asessment which was too favourable to Russians, and which he quickly corrected, he has been consistently close to what really happened during this war.

I would dispute "quickly".  At the time we needed expert guidance the most was a the beginning of the conflict, and he was far off the mark for much of the important fighting.

33 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

It pains me to say, that he was closer to the truth that the majority opinion on this forum, which predicted Russians to collapse in summer of 2022, then in autumn 2022. If his credibility is low, then whose credibility is high?

For sure nobody has a perfect track record.  Anything this complex will do that  

That said, I think if you go back and read the opinions here at the time they were produced you'll see that they were more right than wrong.  Oh, something like "if they keep this up much longer they'll collapse", then Russia did something to change the equation and collapse did not happen.  However, it didn't do much more than buy some time.  Which is where I think Kofman is continuing to be wrong.

Kofman still thinks there is some way that Russia can turn this around in some way.  At least that's the way he sounds to me.  Though I have to admit I've tuned him out for the past few months so maybe he's more inline with what I see as objective reality.

33 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Maybe Ukrainians - but they do not say much in comparison. Among the analysts who cover the war the most solid ones are probably Kofman, Rob Lee, Konrad Muzyka, Jack Watling, Dara Masicot. They all pretty much say the same thing, so to single out Kofman as the low credibility guy is not fair.

I have have read a lot of Rob Lee or Watling, only in passing Muzyak and Masicot, and never once did I get the same vibe from them as Kofman.

Steve

[sburke]

21 minutes ago, Seminole said:

No, I think I see the cause and effect well enough.  

If Khrushchev stuck with the plan to put nukes in Cuba everyone understood that JFK would wage a war of aggression against Cuba to try and prevent it.
For some reason, some people can’t imagine that another nation would draw a line like that, beyond their own border, but drawn to affirm their own sense of security, and actually mean it.  
Imagine if Khrushchev had pointed out that the US had no right to dictate the security arrangements of their neighbors, and that they would press on regardless of US threats.  
 

What do you think the US would have done?  Just impotently watched?

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all joined NATO 18 years ago and all share a border with Russia, yet somehow Ukraine even thinking of joining (despite being highly unlikely - I mean look how much back and forth is going on regarding Finland and Sweden) is somehow a huge threat to Russia.  No one has suggested putting nukes in any of these countries versus putting nukes 90 miles off shore of the US.  Your example is completely apples to oranges.

 

with that I'll take Steve's advice below and go for a walk outside assuming I don't get hit with hail again.  freakin weather

Edited March 7, 2023 by sburke

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, Seminole said:

No, I think I see the cause and effect well enough.  

If Khrushchev stuck with the plan to put nukes in Cuba everyone understood that JFK would wage a war of aggression against Cuba to try and prevent it.
For some reason, some people can’t imagine that another nation would draw a line like that, beyond their own border, but drawn to affirm their own sense of security, and actually mean it.  
Imagine if Khrushchev had pointed out that the US had no right to dictate the security arrangements of their neighbors, and that they would press on regardless of US threats.  
 

What do you think the US would have done?  Just impotently watched?

Wow.

So you equate democratic nations joining NATO for collective defense with the Soviet Union positioning WMD a few miles away from the US coastline?

Look, we've trashed this particular Kremlin talking point so many times in this thread it makes my head hurt to think of it.  Fundamentally NATO is defensive, fundamentally Russia's policies are offensive.  That's objective reality, as this war clearly demonstrates.

Best that you drop this topic as it's not going to go anyplace different than the last few dozen times it has come up.  If you want to walk away from this thinking you've won the debate by default, I'm fine with that.  I just don't have it in me to trash this flawed theory yet again.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

41 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Among the analysts who cover the war the most solid ones are probably Kofman, Rob Lee, Konrad Muzyka, Jack Watling, Dara Masicot. They all pretty much say the same thing, so to single out Kofman as the low credibility guy is not fair.

Good list. I've been following Kofman and Lee for years. They're both fantastic. The only "problem" I see with them is that, as you noted, they almost never disagree with each other on anything substantive.