How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Something I haven't seen before. UR-77 used for indirect fire rather than it's usual mine-clearing role.

[dan/california]

7 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Mobiks from St.Peterburg and oblast are appealing to Putin, that their unit of 138th motor-rifle brigade of 6th CAA, Western miliitary district was attached to some DPR brigade (alas, soldier said it indistinctly) and directed to assault of UKR positions near Avdiivka without armored vehicles, recon and artillery support (hm... guys, you are were this recon! welcome to real world!) and unit lost in this assault 70 % of personnel killed and wounded. After this DPR unit command anyway ordered them to be ready for new assault and threatened them if they refuse.

 Interesting that Russian command now "lease to slavery" to LDPR units not only mobiks from "territorial defense" regiments, but from regular units %)

 

Another future game question. Will we be able to buy mobik/convict units that are intended for recon by death, and only count for a tenth of their actual casualty count or something?

Edited March 19, 2023 by dan/california

[Fenris]

14 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Something I haven't seen before. UR-77 used for indirect fire rather than it's usual mine-clearing role.

 

There were some clips like this from Mariupol last year IIRC.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Fenris said:

 

There were some clips like this from Mariupol last year IIRC.

Seen it several times. It seems to be something they do when nothing else is working. One heck of a bang, but I wonder to what extent the probably very large CEP makes it a crapshoot at best. I also wonder if it is a sign of giving up in a particular direction. It seems like you would want to use it as line charge if you were trying to advance. It always possible they have a bleep load of old soviet one laying around they don't even trust as line charges. Post war evaluation will be interesting if we ever get one.

[DesertFox]

Can´t wait.

 

 

 

[Fenris]

1 hour ago, DesertFox said:

Can´t wait.

 

 

 

Sure it's kinda amusing but if it does the job, meh, why not.  Maxim's and DShK's can still be lethal.  Some armour and tracks are better than a Soviet Scooby Van, in some situations, like for mounting surplus naval guns

I'm interested to see what else comes out of the back of the cupboard over the coming months.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Fenris

[chrisl]

3 hours ago, dan/california said:

The side without the drone is playing on iron difficulty. The side with the drone is not. 

With more integration of the drone and individual spotting it could be basic training or even author test mode.

[Livdoc44]

9 hours ago, Haiduk said:

It's claimed 110th mech.brigade assaulting near Bakhmut, but as I know 110th fought in Avdiivka sector. There is opinion also on the video is some sort of tarining, but commader in the trench says to machine-gunner: "Don't shoot! Shoot only if you have seen a target!"

Also when YPRs approached to treeplant in first time he says "Now infantry will disembark", then after second approaching he asks "Aren't infantry inside APCs?"

Looks like APCs just made supressive fire at positions in tree-plant and Russian either hadn't RPGs or got enough moral supression. 

 

The Warzone has a more complete picture of the action involving the YPRs shown in this clip.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-armored-personnel-carriers-make-a-charge-in-bakhmut

Interestingly, the clips that @Haiduk posted yesterday afternoon of destroyed YRPs are apparently from this attack. 

Overall, this thread continues to amaze me as the rest of the article touches on many of the things discussed here over the last 12 to 24 hours. Minus the insight, of course.

*Hope it's cool to link to the Warzone; been following this thread since the first post by @Probus, and I'd hate to commit a faux pas as I don't recall much linked from said site.
 

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, dan/california said:

Pondering two somewhat obvious things you could do with a drone bomber if you started with a clean sheet of paper. First would be to hold the bombs /grenades vertically in the in the center mass. This would mostly eliminate flopping back and forth before the fins stabilize it nose down. I don't have data on much that would help accuracy, but i would bet quite a bit of money it doesn't hurt. it also seems a test rig wouldn't be impossibly difficult if you were already working with these drones. The second much higher cost, but also higher pay off thing would be to use a hydrogen fuel cell instead of a battery, yes it would probably double the price. But the gains in available range/watt hours would also be large. Since we just watched one of them take out AT LEAST five or ten million dollars worth of armored vehicle, the improved ability to reach further, or launch from more survivable locations seems like it would be worth it. One drone killing one tank is a very good deal even at three or five times the price, as a long term average performance. Operators living to get good at it is not irrelevant either. And yes if they could just go hunt in assigned kill box by themselves that would be great.

per google...

 

 

Hydrogen holds 125-330 times as much energy as lithium-ion batteries per kilogram .Oct 4, 2022

 

And they're already available: 

https://www.intelligent-energy.com

https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/company/intelligent-energy/

The main issue is probably fuel supply chain - it's easy to recharge a battery just about anywhere, but getting pressurized hydrogen is a little trickier.  

I dug those up because I wasn't sure how small it would scale because of the need for high pressure tanks, but it looks like it's reasonable at the current drone size.

For larger aircraft, Airbus is looking at cryogenic liquid storage instead of pressurized gas.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, Billy Ringo said:

The level of discussion in this thread is extremely high, which is why I read it and am very thankful.  The knowledge, study and experience of several contributing posters is off the effin charts...which makes this such a valuable source of information.  However, it may also deter counter-arguments in that so few individuals have equal experience to voice counter opinions which then leads to...an echo chamber of sorts.

I could study and research a relevant topic for months, (outside of my own little business/supply chain domain), and guarantee you and a few others could argue my points better than I without any research whatsoever.  But, in my opinion, we still need those counter opinions/arguments--when presented in a logical and respectful manner-- even if they aren't at the same level of expertise as some others. 

Just my opinion. Peace.

It can be a fine line between maintaining an orderly, high quality public discussion and sinking into echo chamber.  Granted.  I think we've done a damned fine job of that since the start.  As evidenced by people constantly bringing in articles, videos, first person accounts, and other things into this thread that have already been discussed.  Even if the conclusions aren't the same, the fact that this thread seems to maintain broad and timely discussion is an indication that we're ahead of the curve more than behind it.

Adding to what The_Capt just, I think it's enough for someone to ask insightful questions.  "OK, you guys seem to think X.  Fine, but why not Y?".  That can spur some really interesting discussion and bring out nuances, alternatives, etc. that might not have been discussed before.  It happens here a lot and it's a huge reason why I keep learning from this thread.

Where things can start to become unproductive is when a case is presented, it is challenged in detail, the person/s making the case doesn't directly respond, then a week later the same thing is brought up again (by someone else even) as if it was never discussed before.  While it doesn't necessarily harm the quality of the discussion (e.g. because it gets re-challenged), it does make for a less interesting debate when it is abandoned at the same point each time.

It is totally possible to have an interesting debate with one side being better informed than the other as long as both sides keep focused on the most salient points.  If only one side does this, well then it isn't necessarily a waste of time but it is a wasted opportunity to test hypothesis and perceptions.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

Made us remember this song.

Hello, is it me you're looking for? I can see it in your eyes I can see it in your smile You're all I've ever wanted And my arms are open wide 'Cause you know just what to say And you know just what to do

[Kinophile]

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Adding to what The_Capt just, I think it's enough for someone to ask insightful questions. 

I'm a gonna take this slim opening and completely abuse it...

Directed to @The_Capt -

You mentioned a while back back about Information as Mass. I found this very interesting. I guess this feeds into "Precision" but I got the subsense you were thinking on something else - something broader in military effects on the Line but deeper in source depth, perhaps? Stretching from the furthest Trench to the nearest Starbucks.... Is this a good read?

I was struck by how something as foggy and vague as Information could have Mass, both from a figurative and literal sense. TBH I'm not even sure if Information is the best descriptor, but I also don't know what's rolling around inside the pinball machine of your mind. But I sense myself it could be a very good angle on the nature of this war.

Could you elaborate?

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

China would absolutely face the same problem in a proxy war a la Russia in Ukraine.  They have to be considering this with respect to Taiwan; however, geographically it is a different problem set.  The difference is that China does not have a 30 years history of projecting military power to reinforce the global order that it built during the Cold War and then expanded after the Soviet Union fell.  We are the ones with a history of interventions and force projection, so we will likely be the ones to see this up close and personal first.  The Chinese method, up until now, has largely been Soft (or Sharp) power based and focused on the economic dimensions of power.  Their military ambition is still really focused on their region but like Russia, they have convinced themselves the only way to be safe from US/Western influence is to arm-up and bare teeth.

As to learning speed - yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  The main reason is that our biggest strength is also our biggest weakness - unity.  China is centralized politically and has been for generations, they also have a far different cultural focus with respect to unity.  I do not believe for a second China is a homogeneous mass but when it comes to legislation and policy they have far faster reactions times than we do.  Our strength is that policy reflects everyone (or tries to) and over time makes us more resilient to shocks than rigid centralized systems.  We also undertake social change to sustain stability far faster, while China a lot less so.

However, in context of military power, the west is woefully slow on legislation and policy development.  Internally nations always lag military reality.  As a bloc we are entirely mis-aligned most of the time (see: Guantanamo Bay) which causes a lot of friction when we try and pull military power together.  Sometimes is works exactly as it should, at other times it is tenuous cat-herding.  LOAC moves even slower.  We do not have international agreement ROEs for cyber or IO (let alone landmines and cluster munitions) and we have had them for at least 20 years.

So in my example, sure the military will learn lessons - however history has shown we will double down on legacy technology and wear new technology like an accessory until we realize it is probably bigger than that.  But even if we do, we will still be bound by policy and law.  So UAS, sure we will buy more and employ them but laws will prevent full autonomy for some time while China has no such problems.  China is taking a lot of notes on this war, as we are now how fast those lesson translate into actionable policy is likely in China's favour as they need less collective agreement.  

So what?  Well if China invades Thailand they are going to be in serious trouble for all the same reasons we would be in Country X.  Their policy and legislation mechanism will likely move quicker to cover off their blind spots and gaps but I suspect their military doctrine is more rigid and less improvisational.  They would hurt and bleed, but their political will would likely outlast us in the same spot.  If we try and invade/intervene in country X we are screwed under our current policy and legislative frameworks in many ways.  So we would have to policy by CONOP or simply have to try and do it with hands tied while political calculus scrambled - just like the last time, except instead of insurgency we are talking empowered proxy hybrid warfare.

The mitigating factor (which I think is what you are shooting for) is that we can keep a technological and doctrinal edge IF we pay close attention to this war and not get lost in confirming our own military dogma and sense of superiority.  We can adapt very quickly within our policy framework, however, we also need to generate military advice to policy quickly and coherently to kick start those political processes. 

Well looky looky here...ISW now has a dedicated section on China v Taiwan.

 

[dan/california]

This is a great example of how long it takes to clear a a couple of square kilometers. And this is against virtually no opposition.

[Battlefront.com]

47 minutes ago, Livdoc44 said:

The Warzone has a more complete picture of the action involving the YPRs shown in this clip.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-armored-personnel-carriers-make-a-charge-in-bakhmut

Interestingly, the clips that @Haiduk posted yesterday afternoon of destroyed YRPs are apparently from this attack. 

It would make sense as the Dutch have supplied very few.  Something like 40 is the only number I could find.  They are likely concentrated in one Brigade.

I don't remember what unit they were attributed to.

47 minutes ago, Livdoc44 said:

Overall, this thread continues to amaze me as the rest of the article touches on many of the things discussed here over the last 12 to 24 hours. Minus the insight, of course.

*Hope it's cool to link to the Warzone; been following this thread since the first post by @Probus, and I'd hate to commit a faux pas as I don't recall much linked from said site.
 

Just about all links are welcomed here!  The ones with overtly graphic and not relevant "death porn" being the one exception.  Even posting overt Russian propaganda, like Gaz_NZ just did, is fine too.  In fact, Russian bloggers have provided us with a lot of very relevant and useful information throughout this war.

The article you linked to was, for sure, a good read.  It is good to get confirmation that we're talking about relevant things here, and one way to do that is bringing in similar stuff from outside of this thread.

Steve

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

I'm a gonna take this slim opening and completely abuse it...

Directed to @The_Capt -

You mentioned a while back back about Information as Mass. I found this very interesting. I guess this feeds into "Precision" but I got the subsense you were thinking on something else - something broader in military effects on the Line but deeper in source depth, perhaps? Stretching from the furthest Trench to the nearest Starbucks.... Is this a good read?

I was struck by how something as foggy and vague as Information could have Mass, both from a figurative and literal sense. TBH I'm not even sure if Information is the best descriptor, but I also don't know what's rolling around inside the pinball machine of your mind. But I sense myself it could be a very good angle on the nature of this war.

Could you elaborate?

Yes.  Yes it does.

Somewhat trivially, the mass of one bit m_bit= k_BTln(2)/c²

Where k_B is the Boltzmann constant, T is the storage temperature of the bit, and c is the speed of light.  Someone else even wrote it up as part of a paper on mass/energy/information equivalence:  https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

But I don't think that's what @The_Capt was referring to.

Edited March 19, 2023 by chrisl
typo, ref to The_Capt

[Kinophile]

30 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Yes.  Yes it does.

Somewhat trivially, the mass of one bit m_bit= k_BTln(2)/c²

Where k_B is the Boltzmann constant, T is the storage temperature of the bit, and c is the speed of light.  Someone else even wrote it up as part of a paper on mass/energy/information equivalence:  https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

But I don't think that's what Steve was referring to.

You're my Nerd Hero. But, to correct, it was The Capt.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

Here's an interesting pro-Russian source that I haven't checked out in detail before:

https://en.topwar.ru/212841-shansy-vsu-v-dolgozhdannom-vesennem-nastuplenii.html

I've poked around the site some and found it to be decent by Russian propaganda standards.  Some genuine analysis and facts that are actually, uhm, factual!  That said, it's the usual delusional stuff that downplays/dismisses anything good Ukraine has done thus far and completely avoids mentioning Russia's failures.  For example highlighting the Washington Post's citing a source that puts Ukraine's casualties at 120,000 while conveniently neglecting to mention the same source puts Russia's at 250,000.  It also uses Ukraine's lack of significant offensives this winter as an example of them running out of steam, yet fails to mention Russia's massive failures in its attempts to be on the offensive.  Stuff like that.

The reason why I'm posting it is that the author and commentators are pretty convinced there's going to be a large scale Ukrainian offensive as soon as the ground hardens up.  They do not rule out Ukrainian successes and make no mention of any expectation that Russia will be on the offensive at any point this year.  I find that interesting.

I poked around in older article to see how this guy assessed things as they were happening.  Not too bad.  Again, downplaying Ukraine's capabilities and the scale of Russia's problems, but he did post this pretty good assessment of the situation as Kharkiv was in full swing and Kherson was beginning to fail:

https://en.topwar.ru/202758-strannaja-voennaja-operacija.html

Given our recent debate here, I want to draw your attention to two things this overtly pro-war Russian nationalist posted:

Quote

The acute shortage of soldiers at the front, which allowed the Armed Forces of Ukraine to go on the offensive in two directions at once (Kharkov and Kherson) is also one of the main problems, however, with the two points mentioned above unresolved, it will be almost impossible to stabilize the situation. Back in May-June, there were enough people to hold the territories and even attack, but the senseless assaults of the Ukrainian fortified areas in the forehead led to the fact that the infantry (especially the People's Militia of the LPR and DPR) was "wearing off", and there was no one to replenish it.

This is the exact situation that Russia has been tempting again with it's failed winter offensive.  The difference is that the removal of units to fight in the Donbas seems to have been backfilled by leftover mobiks from last year.  So unlike Kharkiv front last Fall, this Spring there should be denser concentrations of Russian infantry along the front.

However...

Quote

Well, the main question that arises - what's next? Suppose our troops manage to hold out until the approach of mobilized reserves, and the situation stabilizes. Let's assume that it will be possible to knock out the Armed Forces of Ukraine and reach the borders of the Zaporozhye and Donetsk regions. What's next? The military conflict will not end there.

He doesn't seem very optimistic even if Ukraine's military forces are defeated.  Which has been one of the consistent themes I've expressed since before this war started... Russia will lose a long term hybrid conventional/insurgency war in Ukraine.

To use the authors own words, that is because:

Quote

From all of the above, one can draw a disappointing conclusion - the Russian army was simply not ready for a military conflict of such a scale as in Ukraine.

Steve

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Made us remember this song.

Hello, is it me you're looking for? I can see it in your eyes I can see it in your smile You're all I've ever wanted And my arms are open wide 'Cause you know just what to say And you know just what to do

 

38 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Yes.  Yes it does.

Somewhat trivially, the mass of one bit m_bit= k_BTln(2)/c²

Where k_B is the Boltzmann constant, T is the storage temperature of the bit, and c is the speed of light.  Someone else even wrote it up as part of a paper on mass/energy/information equivalence:  https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

But I don't think that's what Steve was referring to.

I can't pull the formula out my back pocket like Chris but you can also calculate the cost of literally every operation in a microprocessor. Every time it takes to strings of ones and zeros and does something to them. Friends that can just casually recite the formula say most of the cost is the electricity, and the mark up someone like Amazon charges if you buy a lot of capacity is entirely reasonable. Capitalism at its finest.

[JonS]

4 hours ago, Fenris said:

Sure it's kinda amusing but if it does the job, meh, why not.  Maxim's and DShK's can still be lethal.  Some armour and tracks are better than a Soviet Scooby Van, in some situations, like for mounting surplus naval guns

I'm interested to see what else comes out of the back of the cupboard over the coming months.

That's true, but it does speak to a reducing option space. Armys don't just buy shiny new kit because it's shiny and new (well ... North Korea might, I suppose, but I really mean professional militaries, and yes I'm including the Soviet/Russians in that group). They buy new kit because it can do things that the old stuff can't do. Assuming decent maintenance the old stuff can still do all the things it could, but it can't do the new things.

It's a bit like Microsoft Windows, I suppose - if you really really like Win95 or WinXP then you can absolutely keep using it. And all the programs (and games!) you had will continue to work and your muscle memory will be intact and life will be good. But you probably won't be able to use Teams (which has proven kind of important over the last couple of years) and your CAD files will be in a format that no one else recognises or can use, and any word files you receive will be a jumbled mess.

To put that in military terms; the M198 and the M777 are both 155mm, and they both fire the same rounds. So if all you want to do is bang rounds away into the aether ... well, frankly you're probably better off with the M198. Those things are built like brick ****houses, and will just keep going like the energiser bunny. But if you want to move the gun, or network it, or shoot further, or faster, or with fewer men, or with more repeatable precision, then you're going to want the M777.

So, yes. If I'm in a foxhole with my little 5.56mm rifle and a couple of decades-old BTR-152 rock up, then yes I'm absolutely screwed. But if the Russians want to conduct a cross country advance, or cross a water obstacle, or operate at night or poor visibility, or provide ranged suppression fire while the dismounts close and kill, well, they aren't going to be doing it in those 152s. It's definitely better than not having some 152s, but it is also a whole lot worse than issuing the guys the BMP-3s they are supposed to have.

See also the arguments from back in the day about buying a ton of F-5s rather than 'wasting' money on all the buck rogers wonder-junk in the F16 or F18, or the Gavin vs. the Bradley.

Option spaces. That's what new stuff buys you.

Going back down the options-spaces-tree is not a good direction of travel.

Edited March 19, 2023 by JonS

[chrisl]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

I can't pull the formula out my back pocket like Chris but you can also calculate the cost of literally every operation in a microprocessor. Every time it takes to strings of ones and zeros and does something to them. Friends that can just casually recite the formula say most of the cost is the electricity, and the mark up someone like Amazon charges if you buy a lot of capacity is entirely reasonable. Capitalism at its finest.

And yer brain only uses 20-30 Watts most of the time, which is about the same ballpark as a ~$300 single board computer that can't do nearly as much fancy processing.

[chuckdyke]

That's why they need tanks.

 

 

[Fenris]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

That's true, but it does speak to a reducing option space. Armys don't just buy shiny new kit because it's shiny and new (well ... North Korea might, I suppose, but I really mean professional militaries, and yes I'm including the Soviet/Russians in that group). They buy new kit because it can do things that the old stuff can't do. Assuming decent maintenance the old stuff can still do all the things it could, but it can't do the new things.

It's a bit like Microsoft Windows, I suppose - if you really really like Win95 or WinXP then you can absolutely keep using it. And all the programs (and games!) you had will continue to work and your muscle memory will be intact and life will be good. But you probably won't be able to use Teams (which has proven kind of important over the last couple of years) and your CAD files will be in a format that no one else recognises or can use, and any word files you receive will be a jumbled mess.

To put that in military terms; the M198 and the M777 are both 155mm, and they both fire the same rounds. So if all you want to do is bang rounds away into the aether ... well, frankly you're probably better off with the M198. Those things are built like brick ****houses, and will just keep going like the energiser bunny. But if you want to move the gun, or network it, or shoot further, or faster, or with fewer men, or with more repeatable precision, then you're going to want the M777.

So, yes. If I'm in a foxhole with my little 5.56mm rifle and a couple of decades-old BTR-152 rock up, then yes I'm absolutely screwed. But if the Russians want to conduct a cross country advance, or cross a water obstacle, or operate at night or poor visibility, or provide ranged suppression fire while the dismounts close and kill, well, they aren't going to be doing it in those 152s. It's definitely better than not having some 152s, but it is also a whole lot worse than issuing the guys the BMP-3s they are supposed to have.

See also the arguments from back in the day about buying a ton of F-5s rather than 'wasting' money on all the buck rogers wonder-junk in the F16 or F18, or the Gavin vs. the Bradley.

Option spaces. That's what new stuff buys you.

Going back down the options-spaces-tree is not a good direction of travel.

Cheers, good post.

[chuckdyke]

Prophetic words.

 

 

[_Morpheus_]

Another good one with english subtitles. Interview of UAF with a lot of topics covered:
* mobilisation/rotation
* people
* wagner
* in house dron dropping system development

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by _Morpheus_