How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

10 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Payback?

 

Very nice. I love Lucky Strike...

[Centurian52]

16 hours ago, Kraft said:

But nobody can be dumb enough to think terror bombing ever worked

Now that I've cooled down a bit, I think I can address this. Basically, Russian military thinking is behind the times.

Back when long range bombing first became a thing it was not immediately obvious that terror bombing couldn't break peoples' will to fight, and it certainly wasn't obvious that it would actually harden their resolve to fight. Everyone (not just the Germans, but the Americans and British too) thought that you could potentially break a population's will to fight with terror bombing (although even back then you would think that the moral imperative of not killing civilians should have been enough). It took far longer than it should have for the United States to figure out that terror bombing not only doesn't work, but is counter-productive.

There should have been enough data for us to figure that out in WW2, but ineffective bombing campaigns seem to have been something of a blind spot for us. It didn't help that Japan surrendered shortly after getting nuked (even in that case, some fresh perspectives are shedding light on the possibility that it wasn't the nukes that convinced them to surrender). We kept conducting terror bombing through WW2, Korea, and even as late as Vietnam. In the Gulf War we finally made a concerted effort to avoid hitting civilians, with the only civilians killed in bombings being from high profile accidents.

The problem today is that Russian/Soviet military history is not our military history. They didn't fight the same wars we fought, or were on very different fronts, and their officers didn't hang out with our officers very much to share experiences. So they didn't learn the same lessons we learned, in the same order, or in the same way*. And we weren't exactly eager to share lessons with the Soviets during the Cold War. Their thinking on bombing has advanced, at most, to about the point we were at in Vietnam.

* Another example of this is that we figured out back in WW1 that decentralized control (what we call 'mission command') was the correct approach to C2 in modern warfare. Meanwhile the Russians still use a more centralized (almost Napoleonic, but with radios) style of command, in which the word of the commanding officer is law.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Centurian52

[Centurian52]

double post

Edited April 29, 2023 by Centurian52

[kevinkin]

I can think of a country at war that might be able to put these to good use:

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/04/uparmed-10s-return-mideast-skies-amid-tension-iran-russia/385727/

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Hit with what?  A tilt rod mine?

Yes

[womble]

14 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

I can think of a country at war that might be able to put these to good use:

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/04/uparmed-10s-return-mideast-skies-amid-tension-iran-russia/385727/

Not really without better SEAD capability, I reckon. So not this war, but maybe next time whatever successor state follows Putin feels the need to generate an external threat-response for the purposes of deflecting internal criticism... There should be plenty of 'hogs on the surplus market by then, and the UKR airforce might have the tools and know-how to suppress RUS AD complexes enough 

[Nastypastie]

48 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Now that I've cooled down a bit, I think I can address this. Basically, Russian military thinking is behind the times.

Back when long range bombing first became a thing it was not immediately obvious that terror bombing couldn't break peoples' will to fight, and it certainly wasn't obvious that it would actually harden their resolve to fight. Everyone (not just the Germans, but the Americans and British too) thought that you could potentially break a population's will to fight with terror bombing (although even back then you would think that the moral imperative of not killing civilians should have been enough). It took far longer than it should have for the United States to figure out that terror bombing not only doesn't work, but is counter-productive.

There should have been enough data for us to figure that out in WW2, but ineffective bombing campaigns seem to have been something of a blind spot for us. It didn't help that Japan surrendered shortly after getting nuked (even in that case, some fresh perspectives are shedding light on the possibility that it wasn't the nukes that convinced them to surrender). We kept conducting terror bombing through WW2, Korea, and even as late as Vietnam. In the Gulf War we finally made a concerted effort to avoid hitting civilians, with the only civilians killed in bombings being from high profile accidents.

The problem today is that Russian/Soviet military history is not our military history. They didn't fight the same wars we fought, or were on very different fronts, and their officers didn't hang out with our officers very much to share experiences. So they didn't learn the same lessons we learned, in the same order, or in the same way*. And we weren't exactly eager to share lessons with the Soviets during the Cold War. Their thinking on bombing has advanced, generously, to about the point we were at in Vietnam.

* Another example of this is that we figured out back in WW1 that decentralized control (what we call 'mission command') was the correct approach to C2 in modern warfare. Meanwhile the Russians still use a more centralized (almost Napoleonic, but with radios) style of command, in which the word of the commanding officer is law.

The allies found from their own experience with the Blitz that the biggest effect you could have by strategic bombing wasn't strictly targeting the factories, which were becoming more resilient to damage and were very quickly back in production after being bombed. It was in de housing the population. People cant work in industrial areas without proper homes in a homelessness crisis.

Kraut did a really good piece on the subject a few years ago. I've watched it a few times.

 

[kevinkin]

I don't know, Ukraine has been very industrious and might find a way to evade Russian AD including MANPADs in special situations. I think Ukraine has been using air assets in limited quantities at low level when they think it's safe to do so. But the lead time would not put A10s in combat anytime soon. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by kevinkin

[billbindc]

59 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Now that I've cooled down a bit, I think I can address this. Basically, Russian military thinking is behind the times.

Back when long range bombing first became a thing it was not immediately obvious that terror bombing couldn't break peoples' will to fight, and it certainly wasn't obvious that it would actually harden their resolve to fight. Everyone (not just the Germans, but the Americans and British too) thought that you could potentially break a population's will to fight with terror bombing (although even back then you would think that the moral imperative of not killing civilians should have been enough). It took far longer than it should have for the United States to figure out that terror bombing not only doesn't work, but is counter-productive.

There should have been enough data for us to figure that out in WW2, but ineffective bombing campaigns seem to have been something of a blind spot for us. It didn't help that Japan surrendered shortly after getting nuked (even in that case, some fresh perspectives are shedding light on the possibility that it wasn't the nukes that convinced them to surrender). We kept conducting terror bombing through WW2, Korea, and even as late as Vietnam. In the Gulf War we finally made a concerted effort to avoid hitting civilians, with the only civilians killed in bombings being from high profile accidents.

The problem today is that Russian/Soviet military history is not our military history. They didn't fight the same wars we fought, or were on very different fronts, and their officers didn't hang out with our officers very much to share experiences. So they didn't learn the same lessons we learned, in the same order, or in the same way*. And we weren't exactly eager to share lessons with the Soviets during the Cold War. Their thinking on bombing has advanced, generously, to about the point we were at in Vietnam.

* Another example of this is that we figured out back in WW1 that decentralized control (what we call 'mission command') was the correct approach to C2 in modern warfare. Meanwhile the Russians still use a more centralized (almost Napoleonic, but with radios) style of command, in which the word of the commanding officer is law.

Russia isn't employing a military strategy when it hits Ukrainian civilian targets. It is employing a political strategy. Domestically, it provides evidence to the mass of Russian hardliners that there is no length that Putin won't go to win. In Ukraine, it sends the message that Russia will relentlessly attack in all ways without remorse until Zelensky submits. This isn't mass bombing in the style of WWII or even Vietnam. It is communication.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Yes

Well I guess that answers an age old combat diver question once and for all.

[Centurian52]

17 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Russia isn't employing a military strategy when it hits Ukrainian civilian targets. It is employing a political strategy. Domestically, it provides evidence to the mass of Russian hardliners that there is no length that Putin won't go to win. In Ukraine, it sends the message that Russia will relentlessly attack in all ways without remorse until Zelensky submits. This isn't mass bombing in the style of WWII or even Vietnam. It is communication.

Politics are central to warfare. Saying it's a political strategy doesn't make it not a military strategy. Saying it's political only specifies what level of warfare we are operating on (the strategic layer, not the operational or tactical layers). And how do you think the theory behind the terror bombings of WW2 and Vietnam worked? They were trying to send exactly the same message to the Germans, Japanese, and Vietnamese that the Russians are trying to send to Ukraine.

The problem with this sort of messaging is that the message that people receive is usually not the message you thought you were sending. You think you are sending the message "the only way to end this suffering is to give up", but the message people are actually receiving is "the perpetrator of this attack is a monster who deserves no sympathy or remorse".

[sburke]

Videos appear to show the aftermath of a precision strike by US-supplied HIMARS missiles on officers' quarters at a Russian base in Ukraine (yahoo.com)

Videos appear to show a Russian base in Ukraine destroyed by HIMARS missiles.

A Russian officer said three missiles struck the building where 58th Army officers were stationed.

Ukraine has not commented on the attack.

Videos appear to show the aftermath of a HIMARS strike on a Russian base in Ukraine, roughly 12 miles from the contact line.

Russian officer Oleg Marzoev said on Telegram that three US-supplied HIMARS missiles struck a building where officers of the Vladikavkaz garrison of the 58th Army were stationed.

The GeoConfirmed account on Twitter, which compiles the geolocation of videos and images from the conflict, said the location of the videos had been confirmed.

One of the videos shared by Marzoev is filmed by a Russian officer who was on the roof of the building when the strikes hit.

[Kinophile]

46 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well I guess that answers an age old combat diver question once and for all.

? 

[hcrof]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

Russia isn't employing a military strategy when it hits Ukrainian civilian targets. It is employing a political strategy. Domestically, it provides evidence to the mass of Russian hardliners that there is no length that Putin won't go to win. In Ukraine, it sends the message that Russia will relentlessly attack in all ways without remorse until Zelensky submits. This isn't mass bombing in the style of WWII or even Vietnam. It is communication.

As far as I can see the vast majority of these hits on civilian targets are just misses from nearby (real or imagined) military related infrastructure (they have a fairly loose definition of that though). The Russians are not deliberately terror bombing they just don't care if they hit civilians while they go after what they perceive as higher value targets. 

These misses are caused by old/bad information, inaccurate missiles, poor mission planning, AD shootdowns etc. The Russians (rightly or wrongly) think they are targeting ammo dumps, machine repair shops, factories, training centres, transport infrastructure, hospitals, substations etc. 

If the Russians really wanted to do a terror bombing campaign they would just fling a bunch of dumb bombs or rockets randomly at Kharkiv or Kherson and we would be getting daily updates of the destruction. 

Don't take this as me defending them, but they are not carpet bombing like it's 1945, and they don't want to waste million dollar missiles on a handful of civilians in a tower block. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by hcrof
Clarity

[billbindc]

22 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Politics are central to warfare. Saying it's a political strategy doesn't make it not a military strategy. Saying it's political only specifies what level of warfare we are operating on (the strategic layer, not the operational or tactical layers). And how do you think the theory behind the terror bombings of WW2 and Vietnam worked? They were trying to send exactly the same message to the Germans, Japanese, and Vietnamese that the Russians are trying to send to Ukraine.

The problem with this sort of messaging is that the message that people receive is usually not the message you thought you were sending. You think you are sending the message "the only way to end this suffering is to give up", but the message people are actually receiving is "the perpetrator of this attack is a monster who deserves no sympathy or remorse".

You said specifically that "Russian military thinking is behind the times" and described above and earlier how terror and/or strategic bombing didn't work. Which, of course, it didn't and the Russians know that. At best, these campaigns wear on Ukrainian air defenses but Russia knows better than anyone that its air force is ill prepared to take advantage of that fact. So no, it's not really a military strategy at all unless you broaden out the meaning of the term so far that everything is. Russia's semi-indescriminate bombing is almost entirely political in nature...aimed at looking stern and violently busy to its own hardline factions who are the only improbably likely danger to the regime. Bakhmut was a similar situation...action without real hope of success or compelling strategic logic in order to send a message. Think of it as grey zone thinking run amok (or turned to for lack of anything else to try).

[billbindc]

12 minutes ago, hcrof said:

As far as I can see the vast majority of these hits on civilian targets are just misses from nearby (real or imagined) military related infrastructure (they have a fairly loose definition of that though). The Russians are not deliberately terror bombing they just don't care if they hit civilians while they go after what they perceive as higher value targets. 

These misses are caused by old/bad information, inaccurate missiles, poor mission planning, AD shootdowns etc. The Russians (rightly or wrongly) think they are targeting ammo dumps, machine repair shops, factories, training centres, transport infrastructure, hospitals, substations etc. 

If the Russians really wanted to do a terror bombing campaign they would just fling a bunch of dumb bombs or rockets randomly at Kharkiv or Kherson and we would be getting daily updates of the destruction. 

Don't take this as me defending them, but they are not carpet bombing like it's 1945, and they don't want to waste million dollar missiles on a handful of civilians in a tower block. 

Some of these attacks are certainly mistakes or simply not giving much of a **** about accuracy but there have been far too many attacks on civilian targets to call it a marginal effect. See below for just one example: 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dozens-of-russian-missiles-strike-civilian-targets-in-ukrainian-cities

Edited April 29, 2023 by billbindc

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

Russia isn't employing a military strategy when it hits Ukrainian civilian targets. It is employing a political strategy. Domestically, it provides evidence to the mass of Russian hardliners that there is no length that Putin won't go to win. In Ukraine, it sends the message that Russia will relentlessly attack in all ways without remorse until Zelensky submits. This isn't mass bombing in the style of WWII or even Vietnam. It is communication.

Ah, this makes sense.  I was thinking how incredibly stupid it is for Putin to target civilians.  It increases UKR soldiers' determination to kill russians and kick them out.  But this makes sense -- it's intended to make the crazies at home to feel good.  And there's lots of crazies. 

[Centurian52]

6 hours ago, Elmar Bijlsma said:

Since I am not above shamelessly stealing a joke from Reddit:

 

Are we sure that is an oil depot on fire and not Admiral Kuznetsov pulling into Sevastopol harbour?

If Turkey hadn't closed the Bosporus strait to military traffic, that would be a legit possibility

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well I guess that answers an age old combat diver question once and for all.

Explaination of incident and other video (because already voices "UKR nazis killed peaceful fisher" have appeared)

Brief translation from TG screen:

1. Sailing on boats is strictly prohibited for civilains by both sides. So, if this guy was a fisher, he is a nominant on Darwin Award

2. But he is not a fisher - this is well-known person with name Sergey, which have a dirt work - he changes own closes to civilians and sail on rubber boat without engine between islands. His task - to set boobytraps but more - to cut fingers of killed Russian soldiers, which lay in big number on the islands and nobody evacuate them. FIngers are for DNA tests, that soldier can be officially recognized as dead.

3. In his boay you can see some sort of RPG or PRO-A

4. When he spotted our drone, he became gesticulate like "don't kill me" and point out on UKR bank of river like "I want to surrender"

5. But he was unlucky and sail over numerous mines. The end. 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

Some of these attacks are certainly mistakes or simply not giving much of a **** about accuracy but there have been far too many attacks on civilian targets to call it a marginal effect. See below for just one example: 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dozens-of-russian-missiles-strike-civilian-targets-in-ukrainian-cities

The theory that Russia is killing civilians by missile strikes on purpose for domestic audience doesn't hold up exactly as you stated.  They could get even more mileage out of saying they hit an electrical substation or a military base.  This is what the RU Nat bloggers are demanding, so whacking a shopping mall or housing doesn't achieve anything from their perspective either.

Having said that, if Russian military planners have realized that they don't have good targeting data and/or don't have missiles to hit them even if they did, yet they are firing off the missiles anyway to keep the domestic critics entertained, then it's a slightly different matter.  Instead of not firing off a bunch of missiles that have little chance of hitting anything of real value to Russia's war effort, they could be picking targets they think they have a chance of hitting and then making do with whatever gets hit.  The RU Nats aren't going to be happy that all the powerful Russian military can do is kill a few kids and their parents, but hey... better than nothing, right?

Note that this is significantly different than Russia's concept of randomly shelling cities like Kharkiv with artillery last year.  The idea here is more likely a Scorched Earth concept where "if we can't have it, nobody shall have it" mentality.  It's partly a temper tantrum, it's partly a component of a longer range goal to weaken Ukraine as a nation state.  Every $1 that gets spent reconstructing something Russia destroyed is $1 not being spent making Ukraine an economic and political threat to the Russian Federation.

It could be that the missile campaign is now an extension of the artillery campaign perhaps out of desperation.

Steve

[akd]

UKR assault on a fairly well-developed Russian fortified position around Bakhmut:

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

UK MoD on Russian missile strikes.

 

[Letter from Prague]

38 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Note that this is significantly different than Russia's concept of randomly shelling cities like Kharkiv with artillery last year.  The idea here is more likely a Scorched Earth concept where "if we can't have it, nobody shall have it" mentality.  It's partly a temper tantrum, it's partly a component of a longer range goal to weaken Ukraine as a nation state.  Every $1 that gets spent reconstructing something Russia destroyed is $1 not being spent making Ukraine an economic and political threat to the Russian Federation.

It could be that the missile campaign is now an extension of the artillery campaign perhaps out of desperation.

Steve

That is what I was thinking - people talk about Russian larger strategy and stuff, or coldly analyze things. I think a lot of what Russia is doing is more emotional - like abuser lashing out on victim standing up to them.

[Battlefront.com]

41 minutes ago, akd said:

UKR assault on a fairly well-developed Russian fortified position around Bakhmut:

 

That's quite a large complex.  Concrete bunkers seems to me to indicate this was used to be a Ukrainian position.  Didn't look like a prefab bunker and I'm not sure Russia would have had the time or opportunity to pour concrete this winter.

Steve

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The theory that Russia is killing civilians by missile strikes on purpose for domestic audience doesn't hold up exactly as you stated.  They could get even more mileage out of saying they hit an electrical substation or a military base.  This is what the RU Nat bloggers are demanding, so whacking a shopping mall or housing doesn't achieve anything from their perspective either.

Having said that, if Russian military planners have realized that they don't have good targeting data and/or don't have missiles to hit them even if they did, yet they are firing off the missiles anyway to keep the domestic critics entertained, then it's a slightly different matter.  Instead of not firing off a bunch of missiles that have little chance of hitting anything of real value to Russia's war effort, they could be picking targets they think they have a chance of hitting and then making do with whatever gets hit.  The RU Nats aren't going to be happy that all the powerful Russian military can do is kill a few kids and their parents, but hey... better than nothing, right?

Note that this is significantly different than Russia's concept of randomly shelling cities like Kharkiv with artillery last year.  The idea here is more likely a Scorched Earth concept where "if we can't have it, nobody shall have it" mentality.  It's partly a temper tantrum, it's partly a component of a longer range goal to weaken Ukraine as a nation state.  Every $1 that gets spent reconstructing something Russia destroyed is $1 not being spent making Ukraine an economic and political threat to the Russian Federation.

It could be that the missile campaign is now an extension of the artillery campaign perhaps out of desperation.

Steve

I think your second paragraph gets closer to what I mean. I don't think Russia has quality targeting data and what data they have is usually aged by the time they can close their ooda loop. So they simply can't routinely satisfy what the more logical nat bloggers are demanding and that audience is just a part of who they are messaging. A more important audience are the much larger mass of citizens who gargle with ressentiment every morning. They have a racist and essentially fascist view of Ukrainians and are willing to put up with quite a bit as long as they see them being punished for daring to reject domination. Not to coin a phrase but spend enough looking into the grey zone, and the grey zone looks into you.