How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_MonkeyKing]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

No, recon should be doing their job and finding the minefield edges (hell they have multi-spectral cameras) and then a breaching operation is designed to:

1.  Establish a Force in Place on the friendly side to establish fire and overmatch.   In this day and age we would be talking UAS and deep fire support

2. Breaching teams - so explosive line charges.  Lengths vary but hundreds of meters.

3. Bridge head force - to secure far side

4. Break out force - to break out.

5.  In place and trafficking force to stay on the obstacle to keep it open for follow on ech.

The KA -52 is an AD problem that should be sorted before on tries to breach.

Cannot solve the helicopter problem within contested or mutually denied airspace.

Those things scoot and fire >10km away from "hull down" positions.

This is one way NATO would have handled large Soviet formations with extensive AA.

Fortunately these are not even close to the threat and volume of us army rotatory wing.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

No, recon should be doing their job and finding the minefield edges (hell they have multi-spectral cameras) and then a breaching operation is designed to:

1.  Establish a Force in Place on the friendly side to establish fire and overmatch.   In this day and age we would be talking UAS and deep fire support

2. Breaching teams - so explosive line charges.  Lengths vary but hundreds of meters.

Sorry for my complete lack of knowledge and questions out of the blue, but from what you are saying I understand that in practice a single minefield 10 km or more in depth is not a thing? 

Instead there may be several smaller, more discrete minefields requiring the breaching drill to be repeated several times, correct?

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Cannot solve the helicopter problem within contested or mutually denied airspace.

Those things scoot and fire >10km away from "hull down" positions.

This is one way NATO would have handled large Soviet formations with extensive AA.

Fortunately these are not even close to the threat and volume of us army rotatory wing.

Well you basically have to deny it father back. So SHORAD - maybe people should have been screaming for that instead of freakin Leopards - or you can strike the tac aviation support systems in depth.  Or you live with it and send in enough mass to get past it - of course this hits the ISR and PGM dilemma.  

[Battlefront.com]

Really nice interactive map of satellite located Russian fortifications:

https://nrg800.users.earthengine.app/view/russianfortifications

HINT = upper right allows toggling off sat images.  They load slowly and make it harder to see the strategic picture, but of course are great for looking in close.

Steve

[db_zero]

Just saw the pictures of the destroyed Bradleys and tank. We may have become too accustomed to seeing advanced western equipment steamroller enemies in favorable conditions of complete air superiority with ample artillery support.

Western armies have had years to practice and perfect the art of combined arms warfare. Everything I've seen by those who actually practiced it have said it's not too difficult to grasp in theory, but extremely difficult to execute in reality.

I've also seen doubts that the Ukrainians have enough of the new stuff to really match their ambitions and sending more as well as the advanced aircraft that many are clamoring for runs into the reality that you need a logistical and support network to support all of this.

This might be a reality check, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Edited June 9, 2023 by db_zero

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Sorry for my complete lack of knowledge and questions out of the blue, but from what you are saying I understand that in practice a single minefield 10 km or more in depth is not a thing? 

Instead there may be several smaller, more discrete minefields requiring the breaching drill to be repeated several times, correct?

Exactly.  A 10km deep minefield would be something you might see in Korea.  The Russians did not have time or resources to build those (and the UA would have seen them from space).  So we are likely talking about belts of minefields 200-500 ms deep.  For these one would do multiple charges in tandem and combine it with mech breaches in multiple places.

From the video this was likely not a major breaching operation, more likely a recon in force.  I mean unless there is more video showing a Bde assault.

[kimbosbread]

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So rollers are freakin heavy so AFVs and tanks.  Ploughs really are designed to be on tanks. And flails are specialized.  The unmanned versions I have seen tend to be smaller and are for clearing AP lanes but I do know there some larger ones out there.

Yeah all of those are really heavy. I guess what I’m really asking, with zero knowledge of mine fuzing, is can you set off AT mines with something much lighter, ex a jackhammer with a compactor plate, or an electromagnet so you don’t need a giant vehicle to move it around, and it’s more expendable.

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

So we are likely talking about belts of minefields 200-500 ms deep.  For these one would do multiple charges in tandem and combine it with mech breaches in multiple places.

Ah, so once you find the minefield with roller, flail, plough, sensors etc, then it’s charges all away?

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

From the video this was likely not a major breaching operation, more likely a recon in force.  I mean unless there is more video showing a Bde assault.

Sorry, one more from me. This is fascinating stuff. In the case of recon in force, is the minefield crossing done differently in any way?

[dan/california]

Just now, The_Capt said:

Well you basically have to deny it father back. So SHORAD - maybe people should have been screaming for that instead of freakin Leopards - or you can strike the tac aviation support systems in depth.  Or you live with it and send in enough mass to get past it - of course this hits the ISR and PGM dilemma.  

Your perspective is extraordinarily helpful as always. I do quibble a bit what Ukraine has been yelling for, they have been yelling every kind of SAM on earth that is more dangerous to the enemy than it is to its operators, due to aging rocket fuel or similar. The party line is that we are sending every system we can spare, and quite a few more besides. The fact that they wanted some tanks as well doesn't really effect the AA systems availability. And the AA systems we have sent have prevented Kyiv from being savaged, Ukraine is quite up front they need five times as many. The helicopter threat is exhibit #1 why Ukraine needs F-16s or similar.  They could throw radar guided missiles at them from WAY back.

[FancyCat]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well you basically have to deny it father back. So SHORAD - maybe people should have been screaming for that instead of freakin Leopards - or you can strike the tac aviation support systems in depth.  Or you live with it and send in enough mass to get past it - of course this hits the ISR and PGM dilemma.  

Tbf isn't NATO uniquely unequipped with SHORAD platforms due to relying on airpower for AD? Don't Gepards count as SHORAD? In defense of those screaming for Leopards, I recall much screaming over the Gepards, and whenever Switzerland tries to not sell ammo for said Gepards, more screaming is usually heard.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Yeah all of those are really heavy. I guess what I’m really asking, with zero knowledge of mine fuzing, is can you set off AT mines with something much lighter, ex a jackhammer with a compactor plate, or an electromagnet so you don’t need a giant vehicle to move it around, and it’s more expendable.

Ah, so once you find the minefield with roller, flail, plough, sensors etc, then it’s charges all away?

People have tried all sorts of stuff. And mines come in a lot of flavours.  You have magnetic impulse - so big steel will set it off, tilt rod, pressure and even seismic.  A minefield normally have mixed rows of these.  Some of those more exotic systems may get one type of mine but won’t do anything for the others.  And then there is the survivability of the system.  You can’t keep it in bubble wrap until you get it in the minefield, it has to roll down roads getting shelled and shot at, so lighter really equals either different war or way back from the line.

You can breach a lane with explosives or mechanically, often a full on breaching op will do both.

Now one thing we may see more of is good old fashion hand breaching at night.  These are dismounted sappers sneaking in and making a safe lane.  They can rig to blow all at once or doe hand lifts (but that is riskier).  

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Except the part where in the video I cannot see arty or ATGMs.

We have evidence that at least one vehicles was struck from a KA-52 (or similar) attack helicopter.

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 Those look like mine strikes to me.

Yes, but most likely because they were trying to move around a destroyed vehicle in the safe lane.  Otherwise why were they out in the minefield?

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Breaching is a one way trip under fire.  The new ISR dynamic makes it worse not better as your opponent can spot and react faster.  So sending a lone breacher out there and then waiting for the bridge head force you are giving more time to react.  If you are spotted under PGMs etc before hand you are dead anyway.  In fact if your opponent has that level of ISR you either need to change that or breach somewhere else.  In your scenario the breached dies and then the Bradley’s sit around waiting for another breacher system and there are damn few of these to begin with.

You have just made my argument   If you're under PGMs you are dead anyway, so if there's a real risk of that then why send forth a lot of nice juicy targets piled up behind a breaching vehicle? 

The old thinking was that you needed to get to the enemy before he could spot you or take you under effective fire.  That is something that doesn't seem to be plausible any longer.  So which scenario seems to be better:

1.  Drive only the breaching vehicle and make the enemy have to wait for an unknown period of time for when the attacking vehicles are going to use the path, presuming they use THIS path and not another one

2.  Drive everything at once where the enemy doesn't have to wait or guess at what is going to happen

Then consider what happens if the enemy does, in fact, have the ability to smash the breach attempt.  Would you rather be at risk of losing a single breaching vehicle, or would you rather have a vulnerable column of targets for the enemy to choose from?

My point here is the same as yours... if the enemy has the avenue covered with PGMs, or even well directed dumb artillery, the breaching operation will fail.  The presence of MBTs and/or IFVs does nothing to change the equation for the better, just offer the enemy more things to destroy for no gain on your part.

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This highlights the requirement to shape the battle space and erode an opponent a lot before attempting breaching operations - not lone breaching suicide missions.  From the video I cannot tell if the UA did that and they just ran into mines and kept pushing because they knew the defender would figure it out eventually? Or if they did not effectively shape the space then they were pretty much screwed at the start line.

As pointed out, it's hard to shape the space in all dimensions concurrently with any degree of certainty that you've missed NOTHING.  I dunno man, one lesson I'm taking from this war big time is that a single f'n COTS drone can really ruin your day.  And yet, those little buggers are hard to rule out.

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am thinking mine strikes because those vehicles are still intact (except one) and not all burning. 

Later video shows that some of them cooked off.  The Leopard looks pretty well fooked too.

Steve

[panzermartin]

Where are the geppards btw? Chasing Shakheeds in Kiev? 

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Your perspective is extraordinarily helpful as always. I do quibble a bit what Ukraine has been yelling for, they have been yelling every kind of SAM on earth that is more dangerous to the enemy than it is to its operators, due to aging rocket fuel or similar. The party line is that we are sending every system we can spare, and quite a few more besides. The fact that they wanted some tanks as well doesn't really effect the AA systems availability. And the AA systems we have sent have prevented Kyiv from being savaged, Ukraine is quite up front they need five times as many. The helicopter threat is exhibit #1 why Ukraine needs F-16s or similar.  They could throw radar guided missiles at them from WAY back.

I was talking about the unhealthy and unholy tank lust demonstrated on the forum.

[sburke]

Putin Cops to ‘Significant Losses,’ Inferior Weapons in Stunning War Admission (yahoo.com)

In a rare admission, Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Friday that Russia is sustaining “significant losses” in the war on Ukraine.

“In recent days, we have seen significant losses in Ukraine, they exceed the classical figure,” he said, according to the Kremlin.

The Russian president also confessed that Russian forces were dealing with artillery problems, adding in his remarks that “Yes, we still do not have enough of these modern weapons, but the defense industry, the country's military-industrial complex is developing rapidly.”

The dispirited comments about Moscow’s prospects in the war come just as Ukraine has launched a series of counteroffensives to push Russian forces out of the country.

The acknowledgment is a stark departure from typical messaging from Moscow. Putin and other Kremlin officials have long sought to paint the invasion as a success throughout the war, despite a stinging slew of losses and failed war plans. In March of last year, Putin claimed the operations were going according to plan, regardless of the Russian military’s failure to seize Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, in an embarrassing defeat.

The 2023 Blitz Most Feared by Putin May Have Finally Begun

It doesn’t appear that Putin has completely thrown in the towel just yet, though. The Russian president attempted to throw cold water on the idea that Ukraine is fully succeeding in their counteroffensive. He added, however, that the Ukrainian military may yet achieve victory on the battlefield.

“It can be stated that all counteroffensive attempts made so far have failed, but the offensive potential of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has still been preserved,” Putin said.

The Kremlin has been working to right-size expectations within Russia about the outcome of the war. Moscow recently circulated a memo to propagandists suggesting that Russia hasn’t underestimated Ukrainian forces, in an apparent effort to set the stage for a less humiliating defeat.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

I was talking about the unhealthy and unholy tank lust demonstrated on the forum.

I resemble that remark, especially after a beer or two.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

Putin Cops to ‘Significant Losses,’ Inferior Weapons in Stunning War Admission (yahoo.com)

In a rare admission, Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Friday that Russia is sustaining “significant losses” in the war on Ukraine.

“In recent days, we have seen significant losses in Ukraine, they exceed the classical figure,” he said, according to the Kremlin.

The Russian president also confessed that Russian forces were dealing with artillery problems, adding in his remarks that “Yes, we still do not have enough of these modern weapons, but the defense industry, the country's military-industrial complex is developing rapidly.”

The dispirited comments about Moscow’s prospects in the war come just as Ukraine has launched a series of counteroffensives to push Russian forces out of the country.

The acknowledgment is a stark departure from typical messaging from Moscow. Putin and other Kremlin officials have long sought to paint the invasion as a success throughout the war, despite a stinging slew of losses and failed war plans. In March of last year, Putin claimed the operations were going according to plan, regardless of the Russian military’s failure to seize Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, in an embarrassing defeat.

The 2023 Blitz Most Feared by Putin May Have Finally Begun

It doesn’t appear that Putin has completely thrown in the towel just yet, though. The Russian president attempted to throw cold water on the idea that Ukraine is fully succeeding in their counteroffensive. He added, however, that the Ukrainian military may yet achieve victory on the battlefield.

“It can be stated that all counteroffensive attempts made so far have failed, but the offensive potential of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has still been preserved,” Putin said.

The Kremlin has been working to right-size expectations within Russia about the outcome of the war. Moscow recently circulated a memo to propagandists suggesting that Russia hasn’t underestimated Ukrainian forces, in an apparent effort to set the stage for a less humiliating defeat.

Interesting!  The Rybar post I quoted a page or two again was apparently Putin's speech!  Would have been nice if he made that clear.

Steve

[Haiduk]

4 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Where are the geppards btw? Chasing Shakheeds in Kiev? 

Yes, they mostly guard bridges and infrastructure objects. And not only in Kyiv

Edited June 9, 2023 by Haiduk

[panzermartin]

1 minute ago, Haiduk said:

Yes, they mostly guard bridges and infrastructure objects

Thanks, I had guessed that maybe they would be useful closer to the offensive? 

Edit :Although I see the Ka52 using the maximum range permitted, and gepard has only 5.5 km effective range

Edited June 9, 2023 by panzermartin

[Haiduk]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Interesting!  The Rybar post I quoted a page or two again was apparently Putin's speech!  Would have been nice if he made that clear.

Steve

Putin told about UKR losses, that they suffered during assaults, not about Russian. This is probably misunderstanding of context by translators

Edited June 9, 2023 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

3 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Thanks, I had guessed that maybe they would be useful closer to the offensive? 

Edit :Although I see the Ka52 using the maximum range permitted, and gepard has only 5.5 km effective range

As I know Gepards are not in ground forces AD, but reinforce country AD.

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Sorry, one more from me. This is fascinating stuff. In the case of recon in force, is the minefield crossing done differently in any way?

Well from the video this looks like a single lane breach.  In fact it kinda looks like the breach went through when the picture pans out and these guys were doing follow on and got got.  A recon in force is going to go in lighter as they are not trying to push a formation but instead units/sub-units.  So we see a single breaching system, there were likely two.  A full on assault would have a lot more resources.  I think the tip will be explosive breaching if the UA has it.

[kluge]

13 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Yeah all of those are really heavy. I guess what I’m really asking, with zero knowledge of mine fuzing, is can you set off AT mines with something much lighter

Yes, but it comes down to a question of how quickly can it be done.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is one of the most problematic aspects of the West's equipping of Ukrainian forces... small numbers of easily identifiable vehicles whose total inventory count is largely known.

Also, it is a result of the marrying up some of the the rawest troops with some of the newest equipment a la Volksgrenadiere units.  If the Ukrainians do not want to use their best in the first assault, they have to pick between saving the best soldiers and saving their best tanks

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Then consider what happens if the enemy does, in fact, have the ability to smash the breach attempt.  Would you rather be at risk of losing a single breaching vehicle, or would you rather have a vulnerable column of targets for the enemy to choose from?

My point here is the same as yours... if the enemy has the avenue covered with PGMs, or even well directed dumb artillery, the breaching operation will fail.  The presence of MBTs and/or IFVs does nothing to change the equation for the better, just offer the enemy more things to destroy for no gain on your part.

I honestly think that if you have not shaped it, the lone breacher is going to die.  A lone tank with a plough is just a suicide mission if the enemy has ISR and PGMs linked.  So sure it is a bad idea to send a breaching force in too because it is a bad idea to send any force.  I don’t think it makes life any better to lone gun the breathers in that environment.

I suspect the forces here thought they had a better grip on it, and frankly I can see a lane past where they get hit so something got through either before or after them.  It looks more like a breach lane misadventure to be honest.  The Bradley’s kept pushing because even blinded or shaped the RA is going to figure it out if one spends a long weekend out there.

I really don’t think it is an “old doctrine/new doctrine” issue, it is new environment where setting conditions for a breaching op have changed dramatically - you know we did see this coming?  If they had done the lone vehicle they may have only lost the Leo but by taking too long to get over the obstacle they could easily lose the same Bradley’s on the other side of the obstacle - recall the river fiasco for the RA down at Severodonetsk?  It is really pick you poison.

Basically we have a lone KA-52 and what may be some mortar impacts.  The rest looks like mines.  So the UA may very well have established conditions but then got all FUBAR in the lane, then the UASs shows up and time to say bye bye to the nice US hardware and run like hell.