How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Lethaface]

Russia can has lots of artillery and even have (local) artillery dominance in number of barrels/shells fired while still sucking 'at it' comparatively / relatively.

That doesn't mean all their fires will be effective or ineffective.

One observation one could make imo is that Russia could have made much more effective military use of their artillery /indirect capabilities since the start of the war, while Ukraine seems to have been achieving a lot with little (at first at least) and thus are showcasing a better bang for their buck.

[Concrete]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Good lord what an incoherent mess:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/putin-mixes-threats-of-new-offensive-in-ukraine-with-offers-of-peace-talks-1.6439951

 

Noting Putin claims 160 Ukraine tanks destroyed but also 54 Russia tanks destroyed. The 160 number sounds like wishful thinking but why would he say they've lost 54 tanks themselves. That's a huge number for a week's fighting isnt it ? 

[sburke]

Russia has lost so much money due to the Ukraine war that it's now trying to raise $4 billion by slapping a windfall tax on its oligarchs (yahoo.com)

Russia is preparing to tax companies that made more than 1 billion rubles in profits since 2021.

The levy is expected to raise about $4 billion, a high-level finance official told RBC TV.

Russia posted a first-quarter deficit of almost 2.4 trillion rubles amid the war in Ukraine.

The Kremlin is feeling the pinch from its war in Ukraine, so much that it's imposing a one-time windfall tax on large Russian companies and their oligarch owners.

Russia approved a draft bill to slap up to a 10% one-off windfall tax on large Russian companies, according to a Tuesday announcement by the country's finance ministry.

It's targeting companies that annually made more than 1 billion rubles, or $11.9 million, in profits since 2021, per the announcement.

This levy could raise about 300 billion rubles, or $3.6 billion, in taxes collectively, Andrei Belousov, the first deputy prime minister, said in an interview with RBC TV, Interfax reported on Tuesday.

Belousov told RBC that the companies themselves proposed the taxes, according to Interfax.

[Harmon Rabb]

 

[panzermartin]

28 minutes ago, sburke said:

Sorry, just back from the emergency room.  I rolled my eyes so hard they were stuck staring at my eyebrows.  (which I also asked them to trim as they really needed it).

By that logic they should have immediately just said, "yep Moskva is on the bottom of the Black Sea."  I mean after all it wasn't like she was going to return to port right?

Hahah, no need to be so dramatic to the risk of injury

Look, we are probably the only corner in the internet right now, that from all that incident, and from all the 67 things that went wrong for UA and right for RU, we focused mainly on the arty. But lets go again. RU lies a lot, but probably less than they used to,simply because you can't hide everything from today's all seeing eye. 

Moskva was so shockingly embarrassing loss that I nearly understand the cope effort. Lying about artillery support in a *successful * mission (to lie to the public, to your commander, to the enemy) while the whole battle is filmed by your drones, makes 0% sense, I won't lie to you. 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Two things stand out to me: Ukraine's vehicle losses are likely very small. Because the Russians are clearly capable of filming what they shoot, so one can ask why there are not many more of such videos, if they are really tearing Ukrainian vehicles apart.

One the other hand, the front line is not currently moving very fast. If Russians were really on their last legs as the propaganda tells us, drunk, stupid, leaderless, incompetent, out of ammo, etc. then Ukraine should go through their lines as a knife through butter. That's not what we are seeing so far.

Both conclusions can be correct at the same time - that is how the situation would look like if the Russians kept incuring high casualties but kept pouring replacements to the front, trading bodies for distance/time.

Sorry for being repetitive, but this is almost the exact reverse of the situation occurring a year ago in Donbas. Russians had advantage in artillery fires but did not want to press attacks due to lack of infantry making them casualty-averse. They kept firing guns and MRLS and the Ukrainians kept sending replacements. If you remember, at that time the front moved mostly if in a particular place Ukrainian defences were demolished to the ground by arlillery. It should not take as long in Zaporozhe, because RUS trenches are not as developed as UKR ATO line was.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Naysayer? I don't think so, at least not just for the sake of it  I just value good analyses and discussions to gain knowledge. While I understand the temptation of getting rid of those annoying contrary opinions, the result is an echo chamber which is the exact opposite of gaining solid knowledge.

Agreed, but what is apparently sailing over the heads of some here is that uninformed comments ridiculing solid assessments do NOT qualify as "analysis" and do not have a positive contribution on the quality of the discussion.  In fact, we then have to spend time arguing about fundamentals and get distracted from what we should be discussing.

Being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian does not make for a higher quality discussion.

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

As long as people keep it civil, accept facts and can be reasoned with (there is of course no point in discussing with people who are always right, no matter how much evidence there is that they are actually wrong) I see no use in excluding them.

Sure, except when the contrarians are the ones not being polite or well reasoned, but instead of pursuing an agenda to stir things up because it's in their nature to do so. 

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think tensions and testosterone can run a bit high in this forum sometimes. We all want to see Ukraine kick Russia out as fast as possible, but it's also important to remember to be critical of all information coming out of this war.

Right, which is why it's important to look at the evidence we have in front of us with a critical eye and keep it within the larger context of other observations over time.  Some do that better than others.

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Two things stand out to me: Ukraine's vehicle losses are likely very small. Because the Russians are clearly capable of filming what they shoot, so one can ask why there are not many more of such videos, if they are really tearing Ukrainian vehicles apart.

One the other hand, the front line is not currently moving very fast. If Russians were really on their last legs as the propaganda tells us, drunk, stupid, leaderless, incompetent, out of ammo, etc. then Ukraine should go through their lines as a knife through butter. That's not what we are seeing so far.

Yes, and that's the frustrating thing for people like me.  It is entirely possible to argue that this is not going to be an easy fight for Ukraine and yet at the same time point out screamingly obvious Russian shortcomings as they present themselves.  It is the same opinion I've had since BEFORE the war began... Russia is incompetent at warfare, but good at causing destruction.  This war has always been about Ukraine being able to withstand the violence while finding a way to knock Russia out of this war.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

 

When I see clips of GMLRS like this I can't help but think "either they are on their way to kill something important, or they just did".  There is no other weapon system in this fight that causes me to think this.  Not tanks, not drones, not soldiers.  When we see a GMLRS on the move it is for a reason and that reason is always about something very specific going BOOM.

Steve

[Maciej Zwolinski]

2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Battalion commander Ahmat claims Kadyrov ordered them to abandon their positions and look for Delimkhamov ""[ungodly amount of emojis]" Complete withdrawal of all units deployed towards Mariinka, heading towards where Adam Delimkhanov is located We have received orders from Ramzan Akhmatovich Kadyrov to find him there by any means necessary and get him out, no matter what. A new order for AHMAT special forces, we will execute it unequivocally. AHMAT - STRENGTH RUSSIA - THE POWER OF ALLAH IS GREAT!

Hang on. Are Ahmat going to fight over Delimkhanov with Ukrainians or Russians? The quote seems (perhaps deliberately) unclear about this.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

When we see a GMLRS on the move it is for a reason and that reason is always about something very specific going BOOM.

I am not sure if this is the case anymore, as the Russians have reported that GMLRS is used as other MLRSes, to hit ordinary Russian troops in defensive positions. If this is true, then it is wonderful news  - UKR have finally got sufficient ammunition for GMLRS

[Beleg85]

8 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Hang on. Are Ahmat going to fight over Delimkhanov with Ukrainians or Russians? The quote seems (perhaps deliberately) unclear about this.

Maybe Kadyrov is trolling, but I frankly think he was simply stoned by some strange herbs from his mountains when writing this.

 

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ukraines-counteroffensive-begins-shall-leopards-break-free

Edited June 14, 2023 by Beleg85

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Pete Wenman said:

Thug Barrel life

 

 

That's surprising considering the aspect ratio of the barrel and thesubsequent projectile range. I would've expect a short lifespan

[Battlefront.com]

29 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Look, we are probably the only corner in the internet right now, that from all that incident, and from all the 67 things that went wrong for UA and right for RU, we focused mainly on the arty. But lets go again. RU lies a lot, but probably less than they used to,simply because you can't hide everything from today's all seeing eye. 

Absolutely false.  Russia lies no less than it ever has.  In fact, it probably lies more because the truth is harder to hide.

29 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Moskva was so shockingly embarrassing loss that I nearly understand the cope effort. Lying about artillery support in a *successful * mission (to lie to the public, to your commander, to the enemy) while the whole battle is filmed by your drones, makes 0% sense, I won't lie to you. 

You clearly do not understand the Russian mindset.  Let me give you a quick analogy...

The Armata tank design is a HUGE improvement over Soviet legacy designs.  Even if they had major problems getting all the subsystems to work correctly, the turret redesign alone was a major leap forward.  By your logic they had themselves something pretty impressive relative to 70+ years of previous designs and therefore would not need to lie about it.

Yet they lied A LOT.  Why?  Because they needed this tank to not only be seen as a relative improvement over Soviet designs, they needed it to be seen as being better than Western tanks.  The reason for that is complicated and has many facets, so I'll just leave that there.

So yes, the Russians lie even when by Western standards they don't need to.  Why?  Because by Russian standards they need to in order to make up for general shortcomings.

If you understand the Russian mindset then it makes 100% sense that they are lying about their artillery performance in this battle.  If you think it makes 0% sense, then clearly you don't understand the Russian mindset.  Arguments you make that are based on this failure to grasp a fundamental aspect of Russian psychology will ensure you continue to fall victim to it.

In short, you are being manipulated by Russia and the sooner you realize that the sooner you can make improvements to your arguments here.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I am not sure if this is the case anymore, as the Russians have reported that GMLRS is used as other MLRSes, to hit ordinary Russian troops in defensive positions. If this is true, then it is wonderful news  - UKR have finally got sufficient ammunition for GMLRS

Whether they are being used to blow up a platoon of infantry or a HQ with a general in it, my point stands.  When these things are on the move it is for a purpose and whatever it is involves something specific going boom.  Tanks, trucks, artillery, etc. are often seen moving around as part of routine work.  Not GMLRS.

And yes, if they are being used to hit lower valued infantry, that's a very good sign.  However, I am not sure that is the case.  Pro-Russians and pro-Ukrainians alike tend to attribute way too many things to HIMARS.  Guided 155 rounds are more likely to be used in near positions, not HIMARS.  There are other weapons such as hybrid JDAM type bombs as well.

Steve

[Maciej Zwolinski]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Tanks, trucks, artillery, etc. are often seen moving around as part of routine work.  Not GMLRS.

That I agree with. GMLRS relocating means some Ruzzians have just been promoted to the "good" category. Un marchand de mort subite.

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Sorry, just back from the emergency room.

You OK? Not a collateral damage casualty? Please do not expire prematurely!

[kevinkin]

Delicate situation:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/14/nato-stoltenberg-ukraine-membership-vilnius-summit/70317400007/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d4

The NATO chief said the alliance is working on a multi-year package that is likely to be agreed upon at the summit. The support package will help Ukraine meet the organization's standards for membership, he said.

From what I remember, NATO membership requires the new entry not to be in an active war. 

[kevinkin]

More on the NATO front:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/14/hungary-sweden-nato-james-risch-himars/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

Who every thought Sweden and Hungry would be involved in any controversy?

[Battlefront.com]

I had a nice post about the facts of the destruction of the 47th Brigade's Leo/Brads, but it was lost when the Forum was kicked into update mode.  Grr   So I will resort to a shorter summary...

There are two primary areas of destruction to look at, each distinctly separate from the other even though they were directly linked.  The first is the cluster of Brads, a Leo2, and a BMR-2.  They are out in the open and the destruction is concentrated.  The second is at least one Leo and a couple of Brads near a woodline.  There are a few vehicles outside of these two areas that were also disabled in some way, including at least one Leo2, but less is known about them.

The evidence, especially from Russian videos, shows that the first cluster was caused by 2 ATGM hits (one definitely from a helicopter, most likely KA-52) and at least 6 mine detonations.  There are absolutely no signs of artillery having been used in this area.  None, zip, nada.

The second area appears to have received fire from a single battery and possibly only one volley.  If additional volleys were made they hit treelines where it is impossible to assess.  Either way, the amount of artillery used in relation to the targets available was vastly less than what Russia's own doctrine calls for.

All modern fixed defense doctrine specifies artillery should be used in copious amounts for such circumstances.  This is especially true of Russian/Soviet doctrine that generally places a heavy emphasis on artillery.  Even if artillery was not effectively used to stop the Ukrainian mine clearing assaults, it should have been used en mass to prevent withdrawals and vehicle recoveries.  There is plenty of evidence to conclusively determine this did NOT happen.

We can only speculate as to the reasons Russia did not follow its doctrine, but "maybe they didn't feel like it" is the least likely scenario.  Also, due to obvious ISR on the target area it is pretty clearly not because Russia didn't know they had targets to engage.  I don't even think incompetence is at play here because it's one of the few things Russia has consistently shown competence at throughout this war.  Fear of losing artillery to counter battery fire may have played a role ("the enemy is already destroyed enough, let's not risk our guns"), though this would be a new development if true.

Therefore, it is logical to presume that some sort of practical constraint, or multiple constraints, prevented Russia from carrying out what should have SOP for any nation, especially Russia, in similar circumstances.  When coupled with other information it is highly probable that the reason Russia did not use artillery to the extent it should have, and traditionally has, is some combination of shortages.  Either of guns or of ammo or both.

Steve

[Centurian52]

15 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

The M16 has a max effective range of about 340 meters

Where are you getting that number from? I specifically remember having it drilled into my head in the Army that the max effective range of the M16 is 500 meters (550 yards), though we only trained for up to 300 meters because almost all combat was expected to take place within 300 meters. IIRC pretty much every rifle which uses iron sights maxes out at around 500 meters, because that is roughly the maximum distance that a human eye can resolve a human sized object.

[Centurian52]

14 hours ago, dan/california said:

Sorry it comes out hard to read on the board, 51 Oryx confirmed Russian vehicle losses in 24 hours. I rather like the line with 8 tanks to blown up to further identify.

So it sounds like, despite the difficulty of breeching operations and the slow, grinding progress, Ukraine is still inflicting disproportionate casualties on the Russians. That is very encouraging.

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, panzermartin said:

There you said it. I dont want to participate in another echo chamber, there are lots out there. Its understandable that given the composition of this board, that we might be turning into a North Atlantic war room and less of a discussion board, which might raise morale but isnt interesting, productive or even helpful for UA in the long run, if thats what most are interested about.

@Grigb I never said that russian arty as a whole isnt' affected by a year's and a half campaign. I only pointed out that the specific 47th incident was not enough for a conclusion in that sector. You even said that this failed breach was a success in revealing the arty positions of RU arty reserves, the same that The_Capt said that they dont exist. I  also don't think other posters here need lecturing like we are part of a military unit and we are briefed by the comissar. Thanks.

 

Ok, well I get the no echo chamber part but I also should be able to make professionally based observations without being accused of being a blind apologist hooked on “copium”.  And then when challenged by very weak counters and counter-challenge, I should not be accused of being a “commissar”.  You are of course free to have an uniformed opinion but I am not evil because I point it out.

This entire thing is an observation that on a UA mine breaching disaster - no debate on that, and trust me I have forgotten more about mechanized minefield breaching than just about everyone else you may meet - that RA artillery was tepid to the point of being odd for the context.  That suddenly turned into a crisis point of blind pro-Ukraine echo chamber building because in your opinion this observation was unmerited.  You did not back that up by any hard facts and have even admitted it is too early to tell.  Then when the freakin RA commander says through Russian MOD controlled media that his own artillery was very effective, your response is to crow on how that validates your own position.  When pressed your response was “why would Russia lie about such a thing?” To which I provided 4 different reasons…and now I am an echo chamber commissar.

FFS, you brought the weak arguments to the table and now we are to be punished for pointing that out…how is that not creating another echo chamber of its own?

We have been hearing reports of problems with RA indirect fire for months, this could simply be another data point - not a verdict on the entire Russian defence.  We will see in due time whether or not corrosive warfare will or will not work again.  Not every counter-RA observation is pro-Ukrainian or vice versa.  However, if you are going to start beaking off the least you can do is bring some actual facts or coherent observations to the party.  Unlike whatever social media, school or your friends/family or whatever told you, your opinion is not worth its weight in gold.  We do not respect it simply because you posted it.  It need facts, experience or something to support it.

Edited June 14, 2023 by The_Capt

[panzermartin]

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Therefore, it is logical to presume that some sort of practical constraint, or multiple constraints, prevented Russia from carrying out what should have SOP for any nation, especially Russia, in similar circumstances.  When coupled with other information it is highly probable that the reason Russia did not use artillery to the extent it should have, and traditionally has, is some combination of shortages.  Either of guns or of ammo or both

Will the report of the russian commander that "our artillery was engaged in counter battery operations during the early stages of the attack" offer a small alternative hint? If we can trust the russian commander...that is. But makes some sense there could be busy in a heavy CB duel that we just couldnt realize from the short video. For what is worth, some of their guns could have been even out of action or supressed by the time of the video as well.  

[Maciej Zwolinski]

24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Therefore, it is logical to presume that some sort of practical constraint, or multiple constraints, prevented Russia from carrying out what should have SOP for any nation, especially Russia, in similar circumstances.  When coupled with other information it is highly probable that the reason Russia did not use artillery to the extent it should have, and traditionally has, is some combination of shortages.  Either of guns or of ammo or both.

How about a CB mission forcing Russians to abort and displace? or RUS helicopters forcing the artillery to shut down to deconflict?

I must say I am not convinced by the Russians just electing to conserve ammo/guns,  with such a juicy target, in their place I would keep shooting even I had only practice rounds left and/or the barrels actually burst

[Maciej Zwolinski]

10 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

So it sounds like, despite the difficulty of breeching operations and the slow, grinding progress, Ukraine is still inflicting disproportionate casualties on the Russians.

That is quite traditional for Russian defence, e.g. Kursk