How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[strac_sap]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This has to be US terminology.  In Canada breaching is essentially creating a safelane that can be trafficked by F through B echelons.  “Clearing” is getting rid of the entire minefield and is part of a larger demining program.  Breaching can be done by hand - but don’t forget anti-handling triggers,  mechanically (rollers, ploughs and flails) or explosively.  

A breaching operation of any covered minefield ranks pretty high on the risk meter because you are basically trying to push entire mech formations through some pretty narrow defiles where the ground will explode on either side.

Given how this war has gone so far and with the levels of ISR at play I would honestly be looking at manual breaching ahead of an assault.  Done at night by dispersed sappers or pioneers and you may have a better chance of getting through.  That or go explosive hard.  Line charges and rollers - very high profile but probably the fastest way to go.

@The_Capt I believe you are an engineer officer? My experience is in the confines of junior enlisted (private to sergeant) so I like to read your broader analysis.

Yes, I think I forgot to define those terms, and they match what you said. Breach is to make passable, clear is to remove all the mines.

Unfortunately without some new technology I agree with you about needing some way to breach away from peering eyes. Night stealth approach. If done by hand all the mines would need to be found and then either removed or charges set to destroy. But this is difficult because of antihandling devices and being out at night in an enemy minefield boggles the mind.

One reality that was emphasized to us was that in certain conditions breaching was going to result in a lot of casualties. That was the reality we had to accept. So going in with plows, rollers, and MICLICs and getting killed is part of the game.

Edited June 28, 2023 by strac_sap
spelling

[kluge]

1 hour ago, benpark said:

How much (if any) pulsed air pressure from above a mine/mines would need to be exerted to fire off anything under a cone of something like an intense audio burst?.

The sonic boom produced by an aircraft flying below 100 feet can generate over 10 pounds of overpressure. As a thought experiment, could this be a new use for those shiny F-16s?

[strac_sap]

18 minutes ago, dan/california said:

https://twitter.com/search?q=go1 robot dog&src=typed_query&f=top

The harder I look at even the dumb mine problem, lets leave next generation smart mines for another day,the more a I think it has to be a small robot solution.

My current back of the envelope theory would be to have a fairly capable robot dog, or UAV, mark the mines as stealthily as possible, and then have small army of the cheapest possible robots go kamikaze on the marked mines at the time of the assault. $1000 dollars per mine to get a breach in combat conditions works out to be a reasonable number when you aren't having to risk really expensive hardware or people to get it done.

My math says that even if each mine took its own $500 dollar robot, a ten meter wide lane thru a field half a kilometer deep, with a mine density of 1 mine per square meter, cost $2,500,000. That is better than break even if you assume every breach using current tech cost you one one armored vehicle. If each robot could lay a a few charges before parking on the last mine in its assigned series cost would come down that much more.

The twenty or thirty years we spent thinking we would never have to do this again are proving expensive.

Sounds reasonable. Issues: detecting buried mines especially non magnetic? Failure rate of detection robots and kamikazes? As always AI can be part of this process, learning. Probably more issues, but I agree the cost is small compared to what we've seen. And mines are a menace so fixing it needs to be looked at in earnest.

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Yet said:

uhhh.huh? i assume you mean 'the democracy with the strongest militairy power. 

Militarily, economically, culturally (including linguistically), and politically (i.e. foreign soft power) the US is the strongest country in the world now and, argued by many, the strongest and most influential nation since nations began.  It is also a democracy, ergo it is the strongest democracy.  It might not stay that way in the near future, but that is where it is today despite domestic pressures trying to reverse course.

6 hours ago, Yet said:

Gerrymandering, unclear votingrules, strong unindependant media, decreasing the amount of voting stations in the areas of the city where your party isnt favourable, winner takes the state.

this is only a start... and we all know it. i dont think USA has the strongest democracy.

Mostly these are worrying signs that are overblown in terms of their importance and impact.  Especially by media that is looking for something to get people riled up about.  No different than any European nation, I might add.

The fact is that many of the problems that are being discussed today in the US used to be MUCH worse.  Oh, like people without white skin weren't allowed to vote at all by law, then they were allowed to vote but it didn't get counted.  And whatever bad statistics there are about abuse of citizens at the hands of the police, it wasn't that long ago when a US state ordered National Guard to use live ammunition on student protestors.

As sour as I am on some of the things going on within US politics, and as happy as I am to not live in certain US states, by most objective measures the overall condition of US democracy is better than it has been in the past, especially compared to the 1950s-1970s.  The concern amongst many is there are those who think the 1950s was a fine time and we should return to it.  Europe has plenty of this regressive pressure going on as well.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The last of K-2's "Granite" video series:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/14latir/defense_of_granit_series_5_believing_marauder/

Not too much to see in this one other than how close rounds can come to soldiers and still not take them down.  At the end there is a most unusual scene to have captured on video... a Russian soldier caring about the death of one of his comrades.  He stayed behind while the rest retreated.  He positioned the body (likely a sign of respect) and can be seen crossing himself while probably offering prayer.  He then attends to the body in some way, perhaps removing personal effects to send home, and appears to mark the location or something deliberate with a stick.  After that is all done, he picks up his rifle and fires a couple of shots in the air, then retreats back to his lines.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Some more videos and stuff of interest:

1.  looks like something fun was hit in Melitopol.  Either an ammo dump or some sort of rocket system (AD, MLRS):

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/14l53nf/melitopol_las_night/

 

2.  Supposed SU-25 hit, not downed, by MANPAD:

 

3.  Looks like the 22nd Mech Brigade landed some of the Polish P-91 tanks:

https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/22-mehbrygada-otrymala-na-ozbroyennya-pt-91-twardy/

 

4.  Looks like a couple of HIMARS took out a building in northern Donetsk City that was being used by newly arrived Russian forces.  I'm going to guess this was not a typical military target as it doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of personnel and the ones caught on camera are wearing black uniforms.  Chechens command post?  Whatever it was, Ukraine thought it was worth putting two HIMARS (or other PGM) into the same exact spot.  They weren't going after Mobiiks.

 

5.  More trench clearing near Bakhmut.  There's an interesting flairup at 25 second mark (dud Russian grenade?) and a headshot defeated by a helmet at the 48 second mark:

 

6.  Detailed look inside one of the better Russian bunkers recently cleaned out by Ukraine:

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1669179578709946369

 

7.  Video of a Ukrainian unit using night vision to get close to a Russian position under cover of darkness, then taking the position the next day.  4 POWs and a cleared position.  Good result:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/14lak3w/at_night_the_fighters_approached_the_invaders_and/

 

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

More good news from the Bakhmut area.  Report that in the central sector Ukrainian forces advanced close to the outskirts of the western part of the city:

A bit further south, video of Ukrainian soldiers having reached the canal on the edge of Kurdyumivka:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/14l3uwl/the_28th_mechanized_brigade_planting_their_flag/

The results of both pushes is going to make it difficult for Russia to hold the ground between there and Klishchiivka to the north.  The problem for them is that once they pull back from the highground they now occupy there, things are going to get tricky holding ground south of Bakhmut.  I don't know what exists for man made positions, but given the overall difficulty Russia has had with this sector, I doubt there is anything of significance.

Steve

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, strac_sap said:

Sounds reasonable. Issues: detecting buried mines especially non magnetic? Failure rate of detection robots and kamikazes? As always AI can be part of this process, learning. Probably more issues, but I agree the cost is small compared to what we've seen. And mines are a menace so fixing it needs to be looked at in earnest.

Why not send a fleet of these expendable doggies through a mine field?  Several hundred,  spaced variable feet apart in checkerboard pattern a hundred feet deep and wide.  A moving anti mine carpet travelling over the field at speed,  stepping on every square foot in the designated channel. Any who get to the other side simply return directly back,  helping run another pass. Rince and repeat. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Kinophile

[Twisk]

I don't really know anything about this but out of interest why couldn't a simplified bridge layer like the  M104 Wolverine be used to create a literal bridge through a minefield? If you want a path just lay a big hunk of metal along that path (a stronger marston mat reinforced with kevlar?).

Mines make the ground unsafe so just make a new layer of ground above that

[dan/california]

9 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Why not send a fleet of these expendable doggies through a mine field?  Several hundred,  spaced variable feet apart in checkerboard pattern a hundred feet deep and wide.  A moving anti mine carpet travelling over the field at speed,  stepping on every square foot in the designated channel. Any who get to the other side simply return directly back,  helping run another pass. Rince and repeat. 

I don't think they are heavy enough to detonate an AT mine.

[alison]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

I really don't like the term AI btw. It's a marketing word and much too broad a term.

This to me is a really key point to understand because right now "AI" is being used as a brand for all the scammers who used to work on "crypto" or "blockchain" or "IOT" or "edge" to describe just about any boondoggle they can put together to extract money from private investors and win contracts from governments (especially in countries trying to modernize). For sure there is real work being done in the sphere, but a very large proportion of it is hype and vaporware. If we want to discuss "AI" on this thread, and how it could impact the war in Ukraine, I think it would be better to focus on very specific use cases that already exist, rather than making vague, sweeping statements about how AI will change everything.

I would like to discuss specifically the topic of deepfakes, because people have been talking about this as a threat for several years now, and personally I think it is overblown. I don't see deepfakes as being any more of a threat than any other type of forgery has been in the past - and forgery has existed for thousands of years, since the beginning of writing itself.

The biggest risk of disinformation is that it is taken as fact by people who have real power to affect the outcome of a war or battle. But this risk is already addressed in the military via encryption or use of other coded communications so that a person can be sure that the person giving orders (or providing intelligence) is actually the person they say they are. If a deepfake can be woven into command channels in a convincing way, then your channels were already compromised.

Another risk of deepfakes is in manipulating the general public, who might be inclined to believe any video they see on the internet... But that, too, is an issue we have been dealing with since at least the development of the printing press and widespread literacy. There is plenty of media that already pretends to be authoritative that people uncritically believe even when not just other media sources but even the person who was misquoted or misrepresented makes it clear that what has been reported is nonsense.

The bottom line is that you have some people who are critical consumers of media (and that includes people who do not have the time to critically analyze every source but instead place greater trust in media organizations who do), and you have some people who are not. The existence of technology that allows fast generation of forgeries doesn't change this. There is always going to be "fake news", and it is the job of the principled corners of the media to try to identify and squash that. Meanwhile unprincipled corners of the media - or websites that claim to be nothing more than neutral distribution platforms - will continue to spread the fakes, most likely because it provides them with a financial or political gain.

Regulating specific mechanisms for creating these forgeries is a losing battle because researchers will continue to find new mechanisms faster than governments can legislate against them. If a country really cares about reducing the impact of disinformation, it has to legislate against distribution, and in some countries that could come into conflict with their views on freedom of the press. So there is a tension around how much you want to allow (dis)information to spread in the public sphere versus how much you are willing to allow the citizens to get duped. Of course you can also push better education and try to create a more critical public, but that's a generational process, and there will always be some percentage of people who slip through the cracks simply because they want to believe the nonsense. Alternatively, governments can try to remove the incentives for creating or distributing disinformation by trying to place a cap on wealth, or imposing strict term limits and so on. But now we are talking about the same old political topics philosophers have been pondering for thousands of years, not some fearsome new technology that will change everything.

TLDR I do not think we have anything to fear from deepfakes in the context of this war. Any military worth its salt should already be insulated against the threat, and at least the AFU seems to have this well in hand. And if the general public in the west is so iffy on providing support for this war that a few deepfake videos will convince them to vote out politicians who back it... well then those politicians have done a poor job communicating to their constituents why it was so important in the first place.

Edited June 29, 2023 by alison
typo

[pintere]

6 minutes ago, Twisk said:

I don't really know anything about this but out of interest why couldn't a simplified bridge layer like the  M104 Wolverine be used to create a literal bridge through a minefield? If you want a path just lay a big hunk of metal along that path (a stronger marston mat reinforced with kevlar?).

Mines make the ground unsafe so just make a new layer of ground above that

It would potentially be vulnerable to artillery, but if it was made out of the right material…

The only issue I could see would be that this approach would be VERY slow and (more than clearing mines by hand for sure) would be really hard to hide from the enemy.

[FancyCat]

 

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, strac_sap said:

@The_Capt I believe you are an engineer officer? My experience is in the confines of junior enlisted (private to sergeant) so I like to read your broader analysis.

Yes, I think I forgot to define those terms, and they match what you said. Breach is to make passable, clear is to remove all the mines.

Unfortunately without some new technology I agree with you about needing some way to breach away from peering eyes. Night stealth approach. If done by hand all the mines would need to be found and then either removed or charges set to destroy. But this is difficult because of antihandling devices and being out at night in an enemy minefield boggles the mind.

One reality that was emphasized to us was that in certain conditions breaching was going to result in a lot of casualties. That was the reality we had to accept. So going in with plows, rollers, and MICLICs and getting killed is part of the game.

I am - been away from the trade doing other things for some time but one never forgets.

I am not sure how to solve for minefields in this war to be perfectly honest.  Tradition methods are likely a way to go and may work if one can establish the right conditions.  However, establishing conditions is the really unknown part: air superiority - apparently not so much, ISR - surprise is pretty much impossible, establishing a bridgehead - will have to be huge to counter increase distances.

My guess is that the trick to beating minefields in this war is not to focus on the minefield itself but those who are observing and covering it.  So focus on enemy ISR, C2 and logistics until a level of tactical collapse occurs, then go for a breach.  Dispersed infantry likely across first, use precision fires to isolate any enemy and kill them.  This is what we saw before - infiltrate, isolate and defeat…rinse and repeat until something really gives.  Once that happens the breach has a much better chance because the lethality of the modern appears too high to try the old fashion way.  This will take time so no really dramatic breaches and breakouts until the RA are so badly mauled that they collapse operationally…it goes slow until it goes fast.

Or maybe we will have another mutiny/coup and all bets will be off again.

[acrashb]

5 hours ago, kluge said:

But Moore's Law states that computing power doubles every two years.

Fortuneately - because otherwise we would be building our replacements - Moore's law cannot continue indefinitely and has already been slowing for about ten years.

Moore's Law is dead, says Gordon Moore | Computerworld (archive.org)

http://web.archive.org/web/20200613232824/https://www.computerworld.com/article/3554889/moore-s-law-is-dead-says-gordon-moore.html

 

[dan/california]

A grand good time was had by all.

[dan/california]

A bit of hacking that had the bombs landing squarely on the Russian positions in Oleshky would be truly hilarious.

[strac_sap]

2 hours ago, kluge said:

The sonic boom produced by an aircraft flying below 100 feet can generate over 10 pounds of overpressure. As a thought experiment, could this be a new use for those shiny F-16s?

Too low pressure for most mines. And could an F-16 fly so close to the front in this war?

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

Why not send a fleet of these expendable doggies through a mine field?  Several hundred,  spaced variable feet apart in checkerboard pattern a hundred feet deep and wide.  A moving anti mine carpet travelling over the field at speed,  stepping on every square foot in the designated channel. Any who get to the other side simply return directly back,  helping run another pass. Rince and repeat. 

They wouldn't detonate the old several hundred pound AT mines, but lighter ones and anti-personnel yes. I feel like this way it wouldn't be complete and you'd still need to plow, MICLIC etc.  And the little hounds would have given away your breach point in time for counter fire when you're still vulnerable finishing the breach. Just thinking out loud of course.

55 minutes ago, Twisk said:

I don't really know anything about this but out of interest why couldn't a simplified bridge layer like the  M104 Wolverine be used to create a literal bridge through a minefield? If you want a path just lay a big hunk of metal along that path (a stronger marston mat reinforced with kevlar?).

Mines make the ground unsafe so just make a new layer of ground above that

Crossing water obstacles is a big deal, so you would not want to use this and have it blown up by mines. Plus, these minefields are huge. You'd need many which I don't think any army has. As for the mats of steel or kevlar, that is really just a roller! But there are scenarios when the ground is too damaged by breaching that engineers set up temporary roadways to get through. Another high casualty endeavor under fire. You would want the roller and mat dispenser separate vehicles of course.

[kevinkin]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The concern amongst many is there are those who think the 1950s was a fine time and we should return to it. 

As a society strives to improve decade by decade and does so with stops and starts, the line "these are the good old days' by Carly Simon comes to mind. 

 

[strac_sap]

45 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am - been away from the trade doing other things for some time but one never forgets.

I am not sure how to solve for minefields in this war to be perfectly honest.  Tradition methods are likely a way to go and may work if one can establish the right conditions.  However, establishing conditions is the really unknown part: air superiority - apparently not so much, ISR - surprise is pretty much impossible, establishing a bridgehead - will have to be huge to counter increase distances.

My guess is that the trick to beating minefields in this war is not to focus on the minefield itself but those who are observing and covering it.  So focus on enemy ISR, C2 and logistics until a level of tactical collapse occurs, then go for a breach.  Dispersed infantry likely across first, use precision fires to isolate any enemy and kill them.  This is what we saw before - infiltrate, isolate and defeat…rinse and repeat until something really gives.  Once that happens the breach has a much better chance because the lethality of the modern appears too high to try the old fashion way.  This will take time so no really dramatic breaches and breakouts until the RA are so badly mauled that they collapse operationally…it goes slow until it goes fast.

Or maybe we will have another mutiny/coup and all bets will be off again.

Yes, your analysis makes a lot of sense. I think there was confusion about my earlier posts because I believed even in 1990 that manually trying to breach a minefield under accurate fire was impossible. Finding every mine, especially when buried, then setting up a line main or a ring main of det cord to all of the explosives, and then igniting and escaping the area seemed like a fairly tale if we were taking accurate 14.5 mm, mortar and air-burst 152 mm rounds.

Bangalore torpedoes were the other option, but I hear nothing about that anymore. Only MICLICs, including scaled down versions which seems like a good way to get infantry across, if available to the Ukrainians.

We used to train a lot using "pop and drops" to essentially run through the minefield dropping pre-primed explosives as we went, as the other techniques seemed unlikely to succeed. This requires all the mines to be visible, and either highly skilled individuals with night vision or daytime. We didn't have as much night vision back then...

Again, I agree. Without adequate suppression of the enemy large scale breaches are likely high casualty events, especially in breaching vehicles and engineers which are hard to replace. I appreciate your analysis of what the Ukrainians have been doing in this context.

[kevinkin]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/purges-underway-in-russian-security-apparatus-after-prigozhins-mutiny

Folks continue to piece together the last weekend's events. Published a few hours ago. Surovikin may have been arrested. 

In addition to the FSB discovery, Russia's National Guard was also aware of what was happening, at least according to its commander, Gen. Viktor Zolotov.

“Specific leaks about preparations for a rebellion that would begin between June 22-25 were leaked from Prigozhin’s camp,” Zolotov told state media on Tuesday, according to the Journal.

Western officials independently learned about Prigozhin's plan "by analyzing electronic communications intercepts and satellite imagery," the Journal wrote, citing a person familiar with the findings. "Western officials said they believe the original plot had a good chance of success but failed after the conspiracy was leaked, forcing Prigozhin to improvise an alternative plan."

NO mention Putin knew ahead of time so what's up with FSB? 

[kevinkin]

1 hour ago, strac_sap said:

I think there was confusion about my earlier posts because I believed even in 1990 that manually trying to breach a minefield under accurate fire was impossible.

Thanks for joining the discussion. 

One side thought is to never allow the enemy the operational time and space to place minefields in the first place. This is one of the reasons some cringed when Ukraine needed to stop their fall offensive due to exhaustion. Mines may be the one thing preventing a quick rather than fast UA breakthrough and with that more losses. Add close air support to that too. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by kevinkin

[strac_sap]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The concern amongst many is there are those who think the 1950s was a fine time and we should return to it.

I have had this discussion many times with people who state that a certain time frame was the best. I always tend to think it is the emotions associated with nostalgia rather than any deep analysis which makes people feel these strange regressive pressures.  If one looks too deeply at the 1950's both political ideologies today in the US will find much to dislike.

Currently reading the book "Hitler: The Path to Power" by Charles Flood and this highlights how dangerous these regressive (nostalgic) emotions can be, especially in veterans. Which makes me think about the danger to Ukraine and Russia if they don't have systems in place to deal with the traumatized veterans after this war is done.

[Offshoot]

Low res but submitted for inclusion in the fireworks category. Destruction of a Russian Buk SAM using a precision round, reportedly in the Velikonovosilkivsky district - https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-high-precision-projectile-hit-russian-buk-sam/

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Offshoot

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, strac_sap said:

I have had this discussion many times with people who state that a certain time frame was the best. I always tend to think it is the emotions associated with nostalgia rather than any deep analysis which makes people feel these strange regressive pressures. 

For sure.  And there's quite a bit of science to indicate that as we age we become more conservative.  There's both biological and learned reasons for this, beyond the usual of telling youngsters they don't know what hard work is, how they don't know how lucky they have it, etc.

I can say that as I age I too find myself thinking like this.  My wife too.  Millennials are a favor topic of derision, as they should be

2 hours ago, strac_sap said:

If one looks too deeply at the 1950's both political ideologies today in the US will find much to dislike.

It's even more fun if the current day conservative is a woman.  Sooooo... you don't think you should be able to vote, wear the clothes you want, be allowed a professional career, get paid the same as a man, or be believed if you are raped?  Because if the answers are anything other than "NO" then 50 years ago you'd be a Communist troublemaker.

What's even more fun is that the so-called "liberals" of 100 years ago were probably 10x more "conservative" than any mainstream version today.  Which bothers the current "liberals" a lot!  "Wait, you mean to say the guy that was in favor of ending slavery also thought a woman's place is in the home and that Asians are an inferior race and should be kept out of the country?  Let's cancel them!"

I can tell you one thing though... the extremes don't really like middle of the road historians.  We tend to like pointing out how funny they are, historically speaking

Steve