How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Probus said:

Can Ukraine afford to not hit any Wagner camps in Belarus?  I mean that's thousands of troops all grouped together.

Well they have resisted the urge to hit Russian airbases that were launching planes and missies against Kyiv, so I doubt they will shoot at these guys with a real provocation. Although my favorite little day dream is that the AFU will thank the Russians for tying up their entire army in the south and go take Minsk.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Who said they won? Who said this war is existential for Russia?

This thread?

One side is able to and is advancing, and it isn't the Russians.

One side is about to take Bakhmut after about 10 months of nearly constant fighting there, and it isn't the Russians.

One side is constantly improving the quality and quantity of its military, and it isn't the Russians.

One side has strong and cohesive internal social, political and military structures, and it isn't the Russians.

One side is winning this thing, and it isn't the Russians.

It's a bit like the Second World War. The Allies had won by late-1943, at the latest. There was still a lot of fighting and dying to go, in fact *most* of the fighting and dying was still to come. But the outcome was clear.

Edited June 30, 2023 by JonS

[dan/california]

6 minutes ago, JonS said:

This thread?

One side is able to and is advancing, and it isn't the Russians.

One side is about to take Bakhmut after about 10 months of nearly constant fighting there, and it isn't the Russians.

One side is constantly improving the quality and quantity of its military, and it isn't the Russians.

One side has strong and cohesive internal social, political and military structures, and it isn't the Russians.

One side is winning this thing, and it isn't the Russians.

It's a bit like the Second World War. The Allies had won by late-1943, at the latest. There was still a lot of fighting and dying to go, in fact *most* of the fighting and dying was still to come. But the outcome was clear.

And we responded to the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan how, again?

[JonS]

12 minutes ago, dan/california said:

And we responded to the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan how, again?

Well, that tracks with your comment about wanting this war to end *exactly* the same way as 2ndWW, so yay for consistency?

Edited June 30, 2023 by JonS

[Kraft]

23 minutes ago, JonS said:

about to take Bakhmut

Huh? The frontline hasnt even reached the most outer city properly and the flanks are Russian held.

Any fighting inside the city will move at the same pace, probably even slower, than Wagners assault and the flanks are Verdun/Somme recreations, no breakthroughts to be had there its a battle for every meter and will remain so. 

That front area is just a pressure point to keep Russian units tied in a place they cannot retreat/dilute from

Edited June 30, 2023 by Kraft

[JonS]

I didn't mean tomorrow.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, JonS said:

Well, that tracks with you ignorant comment about wanting this war to end *exactly* the same way as 2ndWW, so yay for consistency?

I admitted up front it was unlikely to happen, and I freely admit I think the entire upper layer of the Russian government deserves it. You made an entirely correct historical analogy about the end of the second world war, and so did I. The casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were ~one million allied soldiers, and well north of five million for the Japanese. Truman looked at the numbers and dropped the atomic bomb. 

[billbindc]

 

[Kraft]

14 minutes ago, JonS said:

I didn't mean tomorrow.

'About to' sounds very imminent to me. It took Wagner +9months in forced human wave attacks. Conserving people and taking these ruins would burn atleast a year unless the whole frontline collapsed.

A lot can change in such timeframes, such as US elections. I wouldnt cast my net of certainty that far out.

I also highly doubt the generals will be willing to burn their soldiers in that useless street fighting.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Kraft

[JonS]

7 minutes ago, Kraft said:

'About to' sounds very imminent to me. It took Wagner +9months in forced human wave attacks. Conserving people and taking these ruins would burn atleast a year

Why on earth would you think that - Ukraine is fighting Russia, not itself.

You may think Ukraine will fight as poorly on the offence as Russia does. I do not share that assessment.

[Kraft]

15 minutes ago, JonS said:

Why on earth would you think that - Ukraine is fighting Russia, not itself.

You may think Ukraine will fight as poorly on the offence as Russia does. I do not share that assessment.

Because Putin will waste his army if he has to to cling onto the only victory location he has.

Street and house combat does not leverage superior troops well, running over a street and getting gunned down by a hidden mg is going to happen to navy seals or mobiks just the same. Its a meatgrinder and a waste of quality.

If you think Russians are bad at defense, please see the last month of counteroffensive as a counter example. 

Or look at the recent 100ish meter advances a week of the most experienced and near fanatical fighters from the 3rd assault, against the terribly bad convict formations, over non urban terrain. Its a slog. Imagine that in the city proper.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Kraft

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Mashovets wrote, Russians moved to Bakhmut area 11th and 31st air-assault brigades, which for now deployed in close rear to eastern and southern outskirts of the city and 1428th TF MRR, deployed on NE outskirts. Obviously, Russians are going to counter-attack, especially on the south, where their situation already close to critical - reportedly UKR troops already fights on outskirts of Klishchiivka. 

On the north flank Russians during 28th-29th June, using heavy artillery pressure and assaults could push back UKR troops (likely elements of 57th mot.inf.brigade) on Berkhivka - Yahidne section about on 1 km.  

 

17 minutes ago, JonS said:

Why on earth would you think that - Ukraine is fighting Russia, not itself.

You may think Ukraine will fight as poorly on the offence as Russia does. I do not share that assessment.

Russia putting in three brigades of better, at least by Russian standards of better, troops will certainly slow down Ukraine's progress around Bakmuht. It might speed it up considerably somewhere else.

Edited July 1, 2023 by dan/california

[danfrodo]

Seems like RU has been given "not one step back" orders and are trying to hold everything, everywhere.  To do this they are losing men & material that won't be able to fall back on the next line.  And best of all they are committing reserves very early on in this fight.  Bakhmut is a nice place where UKR is fixing RU forces at low cost. 

There's 3-4 months more in the campaigning season and RU is being corroded heavily while UKR can replace it's material losses and some of its losses in soldiers.  While I really want the big breakthrough, I realize how UKR is playing a smarter, lower risk game than throwing all the dice right now.  And there's corrosion at the political levels also following the clown coup failure.

[Butschi]

33 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were ~one million allied soldiers, and well north of five million for the Japanese. Truman looked at the numbers and dropped the atomic bomb. 

That's more likely to be a narrative that was spun afterwards in order to look better in the history books.

I remember having read the actual casualty estimate was much lower, something like 30,000. I can't remember the source, so you don't have to believe it. Given that the number in the whole European theater was not even close to a million with the German army actually being a land based army, 1 Mln. seems very exaggerated.

Be that as it may, it's more likely that Truman wanted to demonstrate US power to Stalin. Bombing a country into submission hadn't worked in Germany, why should it have worked in Japan, given that even Japanese civilians had already proven that many would rather commit suicide than surrender. What's more, US bombers had already raided Japanese cities by conventional means with casualty rates similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So what reason should Truman have had to believe that the Japanese would surrender this time?

The Japanese military, btw. indeed reacted little too the nukes. They were more concerned about the Russian invasion of Manchuria.

I don't really know what to make of all of this for the current conflict, though.

[Butschi]

19 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Seems like RU has been given "not one step back" orders and are trying to hold everything, everywhere.

They of all nations should really have learned how that worked out for Hitler in 1944/1945...

[FancyCat]

if I were Ukraine, I would ask for long range missiles and cluster munitions and let them think we compromised by being one or the other. Interesting confidence if the WP is to be believed. 
 

there are other considerations to worry about, the destruction of the dam and a weak response by the West, indicates that Russia is gaining terror escalation potential. A incident at the ZNPP would be the same. The utter lack of Russian general public self reflection I think may well mirror a future where Ukraine is bombarded from Russia with little opposition from the Russian people. And sure, while Ukraine can terrorize the Russian population, I think we can all agree that it’s unlikely that Ukraine will advance into Russia, or strike terror into the civilian population.

 

I’ll be honest, I’ve not understood the obsession with losing Manchuria and Korea for Japan, that would cause them to surrender. I mean, they were preparing suicide waves of civilians. What about Manchuria more than the mass bombings of Japanese cities urged them to surrender? 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

I admitted up front it was unlikely to happen, and I freely admit I think the entire upper layer of the Russian government deserves it. You made an entirely correct historical analogy about the end of the second world war, and so did I. The casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were ~one million allied soldiers, and well north of five million for the Japanese. Truman looked at the numbers and dropped the atomic bomb. 

I never bought that entire line on the end of WW2 in the Pacific to be honest.  It is a little too nicely tied up in a neat little line to resonate.  I firmly believe that nothing happened at the end of WW2 that was not in context of the conflict all sides knew was coming post-WW2.  I am convinced that the atomic bomb was as much about demonstrating power to the Soviets as it was about finishing off the business with Japan.  It was awful coincidental that after Japan tried to surrender to the Soviets that the bomb was dropped.  The US could not accept a loss of influence on that side of the Pacific - and Korea proved them correct.

I suspect the end of this war is also more about what follows than the outcome of the war itself by this point.

[chuckdyke]

The motivation of the Russian military could be the same. This war is costing too much and a nuclear weapon could end it. They also consider the conventional and nuclear weapons in the west could end their politics too.

[dan/california]

33 minutes ago, Butschi said:

That's more likely to be a narrative that was spun afterwards in order to look better in the history books.

I remember having read the actual casualty estimate was much lower, something like 30,000. I can't remember the source, so you don't have to believe it. Given that the number in the whole European theater was not even close to a million with the German army actually being a land based army, 1 Mln. seems very exaggerated.

Be that as it may, it's more likely that Truman wanted to demonstrate US power to Stalin. Bombing a country into submission hadn't worked in Germany, why should it have worked in Japan, given that even Japanese civilians had already proven that many would rather commit suicide than surrender. What's more, US bombers had already raided Japanese cities by conventional means with casualty rates similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So what reason should Truman have had to believe that the Japanese would surrender this time?

The Japanese military, btw. indeed reacted little too the nukes. They were more concerned about the Russian invasion of Manchuria.

I don't really know what to make of all of this for the current conflict, though.

 

Quote

 

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs-victory-last-battle#:~:text=The American loss rate was,36%2C631 were wounded in action.

The American loss rate was 35 percent of the force, totaling 49,151 casualties. Of those, 12,520 were killed or missing and 36,631 were wounded in action.

 

For Okinawa, 640 square miles. Vast casualties on the Japanese side as well.

Edit: Just for readability U.S. Casualties on Okinawa were 12520 KIA or MIA, and 36.631 WIA

 

Quote

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Battle-of-Okinawa

Based on the experience at Okinawa, American planners conservatively estimated that the U.S. would suffer 225,000 casualties during an invasion of the Japanese home islands; more pessimistic assessments pushed this figure to 1,000,000. 

 

Quote

In total, an estimated 110,000 Japanese troops were killed, whereas fewer than 8,000 surrendered. The civilian population of Okinawa was reduced by perhaps one-fourth; 100,000 Okinawan men, women, and children perished in the fighting or committed suicide under orders from the Japanese military. 

So in the absence of the bomb it is  a question of at what point in the process Japan's will to fight would have given out, and these ratios stopped holding. 

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I never bought that entire line on the end of WW2 in the Pacific to be honest.  It is a little too nicely tied up in a neat little line to resonate.  I firmly believe that nothing happened at the end of WW2 that was not in context of the conflict all sides knew was coming post-WW2.  I am convinced that the atomic bomb was as much about demonstrating power to the Soviets as it was about finishing off the business with Japan.  It was awful coincidental that after Japan tried to surrender to the Soviets that the bomb was dropped.  The US could not accept a loss of influence on that side of the Pacific - and Korea proved them correct.

I suspect the end of this war is also more about what follows than the outcome of the war itself by this point.

All evidence is that it if spared them being occupied by the Soviets the Japanese were better off with how it worked out. And if they were trying not to get occupied, well that just wasn't going to work.

Edited July 1, 2023 by dan/california

[kevinkin]

48 minutes ago, Butschi said:

remember having read the actual casualty estimate was much lower, something like 30,000. I can't remember the source, so you don't have to believe it. Given that the number in the whole European theater was not even close to a million with the German army actually being a land based army, 1 Mln. seems very exaggerated.

Downfall : the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999)
https://archive.org/details/downfallendofimp00fran/page/n15/mode/2up

In a riveting narrative that includes information from newly declassified documents, acclaimed historian Richard B. Frank gives a scrupulously detailed explanation of the critical months leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Frank explains how American leaders learned in the summer of 1945 that their alternate strategy to end the war by invasion had been shattered by the massive Japanese buildup on Kyushu, and that intercepted diplomatic documents also revealed the dismal prospects of negotiation. Here also, for the first time, is a comprehensive account of how Japan's leaders were willing to risk complete annihilation to preserve the nation's existing order. Frank's comprehensive account demolishes long-standing myths with the stark realities of this great historical controversy.

So the allies had three scenarios: nuke, invade, blockade and starve (carpet bomb too). Of the three, the atomic bomb was the most compassionate for a war torn world including Japan. Can you image the insurgency the Japanese would have waged for years.  Radiation does suck, but the war needed to end. Fire bombing of Tokyo killed more but was less persistent given the radiation. Sure it was a signal to Stalin. But Russia quickly evened the playing field with their spies. 

    

Edited July 1, 2023 by kevinkin

[dan/california]

23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I suspect the end of this war is also more about what follows than the outcome of the war itself by this point.

The first trick is making it and end, and not just another interregnum. 

[akd]

Please take The Bomb discussion to latest Oppenheimer review comments section (or Barbie Movie if you prefer).

Edited July 1, 2023 by akd

[kevinkin]

Or when the movie releases. 

[Battlefront.com]

Any time nukes get brought up the thread goes way off topic.  There is no reason to be discussing them now, therefore let's not discuss them  

Similar with the morality of mine debate.  Mines are horrible, evil little suckers which, unfortunately, are extremely effective militarily.  It's one thing to sign a treating saying you won't use an effective weapon when you think you won't need them, it's entirely different thing when it's forced upon you.  As others have said, Ukraine is putting them on their own territory and therefore they are defacto taking responsibility for cleaning them up and suffering decades worth of problems.

There's a whole stone throwing analogy thingy I could mention, but I suppose I really shouldn't need to.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I had a chance to listen to Perun's take on how the counter offensive is going so far just before the Wagner mutiny.  It's a really good listen as it underscores how good Perun is at fair analysis and it shows that we've done a very good job tracking this war here on this thread.  Nothing that he mentioned hasn't been mentioned and discussed here already.  Also, his thoughts on where things are at mirror a sorta-consensus view here.  That's good because Perun is very well informed and a good analyst.  I feel reassured that his take on things is similar to what we've seen in this thread.

To summarize, Perun believes this counter offensive will be more like Kherson than Kharkiv and not to get obsessed with evidence of Ukrainian casualties or seeming lack of progress.  As he put it, he's not even sure if we're "at the end of the beginning" phase of this war.

Steve