How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

Pardon my words, but the balls on this man to venture to Snake Island….for those who can’t see the video,  Zelensky visited Snake Island, leaving behind wreaths to honor the fallen. Did so by boat.

 

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

Just wonder, as these munitions arrive in theater, if the UA will delay releasing their "western" brigades into the fight?  They could be useful in sealing off a break in operations from counterattacks since those will have to come in via open ground. So now maybe the Fall will see mechanized warfare - war of movement - aided by by clusters. They are not a miracle weapon. But the UA is pretty good at husbanding recourses. 

The most logical use of them is to pepper known Russian defensive positions and to continually pound logistics hubs so that they become unusable.  If Russia should decide to counter attack, then there's a use of DPICM there as well.  However, I think Russia will quickly decide that counter attacks are even more pointless than they have shown themselves to be.  Which doesn't mean they will stop doing them!

At the very least DPICM has the potential to obligate Russia to change how it is managing its defenses in the south.  Since their management thus far has been effective at keeping Ukraine bottled up, forcing them to change would be a good thing.

NOTE!  We still do not know how badly Russia's ability to defend itself has been harmed thus far.  It could be that DPICM won't be used much.  We can hope so for a variety of reasons.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Pardon my words, but the balls on this man to venture to Snake Island….for those who can’t see the video,  Zelensky visited Snake Island, leaving behind wreaths to honor the fallen. Did so by boat.

 

Wow.  I don't think Putin would have even sent one of his doubles to do something like this.  Cripes, he still hasn't visited all those beautiful new provinces he claims to have made for Russia.

This is especially brave to me after just having seen a Russian kamikaze drone hit a Ukrainian boat under full speed in the Dnepr, killing at least 2 of the occupants.  One OPSEC slipup and Russia could have tried to make it Zelensky's last bold move.

Steve

[FancyCat]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Wow.  I don't think Putin would have even sent one of his doubles to do something like this.  Cripes, he still hasn't visited all those beautiful new provinces he claims to have made for Russia.

This is especially brave to me after just having seen a Russian kamikaze drone hit a Ukrainian boat under full speed in the Dnepr, killing at least 2 of the occupants.  One OPSEC slipup and Russia could have tried to make it Zelensky's last bold move.

Steve

I think Putin visited Mariupol. At 0:08, you can see Budanov if I’m not mistaken. O.o head of GUR and President of Ukraine visiting a tiny island, a martyr or not, if they were killed, a powerful reminder of Russian power in the Black Sea. Instead, a bold Ukrainian move challenging Russia. Crikey.

[FancyCat]

If you hate twitter:

 

[kluge]

49 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Pardon my words, but the balls on this man to venture to Snake Island….for those who can’t see the video,  Zelensky visited Snake Island, leaving behind wreaths to honor the fallen. Did so by boat.

 

A presidential yacht rubber boat. Amazing.

[Bulletpoint]

It's now been one month since the counteroffensive began. Gains have been extremely limited so far. Hoping to see it speed up soon. For all we have heard of Russian incompetence, the proof in the pudding is that the frontline is not moving very much.

I've gone from "the counteroffensive won't win the war but it will be very succesful" to "there's now a real risk of this war ending in a stalemate".

Edited July 8, 2023 by Bulletpoint

[Fenris]

Quote

Ukrainian 2S22 Bohdana 155mm SPH in service with the 57th Motorized Brigade

The Bohdana is a domestically produced system that utilizes NATO-standard 155mm projectiles. The first and only unit at the time was nearly scuttled to avoid capture in Kramatorsk, Donetsk Oblast. Units entered serial production earlier this year.

Some nice pictures in this thread

 

[chrisl]

28 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's now been one month since the counteroffensive began. Gains have been extremely limited so far. Hoping to see it speed up soon. For all we have heard of Russian incompetence, the proof in the pudding is that the frontline is not moving very much.

I've gone from "the counteroffensive won't win the war but it will be very succesful" to "there's now a real risk of this war ending in a stalemate".

That’s what closed loop control systems look like right up until the moment they fail catastrophically, particularly if maintaining the control loop depends on an expendable resource, like fuel or mobiks.  Everything looks like it’s going to be ok, then the control propellant runs out and you pancake in the desert.

As has been pointed out many times both here and elsewhere, Ukraine has only committed a small fraction of their newly raised forces and have been steadily corroding the C2 and artillery resources of RU from a distance.  As Russia runs low on reserves, holes will develop and Russia will have to either let Ukraine break through or shuffle troops around, making new holes to exploit.

[The_Capt]

53 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's now been one month since the counteroffensive began. Gains have been extremely limited so far. Hoping to see it speed up soon. For all we have heard of Russian incompetence, the proof in the pudding is that the frontline is not moving very much.

I've gone from "the counteroffensive won't win the war but it will be very succesful" to "there's now a real risk of this war ending in a stalemate".

So how are we defining “gains”?  If it is by ground re-taken, yes, very limited.  If they are measured by strain and erosion of the RA I suspect they are doing a lot better.  The question is “will the erosion be enough to force collapse?”  And right now we do not know.  In fact we do not even know if offensive warfare still works as we knew it.  We could be at stalemate or this could just be a how offensive warfare works now.  

If it is stalemate, well ok then the conflict will likely freeze and have to end by other means.  Everyone will point fingers as to why the thing has gone stalemate but the most likely reason will be that we have entered into an era of Defensive Primacy - not the first time this has happened.

Edited July 8, 2023 by The_Capt

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So how are we defining “gains”?  If it is by ground re-taken, yes, very limited.  If they are measured by strain and erosion of the RA I suspect they are doing a lot better.  The question is “will the erosion be enough to force collapse?”  And right now we do not know.  In fact we do not even know if offensive warfare still works as we knew it.  We could be at stalemate or this could just be a how offensive warfare works now.  

If it is stalemate, well ok then the conflict will likely freeze and have to end by other means.  Everyone will point fingers as to why the thing has gone stalemate but the most likely reason will be that we have entered into an era of Defensive Primacy - not the first time this has happened.

Yes, it all depends on what's going on behind the scenes. I can only speculate. But I still wonder if Russia would be able to take such serious losses without the frontline moving more than it does.

Also, I wonder if most of Russian losses are nothing but cheap and expendable manpower. It is probably much cheaper to replace a Russian soldier than to eliminate him. And I think Russia might have mobilised many more troops than the official numbers indicate.

Again, just speculation. But based on the only thing we can be reasonably sure of: The frontlines have not moved very much for a month now.

[Audgisil]

I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted.

With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches?

Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway?

In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box?

These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.

[DesertFox]

 

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1677633626689732610?s=20

[Aragorn2002]

17 hours ago, DesertFox said:

Dutch gov is fallen. Might have, might not have an impact on the F16 coalition. We will see.

 

Kabinet gevallen, geen akkoord over asielmaatregelen (nos.nl)

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1677392171685519378?s=20

https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1677391922602582031?s=20

Live: Kabinet-Rutte IV gevallen • Ministerraad om 21.30 uur, daarna persconferentie (volkskrant.nl)

I don't expect that. Too much consensus on the need of delivering them to Ukraine. Only Baudet doesn't approve, but he's very likely betraying his country for Roebels.

 

[DesertFox]

That man has balls

 

https://twitter.com/arnocast/status/1677564293229715457?s=20

[Bulletpoint]

42 minutes ago, Audgisil said:

I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted.

With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches?

Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway?

In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box?

These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.

In theory, I agree with everything you say. In practice though, we're not seeing the front line move very much.

And if trenches are death traps, then why are Ukraininians also digging them?

I don't think I am the only one who was very surprised to see the re-emergence of trench warfare on this scale.

[Seedorf81]

53 minutes ago, Audgisil said:

I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted.

With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches?

Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway?

In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box?

These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.

Trenches are still the "best" protection against artillery. Mortars, big shells, and even bombs. Mother Earth still provides a surprisingly decent amount of protection. Not perfect, like you say, but it works.

If you're out in the open, you're most likely dead.

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, Audgisil said:

I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted.

With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches?

Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway?

In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box?

These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.

Trenches are the only way to anchor the front line. Otherwise you'll get pulverized by artillery. In a trench you can conceal ATGM'S and even more importantly a guy with a radio. You can try to get around the trench but they can call in artillery all day until you remove them. 

The Russian tactic is to use ATGM's and other forward teams to slow down AFU and when they get close retreat to a fallback position. Russians will bombard the trench before a counter attack occurs to retake the trench.

The AFU in return has been taking trenches and falling back to avoid the bombardment. The Russians in return have started booby trapping trenches.

 

[Haiduk]

3 hours ago, Fenris said:

Some nice pictures in this thread

 

Hm... Initially Bohdana was indended for artillery brigades. I can't understand a logic to give it to motorized infantry brigade (even not to mechanized), when some battalions of artillery brigades have Krab with slightly less range. 

[pintere]

Seems like Erdogan‘s actions back up his most recent words as well. The commanders of the Azov Regiment that went into captivity at Mariupol last year have been allowed to return to Ukraine from their Turkish exile.

 

 

[DesertFox]

Another positive surprise from Turkey. They released the Azov leaders.

 

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

On 7/6/2023 at 12:20 PM, Battlefront.com said:

On 7/6/2023 at 11:59 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

I simply had no clue how to access the Ryan thread until a kindly Forumite provided a hack (now bookmarked).

 

On a related note, last year I finally gave in and created a Twitter account so I could look at the Igor Girkin account after it received a blanket "over 18" rating.  Having an account is the only way to view 18+ posts or accounts.  I immediately went into settings and disabled everything and will never, ever use it to post.

Yep, same although I think in the early days  I did post a little but it really is pointless.

@LongLeftFlank can you share this hack to see twitter with no account. I have several friends who are a similar boat.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 7/6/2023 at 12:39 PM, LongLeftFlank said:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1676645500781469711.html

Ooops looks like this is it. Cool

[kevinkin]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

It could be that DPICM won't be used much.

I agree. Could be the UA will hold them back. I look their use like bird hunting tactics. The trained pointer flushes the birds out and the shot gun delivers them to the dinner table. Or in combat, if the UA can break in and threaten breakthroughs, retreating Russians heading for prepared lines in the rear can be effectively engaged in the open. 

[Haiduk]

On 7/6/2023 at 9:42 PM, The_MonkeyKing said:

I don't know how taking this green could be significant in any way.

This is something I would have expected to fall within the first days or hours of the counter-attack if I was asked a couple of months ago

The line Nesterianka - Kopani - Robotyne and next village to south - Novoprokopivka lay on highest points of the ridge. Robotyne - 145 m, Novoprokopivka - 158 m. Starting line of attack for UKR troops was on the mark about 95-105 m. Zaporizhzhia oblast in this place is not flat steppe - but further to south - Tokmak and Melitopol - yes. Seizing this ridge will get advantage  

Edited July 8, 2023 by Haiduk