How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

10 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

79 air-assault brigade destroyed Russian UR-77 MICLIC with a grenade, dropped from the drone. Maryinka area.

 

The grenade cost what $10, and the drone maybe a couple of thousand, max?

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think we are seeing the Ukrainians, and even Russians, using AFVs pretty well at times. Tank stays with infantry, APCs drop infantry and withdraw. Ideally the MBT should be replaced by an APC hull dedicated to infantry support in order to simplify production, logistics, and training.

One of variants - UKR T-64BV with a "basket" for dismounting infantry )

[kraze]

On 8/13/2023 at 2:23 PM, Haiduk said:

This is just "the art of headline". Decision was made by National Security Council. Zelenskiy as a Supreme Comamnder has a right now due to this decision to make a directive for Ground Forces chief Syrskiy (who by the law is responsible for work of enlistment offices) and he by own order can fire these chiefs. But I mostly agree about populism. These people has high officer ranks - majors, lt.colonels, colonels. Nobody has a right to reduce them to privates and send in trenches. If they "clean" after investigation, they can be directed in some warm place in HQ, where they will fu...k field comamnders for keeping of Soviet-time journals piles. If such "valuable cadres", which forever stuck in USSR times will led a battalion this can led to the same tragedy as assault of 7th company of 116th mech.brigade on 27th of July near Robotyne. All company to this time considers itself as MIA.    

yep, but one of those (Yegor Smirnov) was ordered to be sent to the frontlines in another populist move and since he most definitely holds a rank of major I wonder how's that gonna go. No way he gets to order around a battalion or even a brigade as his rank demands. No way.

[Haiduk]

7 minutes ago, kraze said:

yep, but one of those (Yegor Smirnov) was ordered to be sent to the frontlines in another populist move and since he most definitely holds a rank of major I wonder how's that gonna go. No way he gets to order around a battalion or even a brigade as his rank demands. No way.

I read a thread in twitter where one guy, who as if has relation to enlistment offices theme, claimed separate unit of former enlistment office servicemen is under forming. Private personnel will be likely from enlistment offices guarding companies and officer staff will be of former chiefs. Poor privates, if true.

[Seedorf81]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Highly credible. How do I know? He plays CM Seriously though, I’ve spoken with him on the phone and have checked out his CV. He is fully qualified to have an opinion worthy of consideration.

This article was written 10 years before this war started. I think Inread it at the time. As it so happens, I agreed with him then and even more now. I couldn’t be a supporter of the Stryker if I didn’t.

In this war we are seeing pretty much everything he talks about. IFVs in a minefield are no better than a modern APC (I.e. V-hull, high suspension, etc), yet significantly more expensive and therefore fewer in number. They are also just as likely to get hit by ATGM and artillery, yet not all that better at surviving. And then there is the reduced infantry capacity that he goes into detail about.

I think we are seeing the Ukrainians, and even Russians, using AFVs pretty well at times. Tank stays with infantry, APCs drop infantry and withdraw. Ideally the MBT should be replaced by an APC hull dedicated to infantry support in order to simplify production, logistics, and training. Stryker and Boxer follow this concept pretty well.

The other concept is to replace the MBT in the support role with something like the WW2 "Assault Gun" concept.  The Stryker MGS was supposed to be exactly that, but the platform was simply too light/small for it to be successful.  The US Army's new M10 Booker might be a good solution, especially as it is based on the proven Bradley chassis.  Reduce the turret of the standard Bradley to a multi-role RWS (with Javelin) and this is pretty much what the article is talking about.

Steve

WW2 Canadians did this, and pretty succesfully so;

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kangaroo

It's an article on changing Priests (SP-guns) and tanks to APC's in ww2

Edited August 14, 2023 by Seedorf81
Why can't i get this link to open in the post?? Senile?

[Splinty]

2 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

I don’t think it’s that bad for two reasons:

• These things are fast, like 60+mph fast. Hitting a low, fast moving target even with an automatic weapon is nontrivial.
• This system “ideally” would come with SEI (ie suppress the infrantry) which in my mind is a swarm of drones that would attack any infantry or fortified positions at the same time. No reason a drone swarm is just HE and Thermobaric- could also just be smoke.
• You aren’t just carrying infantry, but the semi-autonomous second-gen UGVs we’ve discussed before, ie a AGM or a NLAW quad pack mounted on an ATV or a brace of stretchers.

The weakness of this system is less exposure, and that is requires lots of coordination in an EW environment. Paradrops in war zones seems to degenerate into messes anyway, so if you can offload coordination and navigation to the machines, and the suppression strategy, it might not be so bad.

One doesn't have to really aim to hit a group of relatively low flying and slow moving targets. All that is needed to degrade these types of attacks is to use lots of automatic fire in the general area of a group of these things. They would have to be pretty big to carry a fully loaded infantryman and his weapons systems. Yes, paratroop drops are extremely messy, but even airborne troopers weren't flying horizontally. And let's not forget the mass casualty events EVERY single airborne assault was. Even the successful ones like Normandy. Or to go from another direction, the helicopter borne air assaults of the Vietnam war.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Splinty

[Maciej Zwolinski]

5 hours ago, Carolus said:

I present the new way to avoid minefields. 

Only float a foot above ground, drop down before entering the enemy trench, the belt system remains with the drone. Once the human weight drops, the drone goes to ground as an escape route if the raid goes awry or can be used as a resupply system. Either AI supported flight or remote controlled.

Yes yes, it is fanciful and dangerous. But since a lot of Russians seem to stay in their dugout after a barrage or even during an assault, it might not be much worse than driving right up with a BMP 1 and hoping no one has an RPG 7.

I have been  thinking of using this kind of drone to clear, not avoid minefields. Instead of a soldier, each would pick up a demo charge, designed to blast mines like the explosive in a bangalore torpedo or a MCLIC. Let them fly over the minefield under artillery cover and a smokescreen and just have them  drop the charges one after another at precaldulated distances. Say 10 meters between them. You use 40 drones at a go and demine 400 meters, then they fly back, reload and blast another 400 meters. Rinse and repeat, as long as the suppression/smoke cover lasts. 

Sort of a longer, hovering, robotic, very mobile MCLIC without a single expensive vehicle for the enemy to concentrate fire at.

[Seedorf81]

2 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

I don’t think it’s that bad for two reasons:

• These things are fast, like 60+mph fast. Hitting a low, fast moving target even with an automatic weapon is nontrivial.
• This system “ideally” would come with SEI (ie suppress the infrantry) which in my mind is a swarm of drones that would attack any infantry or fortified positions at the same time. No reason a drone swarm is just HE and Thermobaric- could also just be smoke.
• You aren’t just carrying infantry, but the semi-autonomous second-gen UGVs we’ve discussed before, ie a AGM or a NLAW quad pack mounted on an ATV or a brace of stretchers.

The weakness of this system is less exposure, and that is requires lots of coordination in an EW environment. Paradrops in war zones seems to degenerate into messes anyway, so if you can offload coordination and navigation to the machines, and the suppression strategy, it might not be so bad.

I'm terribly sorry if I offend you, but I couldn't help thinking of the famous phrase Captain Mainwaring from tv-show Dad's Army (very, very long ago, black and white televison-period) used if corporal Jones had a rather impractical idea:" Hmm, I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy here".

I do not think this kind of attack is doable at all.

(BTW, would "our" Capt be anything like Mainwaring? )

[dan/california]

31 minutes ago, Splinty said:

One doesn't have to really aim to hit a group of relatively low flying and slow moving targets. All that is needed to degrade these types of attacks is to use lots of automatic fire in the general area of a group of these things. They would have to be pretty big to carry a fully loaded infantryman and his weapons systems. Yes, paratroop drops are extremely messy, but even airborne troopers weren't flying horizontally. And let's not forget the mass casualty events EVERY single airborne assault was. Even the successful ones like Normandy.

You are the one with the CIB, but let me chew on this just a little bit more. The Russian defensive system in southern Ukraine consists of Massive minefields, a lot trenches, and enough firepower, especially longer range firepower like ATGMs to make breaching those minefields extraordinarily slow and expensive, if it can be done at all. The actual density of soldiers holding the first layer or two of that system is not that high though, if I understand this at all well. Concentrating too many troops forward just gets them killed. 

If, and this is a near science fiction level if, something like the widget shown in the post that started this discussion existed. And if that widget had had a range of six kilometers, an speed of thirty kilometers per hour, the ability to fly by itself so the soldier was just a passenger, and it could also move cargo, and last and most importantly there were five thousand of the bleeping things available. It would really complicate the current Russian defensive concept, because it would raise the possibility of overwhelming the outer layers of the Russian defensive onion fast enough to break the whole scheme. I freely admit the casualties involved would extremely high. But the question is what those casualties buy you?

An extremely high casualty German airborne assault got the Germans Crete, at essentially the cost of their entire Airborne Corps, they never tried again at any scale. I would be shocked if one average citizen in a thousand has ever heard of the battle. Montgomery got a several whole brigades killed breaking the line at El Alamein, but his follow in forces were ready and sufficient. I think it is fair to say it is considered a great success, even if Montgomery gets to much credit, and a bunch of very brave men who didn't make it back far to little.

Edited August 14, 2023 by dan/california

[Haiduk]

UKR officials claimed, today's morning Russian HQ was struck in Yuryivka village on the coast of Azov sea (between Berdiansk and Mariupol). Loclas clarified there were two explosions on the territory of recreational complex, where Russians established vehicle repairing base and deployment of personnel. It's unknown if any high-ranked officers were among them. 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Haiduk

[AlexUK]

30 minutes ago, Splinty said:

One doesn't have to really aim to hit a group of relatively low flying and slow moving targets. All that is needed to degrade these types of attacks is to use lots of automatic fire in the general area of a group of these things. They would have to be pretty big to carry a fully loaded infantryman and his weapons systems. Yes, paratroop drops are extremely messy, but even airborne troopers weren't flying horizontally. And let's not forget the mass casualty events EVERY single airborne assault was. Even the successful ones like Normandy. Or to go from another direction, the helicopter borne air assaults of the Vietnam war.

What if it was at night? The drones overfly the main trench lines at speed and high. 2 or 3,000 say, with lots of dummy ones mixed in. 

[Seedorf81]

On the "yes/no enough support from the US/West"-topic.

I think there is a comparison to be made with WW2.

When in 1940 and 1941 Great-Britain was in it's direst need of help, it did not get overwhelming support from the USA. Mainly because Roosevelt, who really wanted to support Britain big time, did not have the political possiblities to do so.

Churchill asked and begged, bargained and bullied, but - like Zelensky these days - could not get what he needed/wanted.

It was only after Pearl Harbor, and the subsequent declaring of war with USA by Hitler, that the USA started to give overwhelming support to Great Britain.

So unless there is a very blatant trigger-scenario that forces the USA/NATO to go all-out, I think that things will stay as they are, support-wise.

And the terrible question is, does one want such a blatant trigger-scenario to happen?  

Edited August 14, 2023 by Seedorf81
shortening a bit

[Haiduk]

Pair of UKR Su-25 launch some guided missiles. Western OSINTers told this is HARM, but some Ukrainian accounts say, that more likely these could be Kh-25

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Pair of UKR Su-25 launch some guided missiles. Western OSINTers told this is HARM, but some Ukrainian accounts say, that more likely these could be Kh-25

 

Were HARMs inegrated with Frogfoots at all? I heard that only MIG29s

[Seedorf81]

11 minutes ago, AlexUK said:

What if it was at night? The drones overfly the main trench lines at speed and high. 2 or 3,000 say, with lots of dummy ones mixed in. 

Wouldn't a couple of ZSU-23's, even shooting at just the sound, massacre those guys? Imagine what a single Shilka could do! Only with total air-superiority such a thing would be feasible, i think, but if you had that, the whole drone-attack probably wouldn't be neccesary.

[Haiduk]

Two UKR S-300PS were destroyed by probably Tornado-S heavy MLRS strike near Zelenyi Hai village, Mykolaiv oblast. This is about 52 km to contact line. 

Probably local traitor reported about position and Russians after additional drone recon confirmed the target and hit it.

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1691108048062840832

Edited August 14, 2023 by Haiduk

[Splinty]

19 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

Wouldn't a couple of ZSU-23's, even shooting at just the sound, massacre those guys? Imagine what a single Shilka could do! Only with total air-superiority such a thing would be feasible, i think, but if you had that, the whole drone-attack probably wouldn't be neccesary.

Absolutely. Spot on. 

[Bulletpoint]

32 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

So unless there is a very blatant trigger-scenario that forces the USA/NATO to go all-out, I think that things will stay as they are, support-wise.

I think that, behind the scenes, Western leadership is actually quite happy with the way it's currently going. Even though the calculation is very cynical:

Ukraine is not losing, which would shift the global power balance in favour of Russia and China.

On the other hand, Russia is not losing either, which would lead to dangerous escalation and/or potential catastrophic collapse of Russia.

The lid is back on the pot that's been boiling since 2014. The conflict is contained.

Inflation is coming down. Wall Street is happy.

[NamEndedAllen]

Detailed update from Sarcastosaurus. Depending upon accuracy, quite positive on balance. (It’s Tom Cooper)

https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-14-august-2023

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

I read a thread in twitter where one guy, who as if has relation to enlistment offices theme, claimed separate unit of former enlistment office servicemen is under forming. Private personnel will be likely from enlistment offices guarding companies and officer staff will be of former chiefs. Poor privates, if true.

Well, everyone should be watching and taking care of their privates.

[Tux]

Duplicate

Edited August 14, 2023 by Tux
Quoted wrong post

[Tux]

8 hours ago, Carolus said:

I present the new way to avoid minefields. 

Only float a foot above ground, drop down before entering the enemy trench, the belt system remains with the drone. Once the human weight drops, the drone goes to ground as an escape route if the raid goes awry or can be used as a resupply system. Either AI supported flight or remote controlled.

Yes yes, it is fanciful and dangerous. But since a lot of Russians seem to stay in their dugout after a barrage or even during an assault, it might not be much worse than driving right up with a BMP 1 and hoping no one has an RPG 7.

This thing strikes me as two things: vulnerable and LOUD.

If they are used as part of an opposed assault then they will likely be massacred by automatic gunfire either in transit or as they decelerate in order to land (try landing a fully-loaded infantryman at even 10-15mph and see how few walk away from it afterwards).  They will also, by the way, have to land each infantryman in a safe spot. Not in a tree, not in a lake but somewhere flat and ideally soft - though not too soft!

if the crossing/assault is not opposed well then it soon bloody will be with the racket a swarm of these things would create.  And in any case if the crossing is unopposed you’d be better off doing it more safely and quietly.  Just walk, or row, or crawl. Whatever. Chill out.

Even if successful what is the anticipated benefit here?  Are these guys just supposed to get in and silence the enemy frontline defences so that minefields can be crossed by every other unit (armour, heavy weapons, supplies, etc.) without coming under direct fire?  If so it seems an awful lot more dangerous than a good old friendly artillery barrage to keep the enemy gunners’ heads down…

Maybe there would be some extreme edge cases where special forces use these to insert half a dozen men rather than a helicopter but otherwise I really think this will be limited to non-combat uses only. 

[kevinkin]

It's so screwy why this would be made public other than to express some sort of "normalcy" to the Russian public.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-08-14-23/h_6e9c6204aeda83513688a65092d76368

What do you call a population that knows full well what's going on and can't act? Impotent. 

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, dan/california said:

You are the one with the CIB, but let me chew on this just a little bit more. The Russian defensive system in southern Ukraine consists of Massive minefields, a lot trenches, and enough firepower, especially longer range firepower like ATGMs to make breaching those minefields extraordinarily slow and expensive, if it can be done at all. The actual density of soldiers holding the first layer or two of that system is not that high though, if I understand this at all well. Concentrating too many troops forward just gets them killed. 

If, and this is a near science fiction level if, something like the widget shown in the post that started this discussion existed. And if that widget had had a range of six kilometers, an speed of thirty kilometers per hour, the ability to fly by itself so the soldier was just a passenger, and it could also move cargo, and last and most importantly there were five thousand of the bleeping things available. It would really complicate the current Russian defensive concept, because it would raise the possibility of overwhelming the outer layers of the Russian defensive onion fast enough to break the whole scheme. I freely admit the casualties involved would extremely high. But the question is what those casualties buy you?

An extremely high casualty German airborne assault got the Germans Crete, at essentially the cost of their entire Airborne Corps, they never tried again at any scale. I would be shocked if one average citizen in a thousand has ever heard of the battle. Montgomery got a several whole brigades killed breaking the line at El Alamein, but his follow in forces were ready and sufficient. I think it is fair to say it is considered a great success, even if Montgomery gets too much credit, and a bunch of very brave men who didn't make it back far to little.

This might be the main reason for UKR’S probing attacks. If you can find a way to threaten the flanks and force the enemy to withdraw to consolidate its flanks, then you can breach the mine fields at your relative leisure. I suspect that at some point we will see a process of clearing the AP mines using the “splody fired” methods followed up by infantry on foot to clear away any antitank or AFV munitions, then plows to remove the lion’s share of anti vehicular mines.
 

I suspect we’ll see at some point we’ll see a coordinated 

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:

On the "yes/no enough support from the US/West"-topic.

I think there is a comparison to be made with WW2.

When in 1940 and 1941 Great-Britain was in it's direst need of help, it did not get overwhelming support from the USA. Mainly because Roosevelt, who really wanted to support Britain big time, did not have the political possiblities to do so.

Churchill asked and begged, bargained and bullied, but - like Zelensky these days - could not get what he needed/wanted.

It was only after Pearl Harbor, and the subsequent declaring of war with USA by Hitler, that the USA started to give overwhelming support to Great Britain.

So unless there is a very blatant trigger-scenario that forces the USA/NATO to go all-out, I think that things will stay as they are, support-wise.

And the terrible question is, does one want such a blatant trigger-scenario to happen?  

Not completely accurate. FDR invented “Lend-Lease,” and Congress enacted the Lend-Lease Act to help both Britain and the Soviet Union (after Germany began Barbarossa) quite a while before Pearl Harbor. Both used many U.S. vehicles and aircraft. Probably not as much as they wanted, but they still got a lot.