How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

What's the difference practically between sincere and false? None, in his position in the Russian military, he's effectively a PR speaker. If you want to change his mind, give Ukraine more missiles, tanks, APCs, artillery so he can choose to either die in Ukraine or retreat to Russia and continue spouting his views safely there.

Yes, may he suffer some natural consequences of his worldview.  Being a medic he should be in the thick of things, but I bet he's well back.  

[Kinophile]

What are those skirts at front? 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

What are those skirts at front? 

Hessian mats for camouflage.

[Fenris]

Some out of the ordinary footage.  Seen from both first person and drone camera (with sub-titles)

Quote

In a video published by Ukrainian GUR about raids on the Boyko Towers sea rig near Crimea, they showed a battle between 3 Ukrainian small boats and a Russian jet. Crew on boats managed to hit the jet and force it to flee.

Here's a link the full 13 minute video

https://twitter.com/73RDARM/status/1701334364817424587

Edited September 12, 2023 by Fenris

[Harmon Rabb]

34 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Some out of the ordinary footage.  Seen from both first person and drone camera (with sub-titles)

Here's a link the full 13 minute video

https://twitter.com/73RDARM/status/1701334364817424587

Incredible footage. Honestly looks like something you would see in one of Dice's Battlefield games or a Hollywood movie.

I do appreciate that this is neither a video game or a movie and the Ukrainians in that video have balls of steel.

[cesmonkey]

 

[chris talpas]

45 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

Not to channel he who will not be named, but just get on with it.  Doesn’t this glacially slow any day now just give the Russians more time to react and disperse blunting the advantage?  I would hope they could render the same sort of initial pain that Himars o’clock provided.

 

[dan/california]

31 minutes ago, chris talpas said:

Not to channel he who will not be named, but just get on with it.  Doesn’t this glacially slow any day now just give the Russians more time to react and disperse blunting the advantage?  I would hope they could render the same sort of initial pain that Himars o’clock provided.

 

Certainly these would be incredibly useful, but I have sneaking suspicion they are getting the DPICM version because they won't bring down the Kerch Bridge.

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

What are those skirts at front? 

Hmmm... my guess is they drag on the ground in order to pop AP mines.  That way the dismounted infantry don't potentially step out of the Marder and onto a mine.

If this isn't what they are for, I think it would sure be good to try something like that.  I still can't get that video of the Ukrainian soldiers getting their feet and legs blown off when getting out of their Bradleys.

Steve

[JonS]

1 hour ago, cesmonkey said:

 

That's such weird phrasing - "around 300 or more" ... "up to 404 cluster munitions".

First off, they're sub-munitions. Each missile is s cluster munition.

But more cogently ... this isn't dial-a-yeild where you can pick the the number of sub-munitions to be released. You get what you get.

Unless he thinks the manufacturing process is so shoddy that no one really knows how many subs were packed into each missile?

Edited September 12, 2023 by JonS

[zinz]

https://nafo.uk/@hanse_mina/111050653175033289

Those decoys look really well made. And as we know that Russians are incentiviced to report successful destructions of equipment it will be really interesting to find out after the war how effective those decoys are. 

[paxromana]

The war between Ukraine and Russia will become more difficult as winter brings mud and snow

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-12/russia-ukraine-war-winter-mud-snow-cold-temperature-strategy/102839110

Another article by Mick Ryan (Maj Gen, ret, Australian Army)

[holoween]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Hmmm... my guess is they drag on the ground in order to pop AP mines.  That way the dismounted infantry don't potentially step out of the Marder and onto a mine.

If this isn't what they are for, I think it would sure be good to try something like that.  I still can't get that video of the Ukrainian soldiers getting their feet and legs blown off when getting out of their Bradleys.

Steve

These are simple canvas sheets for camoflage. They remove the obvious shaddow line at the front and below the vehicle. Its standard practice for all german combat vehicles. Though the ones pictured are otherwise really low on camoflage.

[zinz]

Anyone knows if that is a legitimate source? 

Quote

According to the Main Intelligence Directorate, the forces and means deployed by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine at the moment look like this:

420,000 personnel (excluding the Russian Guard, special forces, etc.);
2260 Tanks (15-20% T-54/62 tanks);
5260 APV;
3050 Artillery systems;
920 MLRS;
46 Missile launchers;
360 Aircraft;
320 Helicopters;
64 Ships/boats;
5 Submarines.

https://t.me/Ukraine_365News/61717

 

[Seedorf81]

8 hours ago, Fenris said:

Some out of the ordinary footage.  Seen from both first person and drone camera (with sub-titles)

Here's a link the full 13 minute video

https://twitter.com/73RDARM/status/1701334364817424587

Just imagine that pilot on his debrief: "Eh, well yeah, me and my multi-million dollar super high-tech jet got defeated by a few guys in rubberboats."

[chuckdyke]

How mother nature protects its territory. I had one making its home in my attic. But had to call in the council ranger. Orangutans don't have that problem. Possums are protected lol.

 

[Kraft]

Which Brigades are using Marders and or Leopards?

[SteelRain]

Some information on the Leopard 1 training in Germany.

- done by Danish, Dutch and German instructors
- basic course lasts 6 weeks with 6 days of training per week and 12 hours of training per day
- its the fifth rotation in its fifth week of training
- there were multiple gunnery runs this day. within these runs multiple states of equipment failure where simulated e.g. aiming with and without stabilization or worst case hand crank everything using the backup optical sight and try to score a hit while moving slowly
- Ukrainians stick to 3 tanks per platoon

https://www.youtube.com/embed/NdpHjoPkS8M

 

English subtitles are available

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by SteelRain
video by the sun added

[Ultradave]

15 hours ago, Baneman said:

Exhibit A : "while we empower the warrior to win the war in several weeks"

Pet peeve (and not at all aimed at you, or at Kevin, who you were quoting).

I really do not like the pervasive use of the terms "warriors" and "warfighters" that many, mostly in government or the military upper echelons, refer to service members. Statements like "We have to give our warfighters the tools to do their jobs" (which is another thing - sounds like we are talking about carpenters or plumbers).

It's like some macho thing to me. Maybe I'm an old fogie (I guess I am at this point!) Maybe it's just me and I'm the outlier, but it seems much too belligerent for a country that supposedly uses its military for self-protection, and the aid and support of other countries. 

I have no idea if this is common in other countries, but I find it very grating. 

Dave

[Maciej Zwolinski]

11 hours ago, Fenris said:

In a video published by Ukrainian GUR about raids on the Boyko Towers sea rig near Crimea, they showed a battle between 3 Ukrainian small boats and a Russian jet. Crew on boats managed to hit the jet and force it to flee.

J**us wept, the Russian could not strafe 3 pontoons without being damaged....

[Maciej Zwolinski]

4 hours ago, holoween said:

They remove the obvious shaddow line at the front and below the vehicle.

Do you mean shadows like on aerial photos? They can really stand out. Good idea.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

10 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

It's like some macho thing to me. Maybe I'm an old fogie (I guess I am at this point!) Maybe it's just me and I'm the outlier, but it seems much too belligerent for a country that supposedly uses its military for self-protection, and the aid and support of other countries. 

I have no idea if this is common in other countries, but I find it very grating. 

It could make sense.  Especially in countries which are not in a war for a long time, those with conscript and/or underfunded armies the  popular view and self-image of soldiers can get low. I.e., poor underfed low IQ country boys easily intimidiated by anyone, mostly trying to survive until the end of their term. I remember stories in 1990s Poland of soldiers being slapped around by local gangsters or even hooligans at country discos. Since a soldier needs courage and initiative on the battlefield, it makes sense to try to psych him up and make him more aggressive, if you can get that by referring to him by a more aggresive name than just "soldier"- sure, go ahead. 

By the way, surely it is evident for everyone the US army is not designed for self-protection but expeditionary warfare. POMCUS? REFORGER? The Marine Corps? Come on.

[billbindc]

5 hours ago, holoween said:

These are simple canvas sheets for camoflage. They remove the obvious shaddow line at the front and below the vehicle. Its standard practice for all german combat vehicles. Though the ones pictured are otherwise really low on camoflage.

It is nice to see us getting back to the precise grog-ness this forum excels in. Well done.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Pet peeve (and not at all aimed at you, or at Kevin, who you were quoting).

I really do not like the pervasive use of the terms "warriors" and "warfighters" that many, mostly in government or the military upper echelons, refer to service members. Statements like "We have to give our warfighters the tools to do their jobs" (which is another thing - sounds like we are talking about carpenters or plumbers).

It's like some macho thing to me. Maybe I'm an old fogie (I guess I am at this point!) Maybe it's just me and I'm the outlier, but it seems much too belligerent for a country that supposedly uses its military for self-protection, and the aid and support of other countries. 

I have no idea if this is common in other countries, but I find it very grating. 

Dave

These terms have caused pretty significant debate among western militaries, especially in Canada.  The issue is really one of identity and culture, which of course has come under significant scrutiny in the post-Afghanistan, post-Iraq era.  For some it is no doubt a bit of macho flexing, for others it is holding onto core identity for very important purposes.  Up front, I personally fall into that latter category - but also recognized people are going to have differing positions.  So to try and break it down more simply:

- The term "warrior" [aside: 'warfighter' is in reality an attempt at compromise on warrior and largely has no other point of reference], has been mal-adopted and appropriated into toxic sub-cultures within modern militaries.  Of this fact there is little argument.  The most recent scandal in the Australian SASR and many examples of a warped or toxic use of that term are well documented.  People adopt all sorts of crazy ideas as to what a warrior means and how they behave.  This has to do with the fact that a modern warrior concept has yet to truly evolve so people look at history which was an entirely different context (eg we don't scalp anymore).

- The actual term of "warrior" has deep roots within indigenous cultures around the world.  In many it was a class of citizen with a clearly defined purpose.  You can read a lot on this but the most common and prevalent definition was in line with "One Who Does War" on behalf of their people.  A person whose role within a society is the function of warfare.  In most cases it became part of a cast or class system.  In some cultures this was seen as a sacred duty-to-protect bordering on a pseudo public service.  The recent bashing of the term has drifted into colonial insensitivity in some cases as it really reads like "white folks screwed it up, so now all 'warriors' are bad" when in fact indigenous cultures have employed the concept for millennia and many, like North American natives, still hold it sacred.

- The term is important because it incorporates a key pole of the two-worlds problem.  Militaries are not armed humanitarian aid agencies, or slightly better armed police forces.  Some nations have tried to go that way but they tend to be geopolitical anomalies.  The role of any military is state sponsored and legitimized homicide.  Dress it up anyway one likes, call it "self-defence", "use of force" or whatever helps one sleep at night but the core role is "murder for effect.  The second a military culture, or the society that pays for them, forgets that reality very bad things happen. 

- Militaries that get watered down for various social or political sensitivities tend to do several very dangerous things: 1) They forget themselves. This can lead to significant collective shock when war actually happens and generations of military officers and NCOs have basically become bureaucrats.  When that culture runs head long into warfare it is never pretty.  I lived through such a time in the 90s and trust me it is really bad. 2) Societies go into armed conflict with eyes closed.  Sanitization of war and its consequences becomes very easy when one scrubs out what it actually means.  This can not only dangerously shape political calculus, it can create major flaws in military advice to policy.  The reality is no matter where you may be in the kill-chain, there is blood on your hands. That is a serious burden. Those that forget it can start to make very poorly informed decisions quickly.  3) You cannot order identity.  Troops in combat or preparing for combat are going to adopt an identity and culture that will provide them survival advantage and cope - find me a war where that did not happen.  Problem is that if leadership does not define that identity, troops will do it themselves and sub-cultures form.  Those sub-cultures can become dangerously toxic very quickly.  So bottom line is, ignoring warrior reality comes with significant risks.

- Many like the term "soldier" better.  Feels more civilized.  The term it self actually comes from solidus or coin and refers to mercenaries.  The major historical difference between a solider and warrior is that a soldier stops fighting when they don't get paid.  Warriors keep fighting because they don't need to get paid, they believe.  There is an element of righteousness (and I do not mean in the religious sense) in the role of a warrior. Righteousness being a higher ideal held sacred (all war is sacrifice..."to make holy") by the people who sent you to fight for them.  Soldiers by definition live on a more transactional contract with society.  These are deep and important distinctions that often get lost in the noise.

- To your point, "machoism".  The problem we have with "warrior" is that we never actually define it.  It gets tossed around because it sounds cool but as an identifier we do not unpack it and then teach it to people when they enter the service.  It is all over the place, the US Army uses it all the time:  https://www.army.mil/values/soldiers.html.  Likely the closest I have ever seen is the US Army's Warrior Ethos:

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

https://www.army.mil/values/warrior.html

Not bad, but not quite there either as it lacks definition of role as an extension of American society and elements of righteousness.  

So without a clear definition, the term gets hijacked into a macho "ra-ra" tag line.  The reality is far deeper in speaking to balancing our two worlds - war and peace: home and away.  As military we live within and are part of our own societies.  I have kids, bills and go to the same grocery store.  I watch the same shows and play the same game.  But that is only half of my existence.  The other side lives out in a place of conflict and warfare.  In many ways I did not get this until after my first war.  When I got home I realized that part of me would always be in those hills (and then years later, in the desert). 

As I see these young guys fighting and dying in Ukraine, I see them all fighting and dying in the tradition of the warrior.  They are the Ones Who Do War on behalf of their people.  To them it is more than a tag line and will be for the rest of their lives.

So we definitely need to develop a modern definition and concept here and build a concept that not only better fits modern society but resonates.  If we, as modern militaries do not, then we will get hijacked.  I have already been in discussions where terms like "aggression" are being scrubbed out of our ethos by academics and civilians.  If a modern military cannot define itself, someone is going to do it for us.  And they will very like not understand the two-worlds problem.  We are The Ones Who Do War and we need to get much better at explaining what that means in 2023. 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by The_Capt

[Ales Dvorak]

On 9/11/2023 at 1:32 PM, The_Capt said:

I am a veteran of two wars

Can I ask which two wars?