How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Maciej Zwolinski]

4 hours ago, Ultradave said:

I did say "supposed", however, REFORGER? I'll say come on to that. That was to reinforce NATO (REinforce FORces in GERmany), in the case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Nothing else. It was practice for the supporting our allies part of what I said, and rehearsal for a defensive stand that thankfully never came.

Exactly! Designated for defending Europe, but from the perspective of defending the US that is expeditionary warfare par excellence. You were so expecting to fight on another continent, that you were practicing getting there on annual basis. And leaving heaps of prepositioned equipment and materiel already in place.

Strategically, it was not aggresive , but defensive warfare, yet certainly at the same time of the expeditionary kind. An army geared for home defence would look like Finnish army: based on conscription, equipped to operate in its native terrain, not spending money on power projection to faraway countries, coastal defence batteries vs aircraft carriers, etc. The US looks like the polar opposite of it.

[JonS]

On 9/11/2023 at 11:26 PM, Tux said:

If one is trying to drill down to the truth of a matter then dragging multiple different topics together is unavoidable and necessary because ultimately everything is interacting, everywhere, all the time. 

One of my more favoured aphorisms is "for every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong."

[kimbosbread]

37 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Not that far off the bubble…but if I wanted to make money that would be the way to go.

I’m gonna cross the rubicon… a Prigogine+Putin Romance themed Bear Bar.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

9 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Historically it is correct, but up to a point- it could argued that development of nations in late XVIII cent gave rise to new, massive conscipted armies fully representing their societies...and these tend to fight much more bloody and stubborn wars than professional mercs or feudal elites. Yet, the term soldier won and developed, while warrior was abandoned, as warfare was more and more sophisticated and redistributed among large segments of new nation-states, . Sticking to beformentioned definitions, we should call guys in the trenches of WWI or those in WWII warriors. They fight (especially in the latter) existential war involving whole, mass societies on every level.

 Actually the same example can be used to defend the_Capt's original description of soldier vs warrior dichotomy as valid.

From XVIII cent. we see European armies made up of soldiers fighting in the line of battle, who are forcibly conscripted or tricked to "voluntarily" join, i.e. are carrried away by the recruiting sergeants dead drunk during some country fair. Those people are forced to learn how to load the musket by the threat of running the gauntlet, and prevented from escaping  by cavalry pickets and the threat of hangman's noose. Such man is the quintessential soldier-but-not-warrior, and at the same time a wholly contemptible figure, devoid of any agency. Up to late WWI, the European armies always had a strong element of this, because it worked as long as one could put infantry in close order line of fire with the officers at the edges and NCOs behind the line to motivate stragglers.  Even Prussian regulations in force at the beginning of WW I proscribed keeping soldiers in close order as long as possible and judiciously releasing them to create and feed the skirmish line, so that they remain under the direct supervision of officers for as long as possible. The result of course was Kindermord bei Ypern.

Because of that - although no two persons' associations are the same -the  word "soldier" does have the connotation of someone who fights because he is obliged to, whereas "warrior" does bring up the idea of someone who fights because he wants to. On the XXI century dispersed battlefield the second kind is actually needed, hence the reneissance of the term.

[The_Capt]

52 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

I think that nowadays, in popular perception difference between warrior/soldier as group  identity seem to more break on lines of dualism between nature vs. culture rather than purpose vs. contract. Warrior in popular imagination (I know it is simplification, but subcultures dwell on them anyway) is a guy stalking his enemies in some jungle or mountains, crushing skull of his enemies, fighting close and dangerously, sorrounded by similar-minded group of males. He generally is accustomed with mud, blood, bones and all that gritty stuff of waging war.

So can artillelryman, logistician or pilot can call himself warrior? Perhaps less so, because even despite the fact they often do most of the actual killing, they lack this direct animalistic (and often mistyfied) contact with the enemy. There is a reason why this military hipsterdoom we often see is chiefly domain of special forces and paratroopers, and we constantly prefer to watch movies about guys fighting against overhwelming odds in some failes SpecOps or shooting in tank battles than about mechanics repairing their vehicles or logisticians making it all possible. Because the latter are not viewed as real warriors in most carnal sense, even if they are 100% soldiers.

There is of course another factor in this breakdown, and actually for example historians of ancient Rome developed quite interesting discussions about it. Namely warriors tend to be unruly and rather flexible in their way of fighting; they lack discipline, sophisticad organization and obedience to superiors. This is why Roman authors often used this distinction between bellatores and milites. Even later term milites (which in medieval times meaned broadly knights) bore much distinction from the crowd of other armed guys.

Really two points to unpack here but excellent discussion:

Warrior vs Killer - The traditional indigenous definitions do stress the act of direct killing of an enemy.  They had traditions of taking trophies and "counting coup".  This is a major problem with the adoption of the concept without a modern re-definition.  (And trust me when I say, the troops are going to do it regardless of what anyone thinks.)  A modern definition must recognize the role of homicide and collective burden an entire military organization must bear in its conduct.  So it is not about "sticking the knife in and watching the lights go out" or other such nonsense often postured by front end operators.  It is about recognition of the weight and responsibility to kill righteously.  And that ethos must be shared by all members of the organization.  Popular imagination is a major issue as Hollywood has done us no favors in this venture.  In the end we may very well need a new word; however, there are examples of it being done correctly.  The NZ forces and recognition and celebration of their Maori roots is an excellent example. 

Disciplined vs Individualism.  This is a major myth...all stop.  On a couple levels:

Brutalities: The level of undisciplined...and even disciplined atrocity conducted by "soldiers" dwarfs any labels put upon warrior cultures.  Warriors could be (and were) brutal; however, they were a product of their times.  They also held onto deeply nuanced and balanced approaches to honor.  it is particularly hurtful to look to the Roman Empire and its military as a shining example of discipline we should aspire to when one reviews their conduct.   https://www.britannica.com/event/Third-Punic-War  The terrifying reality is that soldiers commit genocide in shifts and in straight lines because their agency is by definition is removed.  Warriors retain levels agency and independence.  Of course neither side of this debate can really claim high ground in all honesty.   

Effectiveness: The secondary myth in all this is that "soldiers win" because of discipline built into the system.  This is historically more a question of mass, not culture.  Mongols won, and won big.  The Germanic Tribes won at Teutoburg Forest. In reality actual results had more to do with the right tactics at the right time and place than one cultural framework over the other.  The fact that a tribe of 150 natives got wiped out by 2000 US cavalry is not a cultural equation - it is Guns, Germs, Steel etc. As to overall effectiveness, well again the Mongols likely cracked the code of blending a warrior culture with a more conventional military organizational culture and the results were pretty impressive.

As we look forward we talk a lot about empowerment and giving troops more agency to act which is interestingly more in line with warrior methods.  Further, one can play with idea that warriors handle uncertainty much better than soldiers because their mindset is designed to embrace chaos through retention of agency.  This is more likely the reason why "warrior" has taken root in SOF than any bloodthirsty sentiment.  SOF, by its nature, has very high levels of agency.  To the point it may be considered a negative capability. 

In the modern era I suspect we will need a hybridized system, like our command approaches, that balances the requirements for uniformity and discipline with agency and independence of thought in the face of chaos.  Further, there is nothing saying that a "soldier" can not embrace honour or righteousness either.  I honestly suspect we are dancing around a word that does not exist yet in the English language.  No matter what we call it, the definition that recognizes the challenges of the military culture as it balances purpose in war with alignment within society in peace will remain a critical requirement.

Edited September 12, 2023 by The_Capt

[Centurian52]

On 9/11/2023 at 11:30 AM, danfrodo said:

He thinks colonizing mars makes sense.  Except that it's insane.  Maybe he promotes this because he'll make fortune on the contracts for the stupidest endeavor in human history.  

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but I'm feeling optimistic).

Edited September 12, 2023 by Centurian52

[Seedorf81]

7 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but feeling optimistic).

Well, if we do colonize Mars, it will at least be very difficult for us humans to f#ck up that climate, too.

[Seedorf81]

On topic again..

The Danish government announced new aid-package for Ukraine (The twelfth.)

780.000.000 Euro's for 2023, 2024 and 2025.

For tanks, ammo, air-defence etc.

 

[Splinty]

19 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but feeling optimistic).

I totally agree. If we keep to this planet only we will die off. 

[Centurian52]

Just now, Seedorf81 said:

Well, if we do colonize Mars, it will at least be very difficult for us humans to f#ck up that climate, too.

One thing is certain. It is always going to be harder to make another planet's environment livable than to fix this planet's environment. Colonizing other objects is about expanding our total amount of available real estate, not about escaping our current world's problems (one of many reasons why there is no point in rushing colonization (it would probably take centuries for a colony to grow to self sufficiency anyway, so it would do absolutely nothing to save us from anything that might destroy us this century or next)). Unfortunately that does rather ruin the plot of Interstellar.

[Centurian52]

12 hours ago, zinz said:

Anyone knows if that is a legitimate source? 

 

Those numbers seem plausible. 15-20% is an embarrassingly high number of T-55/T62s.

[Haiduk]

21 hours ago, Kinophile said:

What are those skirts at front? 

Probably the shield, changing trajectory of bullets, to protect legs of infantry, who follow behind IFV during attack. This feature has been using since ATO times. Often in front of BTR/BMP were mounted multiple chains. 

[Ultradave]

44 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 

As we look forward we talk a lot about empowerment and giving troops more agency to act which is interestingly more in line with warrior methods.  Further, one can play with idea that warriors handle uncertainty much better than soldiers because their mindset is designed to embrace chaos through retention of agency.  This is more likely the reason why "warrior" has taken root in SOF than any bloodthirsty sentiment.  SOF, by its nature, has very high levels of agency.  To the point it may be considered a negative capability. 

 

I will also admit to being partly guilty myself (and my friends) of some "elitism". I am a life member of the 82d Airborne Association. We have our annual picnic Saturday for the Greater Hartford (CT) Chapter. Everyone is a paratrooper, from WW2 veterans, of which we still have just a couple, to recent returnees from Afghanistan, and everyone in between. You are a paratrooper. None of us care when, where, or how, what job, enlisted, officer. You are a paratrooper. 

It's differentiated between those who went to Airborne School and got their wings, which is certainly an accomplishment and something to be proud of, to those of us who served on "jump status" in a paratrooper unit. We have members male and female from the 82d, 101st, and 11th Abn Divisions and a couple of the independent brigades, plus Green Berets, plus even a couple Marine Force Recon guys. All paratroopers. Oh, and one USAF Close Combat Team guy (I think that's what they used to call it - the guys who jump in first and set up the drop zone for us - you want to talk about guys with big you know whats). Can't find what they call it now. 

It's like someone mentioned about the Marines. You are a Marine. For us, you are a paratrooper. It's more a shared experience equalizer than anything.

Dave

[Haiduk]

12 hours ago, zinz said:

Anyone knows if that is a legitimate source? 

 

This is official informatin of GUR. How accurate these estimations it's other question.

[Haiduk]

11 hours ago, Kraft said:

Which Brigades are using Marders and or Leopards?

As I know, 82nd air-assault has a battalion on Marders. 

Leopard 2 were spotted in 33rd mech., 47th mech. and 21st mech.brigades. Latter is "Sweden", using StrV 122 version of Leo2 and CV90 

Also 44th mech.brigade is receiving Leopard 1A5.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

AMX 10 shoots indirectly

 

[Haiduk]

UKR BTR-4 survived after first ATGM hit from Ka-52, what happened after second hit is unclear, Russians cut the video.

 

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Disciplined vs Individualism.  This is a major myth...all stop.  On a couple levels:

Brutalities: The level of undisciplined...and even disciplined atrocity conducted by "soldiers" dwarfs any labels put upon warrior cultures.  Warriors could be (and were) brutal; however, they were a product of their times.  They also held onto deeply nuanced and balanced approaches to honor.  it is particularly hurtful to look to the Roman Empire and its military as a shining example of discipline we should aspire to when one reviews their conduct.   https://www.britannica.com/event/Third-Punic-War  The terrifying reality is that soldiers commit genocide in shifts and in straight lines because their agency is by definition is removed.  Warriors retain levels agency and independence.  Of course neither side of this debate can really claim high ground in all honesty.   

 

I meaned more Imeprial Roman army, when the "model" professional force was created that Europe could only start to race with to maybe in late XVII century.

You are right on both points, however I was more writing on societal perception that loves to crash nature vs. culture, in typical ritual of reasserting itself as "civilized", rather than actual hitsorical realities. This struggle is one of central themes of any developed societies; in fact, one of our "great stories"- we visibly see it in normal world reaction to Russian invasion of Ukraine, too. We like to support UA not only because we feel empathy for victims and want to keep our order intact, but also we want the civilization to triumph over barbarity in deeper sense; let's call it mythical one.

In fact a lot of my collegues in academia (Classical history background) hate this division between effective disciplined soldier vs. unruly but brave barbarian, since it was very often simply untrue and blurring our perception:

https://www.amazon.com/Glory-Rome-History-Warriors-Warfare/dp/1473898765

(quite interesting and accessible, book that attempted to shatter our vision of Roman soldiers as "killing machines", if somebody is interested).

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Effectiveness: The secondary myth in all this is that "soldiers win" because of discipline built into the system.  This is historically more a question of mass, not culture.

Plus even sole ability of framing of war in purely political context, that organized states were always better at; in other words: "destilling" means to achieving ways. "Tribal" or "feudal" warfare often even lacked very clear goals, not to mention measures of efectivness (btw. the word efectivness itself  does not exist in our sense up to maybe late XIX century, if not later). A lot of it could come also from lack of adequate ways to memorize and reapeat "cause->effect" chain. I wouldn't like to primitivize our ancestors too much ofc., sometimes they were able to learn surprisingly fast. But often they did not, and various military (organzational, technical and tactical) discoveries were reinvented and forgotten time and again. Which leads us to another fascinating discussion, namely how much inventions, reaction and learning in warfare pre-modern and not very litterate sociaties were capable of, but it is different topic.

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

As we look forward we talk a lot about empowerment and giving troops more agency to act which is interestingly more in line with warrior methods.  Further, one can play with idea that warriors handle uncertainty much better than soldiers because their mindset is designed to embrace chaos through retention of agency.  This is more likely the reason why "warrior" has taken root in SOF than any bloodthirsty sentiment.  SOF, by its nature, has very high levels of agency.  To the point it may be considered a negative capability. 

100% this.

Generally the problem with "embracing modern warrior" in our societies is they are terribly massive, disjoined and overspecialized, much more than those barely 100 years ago. It is not even question of violence and lack of tolerance for it (this can be circumvented by various cultural agendas, some of them not pretty- like for example nationalism) but rather our lack of societal cohesion as a whole- I mean in  globalized "capitalistic" states that share roughly similar republican values. We simply lack this almost organoleptic feeling of presence of others from the same tribe, therefore we lack understanding for more developed warrior ethos.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Beleg85

[Centurian52]

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Exactly! Designated for defending Europe, but from the perspective of defending the US that is expeditionary warfare par excellence. You were so expecting to fight on another continent, that you were practicing getting there on annual basis. And leaving heaps of prepositioned equipment and materiel already in place.

Strategically, it was not aggresive , but defensive warfare, yet certainly at the same time of the expeditionary kind. An army geared for home defence would look like Finnish army: based on conscription, equipped to operate in its native terrain, not spending money on power projection to faraway countries, coastal defence batteries vs aircraft carriers, etc. The US looks like the polar opposite of it.

Yeah that's a fair point. The US military may or may not be intended for defense. But it certainly isn't for self defense.

[Vet 0369]

On 9/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, chuckdyke said:

Mmmm Iraq, Afghanistan and we shut up about Vietnam, the most powerful army in the world runs short of decisive victories. Storming Norman was the last successful general against Russian Supplied arms. Once the US taxpayers thinks it is too expensive they vote in a Commander in Chief who will withdraw just to be elected.

The issue with all the “conflicts” (not wars, as only Congress is authorized to declare war) was not the fault of the military Commanders, Units, and Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen, it was the conditions and restrictions put on them by the politicians. I remember a very disgusting order the Marines were given after the Mai Lai massacre. When they were on combat patrols, they weren’t allowed to load a magazine into or load their weapons until they received fire from the enemy. You can be assured that they “lock and loaded” as soon as they were out of sight of their command tent.

For historical reference, the command “lock and load” comes from flintlock muskets where you would pull your “lock” back to half-cock, tear open the paper powder cartridge with your teeth, prime your pan with some powder, then “load” by pouring the remaining powder down the barrel, and ramming the ball that was still tied in the paper down to your breach plug. And remember to never go off “half-cocked” and hope you don’t have a “flash in the pan” while you’re standing “ramrod straight.”

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

 Actually the same example can be used to defend the_Capt's original description of soldier vs warrior dichotomy as valid.

From XVIII cent. we see European armies made up of soldiers fighting in the line of battle, who are forcibly conscripted or tricked to "voluntarily" join, i.e. are carrried away by the recruiting sergeants dead drunk during some country fair. Those people are forced to learn how to load the musket by the threat of running the gauntlet, and prevented from escaping  by cavalry pickets and the threat of hangman's noose. Such man is the quintessential soldier-but-not-warrior, and at the same time a wholly contemptible figure, devoid of any agency. Up to late WWI, the European armies always had a strong element of this, because it worked as long as one could put infantry in close order line of fire with the officers at the edges and NCOs behind the line to motivate stragglers.  Even Prussian regulations in force at the beginning of WW I proscribed keeping soldiers in close order as long as possible and judiciously releasing them to create and feed the skirmish line, so that they remain under the direct supervision of officers for as long as possible. The result of course was Kindermord bei Ypern.

Because of that - although no two persons' associations are the same -the  word "soldier" does have the connotation of someone who fights because he is obliged to, whereas "warrior" does bring up the idea of someone who fights because he wants to. On the XXI century dispersed battlefield the second kind is actually needed, hence the reneissance of the term.

This view also can be argued as true- and various localisms must be added on top of that. After all, soldier of French Republic in 1793 think of himself as freedom fighter rather than mercenary, which was not necessary true for Russian or Prussian of his day. The same would go for our Polish troops in service of Napoleonic France. We hate when anglophone literature somtimes call them "mercenaries", don't we? (whom purely technically they often were. But also much, much more, if somebody read their journals).

It all goes to definitions and the way we look at warfare. I prefer to see it from antropological and cultural perspective here, but other angles are equaly possible. I would still argue, though, that 1789 is a (symbolic) measure in history of Europe in this respect. From that date mercenaries/stipendarii/knechts or whatever one calls them stop to be major phenomenon; future belonged to national armies with well established sense of belonging. Even Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians had it- less than others perhaps, but they did nonetheless.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Beleg85

[kimbosbread]

40 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

One thing is certain. It is always going to be harder to make another planet's environment livable than to fix this planet's environment.

That’s not the kind of attitude we need if we want to have space marines!

I’m bullish on a martian atmosphere. Given a few decades and mass driver or two on large icy asteroids or comets, there’s a lot of water vapor you get into play. The lack of magnetosphere isn’t a problem on the scale of a million years.

Bigger problem: Generally, how do humans do at 0.4g? Can women conceive and bring to term babies? Can children survive? There are experiments (sponsored by you know who) to start looking at this with mice, of course. But if this won’t work, we either need genetic engineering or a giant rotating space station or just turn mars into a ringworld.

[Teufel]

Not just Master Tactician, but also Master of Finance!

[Vet 0369]

On 9/10/2023 at 11:20 PM, kevinkin said:

Interesting thought. I don't think the USA will ever elect a high level military commander to POTUS in my life time. And once they get to that high military level, the Senate and Congress are, well, sort of a lower level position. It's because those in the US military that rise to high ranks are: educated, experienced in communication and can cut through the BS and are overall pretty nice leaders. They want the US to give them a mission and leave them alone. What is  most American want - to be left alone in the private lives. That's why I respect Kirby. Non-elected, but a straight shooter. He his loyal to his Boss and will support the Constitution to his death. He is an Admiral and gets it. I think he is the glue that hold the US admin and exec branch together. I am just giving kuddos to Kirby; an adult in the room. 

Hmm,I don’t know how old you are, but the first political campaign I remember was for a Presidential election. The auditorium in my school was a balloting site. The winner of that election was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a retired five-star General, who was the Supreme Commander of the European Theater of Operations during WW II. Coincidentally, he was also the one who began our involvement in French Indochina/Vietnam.

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Probably the shield, changing trajectory of bullets, to protect legs of infantry, who follow behind IFV during attack. This feature has been using since ATO times. Often in front of BTR/BMP were mounted multiple chains. 

I remember  from Mariupol a BTR4 shooting under a bmp to hit the infantry sheltering/disembarking behind it. 

So probably Kevlar mats?