How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Centurian52]

3 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Destroying (not defeating) a company is a big job;  a battalion,  that's hard AF. An entire brigade? In close combat? (and not just long range slaughtering of a stupidly planned, badly lead,  daylight assault across open plains). 

Bloody hell.  

Yep it was not in great condition, but that's par for the course,  that's part and parcel of how you do it. 

The nice words here are "thrust"  and "maneuver"  and "cut off". 

You don't achieve that with plodding PBI, it takes vehicles moving quickly without minefields slowing them down and,  while taking losses,  not enough to stop them. Plus fires dominance. 

Looks like the ZSU has achieved mechanized maneuver at last,  at least locally.  They exploited the seams between units and chomped off the 72nd.

This is very big news if true! But fully cutting off and destroying an entire brigade is so difficult and rare that I'm inclined to be extra cautious before I go around repeating this (of course, that is precisely why it would be such big news). What degree of confidence do we have in this? Are other sources saying the same thing? Are there any competing narratives that are more modest about what has been accomplished here?

[kimbosbread]

39 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

My day job is developing wargames for the USMC, and I wanted to address the bolded part above. Computer simulations are great, but they do not answer all the objectives of professional wargames, in fact many time the result is not even that important, many times the discussion and insights learned from going through the process are all that we are after.

Yeah, you have to know what you want to get out of it. The same way computer systems are often designed around a “query”, your game is the same way… what question or scenario are we trying to test? If you don’t ask the right question, or your assumptions are wrong…

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Prig's plane had it's "malfunction":

That wasn't a malfunction that was a rapid unscheduled disassembly.

[Haiduk]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

They had been holding out in that tiny village less than 500x500 metres for nearly a month (since 20/08). Sounds to me like they were shelled into submission and finally overrun.

Battle for Andriivka is much more than final fight for this 500 x 500 m area. There was hard way through entrenched tree-lines and fierce Russian counter-attacks on far approaches to the village. The same about Klishciivka and Kurdiumivka. 

[JonS]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

For the average “I just want things to go boom” player, perhaps.  If you want a serious realistic wargame simulation then obstacles and breaching ops are clearly a requirement.

Well, clearly that isn't a requirement, but while we're making the game boring; can we add a fire-planning interface in there too?

[Haiduk]

4 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Destroying (not defeating) a company is a big job;  a battalion,  that's hard AF. An entire brigade? In close combat? (and not just long range slaughtering of a stupidly planned, badly lead,  daylight assault across open plains). 

Looks like the ZSU has achieved mechanized maneuver at last,  at least locally.  They exploited the seams between units and chomped off the 72nd.

I think, "total annihilation of whole brigade" is some exaggregation, but obviously 72nd MRR lost most of combat capabilities. Some Russian sources say 72nd already has the third line-up since autumn 2022. 

It's hard to say about mechanized maneuver, because 3rd assault brigade mostly uses own not numerous armor as combat taxi and their opponents also had a problems with amount of available armor 

[FancyCat]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Good points but I disagree here.  First off, this falls into the "Russian total defeat" trap.  By this criteria, Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO/EU without a total defeat of the entire Russian state.  By setting this as a condition we actually incentivize Russia to keep an open wound in Ukraine as a counter to their being pulled into the western sphere.  Russian force of arms could "unsettle territorial issues" indefinitely even if they do suffer major battlefield defeats.

Second, NATO is not that binary.  We left Greece and Turkey in after that little tussle down in Cyprus.  We pulled Finland into NATO in months after people went on about how it will take years.  There is a whole lotta "NATO will never" going on, which has been challenged quite a bit as a result of this war.

I would argue that Russia's actions themselves have forced them into this situation, rather than this total defeat condition something the West can choose or not choose to seek, in launching a total invasion of Ukraine with the goal of at least puppeting the government to outright annexing it, by seeking the total defeat of Ukraine, Russia itself has made it a condition that it must fight in Ukraine no matter what to prevent Ukraine from falling into the arms of the EU and NATO.

There isn't anymore pro-Russian parties or influence for Russia to pay and support. No matter what happens, it will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to convince Ukraine to peacefully remain neutral or in Russia's sphere. Either way Ukraine will rearm and continue to prepare for a new invasion.

Why does it matter? If I'm Putin, and I want Ukraine, then at this point the only option is carve out the best scenario for a future Russian invasion of Ukraine. That means no EU or NATO membership. If I were a Russian nationalist or ultra nationalist, Ukraine must be controlled, it is basically the precondition for continued Russian imperial designs anywhere else. That this invasion has resulted in a dagger aimed at Russia's heart in the form of a openly placed at firing wall Ukraine only underscores how stupid the decision to fully invade was but it also underlines why the "total defeat of Ukraine" was something many analysts didn't think would occur, it was a extreme action, one that would portend the end point of Russian peaceful influence in Ukraine.

Whether or not the West makes it a condition, Russia will be seeking to ensure it is a condition of their defeat.

And to bring up LLF, it isn't hard for Russia and Russians to believe things aren't so bad, that there is a potential way forward for conquering Ukraine, with their perception of the facts they have.

As for NATO, there are definite levers for Russia to pull in Europe to prevent Ukraine from entering (Hungary). The course of this war has been a reactive West, great for slowly boiling the frog, but a key part of it is the slow boil of course.

And a key part of Russian fearmonging to attempt to convince the West to stop supporting Ukraine is the possibility of Russian collapse. It is in Russia's interest to propose that only total defeat will make Russia give up Ukraine.

The worst thing Russia could do right now is offer concessions, or signal willingness to negotiate right now.

[danfrodo]

Excellent discussion, folks.  As noted by many on this forum many times, the war will continue until one or both sides are forced to negotiate an end.  Our best case was RU military collapsed under pressure this summer and chose to negotiate from weak position having already lost landbridge and Luhansk.  That best case is off the table for now.  We at least wanted the landbridge cut, but that is unlikely too.  Now we hope to at least penetrate enough to cut off Tokmak and get more of the remaining distance to the coast under rocket & arty fire.  Hopefully at least get that soon. 

But most likely we settle for continued high attrition of RU forces in hopes of later breakthrough & collapse.  Disappointing but not a crisis.

[Haiduk]

4 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Hmmm stubbornness in simple defence is a classic Russian trope, and extensively exhibited in this War. 

Im more interested in the actions surrounding the brigade,  how UKR was able to penetrate and cut off such a significant contingent and also beat off the relief attempts. 

How much maneuver did they actually do? How heavy was the mech aspect?  

@Haiduk do you know which UKR units,  incl artillery,  were involved? 

When 3rd brigade says they destroyed 72nd MRBr it doesn't mean they encircled whole brigade in this tiny village of two streets. They meant Russian brigade was wiped out during all this time of battlle, likely 3rd brigade cleaned territory west from canal and crossed it. 

As final accord Andriivla was taken by two outflank maneuvers from north and south. But, of course not a brigade was at their last stand

Here is an acomplishing of operation. 3rd brigade took off a drone with dynamic and put the enemy ultimatum - surrender or die. UKR commande of 2nd battalion says to last Russians, who hide in basemants of two houses to surrender, because all their comrades already either killed or ran away, two their battalion commanders with callsigns Medved and Shaitan also killed. 

And here the whole Andriivka. As a fighter of 3rd brigade said - here is no more place to put a flag

And here is a moment of FPV drone hit a jeep with officer of 72nd MRBr, when he tried to escape from Andriivka (second video)

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1702697923983675462

Edited September 15, 2023 by Haiduk

[JonS]

12 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

(it's actually a bit distressing that the US DoD is still relying on tabletop wargames)

It depends what its being used for. I somehow doubt the US DoD is using tabletop to simulate the effectiveness of new weapon systems - for that I expect they are using some type of sophisticated Lanchester model, run over thousands of iterations, comparing baseline and upgrades and various permutations, giving probabilities and confidence intervals and all the rest of that jazz, to show whether the Skyrim MkII modA is worth the investment, what the rough scale of issue is likely to be required, and what consumption of munitions will be like.

But for proof of concepts and operational plans - "tabletop" is the way to go. But that's not chits-on-a-hex-map and a six-sided dice tabletop. It's commanders standing around a birdtable, talking through the plan so they have a clear idea of time and space synchonisation, what everyone is doing at any given point in the battle to come, and where the key assets are by phase. You don't roll a dice to see whether 2 Platoon of C Company is able to take Hill 109. You just say "2 Platoon of C Company takes Hill 109". Then the int officer says what the most likely (or most dangerous) reaction by the enemy to losing Hill 109 is (based on doctrine, and posture, and known resources, &c), then the friendly commander outlines what his counter move is (or isn't; maybe ignoring the enemy at this point is what he chooses to do and 2 Platoon up on the hill will just have to take care of themselves). And so on, and so on.

Calling it "wargaming" is kind of a misnomer - it's more like "battle talking". But "wargaming" is what we're stuck with, even though it has approximately nothing in common with what most people think of when they hear the term.

 

Edit: I'm working chronologically through a backlog, and now see @Bil Hardenberger has already addressed this. The TL;DR of this post is 'read that one'

Edit2: and @The_Capt TL;DR 'read those ones'

Edited September 16, 2023 by JonS

[FancyCat]

Maybe it's just me, but expecting Russia to surrender (Tormak) real estate that would bring Ukraine closer to forcing a retreat of Russian forces in Kherson due to a untenable defense, should we not be surprised if Ukraine does not throw stuff in willy-nilly and Russia throws in the kitchen sink to hold it? Why sure one would hope Ukraine would move faster, I am unsure how without sacrificing equipment and soldiers that can be done urgently.

Edited September 15, 2023 by FancyCat

[dan/california]

 

48 minutes ago, IanL said:

That wasn't a malfunction that was a rapid unscheduled disassembly.

Oh someone most definitely scheduled it, they just carefully did not inform Prig

21 minutes ago, JonS said:

Well, clearly that isn't a requirement, but while we're making the game boring; can we add a fire-planning interface in there too?

Please can we get this. I have to take a huge number of notes by hand, or on another device when playing artillery heavy scenarios

8 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I think, "total annihilation of whole brigade" is some exaggregation, but obviously 72nd MRR lost most of combat capabilities. Some Russian sources say 72nd already has the third line-up since autumn 2022. 

It's hard to say about mechanized maneuver, because 3rd assault brigade mostly uses own not numerous armor as combat taxi and their opponents also had a problems with amount of available armor 

Steve just brought this up as well, at least part of what probably happened is that the guys who were supposed to be the fourth iteration of the 72nd MRR either flatly refused. Or the remnants of the third iteration, and whatever passed for a command staff, were eliminated quickly enough, and throughly enough, that there was simply no remaining shell the next batch of mobiks could be shoved into.

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

This is very big news if true! But fully cutting off and destroying an entire brigade is so difficult and rare that I'm inclined to be extra cautious before I go around repeating this (of course, that is precisely why it would be such big news). What degree of confidence do we have in this? Are other sources saying the same thing? Are there any competing narratives that are more modest about what has been accomplished here?

Russian brigade was defeated during more than a month or maybe two of fight from the canal to the village

[Haiduk]

9 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Ukraine has been fighting hard and taken heavy losses, and still only have very few gains to show for it. The Verbove penetration is only about 10x10 kilometres and even though it's now two weeks since the Russian line was claimed to be penetrated, the front line has barely moved since then.

Since Russians brought reserves (76th air-assault division, 2 regiments of 7th air-assault division and 1152th motor-rifle regiment) and turned to counter-attacks, UKR troops now got some pause to regroup and repel Russian attempts. This much easy to do in defense, than in meeting engagements. Some people say this pause will last approx up to 25th of September. But even in this pause, UKR troops still try to advance if it possible. 

[Centurian52]

57 minutes ago, JonS said:

Well, clearly that isn't a requirement, but while we're making the game boring; can we add a fire-planning interface in there too?

I think you're being sarcastic, but honestly a more detailed fire-panning interface would be awesome. Are you sure you're talking to the audience you think you're talking to?

Also, based on what we're seeing in this war, obstacles and breaching ops clearly are a requirement. At least if you want something that can accurately simulate warfare. And that is what I want. If it wasn't, I'd be playing Starcraft.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Centurian52

[Kinophile]

Thanks @Haiduk

That pic of the village is very good example of where CMBS fails in depictions of defence. In any game,  once I've flattened a village to this extent,  everyone is dead because they're functionally out in the open. Reinforcements have nowhere to go to - House Rubble gives very little protection in game and basements are simply not modeled.  This makes CMBS urban games very "unrealistic",  in that a defence cannot be tenacious if everyone dies in minutes from airbursts.

  We're not going be gaming Bakhmut or Kiev anytime soon.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Kinophile

[The_Capt]

50 minutes ago, JonS said:

Well, clearly that isn't a requirement, but while we're making the game boring; can we add a fire-planning interface in there too?

This happens every time anyone even suggests adding an extra bridge let alone more realistic obstacle game play - “Ya but now we may as well call it Combat Engineering Mission!!! “

I have a modern contemporary war in Europe that say “yes, if you want a realistic modern wargame then obstacles need to be an integral design consideration.”  Adding in realistic minefield breaching ops is hardly “throwing down” on battlefield minutiae.

But yes, let’s scrub all that inconvenient reality so we can go back to playing “Smash Tank Go Boom”.

[JonS]

Mate, I hear you. I pushed the barrow on increasing the depth of the guns game for a long time, because that's what I am interested in, and what I wanted to see modeled in more depth.

CM doesn't - and doesn't pretend to - 'do' all of land combat. It does tanks and infantry pretty great, and does enough logistics, comms, med, engineering, and off-map fire support to reasonably accurately depict a pretty broad range of combat situations, in settings as diverse as a platoon in Sicily 1943 to a battalion in Ukraine 2014. But it doesn't do everything.

Edited September 15, 2023 by JonS

[The_Capt]

46 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I would argue that Russia's actions themselves have forced them into this situation, rather than this total defeat condition something the West can choose or not choose to seek, in launching a total invasion of Ukraine with the goal of at least puppeting the government to outright annexing it, by seeking the total defeat of Ukraine, Russia itself has made it a condition that it must fight in Ukraine no matter what to prevent Ukraine from falling into the arms of the EU and NATO.

There isn't anymore pro-Russian parties or influence for Russia to pay and support. No matter what happens, it will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to convince Ukraine to peacefully remain neutral or in Russia's sphere. Either way Ukraine will rearm and continue to prepare for a new invasion.

Why does it matter? If I'm Putin, and I want Ukraine, then at this point the only option is carve out the best scenario for a future Russian invasion of Ukraine. That means no EU or NATO membership. If I were a Russian nationalist or ultra nationalist, Ukraine must be controlled, it is basically the precondition for continued Russian imperial designs anywhere else. That this invasion has resulted in a dagger aimed at Russia's heart in the form of a openly placed at firing wall Ukraine only underscores how stupid the decision to fully invade was but it also underlines why the "total defeat of Ukraine" was something many analysts didn't think would occur, it was a extreme action, one that would portend the end point of Russian peaceful influence in Ukraine.

Whether or not the West makes it a condition, Russia will be seeking to ensure it is a condition of their defeat.

And to bring up LLF, it isn't hard for Russia and Russians to believe things aren't so bad, that there is a potential way forward for conquering Ukraine, with their perception of the facts they have.

As for NATO, there are definite levers for Russia to pull in Europe to prevent Ukraine from entering (Hungary). The course of this war has been a reactive West, great for slowly boiling the frog, but a key part of it is the slow boil of course.

And a key part of Russian fearmonging to attempt to convince the West to stop supporting Ukraine is the possibility of Russian collapse. It is in Russia's interest to propose that only total defeat will make Russia give up Ukraine.

The worst thing Russia could do right now is offer concessions, or signal willingness to negotiate right now.

Ok, I read this twice and honestly cannot understand you position here.  Of course Russia “did this to themselves”….so what?

If we take a binary approach to victory conditions as you describe - total defeat of either side is the only outcome for either side.  Then this war will likely never end.  Russia is not going to be able to achieve military victory by your definitions.  Ukraine is not going to be able to totally defeat Russian ability to keep this war going in order to keep Ukraine out of western hands.  Even if Ukraine takes back every lost inch and digs in at the border, Russia can keep attacking and lobbing shells and missiles into Ukraine for decades.  And we have not even begun to discuss subversive activities.  By your opinion this will mean EU and NATO will “never let Ukraine in”, under those conditions…so at least one Russian strategic aim is nearly unavoidable.

So the only other option in your framework is for Russia to stop being Russia - it is built in.  Every time we discuss this the absolutist crowd does a lot of hand waving and “well it won’t be that bad”-ism.  However, the task of causing a total Russian collapse is in itself a very long and risky commitment that we would essentially be trying to conduct via proxy.  We may get “lucky” and Russia breaks itself to pieces softly but more likely Putin will drag this out and point to “bad ol NATO” as a reason to stay in power.

So what is the plan.  “Support Ukraine”…ok, got it.  “Russia Bad”…again, zero argument.  What are we doing beyond that?  Zero War = Ukraine in NATO, means Zero Russia in this framework you have cooked up.  

I argue we still have options and off-ramps as this thing progresses.  We are not the only war in human history without them.  This does not mean capitulation or surrender, but it also does not mean an endless conflict either.  Best case, Russia backs off and self-removes the main driver of this nonsense, Putin and his power structure.  They then put in a bunch of jerks we can live with who are willing to back off or be bought off.  Then we try to pull Ukraine into some sort of security mechanism.  This is not easy, very hard in fact, with a lot of points of failure.  But compared to “Ukraine must engineer the total defeat of the Russian state and then good things will happen”…it is looking like a much better strategy.

 

[Haiduk]

UKR maritime drones were active during last three days:

- attack on Russian pr. 22160 patrol ships "Vasiliy Bykov" and "Sergey Kotov". Allegedly one of them got minor damages (according to one Russian TG)

- attack on fast hovercraft missile corvette "Samum" (pr.1239, Bora-class) near Sevastopol. Russians claimed yesterday the ship has destroyed a drone, UKR side claims the drone of "Sea kid" type damaged the ship and she is being towed to Sevastopol having trim stern and starboard roll.

"Samum" has only P-270 "Moskit" (SS-N-22) anti-ship missiles on armament, so it doesn't strike on UKR territory, but this is value target, because by strenghts of own missile salvo this corvette is equal to old soviet destroyers pr.956 "Sarych" (NATO code Sovremenny-calss)

- attack on small missile ship (small missile corvette) "Askold" (pr.22800 "Karakurt"). Reportedly the ship has destroyed a drone. "Askold" is one of newest ships of Black Sea Fleet. It was built in occupied Kerch shipyard and comissioned in 2023. It's a carrier of Kalibr missiles.

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Haiduk

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, JonS said:

Mate, I hear you. I pushed the barrow on increasing the depth of the guns game for a long time, because that's what I am interested in, and what I wanted to see modeled in more depth.

CM doesn't - and doesn't pretend to - 'do' all of land combat. It does tanks and infantry pretty great, and does enough logistics, comms, med, engineering, and off-map fire support to reasonably accurately depict a pretty broad range of combat situations, in settings as diverse as a platoon in Sicily 1943 to a battalion in Ukraine 2014. But it doesn't do everything.

Oh let it rain combined arms fratricidal impulse.  I get your point entirely.  I think what the OP was pointing to was the fact that the realities of this war could be seen as a forcing function to relook at some of these “secondary” design considerations.  Artillery is very likely another big winner - the effect on armoured vehicles alone needs a serious overhaul.  Better or more sophisticated fire planning is also a “must”.  So rather than turn on each other let’s crush the hopes and dreams of the armoured corp because the tank is clearly best employed as a museum piece!

[JonS]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

let’s crush the hopes and dreams of the armoured corp because the tank is clearly best employed as a museum piece!

I wuv you!

[kimbosbread]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So rather than turn on each other let’s crush the hopes and dreams of the armoured corp because the tank is clearly best employed as a museum piece!

Don’t kink shame us!

[dan/california]

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Oh let it rain combined arms fratricidal impulse.  I get your point entirely.  I think what the OP was pointing to was the fact that the realities of this war could be seen as a forcing function to relook at some of these “secondary” design considerations.  Artillery is very likely another big winner - the effect on armoured vehicles alone needs a serious overhaul.  Better or more sophisticated fire planning is also a “must”.  So rather than turn on each other let’s crush the hopes and dreams of the armoured corp because the tank is clearly best employed as a museum piece!

 

10 minutes ago, JonS said:

I wuv you!

 

8 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Don’t kink shame us!

Laughing this hard is dangerous...

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

So rather than turn on each other let’s crush the hopes and dreams of the armoured corp because the tank is clearly best employed as a museum piece!

I wonder how many times the tank has to die before it finally dies? Sorry, but I gotta stick up for the tank here. Maybe it is dead, but I haven't been convinced of it yet (of course I also think the battleship took longer to become obsolete than some people, so my opinion may have limited value).

From the combat footage I've seen it looks like the tank is still playing a useful role. The Ukrainians still want tanks (I doubt they would want them if they didn't have a use for them). And I still find tanks to be a valuable part of my own forces in CMCW, CMSF2, and CMBS (for what that's worth (even with the war on CM is still one of my biggest windows into what modern warfare is like)).

Mechanized maneuver warfare might be dead. But the tank predates mechanized maneuver warfare (armies were building them by the thousands even before the Germans plugged them into a maneuver warfare doctrine). So while there's probably no maneuver warfare without the tank, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is no tank without maneuver warfare. The key thing that the tank provides is direct firepower. It will become obsolete either when direct firepower becomes irrelevant or something else does a better job of providing direct firepower. Perhaps the tank will become obsolete when UGVs start providing armored direct firepower (or maybe we'll just call those "unmanned tanks"). I think technology is moving in that direction, so (assuming that you think of a gun-UGV as something other than just an unmanned tank) the tank's days probably are numbered. But that number hasn't reached zero yet.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Centurian52