How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kimbosbread]

31 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

An enhanced  soldier with as much destructive power as a tank would be impressive but surely they really have to be cost effective against the UAVs that might kill them (see UAVs chasing Russian infantry passim). Unless our 10 Starship Troopers come in cheaper than the number of UAVs needed to defeat them then these are still losing margins.

Regardless of whether it’s a soldier in powerered armor, or the suit without a human inside, or a robot dog, you need something to occupy territory.

Occupying territory might just become very expensive.

[Probus]

32 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

An enhanced  soldier with as much destructive power as a tank would be impressive but surely they really have to be cost effective against the UAVs that might kill them (see UAVs chasing Russian infantry passim). Unless our 10 Starship Troopers come in cheaper than the number of UAVs needed to defeat them then these are still losing margins.

Sounds like we need a Combat Mission: Mobile Infantry.  We should test some of this conjecture!   

[JonS]

9 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Occupying territory might just become very expensive.

Dollar expensive, and likely time expensive, but probably not blood expensive. It'll suck for the guys doing the mechshuffle, but there wont be very many of them out there in total.

Edited November 2, 2023 by JonS

[JonS]

44 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

An enhanced  soldier with as much destructive power as a tank would be impressive but surely they really have to be cost effective against the UAVs that might kill them

Soldiers aren't cost effective compared to a 5.56mm round. Tanks arent cost effective compared to an APFSDS. Planes arent cost effective compared to a sidewinder. Ships arent cost effective compared to a harpoon.

And yet, here we are.

[Battlefront.com]

47 minutes ago, JonS said:

Soldiers aren't cost effective compared to a 5.56mm round. Tanks arent cost effective compared to an APFSDS. Planes arent cost effective compared to a sidewinder. Ships arent cost effective compared to a harpoon.

And yet, here we are.

And this quote, by our own JonS, is just one more thing that our future AI overlords are going to learn from.  Let's keep it up, and maybe LLF's cartoon will come true because they'll think that harpoon is best way to take out the ships we've escaped on

Steve

[The_Capt]

37 minutes ago, JonS said:

Soldiers aren't cost effective compared to a 5.56mm round. Tanks arent cost effective compared to an APFSDS. Planes arent cost effective compared to a sidewinder. Ships arent cost effective compared to a harpoon.

And yet, here we are.

A bit more complicated but the sentiment is not entirely off.  We did an exercise about 10 years back trying to figure out all the components of military value.  In the end it looked like the Drake Equation, which was scary enough and then some egghead pointed out that some components were non-linear over time.  Over all military value is a pretty complex beast with all sorts of tangible and intangible elements.

So when considering something like a new platform one has to try and consider its value as a delta V to an overall system.  How is X giving an entire system an advantage to an opponents comparative opposing system.  So infantry in battle suits is not simply “how much does the suit cost versus the things that can kill it” it is “how does the system create effects advantage”.  Cost becomes an attritional factor but is offset by advantage.  

So beating up on the poor tank.  It isn’t the fact that cheap ATGMs or UAS can kill them that is driving their value down.  It is the fact that ATGMs and UAS are killing them before the tank can deliver its military value on the battlefield.  If tanks could survive long enough to create operational tempo and manoeuvre then we would not be having this conversation, even if we were looking at the same loss rates.  It is the fact we are seeing the loss rates without the tank being able to deliver value.  That is what is killing the tank.  Making it worse is the cost factor and those tanks being eliminated by incredibly cheap systems compared to the cost of the tank.

So if armoured infantry in battle suits can live long enough to create effect, force decision and sustain options then they have value that far outweighs strips cost.  Of course there is a threshold for this, we see that in WW2 Germany.  The Tiger was brilliant but far too costly to sustain even with the effects it could deliver.  The Tiger 2 is like modern tanks.  The damn things were very expensive and most could not even get to the start line.

So is a military capability below a cost sustainment threshold?  And does it deliver value for that costs?  When and where that value happens is also incredibly important.  In reality it is very complex - let alone when you factor in historical and cultural value.  There is a Perun video (if he hasn’t already done one, that guy has to be in FD somewhere).

[cyrano01]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

Soldiers aren't cost effective compared to a 5.56mm round. Tanks arent cost effective compared to an APFSDS. Planes arent cost effective compared to a sidewinder. Ships arent cost effective compared to a harpoon.

And yet, here we are.

All true and I'm not staking out ground as the Drone Ranger here. In truth don't really know where to start the analysis to determine whether our putative Starship Troopers stack up against a drone swarm.

Soldiers, tanks, aircraft and ships aren't cost effective against those weapons but they may well be against the system delivering the weapon (anothe soldier, tank, aircraft and ship/submarine respectively).  Would our powered-armour assisted infantryman be cost effective against the system delivering the UAVs (a man with a controller or a simple launcher for an autonomous UAV)? I don't know but it has to be open to question.

Ah, ninja'd by The_Capt who said it far better than I would have done.

Edited November 2, 2023 by cyrano01

[JonS]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

A bit more complicated

It always is

[JonS]

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And this quote, by our own JonS, is just one more thing that our future AI overlords are going to learn from

... and now I'm imaging a terminator-like robot tying to load a tangle of snakes into a trebuchet in an attempt to knock down F-35s

Edited November 2, 2023 by JonS

[acrashb]

2 hours ago, cyrano01 said:

'This operation would make the charge of the light brigade look like a sensible military exercise.'

I've seen that many armoured vehicles stacked up in CM only when I'm playing the AI, have lots of drones, and on top of that know what route the AI will take because I've done the scenario before.

We keep talking about the RA learning.  It's certainly learning some tactically (Lancets, drone ISR, artillery and supply chain dispersal, etc. ), but it remains stone-cold stupid in other ways.  At least from what we see and how we assign value and the definition of success.  It may well be that funnelling all that juicy armour through one spot secured a senior officer's promotion for being aggressive, or prevented his humiliating dismissal for lack of aggression / obedience to plan.  In which case it was very successful for said officer even while being obviously not for the RA - kind of like big corporations where staff optimize their personal outcomes at the expense of the bigger picture.

In modern war, artillery arrives in near-real time, and you can't even drive out of it because it adjusts in real-time.  The C4ISR or overall OODA loop is that tight, as described in more detail by Haiduk a few days back.

And of course the CONOPS of all armour - essentially that significant threats will come from the front, so tactical and operational doctrine is designed to see that they do - is completely broken by real-time artillery and/or smart and/or area-effect artillery, copious and rapidly re-laid mines (wait until they have legs), long-range man-portable top-attack AT missiles, and drones.

PS: the Charge of the Light Brigade was a problem of communications, not tactics.  "The charge was the result of a misunderstood order from the commander in chief, Lord Raglan, who had intended the Light Brigade to attack a different objective for which light cavalry was better suited, to prevent the Russians from removing captured guns from overrun Turkish positions. " - Charge of the Light Brigade - Wikipedia

 

[cyrano01]

3 minutes ago, acrashb said:

PS: the Charge of the Light Brigade was a problem of communications, not tactics.  "The charge was the result of a misunderstood order from the commander in chief, Lord Raglan, who had intended the Light Brigade to attack a different objective for which light cavalry was better suited, to prevent the Russians from removing captured guns from overrun Turkish positions. " - Charge of the Light Brigade - Wikipedia

 

Yeah, I know, I just couldn't resist the 'Where Eagles Dare' quote.

 

 

[acrashb]

3 minutes ago, cyrano01 said:

Yeah, I know, I just couldn't resist the 'Where Eagles Dare' quote.

Nice.  "no one specified dead or alive".  Little gaps like that lead to - great movies

[cyrano01]

1 hour ago, acrashb said:

Nice.  "no one specified dead or alive".  Little gaps like that lead to - great movies

Mind you I am still trying to make up my mind whether Raglan, Cardigan and Lord Look-On would raise or lower the average quality of Russian generalship were they added to the current crew.

[dan/california]

Any chance of some bones about the new game for page 3000 of our little project?

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The Tiger 2 is like modern tanks.  The damn things were very expensive and most could not even get to the start line.

Oh, you're being too harsh on the Tiger 2.  Look, provided there was a maintenance crew, truckloads of spares, fuel trucks, and an engineer unit capable of reinforcing bridges, the Tiger 2 absolutely could get to the starting line.  Since the propaganda film crews were there, that's really all it needed to do.  Setting the bar higher is just being an old poopy-pants.  What's cost when you have something that dead sexy?

On a serious note, the whole thing about battlefield economics is an interesting topic.  The West has constantly favored crew/passenger survivability when designing its vehicles.  This increases the cost dramatically, but the benefit of preserving the lives of long term and quite costly soldiers seems to be worth it.  A Bradley might cost a lot more than a BMP and yet still effectively be just as easily lost, but survivability features mean a greater chance of crew and dismounts living to fight another day with the Brad than the BMP.  But if the enemy has top attack weapon like Javelin or drone with EFP, the Brad stops looking like it's worth it because its crew/dismount survivability likely becomes similar to a BMP (i.e. not much).

What I'm saying here is that the Western justification for spending way more on its armored vehicles seems to be doomed to failure.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, acrashb said:

We keep talking about the RA learning.  It's certainly learning some tactically (Lancets, drone ISR, artillery and supply chain dispersal, etc. ), but it remains stone-cold stupid in other ways.  At least from what we see and how we assign value and the definition of success.  It may well be that funnelling all that juicy armour through one spot secured a senior officer's promotion for being aggressive, or prevented his humiliating dismissal for lack of aggression / obedience to plan.  In which case it was very successful for said officer even while being obviously not for the RA - kind of like big corporations where staff optimize their personal outcomes at the expense of the bigger picture.

This was the excellent point that ISW made a couple of days ago.  It can be argued that at the tactical and perhaps operational level Russians have learned a few significant things since this war started, but strategically... there appears to be almost nothing learned.  Imagine a scenario where Gerasimov stipulated that subordinate commanders needed to come with innovative solutions on their own or be shot for incompetence, I think you'd see the Colonels and Majors that weren't shot dead for failure would probably come up with some pretty creative solutions.  However, the same corrupt and incompetent leadership that is responsible for all of the Russian failures is still the ones in charge.  Which is good!

Steve

[The_Capt]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What's cost when you have something that dead sexy?

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting observation by ISW about how Russians have reacted to Zaluzhnyi's interview:

Quote

The Russian information space’s reaction to Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi’s November 1 interview and essay about the current operational environment in Ukraine was relatively muted. Several Russian sources simply summarized Zaluzhnyi’s points, while others suggested that Zaluzhnyi was primarily acknowledging the superiority of Soviet-era military strategy over NATO doctrine.[7] Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov expressed disagreement with Zaluzhnyi’s conclusions and stated that the war has not reached a “dead end.”[8]

Think about this.  If someone on the Russian side is clear headed enough to know that Russian forces can't beat Ukraine, but now Ukraine is saying it can't be Russia, this removes all incentives to keep fighting.  There's nothing to be gained from further fighting.  A really smart and informed Russian might even be concerned about Ukraine going on the defensive for 2024 while building up capabilities, especially in the air, while Russia would continue to fritter its combat power away in pointless attacks.

It could be that this was the worst news Russia could have heard from Zaluzhnyi.  Defeatist talk would have been celebrated!  Overly confident talk would have been ridiculed.  Instead, the pragmatism of Zaluzhnyi might be concerning.

Steve

[sburke]

5 hours ago, JonS said:

... and now I'm imaging a terminator-like robot tying to load a tangle of snakes into a trebuchet in an attempt to knock down F-35s

snakes in the plane! 

[Ithikial_AU]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Think about this.  If someone on the Russian side is clear headed enough to know that Russian forces can't beat Ukraine, but now Ukraine is saying it can't be Russia, this removes all incentives to keep fighting.  There's nothing to be gained from further fighting.

Problem is this works both ways though as Ukraine isn't going win either. As the taps of western support start being turned off doubt we're going to see a resolution with clearly defined borders in Ukraine's (and the west's) favour. Not that they appeared to of made a difference in assisting an effective counter attack... donated Leopards are great but they can't be everywhere at once.

This whole affair I guess will continue to be talked about in defence and foreign affairs policy circles for a while yet about how the west can intervene without boots on the ground and get a favourable outcome. The idea of "21st Century Lend Lease" rather than directly intervening really hasn't worked if they expected the support to lead to a clear victory. Unless stalemate was the goal of Washington, Brussels and others... which I highly doubt.

Poses problems for strategy when the next move happens between the powers involving clear national military forces on both sides. China -> Taiwan? Are we really going to repeat the sending of equipment routine and harsh language in front of the cameras in that instance and hope for the best? We also know that sanctions really haven't altered the status quo inside Russia either as not all countries are adhering to them and forming their own blocks to challenge the West and it's institutions.

[Battlefront.com]

32 minutes ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Problem is this works both ways though as Ukraine isn't going win either.

For sure, but Russia has its land bridge.  If Ukraine doesn't think it can win it back, but does think it can continue to blow up expensive ground equipment, shoot down aircraft, and sink ships... might it not be a good time for Russia to try and freeze the conflict, preserve what it has won and save the economy from going over the cliff?  Doesn't Russia have more to lose by keeping the war going than gain?

Objectively the positive incentives for Russia to try and freeze the conflict instead of continue fighting have existed for the entire war.  I know I've argued this at several points between its start and today.  I would now argue that Russia is far worse off now than if it had negotiated something in Spring 2022 and the prospects are that it is going to be worse in 2024 than 2023.  Maybe not in terms of terrain, but in terms of the cost of keeping the war going without improving its strategic position.

So, a pragmatist Russian mil blogger would see Zaluzhnyi's statements in The Economist as evidence that there might be an opportunity to freeze the conflict now that Ukraine appears to realize it isn't getting back large tracts of land any time soon.

Steve

[Ithikial_AU]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

So, a pragmatist Russian mil blogger would see Zaluzhnyi's statements in The Economist as evidence that there might be an opportunity to freeze the conflict now that Ukraine appears to realize it isn't getting back large tracts of land any time soon.

Steve

Well I guess it depends on whether we see an overt or back channel attempt to start negotiations for a cease fire / peace treaty from Russia. If Russia can get out of the conflict and keep it's land bridge and the two breakaway regions, then it would still claim a victory. Zelensky already said no to any discussions without Russia exiting all Ukrainian terrain but if people in his inner circle are also seeing the writing on the wall in terms of the lack of a strategic breakthrough and the dwindling of western support... could get interesting.

The above probably makes me sound pro-Russian to some extent and I'm definitely not, I'm just disappointed it may end up like this. Any ceasefire that leads to Russia keeping anything will be a political loss for many like Biden I'd imagine, and has to lead to questioning of the tactics used by the West to support a friend and ally when they are under attack.

Unsure if this is been shared before but for a bit of history diversion. Good to see David Glantz still going....

 

[Battlefront.com]

38 minutes ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Well I guess it depends on whether we see an overt or back channel attempt to start negotiations for a cease fire / peace treaty from Russia. If Russia can get out of the conflict and keep it's land bridge and the two breakaway regions, then it would still claim a victory. Zelensky already said no to any discussions without Russia exiting all Ukrainian terrain but if people in his inner circle are also seeing the writing on the wall in terms of the lack of a strategic breakthrough and the dwindling of western support... could get interesting.

The above probably makes me sound pro-Russian to some extent and I'm definitely not, I'm just disappointed it may end up like this. Any ceasefire that leads to Russia keeping anything will be a political loss for many like Biden I'd imagine, and has to lead to questioning of the tactics used by the West to support a friend and ally when they are under attack.

Unsure if this is been shared before but for a bit of history diversion. Good to see David Glantz still going....

 

I want to be clear, I'm talking about the Russian mil bloggers... not Putin's regime.  Those guys are important, but aren't listened to (much) by senior military or political leadership.  In fact, they have been the subject of persecution.

Their importance is on public opinion amongst the hardcore Russian nationalists.  Those are an essential part of Putin's power structure.  If he loses those guys, he's screwed.  Assuming he's still alive to be screwed

I'm not saying there will be any change in their opinion or the opinion of their primary audience.  What I am saying is that there might be a further incentive for them to shift into advocating for freezing the conflict instead of driving to the English Channel.

And yes, good to see Glantz still kicking!  I've noted the video to give it a watch.

Steve

[zinz]

https://mastodon.social/@ChrisO_wiki/111345893030339729

 

About current Russian recruitment practices 

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

This whole affair I guess will continue to be talked about in defence and foreign affairs policy circles for a while yet about how the west can intervene without boots on the ground and get a favourable outcome. The idea of "21st Century Lend Lease" rather than directly intervening really hasn't worked if they expected the support to lead to a clear victory. Unless stalemate was the goal of Washington, Brussels and others... which I highly doubt.

I don’t think it is nearly as cut and dry as the average person thinks.  There are upsides to a stalemate at this point.  To be totally brutal an endstate where both sides can claim victory (and defeat) often makes for the best outcome.  Ukraine is still a free nation, our support ensured they stood up against an illegal invasion and largely repelled it when there should have been no chance of that success.  

Russia and Putin can claim victory as they took an additional 7% of Ukraine at an eye-watering cost.  But this will likely keep ol Flat Face in power for a few more years before Time does its thing for us all.  This avoids a Russian free fall experience, and we get the added bonus of Europe buying our oil and gas (or alternatives) while we righteously continue to isolate Russia -this is why it won’t matter who is in the White House post-war. 

A lose-lose starts to look like a win-win.  US administration can point to all the upsides going into ‘24, plus we are looking at Armageddon in the Middle East which keeps the Bible Belt focused elsewhere.  We hopefully do a whole bunch of reconstruction in Ukraine and go all South Korea on the place.  Russia continues as downward spiral but slowly enough they don’t start WW3.  And we can all focus on China as the next big threat worthy of trillions in defence spending on bloated military capabilities that probably won’t work.

So you see, a stalemate is not the end of the world.  In fact I would not be surprised if in some circles they are kinda pushing for it.  The total and utter crushing of Russia has some serious risks.  This outcome sidesteps a lot of them.  Now everyone is both happy and unhappy.  Sometimes no decision is the best decision.

I for one am not convinced we are there yet, but we definitely can see it from here.

Edited November 3, 2023 by The_Capt