How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[sburke]

11 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Oh my god! the vast majority of users on this forum write posts without any evidence or argument. No one demands any facts or evidence from them, but only if it is good news (Russians are stupid, Russian technology sucks, Russians are losing, we are not risking anything). As soon as bad news or unpopular thoughts appear, demands for evidence and arguments immediately arise

no, in fact @The_Capt has been known to come down pretty hard on those who paint a rose-tinted view of UA capabilities or plans.  The push for fact-based info is across the board, but yeah those who post stuff more in line with Russian defeatist stuff are gonna get the whack a mole first specifically to prevent RA mis information that is so deliberate these days.

[sburke]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

They are worried about NATO (among other things).  Losing that much hardware and not being able to replace it is not a good news story for them.  In fact it is a strategic indicator that, shockingly, Russia is not getting better as a result of this war…they are getting worse.

Edit: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/the-uncounted-losses-to-russias-air-force.html

The other part is pilot losses.  Sure maybe somehow Russian can find the resources to rebuild aircraft.  Get specialized parts through China or Turkey, wherever.  The pilots however....

[Battlefront.com]

34 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

 

Oh my god! the vast majority of users on this forum write posts without any evidence or argument. No one demands any facts or evidence from them, but only if it is good news (Russians are stupid, Russian technology sucks, Russians are losing, we are not risking anything). As soon as bad news or unpopular thoughts appear, demands for evidence and arguments immediately arise

This false.  People that post such ungrounded opinions get pounced on.  Case in point, your posts about aircraft production and losses

Where things get "squishy" is when something is inherently unknowable or unpredictable.  That's where opinion matters, but valuable opinions are those based on facts.  For example, the recent exchange of posts about Russia's economic adjustments to sanctions.  I criticized the NYT article because it focused only on the short term and presented it as the same as long term.  I presented an opinion about this and backed it up with facts.  Who is correct?  Nobody can possibly know, but that doesn't mean I can just dismiss what NYT without making a factual counter argument.

Figuring out how many aircraft Russia has lost and how many it can replace is a fairly straight forward discussion.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Losing that much hardware and not being able to replace it is not a good news story for them.  In fact it is a strategic indicator that, shockingly, Russia is not getting better as a result of this war…they are getting worse.

Edit: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/the-uncounted-losses-to-russias-air-force.html

That is a good article and it (once again) demonstrates that people who try to boil down a complex topic into simplistic counts are likely wrong about their conclusions.

Aircraft are inherently complex in every way, which is why UAVs are so "disruptive" because they largely are not.  The fact (and it is fact) is that Russia is losing aircraft faster than they can produce them.  And it is more likely than not going to get worse for Russia, not better.

Let's presume that Russia can make 12x SU-34s per year.  Let's also assume that they are 100% as good as the ones they produced in 2021 (no shortcuts, no substandard components).  These assumptions are likely false, but let's go with them anyway.

In one day Ukraine shot down 25% of the entire year's worth of production.  At a minimum this means 3 months of the VVS operating without those aircraft, even if they are replaced without suffering any more losses.  Which is not likely, especially when "losses" is better portrayed as "non-serviceable" as that includes aircraft being repaired/overhauled due to increased use.

And that is just for this one airframe.  There are compounding factors across all aircraft losses and production that need to be considered.  For example, some of the SU-34 production was always intended to replace older aircraft that were worn out.  If Russia now has to use SU-34 production to replace SU-34s, what is going to replace the other aircraft?

So on and so forth.

The point here is if you want to debate something in this thread, be prepared to have your opinions challenged.  If you can't do better than scoffing at the challenges, then don't post to start with.

Steve

[Zeleban]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

n one day Ukraine shot down 25% of the entire year's worth of production.  At a minimum this means 3 months of the VVS operating without those aircraft, even if they are replaced without suffering any more losses. 

Well, let's see how true this is. Feedback from our frontline fighters about the number of gliding bomb attacks on their positions will be a good marker.

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Well, let's see how true this is. Feedback from our frontline fighters about the number of gliding bomb attacks on their positions will be a good marker.

Not necessarily.  If it reduces the attacks then that probably means things are even worse than we're thinking they are.  If the attacks stay the same or increase, this doesn't necessarily mean Russia isn't hurting.  Russia could have made up for the losses by further reducing their air defenses elsewhere.  This is, in fact, how they are keeping lots of things functioning.

In English we call this "robbing Peter to pay Paul".  At first it might seem that this strategy works because Paul gets paid.  But long term?  Peter can or will only be robbed so many times before Paul can not be paid.

And in any case, each aircraft Ukraine shoots down is FOR SURE an aircraft that isn't lobbing glide bombs.  That is a good thing and should not be forgotten.

Steve

[dan/california]

9 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/18nu2iq/destruction_of_a_russian_mlrs_apparently_a_tos1a/

TOS going boom with some interesting commentary.

The interesting thing about this tape is that is was hit by some sort or direct fire auto-cannon. Probably firing at longe range. I am thinking someone was not careful about sight lines to the far bank of the river. That or the Ukrainians have a lot more forces over the river than we thought, and in places the Russians did not expect them to be. Interesting either way.

[TheVulture]

14 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The interesting thing about this tape is that is was hit by some sort or direct fire auto-cannon. Probably firing at longe range. I am thinking someone was not careful about sight lines to the far bank of the river. That or the Ukrainians have a lot more forces over the river than we thought, and in places the Russians did not expect them to be. Interesting either way.

I'm not sure what hit it - my interpretation of the video is that those streaks are missile launches, presumably from a TOS-1, although the explosion happens 10-20 (hard to tell, so a wild guess) meters in front of the source point of the missiles. So either two launchers close together, or one launcher plus some kind of ammo carrier which is what blew up.

But it's hard to be sure of anything just from the footage there.

Other suggestion on the reddit thread is that it is an anti-air system behind the TOS trying to intercept the incoming drone.

Edited December 22, 2023 by TheVulture

[Chibot Mk IX]

12 hours ago, Kinophile said:

@Chibot Mk IX, interesting quote.

There's an odd little note in there, namely:

A guide? To whom? Is he misreading something? Why on earth would anyone place flags in front of their lines? Doing so is dangerous, it highlights your lines (duh) and if you're UKR then you already know where your lines are and you certainly don't want to advertise to RUS.

Odd.

We don't know how far these yellow flags are from the trench. If there is some distance, let's say 50-100m, that could be used as a reference point for artillery fire, a waypoint for drone operators. If it is placed next to the trench, then probably that is a marker to indicate friendly position to some hothead FPV drone operators. 

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

I'm not sure what hit it - my interpretation of the video is that those streaks are missile launches, presumably from a TOS-1, although the explosion happens 10-20 (hard to tell, so a wild guess) meters in front of the source point of the missiles. So either two launchers close together, or one launcher plus some kind of ammo carrier which is what blew up.

But it's hard to be sure of anything just from the footage there.

Also possible, i haven't frame by framed it. But the pattern of the tracers and the apparent  misses in a linear pattern looks a great deal like a couple things we have seen recently that we at least think we know are Bradley 25mm firing at very long range. I freely concede that the video is low quality, and my impression may completely wrong. 

Speaking of Bradley's firing at very long range, I have a question for the people on the forum who have actually operated one. Does the U.S. commonly employ the 25mm at very long range in semi indirect fire? Or is this something the Ukrainians are inventing as we watch?

[danfrodo]

32 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Well, let's see how true this is. Feedback from our frontline fighters about the number of gliding bomb attacks on their positions will be a good marker.

I'd say any local fighter might or might not feel this.  It would show up in the aggregate.  This is always a problem w frontline narratives.  It might be 100% true but it might only be true locally.

Zeleban, perhaps there's a translation issue which makes you sound more strident than you are actually trying to be.  As a native speaker of american, one might premise a statement with something that allows for discussion, like  "I read that RU aircraft production is X, therefore % losses would be Y".  This allows discussion of the premise (production=X) & conclusions (losses=Y) w/o it becoming personal.  When it sounds like one is saying "you are wrong because RU production is X!" it closes discussion.  Phrasing matters in how a discussion will evolve.

Now if I would just follow my own suggestion above more often...

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

We don't know how far these yellow flags are from the trench. If there is some distance, let's say 50-100m, that could be used as a reference point for artillery fire, a waypoint for drone operators. If it is placed next to the trench, then probably that is a marker to indicate friendly position to some hothead FPV drone operators. 

BTW, thanks for posting that report.  Always good to get unique perspectives from sources the rest of us probably would have missed.

Steve

[Splinty]

26 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Also possible, i haven't frame by framed it. But the pattern of the tracers and the apparent  misses in a linear pattern looks a great deal like a couple things we have seen recently that we at least think we know are Bradley 25mm firing at very long range. I freely concede that the video is low quality, and my impression may completely wrong. 

Speaking of Bradley's firing at very long range, I have a question for the people on the forum who have actually operated one. Does the U.S. commonly employ the 25mm at very long range in semi indirect fire? Or is this something the Ukrainians are inventing as we watch?

I'm a little out of date here. But in the '80s and early '90s, no we didn't train on semi indirect fires. We always used direct fire on Table VIII, Which was our qualification firing range. 

[Seedorf81]

Dutch ministry of defence:

18 f-16's will be delivered to Ukraine as soon as export-permits, and logistical situation in Ukraine for their use, are dealt with.

More are likely to follow.

(Zelesky confirmed the deal after call with Dutch prime-minister.)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/dec/22/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-updates?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-658599678f08abff3716b7ef

Edited December 22, 2023 by Seedorf81

[Offshoot]

6 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

 

What does the Ukrainian fire here (at 21s) because something hits the ground and bounces a fair way in front of them and, according to the video time (which looks normal speed), there are about 4 seconds between firing and the explosion that takes out the tank?

[Zeleban]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

I'd say any local fighter might or might not feel this.  It would show up in the aggregate.  This is always a problem w frontline narratives.  It might be 100% true but it might only be true locally.

Zeleban, perhaps there's a translation issue which makes you sound more strident than you are actually trying to be.  As a native speaker of american, one might premise a statement with something that allows for discussion, like  "I read that RU aircraft production is X, therefore % losses would be Y".  This allows discussion of the premise (production=X) & conclusions (losses=Y) w/o it becoming personal.  When it sounds like one is saying "you are wrong because RU production is X!" it closes discussion.  Phrasing matters in how a discussion will evolve.

Now if I would just follow my own suggestion above more often...

 

It's quite possible you're right. English has never been my strong point

[Zeleban]

Repulse of a massive, mechanized offensive of the Russians on the position of soldiers of the 2nd battalion of the 30th MBr in the Kupyansk direction. It is indicated that the large-caliber M2 machine gun was used to repel the attack, as well as fire from the BMP-2. Earlier there was a short segment of this video. Now there is a long version of two parts

Edited December 22, 2023 by Zeleban

[Zeleban]

Reflecting a Russian attack by the 8th battalion of the 10th separate mountain assault brigade "Edelweiss". At first, the Russians occupy the trenches, but as a result of a counterattack by the Ukrainians and their successful use of grenades, the Russians decide to retreat, but a Ukrainian fighter shoots them at close range, until one of the Russians thought of using a smoke grenade to hide the retreat of the entire group

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

That is a good article and it (once again) demonstrates that people who try to boil down a complex topic into simplistic counts are likely wrong about their conclusions.

Aircraft are inherently complex in every way, which is why UAVs are so "disruptive" because they largely are not.  The fact (and it is fact) is that Russia is losing aircraft faster than they can produce them.  And it is more likely than not going to get worse for Russia, not better.

Let's presume that Russia can make 12x SU-34s per year.  Let's also assume that they are 100% as good as the ones they produced in 2021 (no shortcuts, no substandard components).  These assumptions are likely false, but let's go with them anyway.

In one day Ukraine shot down 25% of the entire year's worth of production.  At a minimum this means 3 months of the VVS operating without those aircraft, even if they are replaced without suffering any more losses.  Which is not likely, especially when "losses" is better portrayed as "non-serviceable" as that includes aircraft being repaired/overhauled due to increased use.

And that is just for this one airframe.  There are compounding factors across all aircraft losses and production that need to be considered.  For example, some of the SU-34 production was always intended to replace older aircraft that were worn out.  If Russia now has to use SU-34 production to replace SU-34s, what is going to replace the other aircraft?

So on and so forth.

The point here is if you want to debate something in this thread, be prepared to have your opinions challenged.  If you can't do better than scoffing at the challenges, then don't post to start with.

Steve

Actually in Z’s favour, posting unsubstantiated hyperbolic opinion does force a look afield for counter-points…and one can find some good stuff:

https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/04/russias-military-industry-forecast-2023-2025/

So basically as I read it, despite pouring historic levels of funding into the military complex Russia appears to be struggling to surge military manufacturing.  In most cases it look like they are barely sustaining their base in face of sanctions etc.  With respect to aircraft Russia is pretty much flat in its manufacturing ability compared to previous years.  Of course combat losses and wear and tear are attriting the RuAF faster than it can be sustained, let alone surge.  So what?  Well unless we cut off UA AD capability entirely Russia is not going to be able to somehow re-establish air superiority.  This is good news for UA defence while they re-set and figure out where to go from here.

As to posting opinion.  Well sure everyone can do this.  Some positions are well known and cause little stir.  But if someone is going to come on this thread and pose a highly controversial or something really new then they will be challenged regardless of personal situation.  We all should be doing more background research and posting information here as best we can.  But not everyone has the time or inclination so of course not every post is going to have deep research behind it.  

However, if someone wants to come on the thread and openly declare that “Russia is Winning because XYZ!” Gets challenged on it and then makes a lot of angry noises as opposed to providing facts or research to back them up, then it is their original position and credibility on this position that takes the hits.  I for one do not believe the OP position and deductions are sound. They do not reflect a quick background check. This is going to inform my perception of the next positions he may take.

[poesel]

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I am not sure the current rocket laying system is a problem.  The problem seems to be minefield depth.  MICLIC are only about 100m long and RA minefields are around 500m.  ...

And of course they have developed mine fuses to counter the effects.

Multiple lanes are of course a good idea but that is a lot of systems as there are multiple minefield belts.  So again, part of an overall larger system and operation, not a silver bullet. 

The problem of the rocket laying system is its size. It's a tank or tank sized. And it is a single piece of expensive equipment that you probably don't have that many of. Those systems get killed fast if they trundle slowly around in the open.

If you have drones doing the mine clearing (=placing the C4), then you have small & cheap pieces of equipment you can have lots of. And you have variable clearing depth as well.

Let's assume such a drone system costs 10k (I'm talking about that plywood fixed wing thing). A mine clearing tank costs 5m (also a guess). You could have 500 drones for a price of one tank, and those drones could clear a 5 km(!) path through mines, even if every single one of them would be lost after one use.

 

Of course, this is not the Wunderwaffe that fixes mines & breaching alone. But to think of the possibilities of what drones could do at an industrial scale is... interesting. Lots of current weapon systems are being made obsolete in a very short time. I'm not sure if that is with precedent. If I only knew any military historians, I could ask...

[Maciej Zwolinski]

9 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Just a curiosity: somebody already made a simulator  of FPV drone, set in current war. From keyboard straight into trenches...

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2707940/FPV_Kamikaze_Drone/

Are you sure this is not some kind of "Ender's Game" situation and by "playing" it you are actually blowing actual katsaps to the great kolkhoz in the sky?

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, poesel said:

The problem of the rocket laying system is its size. It's a tank or tank sized. And it is a single piece of expensive equipment that you probably don't have that many of. Those systems get killed fast if they trundle slowly around in the open.

If you have drones doing the mine clearing (=placing the C4), then you have small & cheap pieces of equipment you can have lots of. And you have variable clearing depth as well.

Let's assume such a drone system costs 10k (I'm talking about that plywood fixed wing thing). A mine clearing tank costs 5m (also a guess). You could have 500 drones for a price of one tank, and those drones could clear a 5 km(!) path through mines, even if every single one of them would be lost after one use.

 

Of course, this is not the Wunderwaffe that fixes mines & breaching alone. But to think of the possibilities of what drones could do at an industrial scale is... interesting. Lots of current weapon systems are being made obsolete in a very short time. I'm not sure if that is with precedent. If I only knew any military historians, I could ask...

Ok, I see where you are going.  I am not sure how one would place them.  A line charge runs an explosive chain from end to end.  If you split the line charge into pieces, each one would need to be individually triggered.  A single 500m line charge would be too heavy for any drone.  It would take a team of drones to carry and place, which does not sound practical.  

Now some sort of FAB system…

[dan/california]

7 minutes ago, poesel said:

The problem of the rocket laying system is its size. It's a tank or tank sized. And it is a single piece of expensive equipment that you probably don't have that many of. Those systems get killed fast if they trundle slowly around in the open.

If you have drones doing the mine clearing (=placing the C4), then you have small & cheap pieces of equipment you can have lots of. And you have variable clearing depth as well.

Let's assume such a drone system costs 10k (I'm talking about that plywood fixed wing thing). A mine clearing tank costs 5m (also a guess). You could have 500 drones for a price of one tank, and those drones could clear a 5 km(!) path through mines, even if every single one of them would be lost after one use.

 

Of course, this is not the Wunderwaffe that fixes mines & breaching alone. But to think of the possibilities of what drones could do at an industrial scale is... interesting. Lots of current weapon systems are being made obsolete in a very short time. I'm not sure if that is with precedent. If I only knew any military historians, I could ask...

 

Quote

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Origins-of-Victory-Audiobook/B0BZQCPLL1?ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_library_t_c5_libItem_B0BZQCPLL1_0&pf_rd_p=80765e81-b10a-4f33-b1d3-ffb87793d047&pf_rd_r=4484XCG1YF0NEZWJ17QV&pageLoadId=mc6rePPj2Nxk21kr&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=4ee810cf-ac8e-4eeb-8b79-40e176d0a225

This book contains four excellent case studies of some of the biggest turnovers in military technology from the last ~150 years. I thought it was excellent, and i learned a lot from it.

[poesel]

9 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Just a curiosity: somebody already made a simulator  of FPV drone, set in current war. From keyboard straight into trenches...

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2707940/FPV_Kamikaze_Drone/

There is this review from a guy who seems to very exactly know the stuff he needs from the game:

https://steamcommunity.com/id/iserediuk/recommended/2707940/

There is a lot on the day-to-day drone operation in that comment.
I find it interesting that he gives a 1 in 15 chance for a drone to be shot down by a soldier on the ground. That is more likely than what we thought, I think.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, I see where you are going.  I am not sure how one would place them.  A line charge runs an explosive chain from end to end.  If you split the line charge into pieces, each one would need to be individually triggered.

In order to clear mines, do they need to explode in unison/ in a beginning-to-end sequence, in the same way that fuse burns from one end to the other, or is it sufficient that the constituent charges are placed in specifed distance from one another so that enough pressure gets directed at all points of the surface being cleared  - without regard for the fact that e.g. the charge #1 blows first, then #5, then charges ## 3 and 4, and the charge#2 blows last? 

In the second case, individual triggering seems less of the problem and the crucial issue seems limited to accurate placement of charges, right?  I mean that if we do not need to align charges on the ground perfectly to try and mimic an actual line before we blow it in unison, each drone can just signal its charge to detonate after a delay of X seconds after placement, and even if the delivery vehicles arrive at the target out of synch and start blowing up out of synch, the breach can still be made.