How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Russian true-orthodox anti-drone system - a prayer to Saint Barbara "against devilish drones"

Saint Barbara, great martyress and patroness,

Look down at us, mourners and sufferers,

Agianst devilish UAVs, sowing death and destruction.

Keep us in faith and hope, give us strength and courage,

So as not to lose heart and despair 

In the struggle for true and freedom

Our patroness, pray God for us, 

So as He to spare us

And rid us of evil slanders of our foes

Amen.    

Almost movie scene. Russian company prayer before next "meat assault" near Avdiivka.

 

 

 

This is a good video to show what we've seen throughout this war, which is Russia's inability to field standardized, uniform infantry kit.  Russia has been at war for 2 years and yet still it lacks the ability to produce standardized equipment.  This is not a sign of economic strength or strong logistics.  At the very best it shows that Russia has the capacity to produce what it needs, but not the ability to do it in an organized and efficient manner. 

I suspect what we continue to see is individual soldiers responsible for getting some, if not all, of their kit on their own.  A variety of private companies supply this need, probably much of it coming from China. The MoD supplies weapons, helmets, body armor, and whatever else it can scrape together.

Note that I am not saying "this is a sign of Russian collapse".  On the contrary, this appears to be a practical solution to Russia's long standing struggles to organize in an efficient way.  Since these soldiers are likely to die or be wounded quickly, why bother trying to fix broken supply and sourcing systems when the private sector is "good enough"?

Steve

[Zeleban]

47 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

So, why we have to pay for these new deaths! Let be a bad peace, than a good war! Let make friendship and make money togrther again!" 

The main rule of any populism: “You must say exactly what is on the mind of your target audience.”

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, OBJ said:

Apparently breaking news, NYTs, Putin exploring potential ceasefire in Ukraine?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-war-cease-fire.html

Need an account to read.

Ceasefire, what would Ukraine need to get to agree to give him this?

Heh... I figured someone would have already posted this by the time I saw it this morning!

The article is probably not telling us anything we don't already know here, which is that Putin has shown a genuine interest in securing a ceasefire since almost the very beginning.  However, he's only interested in it if it cements his gains and offers him opportunities to violate it whenever he feels like.  For example, no UN force patrolling a line of demarcation.

The only two tidbits that this article discusses that may be new(ish) to us here are:

• some of Putin's earlier demands are no longer "deal breakers" for him.  Specifically the end of an independent Ukrainian state and guarrantees that Ukraine will not enter NATO.  The implication of the latter is that Putin figures he can restart the war with Ukraine on better terms before NATO membership is practical.  In other words, what we've been saying all along... Russia doesn't have to fear NATO membership.
• Putin only wants a deal if the US negotiates it.  The article makes only a passing explanation that Putin wants to make sure US assistance to Ukraine is a central part of the agreement and that Washington can impose the conditions on Kyiv.  Personally I think it's also part of Putin's attempt to save face and spin this whole war as being against the US/NATO.  What better way than to say "see, Ukraine is really just a puppet, not a sovereign nation.  We made a deal with the puppet master".  Much harder to do this if Russia has to negotiate with Ukraine directly with the US staying out of it.

There was one quote in the article that thought interesting enough to put here:

Quote

The Kremlin’s analysis appeared to be that public support for the war was broad, but not deep — meaning that most would accept whatever Mr. Putin termed a victory. One of the government’s pollsters, Valery Fyodorov, said in a September newspaper interview that only 10 to 15 percent of Russians actively supported the war, and that “most Russians are not demanding the conquest of Kyiv or Odesa.”

This is an important point and a common problem with polling.  "Do you support our war on Ukraine?" is nebulous and likely to get broad support.  "Do you support pushing this war, at all costs, until we get Kyiv and Odessa?" is very specific and probably does not have broad support.

The reason the article brought this up is it may show that Putin understands that his maximalist goals aren't shared by many and therefore pursuing them offers more risk than reward.  Which is sensible.  The whole notion of trying to take all of Ukraine vs. a land bridge was a dumb idea to start with.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

54 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

WP, NYT and some other influent media in last time fulfilled with scepticism and defeatism about development of war for Ukraine. It seems "party of appeacement" on the West and Russia achieved some touch points and now actively push agenda about "peace for any cost", "Ukraine must agree to freeze the war to not lose more territories".

I was prepared for this when I saw the headline of the NYT article, but that is not what I saw when I read it.  In fact, the tone of the article was very different.  The main theme throughout can be summed up like this:

Putin puts on a "brave face" for the public, but in secret he signals that he will take a deal *FAR* short of what he says this war is about.  Putin's willingness to compromise on his unrealistic goals continues to increase even as he publicly states he won't accept anything other than Ukraine ceasing to exist.  Therefore, his confidence is not as strong as it appears.

I was also making sure that the article was realistic about what it means to make a peace deal with Russia.  I was pleased to see that the article very directly stated that Putin only wants the ceasefire to recover from losses, then break the agreement when he feels he is ready.  It was clearly stated that Putin's signature on a piece of paper is worthless.

The way an article ends is very important because that is what is last in the reader's mind.  This is how it ends:

Quote

Many in the West are skeptical of a cease-fire because they say Mr. Putin would rearm for a future assault. President Edgars Rinkevics of Latvia argued in an interview that Mr. Putin was committed to war because he dreams of “re-establishing the empire.”

“They never honored any agreements,” Mr. Rinkevics said of the Russians, “and they have violated them immediately when they saw it was convenient.”

Good.

Steve

[TheVulture]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67810463

 

Quote

Russia bans anti-war candidate from challenging Putin

<snip>

The commission said 29 people have so far filed to run for the presidency. But after today's decision, Mr Putin remains the only candidate to be able to register as a candidate.

Nothing terribly surprising to anyone who understands that the election's only purpose is to re-elect Putin, but the article contains a few interesting tea leaves that Putin is having to take more active steps to maintain his control over Russia.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The only two tidbits that this article discusses that may be new(ish) to us here are:

• some of Putin's earlier demands are no longer "deal breakers" for him.  Specifically the end of an independent Ukrainian state and guarrantees that Ukraine will not enter NATO.  The implication of the latter is that Putin figures he can restart the war with Ukraine on better terms before NATO membership is practical.  In other words, what we've been saying all along... Russia doesn't have to fear NATO membership.
• Putin only wants a deal if the US negotiates it.  The article makes only a passing explanation that Putin wants to make sure US assistance to Ukraine is a central part of the agreement and that Washington can impose the conditions on Kyiv.  Personally I think it's also part of Putin's attempt to save face and spin this whole war as being against the US/NATO.  What better way than to say "see, Ukraine is really just a puppet, not a sovereign nation.  We made a deal with the puppet master".  Much harder to do this if Russia has to negotiate with Ukraine directly with the US staying out of it

Cannot see the article. 

That first one is a major change.  Ukrainian neutrality was one of his declared war aims - and he reiterated this again a few weeks ago.  If he is backing off neutrality then it could be either a sign of a shift, or it is BS bait.  As we saw with Finland (and to a lesser extent, Sweden), it is possible for NATO to pull in a member in weeks/months.  My bet is Putin is betting that the membership process will drift into the next US election, which opens the door to his BFF getting back in the chair.  Unless of course we pull a fast one and get Ukraine in before then.  Once Article 5 kicks in a single cruise missile could trigger it...and Putin does fear the hell out of that.  Biggest problem is that Ukrainian entry would need to be kept a secret to avoid Russia pre-emption...and NATO leaks like a an old man after midnight.

That second one is just bizarre - maybe someone with political savvy can weigh in.  What on earth does Putin gain by letting the US lead the dance here?  I mean I guess he gets to claim "big boy pants" and US dominance to play to Russian support, but is he so close to the edge he needs that?  The US will not only be in the position to "enforce conditions" on Kyiv, they will be also a stakeholder in enforcing conditions on Russia.  Perhaps this is the poison pill in all this.  With the US at the table as lead the entire thing simply will not work and Putin knows it? 

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Heh... I figured someone would have already posted this by the time I saw it this morning!

The article is probably not telling us anything we don't already know here, which is that Putin has shown a genuine interest in securing a ceasefire since almost the very beginning.  However, he's only interested in it if it cements his gains and offers him opportunities to violate it whenever he feels like.  For example, no UN force patrolling a line of demarcation.

The only two tidbits that this article discusses that may be new(ish) to us here are:

• some of Putin's earlier demands are no longer "deal breakers" for him.  Specifically the end of an independent Ukrainian state and guarrantees that Ukraine will not enter NATO.  The implication of the latter is that Putin figures he can restart the war with Ukraine on better terms before NATO membership is practical.  In other words, what we've been saying all along... Russia doesn't have to fear NATO membership.
• Putin only wants a deal if the US negotiates it.  The article makes only a passing explanation that Putin wants to make sure US assistance to Ukraine is a central part of the agreement and that Washington can impose the conditions on Kyiv.  Personally I think it's also part of Putin's attempt to save face and spin this whole war as being against the US/NATO.  What better way than to say "see, Ukraine is really just a puppet, not a sovereign nation.  We made a deal with the puppet master".  Much harder to do this if Russia has to negotiate with Ukraine directly with the US staying out of it.

There was one quote in the article that thought interesting enough to put here:

This is an important point and a common problem with polling.  "Do you support our war on Ukraine?" is nebulous and likely to get broad support.  "Do you support pushing this war, at all costs, until we get Kyiv and Odessa?" is very specific and probably does not have broad support.

The reason the article brought this up is it may show that Putin understands that his maximalist goals aren't shared by many and therefore pursuing them offers more risk than reward.  Which is sensible.  The whole notion of trying to take all of Ukraine vs. a land bridge was a dumb idea to start with.

Steve

I'll file this right next to the folder that says "Hitler wants peace for 1943 and with great generosity & compassion agrees to stop fighting and freeze the conflict at the current boundaries"

[dan/california]

5 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

For your MLIC, why not make the line fly itself, or at least glide? Take some inspiration from my wife’s least favorite animal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysopelea

While I can eventually see this leading to a truly terrifying recon UGV, I suspect the distributed neural net and soft actuators to make it work would be way to expensive for something that was supposed to make a one way trip, one time. As the basis of an SOF teams favorite new toy, though...

[OBJ]

 

I couldn't directly access the NYTs article either, but did find this, free to me at least.

https://kyivindependent.com/nyt-putin-open-to-ceasefire-if-russia-keeps-occupied-territories/

NYT: Putin open to ceasefire if Russia keeps occupied territories

Share

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share via Email

by The Kyiv Independent news deskDecember 23, 2023 5:40 PM2 min read

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) leaves the hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace as officers of the Presidential Regiment (R) look on during an award ceremony marking the Heroes of Russia Day on Dec. 8 in Moscow. Putin said after the ceremony that he would run for president again in the 2024 election. (Contributor/Getty Images)

Listen to this article

 

 

0:00 / 2:41

1X

BeyondWords

This audio is created with AI assistance

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been reportedly signaling behind closed doors that Russia would be open to a ceasefire along the current frontline, the New York Times reported based on its sources.

Putin's sought ceasefire would mean Russia would keep the territories it illegally occupies in Ukraine, where the population is subject to abductions and summary executions.

“He really is willing to stop at the current positions,” a former senior Russian official told The New York Times.  “He’s not willing to retreat one meter,” the former official added.

The New York Times wrote that some American officials say that Putin's alleged willingness to end the war, that cost the lives of tens of thousands, could be an attempt to influence opinions and "does not reflect genuine willingness" to end the war.

Ukraine laid out its 10-point "peace formula" in November 2022. One of the key points as a precondition for starting peace talks is the full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory, including the regions illegally annexed by Russia in 2022.

Russian officials have previously reiterated that this would be considered a nonstarter for any negotiations.

According to the New York Times article, Putin also reportedly sent out feelers for a ceasefire deal in the fall of 2022 after Ukrainian forces liberated Kharkiv Oblast, according to American officials, indicating that he was satisfied with Russia’s captured territory and ready for an armistice.

The signals came through multiple channels, including via foreign governments with ties to both the U.S. and Russia. Unofficial Russian emissaries have reportedly spoken to interlocutors about the contours of a potential deal.

“Putin and the Russian army, they don’t want to stretch their capacity further,” an undisclosed international official told the New York Times.

Dmitri Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesman, said Russia was ready for talks, but only for “the achievement of its own goals.”

There is no reason to start peace negotiations with Ukraine at this moment, Peskov earlier said to reporters on Dec. 20.

The prospect of peace negotiations, including exchanging territory for peace or other significant concessions, is widely unpopular among the Ukrainian population.

A poll released in December 2023 found that 74% of Ukrainians were against such territorial concessions with Russia in exchange for peace.

Ukrainian and Western leaders have also repeatedly said that they do not believe Russia is interested in good-faith peace negotiations.

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

Why would Putin explore a ceasefire? Kremlinologists, does this indicate weakness on his part, perhaps a fear of Ukraine drone strikes on Russian infrastructure over the winter, or culimination of any remaining offensive potential?

It serves multiple purposes.

Overseas, he can project to the global South that he's trying to be reasonable. He can provide fellow travelers in the US like the odious David Sacks/Elon Musk with propaganda that covers the same ground. Internally within Russia, he can present any agreement that retains the landbridge to Crimea as a solid win.  

In terms of geopolitics, Putin is hedging a bit. Trump winning in November and saving Russia's va banc bet is no sure thing. Aid to Ukraine from the US looks shaky and perhaps an overture gives opponents ammunition. But...maybe not. Maybe Biden wins solidly in November and gets a Democratic House with a GOP Senate that's basically friendly to aid. 

In that scenario, no attempt to lock things in where they are now would have been a serious error. 

[Vet 0369]

On 12/20/2023 at 5:26 AM, Yet said:

if heat and sound are no issue, might as well add hoovercrofts in the equation with jetpacks. 

 Now there’s an interesting question for the engineers on this thread. What is the ground pressure per sq ft or sq m of a U.S. Navy LCAT, and would it set off mines it passed over? Granted they are big and loud, but could they be used for flanking maneuvers? If I remember correctly, the Russians (or at least the Soviets) had hovercrafts for landings back in the 1980s.

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I suspect what we continue to see is individual soldiers responsible for getting some, if not all, of their kit on their own.  A variety of private companies supply this need, probably much of it coming from China. The MoD supplies weapons, helmets, body armor, and whatever else it can scrape together.

 

Just a thought and not very well formed, apologies, but it occurs to me that between this and the 'Dad, please volunteer cuz i need an Iphone' stuff, it seems there's a freebooting cultural reflex alive and well today in Russia.

Engaging opportunistically in piracy and raiding ('going viking'), or hiring out one's sword seasonally for pay, plus the chance of loot, is a common 'second profession' for men throughout human history.

In the modern West* though, we have largely redirected those risk-taking animal spirits towards making money more or less 'within the system'.  But entrepreneurialism has never been a serious option for ordinary Russians.

* Violent gang activity and predation is generally kept within poor or immigrant communities; it tends to get aggressively suppressed when it goes outside.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

 Now there’s an interesting question for the engineers on this thread. What is the ground pressure per sq ft or sq m of a U.S. Navy LCAT, and would it set off mines it passed over? Granted they are big and loud, but could they be used for flanking maneuvers? If I remember correctly, the Russians (or at least the Soviets) had hovercrafts for landings back in the 1980s.

From what I can see they are biiiiig.  Even if they avoid ground pressure, tilt rod and magnetic influence mines are going to light them up.  I think something this big, hot and loud is going to draw fire from everywhere before it gets to the minefield.

[chrisl]

7 hours ago, Carolus said:

This will not go to Ukraine.

Australia is moving the E-7A to Europe where it will become part of the ISR network that provides target information to Ukraine, but it will not belong to Ukraine. It will not enter Ukrainian airspace. The base of operations will be Germany.

 

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2023-10-25/continuing-support-ukraine

And this has been going on with NATO air assets since day 1.  It’s just ok now to talk about it publicly.

[dan/california]

7 hours ago, Carolus said:

This will not go to Ukraine.

Australia is moving the E-7A to Europe where it will become part of the ISR network that provides target information to Ukraine, but it will not belong to Ukraine. It will not enter Ukrainian airspace. The base of operations will be Germany.

 

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2023-10-25/continuing-support-ukraine

This s the kind of thing that willnor just help Ukraine on the battlefield, but really weigh on the Kremlin's thinking

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

WP, NYT and some other influent media in last time fulfilled with scepticism and defeatism about development of war for Ukraine. It seems "party of appeacement" on the West and Russia achieved some touch points and now actively push agenda about "peace for any cost", "Ukraine must agree to freeze the war to not lose more territories".

Ukrainian information field on background of failed offensive and current crawling advance of Russian army overflowed with bots and real accounts, who sow panic and defeatism moods, call to open the borders and resist to mobilisation measures, pushing the takes about "Ukraine is slavery state with force mobilization like in N.Korea" (most of these bots and useful idiots you can spot via N.Korean flag near nickname in twitter), many posts "why we have to die for corrupted dictatorship of Zelenskiy?" or "We are free people and the state hasn't any right to force us go at the war"

These two sides invested huge money in powerful media and PsyOps campaign to dismoral UKR society and force Ukrainian politics to sit at the negotiation table on Russian formula "peace in exchange for refuting from occupied territories". And they already achieved some successes. Coming large mobilisation already seriously scare many people. Percent of population, who would agree to freeze a war even by the cost of territories rised almost on 10 %  (bigger growth in western and central oblasts) and now is about 19 %

And these Putin's offers of peace is just a cunning turn for public opinion and taxpayers: "Look - Russia offers a peace for Ukraine, which inevitable will be defeated anyway. How this generously! How Putin is great! How he wants to stop this bloody war! But look at this pathetic Ukraine! They want to continue this hopeless war. Their president doesn't spare own nation and will fight to last Ukrainian for own illusions to defeat Russia! So, why we have to pay for these new deaths! Let be a bad peace, than a good war! Let make friendship and make money togrther again!"  

I fully agree with Haiduk that Russia is trying to cash in ~eighty years of investment in the Western "peace" camp to get something out of this war through subversion that it couldn't win on the battlefield.

I also agree with Steve that this particular article has relatively reasonable assessment of Putins intention, but some of the other recent stuff in the NYT has been full the sky is falling panic. I firmly believe that the NYT itself has representatives of both the the appeasement camp, and the Ukraine has to win camp. They really have been all over the map.

The thing I keep coming back to about Putin's Strategy for ending this war is that their no reason for assuming it is any more coherent the initial Feb 22 plan for fighting it. To all current appearances Putin is firmly in charge and he could decide to retreat, or launch a second larger mobilization over breakfast. The only reasonable certainty is that any agreement with him isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The Patrushevs are certainly trying to line things up for after Putin, but they seem to think the best way to do that is to appear completely loyal until Putin's ticker pops a spring. The only thing Ukraine can rely on is whatever guarantees it gets from the U.S. and the E.U.. Even those can't be considered entirely solid until and unless the U.S. election comes out the right way. 

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

That second one is just bizarre - maybe someone with political savvy can weigh in.  What on earth does Putin gain by letting the US lead the dance here?  I mean I guess he gets to claim "big boy pants" and US dominance to play to Russian support, but is he so close to the edge he needs that?  The US will not only be in the position to "enforce conditions" on Kyiv, they will be also a stakeholder in enforcing conditions on Russia.  Perhaps this is the poison pill in all this.  With the US at the table as lead the entire thing simply will not work and Putin knows it? 

Bizarre to us but we are not in the epistemic system that sovoks like Putin and his clique exist in. They are concerned…no obsessed…with restore what their revanchist retconning says is Russia’s place in the world. That mindset preceded them in Czarist times and continues now. 

I wouldn’t waste time on figuring out why. It’s simply a set cultural tic and culture always wins.

[poesel]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

...

Seriously, so if I am understanding this right, using 10m sections would require 50 flights by a heavy drone for each charge. 

(this assumes 500m of breach) Or one flight with 50 drones. Or create a drone with more lift and have fewer flights.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I am still not sure what the detonation plan is here.  Light them off one at a time after they are dropped?  Or all at once?  One at a time is going to pretty visible as we are talking about 50 individual explosions.  All at one is likely better, particularly if you lay them at night/under smoke, but then you get into how does one simultaneously detonate 50 x 10m charges at the exact same time?  Any delays could cause blow aways and gaps in the lane.

Well, depends on what you need. Impact fuze, pre-determined time or radio. Neither time nor radio should create any delays.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

And you still need heavy vehicle based proving once the breach is in regardless.  Explosives are not 100%. And the risk is obvious, the lead vehicle gets taken out and all the rest now either try and turn around or have to go around into uncleared space.  So a proving system is a must and right now those are mine rollers.

Normally, yes. But this is a war. I would run two BMP-1s left lane, right lane over the breach. If one gets blown up, you still have the other side (hopefully). That is a risk, of course.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

If one can actually see each individual mine then a UGV dropping small shaped charges with simultaneous detonation is a much better way to go.  Even if you get a mis-time the odds will be that they won’t blow away the next charges.  And even then one will need to use rollers to prove..and we are back to a vehicle.

The UGV way would be way slower, but you would get more mines. With GPR you are pretty sure you find any mine you drive across. Not sure if this is suitable for breaching. It is more like eroding the minefield.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

To be honest I am a lot less worried on how to breach the minefield - there are plenty of good systems for this.  The major problem is how to secure/isolate the minefield so the breach can happen.

The whole point of this discussion is to talk about a method of breaching a minefield without having to secure it first. Because that has proven difficult.

It gets a lot easier if there is no minefield.

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, poesel said:

Normally, yes. But this is a war. I would run two BMP-1s left lane, right lane over the breach. If one gets blown up, you still have the other side (hopefully). That is a risk, of course.

Explosive line charge is going to give a single lane at best.  One would either have to greatly increase weight of explosives to get wider breach or you are very likely to get hits trying to go two abreast.  Even running track vehicles is tricky as tanks have wider tracks and footprint.  

It is war and likely why one does want to blow this attempt because the enemy will punish for it.  Only reliable way to prove a breach lane is with rollers.  Now those don’t have to be on a tank but they will need to be on a vehicle.  

8 minutes ago, poesel said:

The whole point of this discussion is to talk about a method of breaching a minefield without having to secure it first. Because that has proven difficult.

Oh, well let me shut that down right away then.  There is no way to conduct a breach without securing the minefield first.  Even if you got a lane in, the follow on break out force has to traverse the obstacle and then bounce out.  That is going to be a long and dangerous crossing with security in place.  Without it is a RA style suicide charge as a single ATGM team can stop it cold.  Even navigating a safe lane is tricky and has to be done carefully and deliberately (trust me, lived it).  There is no way to do this without establishing pre-conditions:

- secure both sides.  Find and kill ATGMs

- push enemy ISR and UAS back.  Create own superiority.

- suppress enemy guns.

- put a force in place to interdict c-moves.

- deep strike in support.

- ensure denial everywhere else.

If one does not do that then it simply does not matter how the minefield itself is breached.  A breakout force is going to get spotted and engaged before it can exploit the breach itself.  The problem is not the minefield - it is everything that can exploit what a minefield forces one to do while trying to get past it.

[Carolus]

Regarding small arms on drones:

The copter types struggle with the recoil, but what about a fixed wing type?

The barrel muzzle would be in the nose or under the fuselage. There would be a "targeting camera" above it with a simple cross on the monitor where the impacts were noticed during a tryout at the firing range. 

Small drones seem slow enough to be able to "dive" on a target for several seconds, keeping it in sights for a stable shot, without crashing. The forward momentum and weight of the drone absorb the recoil.

Obviously this would be just a skirmishing weapon, but it gives the operators more ammo per trip than dropping a handgrenade. And it does not take much to spoil an attack, since most seem to consist of maybe two or three fireteams per attempts. A "strafing run" could scatter them or disrupt their movement.

And nobody likes a carbine or pistol cartrigde firing at them from diagonally above or from behind even, no matter if you wear a helmet and a vest. It could even be just semi-auto and have a 10 round block magazine at first until more sophisticated versions come out.

One could also think about shotgun pellet ammo if the caliber allows it to increase the chance of a wound.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Carolus
Typos

[Letter from Prague]

34 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Bizarre to us but we are not in the epistemic system that sovoks like Putin and his clique exist in. They are concerned…no obsessed…with restore what their revanchist retconning says is Russia’s place in the world. That mindset preceded them in Czarist times and continues now. 

I wouldn’t waste time on figuring out why. It’s simply a set cultural tic and culture always wins.

That would be my guess as well. It is easy to think "these guys think like us, except they're evil" but sometimes people of different cultures genuinely have different way of thinking and effectively live in different world from us.

Russians, at least the ruling class, really do live in a world split into Great Empires(tm) with their Spheres of Influence(tm) where smaller countries are effectively puppets. They don't understand smaller countries having a say in their fate at all.

In this mindset, wanting to negotiate with US is obvious - negotiating with Ukraine ... that's like a chess player saying they want to negotiate a draw and being told to negotiate it with not the opposing player, but with one of the chess pieces. Makes no sense.

That, and I think they also hate the idea of independent Ukraine so much, they would rather pretend it is controlled by the US.

....

I am pretty surprised they banned the "anti-war candidate". I was pretty sure it's a sham candidate that is there to get liek 2 % in an obviously rigged elections and be used as a "see! the Russian people rejected the anti-war candidate and that means they want the war!".

Makes me wonder how well they really control the elections (maybe the local politicians could interfere?) or something.

[LongLeftFlank]

21 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Regarding small arms on drones:

The copter types struggle with the recoil, but what about a fixed wing type?

 

This tech is what, 60 years old? (in its manned iteration)

[Zeleban]

Fantastic, one soldier of the 8th battalion of the 10th mountain assault brigade defends against about 10 Russians and seems to emerge victorious

[hcrof]

If this peace offer from Putin on current front lines is genuine it certainly explains why the Russians are so keen to push Ukraine out of avdiivka and the dneipr salient at any cost. Those two areas would be serious problems in a 2015- style semi frozen conflict or even a Korea style armistice. 

That also explains why it is so important for Ukraine to keep them and not retreat, even if it means taking losses. 

[poesel]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Oh, well let me shut that down right away then.  There is no way to conduct a breach without securing the minefield first. 

...

Yeah, wrong use of military terminology from my side. I was just talking about the act of removing the mines. Not about all the rest that is necessary for the actual breaching.

About the width of the cleared lane: IIRC it was supposed to be 8m or not? Even if fuzzy on the sides, that is more than two Leo 2s abreast.

[Yet]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

We've struggled to come up with the correct name for Russia's pre-war "elite" units that are now filled with untrained volunteers.  I think I now have it:

"Elite Meat"

Discuss...

Steve

raw elite meat? isnt that just Steak Tartare?