How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

I wonder who is funding this guy?  Maybe he just found a niche where he could get followers in conspiracy land by pretending to be a serious, objective, fact based person while just putting out propaganda.  It's a great gig if you can pull it off, just ask Tucker, et al.  Just need to have no morals and absolutely no concern about how much you damage the world -- plenty of those folks around.

[poesel]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

n addition, repair attempts by the Ukrainian army had led to further damage to the tanks. The extent to which this could be prevented through better training of mechanics or the provision of manuals, or whether repairs could be carried out in Ukraine, should be examined.

I'd like to point out that this is probably a case of lost in translation.

I'm pretty sure that they would have received a manual ('Handbuch'). A 'Anleitung' is usually something like a step-by-step instruction. More suitable for field repairs than a thick manual.

[poesel]

How come that S-300 rockets are so good at ground attacks? They were build for ground-to-air combat!? Why do they hit anything, and why are they intercepted so seldom?

[Battlefront.com]

Anybody else take any particular pleasure in seeing Russia's extremely expensive and self described invincible hypersonic missile (Kinzhal) is shot down as often as cheap Iranian drones, while older tech (such as the Kh-101 and S-300) have a much better chance of hitting SOMETHING?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

never mind, Steve beat me in the 10 second google search race though it took him a minute! Ha

In my defense, I included reading the details of the scumbag "journalist" history of nonsense

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, poesel said:

I'd like to point out that this is probably a case of lost in translation.

I'm pretty sure that they would have received a manual ('Handbuch'). A 'Anleitung' is usually something like a step-by-step instruction. More suitable for field repairs than a thick manual.

In the US we have such divisions of manuals as well.  FM = Field Manual, TM = Technical Manual.  FMs are for the gorillas that operate the stuff (and hit everything that doesn't work with a hammer), TM are for the refined grease monkeys sitting in the rear

TMs are also subdivided into "echelons", or at least they used to be.  IIRC there are generally 2 echelons, the first being the field repair shops and the second factory repair shops.  No point instructing a field repair shop how to fix something that is beyond their training and equipment.

Steve

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, poesel said:

I'd like to point out that this is probably a case of lost in translation.

I'm pretty sure that they would have received a manual ('Handbuch'). A 'Anleitung' is usually something like a step-by-step instruction. More suitable for field repairs than a thick manual.

Quite possible. "Manual" was a, well, manual translation. The automatic translation had indeed "instructions". I was thinking of something like an actual manual but the way you describe it might be more fitting.

[Twisk]

Having seen a number of ATV attacks it strikes me as a little interesting that there doesn't seem to be any attempt to field modify these to be safer. I guess the platform is small but I would think that you'd see some attempts at attaching metal scraps to block fragments. Not saying that it would be an effective counter but field modification to gain a perceived benefit seem like something soldiers would attempt to do.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

23 minutes ago, poesel said:

How come that S-300 rockets are so good at ground attacks? They were build for ground-to-air combat!? Why do they hit anything, and why are they intercepted so seldom?

I am sorry, thinking is very slow today, but is this a rhetorical question or the normal kind?

[Zeleban]

19 minutes ago, poesel said:

How come that S-300 rockets are so good at ground attacks? They were build for ground-to-air combat!? Why do they hit anything, and why are they intercepted so seldom?

The S-300 missile has a warhead of 142 kg of explosives. The missile has an acceleration speed of up to 2000 m/s, which makes it a hypersonic weapon + its ballistic flight path makes it a very difficult target to intercept

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

I get your point and agree (and btw was never in the magic Leopard 2s win the war camp) but the article was specifically about the small number (18?) of German Leopard 2A6 MBTs that were delivered to Ukraine. Sure, such a system has a hugely different logistical footprint than my old car (and I have to trust the experts on what that really means because, as you say, my expertise ends at the CM purchase menu).

Then again those tanks 1) came from current Bundeswehr stocks, so regular maintenance, including spare parts is already implemented, meaning that production of spare parts shouldn't come entirely on top of current production capacities. 2) The tanks were taken from a training unit, so I guess they already had to plan with higher tear and wear (of course not on combat level but still). 3) They were only a small fraction of the Bundeswehr's Leopard 2 fleet, so we are not taking about building two extra factories to meet the demand (I think?). 4) Lithuania isn't that far away from Germany and naive me thinks that even sending the stuff via DHL shouldn't upend European logistical capacities.

This is really not the armchair general's perspective on my favourite toy but comes from someone working in automotive industry where I think we should be able to handle that kind of issue...

Not coming at you personally at all.  It is an issue I have had with western strategy from the outset.  It is a lot more than "spare parts", which are coming from a military that was ready for, as you note, training not a long high intensity fight.  Actual fighting stresses and breaks things in way training never does.  Wear and tear on the guns and FCS alone is dramatically different.

I think the issue is that people equate military ground vehicles to cars.  This is not the case. They are closer to aircraft in complexity and sustainment.  An FCS tech takes years to train to be able to keep the gun components in motion.  We had a Leo crewman here and he pointed out that in Germany the entire system is designed around "plug and play".  Pull out the broken part and slam in a new one.  Well that works...in Germany...in peacetime.  After a year of fighting Germany is likely reaching into war stocks for some parts.  As an example, we had exactly two extra Leo power packs for an entire Brigade, back in the day...and that was before the reductions and budget slashing of the last ten years.  Germany had something like 200 Leo 2, so this is roughly ten percent of the fleet likely eating up 50% of any 3rd and 4tf line maintenance.

The other problem is crew training.  Good experienced crews can do preventative maint forward and run the vehicle in a way to reduce wear and tear.  Ukraine is training as fast as it can but cannot create experience quickly. Combat is one helluva accelerator but it also see crew losses. 

My main point is that instead of cramming more complex logistics heavy platforms at the UA and going "Ok, now go tear through minefields the like of which no one has seen since Korea...oh and try not to break this fleet of 20 different vehicles too quickly while you are at it."  We might want to equip the UA smarter and better fit to the fight they find themselves in. 

[dan/california]

24 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

The S-300 missile has a warhead of 142 kg of explosives. The missile has an acceleration speed of up to 2000 m/s, which makes it a hypersonic weapon + its ballistic flight path makes it a very difficult target to intercept

It is also has a relatively short range. Which is why you repeatedly see it being used on cities like Kharkiv. Patriot and

Iris-T might be able to intercept them, but they can't be pushed far forward enough with acceptable risk.

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Not coming at you personally at all.  It is an issue I have had with western strategy from the outset.  It is a lot more than "spare parts", which are coming from a military that was ready for, as you note, training not a long high intensity fight.  Actual fighting stresses and breaks things in way training never does.  Wear and tear on the guns and FCS alone is dramatically different.

I think the issue is that people equate military ground vehicles to cars.  This is not the case. They are closer to aircraft in complexity and sustainment.  An FCS tech takes years to train to be able to keep the gun components in motion.  We had a Leo crewman here and he pointed out that in Germany the entire system is designed around "plug and play".  Pull out the broken part and slam in a new one.  Well that works...in Germany...in peacetime.  After a year of fighting Germany is likely reaching into war stocks for some parts.  As an example, we had exactly two extra Leo power packs for an entire Brigade, back in the day...and that was before the reductions and budget slashing of the last ten years.  Germany had something like 200 Leo 2, so this is roughly ten percent of the fleet likely eating up 50% of any 3rd and 4tf line maintenance.

The other problem is crew training.  Good experienced crews can do preventative maint forward and run the vehicle in a way to reduce wear and tear.  Ukraine is training as fast as it can but cannot create experience quickly. Combat is one helluva accelerator but it also see crew losses. 

My main point is that instead of cramming more complex logistics heavy platforms at the UA and going "Ok, now go tear through minefields the like of which no one has seen since Korea...oh and try not to break this fleet of 20 different vehicles too quickly while you are at it."  We might want to equip the UA smarter and better fit to the fight they find themselves in. 

That would include longer training on the complex stuff, they need to quit trying to do six month trainings in six weeks.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Not engineers, but former tractorists and mechanics, many of them from villages - they never knew English more than "My name is Mykola, I live in village Mykolivka".

Those guys can do wonders. I was driving once near Ternopil (IIRC) with a very old and badly kept UAZ and the car started shaking. I stopped and sent off my mates for help. Turned out the easiest thing in the world - literally the nearest building to the road was the local kolkhoz tractor shed, where the local Mykola guy quickly identified the problem (it was the Cardan shaft coming loose),fixed it and fixed our other problem with the gearbox for good measure. incredible work. Besides, at that time Hryvnia stood very low and what we paid for that incredible service looked like nothing in Polish money. I am full of respect to them.

[dan/california]

 

[kimbosbread]

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

My main point is that instead of cramming more complex logistics heavy platforms at the UA and going "Ok, now go tear through minefields the like of which no one has seen since Korea...oh and try not to break this fleet of 20 different vehicles too quickly while you are at it."  We might want to equip the UA smarter and better fit to the fight they find themselves in. 

Yeah, the logistics, repair and training footprint of all these different platforms is terrifying. I don’t have a sense for how much more complex an MBT is than an IFV, but imagine it’s a big step up from an MRAP (similar to MRAP from Hilux).

[Maciej Zwolinski]

5 minutes ago, dan/california said:

It is also has a relatively short range. Which is why you repeatedly see it being used on cities like Kharkiv. Patriot and

Iris-T might be able to intercept them, but they can't be pushed far forward enough with acceptable risk.

Very importantly, they are inaccurate (the Russian expect them to hit anywhere in a city).  So whenever S300s are launched, Ukrainian ADA faces targets which are: 1) very fast; 2) on a very difficult approach path; 3) unlikely to do much damage, unless due to random bad luck. My guess is they just do not bother to try to shoot them down, hence the 100% success rate

[dan/california]

24 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Very importantly, they are inaccurate (the Russian expect them to hit anywhere in a city).  So whenever S300s are launched, Ukrainian ADA faces targets which are: 1) very fast; 2) on a very difficult approach path; 3) unlikely to do much damage, unless due to random bad luck. My guess is they just do not bother to try to shoot them down, hence the 100% success rate

100% agree

 

[The_Capt]

32 minutes ago, dan/california said:

That would include longer training on the complex stuff, they need to quit trying to do six month trainings in six weeks.

And here you run into the force generation problem.  Western training requirements are too damned high for a sustained high intensity war.  Driven by equipment and complex systems, the UA cannot afford 6 month force generation time lines. It also puts the UA upside down on cost/return.  They spend 6 month's training someone and lose them in 30 days...that is unsustainable.

Just another spin we were not ready for - WW2 training quantity but 21st century quality requirements.  Russia solved it by dropping the first one - Ukraine and the West are still trying to figure it out.

[Chibot Mk IX]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

How come that S-300 rockets are so good at ground attacks? They were build for ground-to-air combat!? Why do they hit anything, and why are they intercepted so seldom?

All the long range SAMs have the potential to be convert into a land attack role or even anti-ship role. one of the example is SM-6

Quote

The Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) is a multi-mission missile capable of antiair warfare, terminal ballistic missile defense, and antiship strike roles

 

the speed, trajectory, target signature, the impact area , distance to the interceptors launch site. all these factors combine will make them hard to intercept. (or lead to the decision to not intercept these missiles)

[Battlefront.com]

42 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Yeah, the logistics, repair and training footprint of all these different platforms is terrifying. I don’t have a sense for how much more complex an MBT is than an IFV, but imagine it’s a big step up from an MRAP (similar to MRAP from Hilux).

If one goes back to the first months and year of the war there's plenty of posts from The_Capt and me advocating giving Ukraine as much Soviet based stuff as possible AND NOT things like Leos and F-16s.  The reason being the damned logistics tail.  The same tail that hobbles NATO's capabilities had no chance of working out well for Ukraine in the first year of the war.

The problem is that the West didn't immediately start on a cohesive long term armaments plan with Ukraine.  The first year of the war should have been spent investing in Ukrainian capabilities to support a limited range of Western equipment.  One tank, not three.  One tracked IFV, not a half dozen.  etc.

From OSINT it seems some of this finally started in 2023, but as we've seen it hasn't been a smooth ride.  And I still don't see any unified strategy for equipping the ground forces with vehicles and artillery.

Let's hope things get clearer in 2024!!

Steve

[poesel]

Thanks all for the S-300 answers. Yes, it was really a question.

[Harmon Rabb]

For those of you who have never heard of this system before, lets read a description from RU propaganda source Sputnik. Reads like an advertisement for this thing.

 

 

[Butschi]

36 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If one goes back to the first months and year of the war there's plenty of posts from The_Capt and me advocating giving Ukraine as much Soviet based stuff as possible AND NOT things like Leos and F-16s. 

To be fair, many did, including (for various reasons) many politicians. Let's remember that we didn't shove these things at Ukraine, on the contrary, it was the Ukrainians who demanded them - not always in the most... diplomatic way.

That is not to say "your own damn fault, you wanted it, now deal with it". I guess anything was (and is) better than nothing and maybe Ukraine believed a little too much in what the ads promised.

[Kraft]

3rd Assault Brigade released a remembrance video * for the fallen warriors of 2023.

It includes 186 soldiers, although I've noticed one that I know missing (for unknown reasons to me), so the number is higher.

This gives a minimum of 1 KIA every 2 days for this Brigade.

*Reddit for those without TG

----

Okay so I checked wikipedia which lists 115 KIA for 2023, including him, so the most accurate list would be those 2 merged. So between ~200 and 300 known KIA, +unrecovered MIA.

Probably >1 KIA/day over the year but I dont know how many months they were active on the frontline. 

Edited January 2 by Kraft