How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, photon said:

One thing I've been thinking about is whether the transition to defensive primacy is uniform across scales. We've had wars where tactical, operational, and strategic primacy was divided. Here I'm wading beyond what I've read deeply about, so please correct me where I miss the mark.

So in the civil war, you had defensive primacy at the tactical level, but offensive primacy at the operational and strategic. Armies would maneuver operationally to force their adversary to attack them in a time and place where they could defend tactically and break the adversary (Chancellorsville, Gettysburg).

In WW1, you had attritional offensive primacy at the tactical level, but defensive primacy at the operational level: no one could translate tactical success into a breakthrough. I'm not sure about strategic primacy, but it seems to have been defensive?

In WW2 European warfare you had tactical offensive primacy (attackers could breach positions), operational offensive primacy (mass allowed breakouts), and strategic offensive primacy (attackers could take an hold strategic objectives) for most of the war in most theatres.

In WW2 Carrier warfare (1940-1943) you had tactical offensive primacy (deck strikes were essentially unstoppable), operational defensive primacy (carriers could raid, but not secure land based objectives), and strategic defensive primacy? The development of 3rd/5th Fleet in 1944 essentially flipped the first two. The advent of CICs and better flight detection meant that a carrier task force could interdict a strike group, and the development of the big blue blanket meant that a carrier task force could roll up on an island and secure it.

So we're headed to an era of what appears to be tactical defensive primacy and operational defensive primacy, and strategic (?) defensive primacy. The advent of an illuminated battlefield (like the radar based CIC) ensures tactical defensive primacy. Precision fires ensure operational defensive primacy. There's been talk here about something like the big blue blanket making operational offensive primacy possible, but that seems a year or two out.

Maybe the place for innovation now is at the strategic level. And at that level cumulative rather than sequential effects produce the most decision. So what can the west do to maximize the strategic options Ukraine has and minimize those of Russia? That seems like the question for the next year.

Wow.  No one picked this one up?  I am not sure we are at Defensive primacy yet, but the evidence is mounting.  I think we can say that we are in an era of Denial, which is next door to Defence but has a couple differences.  Defence is traditionally been achieved through occupation and control.  Denial does not need either of those, it must simply deny them to an opponent through cost escalation.

Strategic options.  Well that is probably one of the few places left for offensive action.  We have seen Ukraine do this deep into Russia, Crimea and the Black Sea - they have reached all the way to Africa.  We have seen economic warfare, information warfare and cyber - all offensive - at a strategic level.  The real issue that we have spent pages arguing about is whether or not these strategic actions are actually doing anything with respect to option spaces.

There is room for offensive strategies but they are oblique/indirect and inductive. They take time and can be highly unpredictable.  They take enormous effort and intelligence advantage to do well.  But they at least keep the manoeuvre room open.  Isolation of Russia, containment and compression all appear to be viable approaches but they 1) take time and 2) can quickly escalate out of control once they do start moving.  
 

For now at least, it looks like we are in deadlock, which is different than stalemate…which is different again from frozen.  

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, Carolus said:

Either someone is switching a really big lamp on and off at Belgogrod or I would say that a high voltage transformer is burning. 

Crimea is joining up. Large-scale accident on Balaklava thermal power plant left without elecricity part of Crimea, including Simferopol, Dzhankoy, Kerch, Feodosia, Saky, Sevastopol (half of the city). Reportedly somewhere power already appeared again.

Blackout in Sevastopol

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

6 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:

Gunner, perhaps. With such a pounding the inside of the tank must be a terrible place. And the turret would be turning this weird continious way if that gunner was wounded or killed, and slumped over on the turretcontroller.

Nah, you can see all 3 crew members running at :22

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1747843889971580992

 

[Haiduk]

2 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Nah, you can see all 3 crew members running at :22

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1747843889971580992

 

The driver was captured later, but this wasn't filmed.

[Seedorf81]

Biggest Nato exercise since Cold War not 40.000 (originally planned) but 90.000 participants.

"Steadfast Defender 24" from feb - may.

31 Nato-members and Sweden.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2024-01-18/eucom-nato-russia-war-12716615.html

(Looks paywall, but first 4 articles free, so it's available).

 

[The_Capt]

53 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:

Biggest Nato exercise since Cold War not 40.000 (originally planned) but 90.000 participants.

"Steadfast Defender 24" from feb - may.

31 Nato-members and Sweden.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2024-01-18/eucom-nato-russia-war-12716615.html

(Looks paywall, but first 4 articles free, so it's available).

 

That is crazy.  I was on one of these - working out of SACLANT - over 20 years ago.  That one was around 25k…and it was huge.  90k is just another level.

[photon]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Defence is traditionally been achieved through occupation and control.  Denial does not need either of those, it must simply deny them to an opponent through cost escalation.

That's fair. I suppose what I've seen in this thread is that tactical assaults (mechanized or otherwise) get shredded by precision fires (either indirect, direct, or drone). So you can have a smallish node of defenders "controlling" a few kilometer deep (in all three dimensions) battle space. I suppose it's something porous like mutual denial. In every war you've had a pretty sharp demarcation between controlled area -> no man's land <- controlled area. In an ancient battle the denied area might be measured in single digit meters. In the American Civil War maybe a hundred meters. Now it seems like it has a weird shape that's kilometers deep (and wide), doesn't exist under 2,000 feet, and then starts again above 2,000 feet in a conical shape stretching back from the line of contact.

What would it look like to move from denial primacy to defensive primacy in your view?

[The_Capt]

28 minutes ago, photon said:

That's fair. I suppose what I've seen in this thread is that tactical assaults (mechanized or otherwise) get shredded by precision fires (either indirect, direct, or drone). So you can have a smallish node of defenders "controlling" a few kilometer deep (in all three dimensions) battle space. I suppose it's something porous like mutual denial. In every war you've had a pretty sharp demarcation between controlled area -> no man's land <- controlled area. In an ancient battle the denied area might be measured in single digit meters. In the American Civil War maybe a hundred meters. Now it seems like it has a weird shape that's kilometers deep (and wide), doesn't exist under 2,000 feet, and then starts again above 2,000 feet in a conical shape stretching back from the line of contact.

What would it look like to move from denial primacy to defensive primacy in your view?

Well first we would need to see something resembling an actual operational level assault.  The fact that neither side is able to concentrate mass to even attempt one is telling in itself.  In fact this may speak to the power of Denial itself.  

However, if a side could somehow create the conditions to mass and then try to project it on a phased offensive…and then we saw 300 troops per km repel it inflicting massive casualties, I think we would have more solid proof.  The Somme was a clear signal that warfare had changed - there had been hints since the US Civil War, but the Somme was a massive operational level offensive about as well planned and resourced as they come.  Its complete and utter failure was a clear indication that something had fundamentally shifted.  The Somme lasted almost 5 months and involved nearly 200 divisions.  

So for this war, we have not seen anything that robust.  Severodonetsk was pretty large. Bakhmut was brutal.  And now Avdiivka etc.  The UA pushes we’re all fairly modest scale, Battalion at the high end.  So for us to call Defensive primacy we would need to see an honest attempt at a significant offensive, complete with all the moving parts (eg airpower).  No side has been willing to do that, I suspect the risks of losses are simply too high for either side at that scale.  So we see a lot of tactical leg humping which definitely suggest we are at Defensive primacy, but I still am not sure if enough mass could overcome it.  I have strong suspicions and frankly would not advice trying it, but we do not have definite proof.

Over time the most telling thing will be if no one can stage a major offensive.  If it remains an unviable option for say the next 2 years…well that tells us something too.  But a lot could change in the next year.  We could see FPV swarms scaled up to make offensives possible again.  We will just have to watch and see.

[Harmon Rabb]

Quote

NATO Admiral: The outcome of the war in Ukraine will determine the fate of the world.

 

“Ukraine will have our support for every day that is to come,” assured Admiral Rob Bauer, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, opening the meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, January 17.

 

According to Bauer, this war has never been about any real security threat to Russia coming from either Ukraine or NATO.

 

“This war is about Russia fearing something much more powerful than any physical weapon on earth: democracy. If people in Ukraine can have democratic rights, then people in Russia will soon crave them too,” said the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.

 

At the same time, he believes that the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian army are defending democracy in a way the world has never seen before. «In the darkness of war, they are a beacon of light that shows the world what it means to fight for what you believe in,” Bauer said.

I could not agree more with Admiral Bauer. I also firmly believe that the outcome of this war is incredibility important for not only Ukraine but for the whole world.

 

[Seedorf81]

58 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

That is crazy.  I was on one of these - working out of SACLANT - over 20 years ago.  That one was around 25k…and it was huge.  90k is just another level.

Looks like another big "succes" for mr Putin.

He's finally succeeding in waking up the dormant bear, it seems. If people doubted the West's resilience , this exercise is gonna give a little indication what can and/or will happen when Nato-The West is getting ready for a fight.

I hope that the Russians will realise that they don't stand a chance if push comes to shove, but making wise decisions hasn't been their greatest achievement so far.

Edited January 19 by Seedorf81

[Reclaimer]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I agree on all counts!  The reason why it "looks right" or doesn't has to do with all the variability of each impact in relation to all the junk that's around it.  That is extremely taxing on the computing resources.  Way more than it's worth to the game.  Sadly!  Because it sure would be nice to see.

Steve

As a graphics programmer for a major studio who's worked on some AAA titles (Yes! This is my moment to be a grognard about something on here!), I think particle collisions like this are actually one of a handful of graphical effects that has actually gotten a lot more difficult to do over time.

To my mind, the best implementation of this was the original Halo, which came out over twenty years ago. Spark particles from bullet impacts on world geometry would actually correctly deflect off of other world geometry in their path. It was subtle, but really cool. I've obviously never seen their rendering code (I don't work for Bungie), but I think the combination of very simple geometry (by today's standards) and the fact that they still processed their world geometry into BSP trees for culling let them do accurate particle collisions for relatively low cost.

Interestingly, the remastered Anniversary Edition, which came out a decade ago and has much more detailed world geometry and a modern (at the time) game engine, doesn't do particle collisions. Sparks and stuff just pass right through geometry like they do in pretty much every other modern game.

[Fenris]

Such nice neighbours.  According to follow on comments this has been going on and off from 12+ months and is almost certainly originating from Kalingrad

Am waiting to see kitchen sinks next on the list of things thrown at Ukraine.

 

Edited January 19 by Fenris

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Reclaimer said:

As a graphics programmer for a major studio who's worked on some AAA titles (Yes! This is my moment to be a grognard about something on here!), I think particle collisions like this are actually one of a handful of graphical effects that has actually gotten a lot more difficult to do over time.

To my mind, the best implementation of this was the original Halo, which came out over twenty years ago. Spark particles from bullet impacts on world geometry would actually correctly deflect off of other world geometry in their path. It was subtle, but really cool. I've obviously never seen their rendering code (I don't work for Bungie), but I think the combination of very simple geometry (by today's standards) and the fact that they still processed their world geometry into BSP trees for culling let them do accurate particle collisions for relatively low cost.

Interestingly, the remastered Anniversary Edition, which came out a decade ago and has much more detailed world geometry and a modern (at the time) game engine, doesn't do particle collisions. Sparks and stuff just pass right through geometry like they do in pretty much every other modern game.

Thanks for that perspective.  Yup, increasing fidelity is always a double edged sword where improvements in one area obligate improvements in others or you wind up with a mismatch.  Wouldn't be a problem if the computer's capabilities were improved straight across the board.

Steve

[danfrodo]

4 hours ago, photon said:

That's fair. I suppose what I've seen in this thread is that tactical assaults (mechanized or otherwise) get shredded by precision fires (either indirect, direct, or drone). So you can have a smallish node of defenders "controlling" a few kilometer deep (in all three dimensions) battle space. I suppose it's something porous like mutual denial. In every war you've had a pretty sharp demarcation between controlled area -> no man's land <- controlled area. In an ancient battle the denied area might be measured in single digit meters. In the American Civil War maybe a hundred meters. Now it seems like it has a weird shape that's kilometers deep (and wide), doesn't exist under 2,000 feet, and then starts again above 2,000 feet in a conical shape stretching back from the line of contact.

What would it look like to move from denial primacy to defensive primacy in your view?

When I see Photon & TheCapt discussing things I say to myself "hush, grownups are talking"

Meanwhile, a few tidbits here today:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/1/18/2218018/-More-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-EU-s-Parliament-puts-the-screws-to-Hungary?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

Explosion in Donetsk area, looks like ammo?  Woman from Bashkorastan puts out video asking fighters from from the region to return home from UKR war to fight against the RU oppressors in their homeland.  I'd love there to be lots more of this, though I suspect she will be in a jail cell, or worse, rather quickly.  As TheCapt said earlier, arab spring started w one angry guy -- killed himself over govt corruption ruining his business, that's what I recall but not sure if correct.

[Carolus]

So, about those anti-drone cages...

 

 

[dan/california]

They are ALREADY at the front. I guess they get to lead the next storm Z assault.

[The_Capt]

Anyone picked this one up yet?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/a-ukrainian-drone-attack-on-an-oil-depot-inside-russia-causes-a-massive-blaze-officials-say-1.6733097

I expect the Canadian representative to the UN to soon call on Ukraine to wage this war with carbon neutrality

[The_Capt]

On offence-defence primacy - according to ISW, the race ain’t over yet:

The battlespace in Ukraine continues to be the center of the technological offense-defense race between Russian and Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Deputy Chief Major General Vadym Skibitskyi stated on January 18 that Russian forces "learn quickly enough" and have completely adapted the Kh-101 air-launched cruise missile compared to the model that Russia used in 2022.[8] Skibitsky stated that new Kh-101s are equipped with an active electronic warfare (EW) system and "thermal traps" to prevent the missiles from emitting trackable heat signatures.[9] Skibitsky noted that Ukrainian forces need to innovate and adapt in response to Russian adaptations to "prevent the loss of territories."[10] The GUR assessment of Russian technological innovation in the air domain is consistent with ISW's previous observations that Russian forces are adapting their methods and means for conducting strikes on Ukraine, and that Ukraine in turn must adapt and innovate with Western support to respond to such strikes.[11] Moscow Duma Deputy Andrei Medvedev identified similar adaptation-response dynamics in a January 18 post where he discussed the use of drones by both Russian and Ukrainian forces.[12] Medvedev stated that Russia has opted for the mass production of drones, leading to the production of large numbers of drones that lack the technological adaptations needed to compete with Ukrainian drones based on battlefield experience. Medvedev noted that Ukrainian forces are constantly improving their drones and warned that constant Ukrainian innovation may eventually make Russian mass-produced drones ineffective. Medvedev's discussion of the importance of constant technological adaptation and innovation on the battlefield emphasizes ISW's assessment that Russian and Ukrainian forces are engaged in a technological and tactical offense-defense race.[13]

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Anyone picked this one up yet?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/a-ukrainian-drone-attack-on-an-oil-depot-inside-russia-causes-a-massive-blaze-officials-say-1.6733097

I expect the Canadian representative to the UN to soon call on Ukraine to wage this war with carbon neutrality

First report of the attack today, though most of the others cited have been detailed.

Smashing Russia's petrol production and related storage infrastructure is smart.  It seems Russia's ability to meet domestic demands is already under stress, putting exports at risk.  Easy targets to hit, not so easy to repair quickly.

Steve

[Hapless]

13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

the Somme was a massive operational level offensive about as well planned and resourced as they come.  Its complete and utter failure was a clear indication that something had fundamentally shifted.

Complete and utter failure is a bit harsh- the defenders lost 400,000 men and voluntarily abandoned the whole area because they believed it was untenable.

There's an interesting perspective element here though re the current the conflict- who won the Battle of Sievierodonetsk? The side that got punished the most or the side that was evicted? A pyrrhic victory is still a victory... right? Unless it's the other side.

[TheVulture]

Intriguing report of the British MoD successfully testing an anti-drone laser system - called DragonFire, because the MoD is the best at chosing names for weapon systems - that is quoted at cost around £10 per shot with a 7 mile range. Although obviously there are questions about how close to reality those claims are and how well it would translate to battlefield conditions in practice. Could be battefield ready "in 5 years".

Paywalled article from the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laser-weapon-aerial-target-porton-down-xzzwn00ls

Free to view archived version: https://archive.is/ArNai

 

Edited January 19 by TheVulture

[The_Capt]

15 minutes ago, Hapless said:

Complete and utter failure is a bit harsh- the defenders lost 400,000 men and voluntarily abandoned the whole area because they believed it was untenable.

There's an interesting perspective element here though re the current the conflict- who won the Battle of Sievierodonetsk? The side that got punished the most or the side that was evicted? A pyrrhic victory is still a victory... right? Unless it's the other side.

The "whole area" was about 6 miles, at a cost of 600k allied troops - this is a harsh business.  "Utter" in relation to its stated aims.  The Somme was a case study in the military phenomenon of progressive unreality.  Something the RA currently knows a lot about.

[photon]

35 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The Somme was a case study in the military phenomenon of progressive unreality.

In passing, Martin Gilbert's The Somme: Heroism and Horror in the First World War does a really nice job of illustrating the detachment of the commanders from reality as the Somme progressed.

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, TheVulture said:

Intriguing report of the British MoD successfully testing an anti-drone laser system - called DragonFire, because the MoD is the best at chosing names for weapon systems - that is quoted at cost around £10 per shot with a 7 mile range. Although obviously there are questions about how close to reality those claims are and how well it would translate to battlefield conditions in practice. Could be battefield ready "in 5 years".

Paywalled article from the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laser-weapon-aerial-target-porton-down-xzzwn00ls

Free to view archived version: https://archive.is/ArNai

 

At £10 per shot and a range of 7 miles with pinpoint accuracy, when will we see this used as an anti-infantry weapon? 

7 miles is far more than even an experienced sniper can reliably shoot. Imagine singing off the antennas of vehicles as they assemble for an assault.

Yes, the beam can be traced back with thermal sensors, but any weapon platform is eventually exposed when it starts firing.

Imagine this capability against a non-peer enemy and pinging off Mujahedin on a hill.

[hcrof]

11 minutes ago, Carolus said:

At £10 per shot and a range of 7 miles with pinpoint accuracy, when will we see this used as an anti-infantry weapon? 

7 miles is far more than even an experienced sniper can reliably shoot. Imagine singing off the antennas of vehicles as they assemble for an assault.

Yes, the beam can be traced back with thermal sensors, but any weapon platform is eventually exposed when it starts firing.

Imagine this capability against a non-peer enemy and pinging off Mujahedin on a hill.

Also, I imagine that it would not be immediately obvious you are under fire too since there would be no bullet crack (a faint pop and a burning smell maybe? Maybe nothing if the impact is far behind you) You would probably get a second shot in before the enemy understood they were a target (especially if you miss).