How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

IMO most important parts:

"This has led to significant increases in production output. For example, Russia is delivering approximately 1,500 tanks to its forces per year along with approximately 3,000 armoured fighting vehicles of various types. Russian missile production has similarly increased. At the beginning of 2023, for instance, Russian production of Iskandr 9M723 ballistic missiles was six per month, with available missile stocks of 50 munitions."

"Of the tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, for example, approximately 80% are not new production but are instead refurbished and modernised from Russian war stocks. The number of systems held in storage means that while Russia can maintain a consistent output through 2024, it will begin to find that vehicles require deeper refurbishment through 2025, and by 2026 it will have exhausted most of the available stocks."

"Perhaps the most serious limitation for Russia, however, is ammunition manufacture. In order to achieve its aspiration to make significant territorial gains in 2025, the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has assessed an industrial requirement to manufacture or source approximately 4 million 152mm and 1.6 million 122mm artillery shells in 2024. Russian industry has reported to the MoD that it expects to increase 152mm production from around 1 million rounds in 2023 to 1.3 million rounds over the course of 2024, and to only produce 800,000 122mm rounds over the same period. Moreover, the Russian MoD does not believe it can significantly raise production in subsequent years,"

"This means that to properly resource the armed forces, Russia must – in the short term – further draw down its remaining 3 million rounds of stored ammunition, though much of this is in poor condition. To further compensate for shortages, Russia has signed supply and production contracts with Belarus, Iran, North Korea and Syria, with the latter only able to provide forged shell casings rather than complete shells. Although the injection of around 2 million 122mm rounds from North Korea will help Russia in 2024, it will not compensate for a significant shortfall in available 152mm"

"The Russian theory of victory is plausible if Ukraine's international partners fail to properly resource the AFU. However, if Ukraine's partners continue to provide sufficient ammunition and training support to the AFU to enable the blunting of Russian attacks in 2024, then Russia is unlikely to achieve significant gains in 2025. If Russia lacks the prospect of gains in 2025, given its inability to improve force quality for offensive operations, then it follows that it will struggle to force Kyiv to capitulate by 2026. Beyond 2026, attrition of systems will begin to materially degrade Russian combat power, while Russian industry could be disrupted sufficiently by that point, making Russia's prospects decline over time."

It's nice to have some numbers to back up what we've been discussing here.  Namely, Russia's method of war exceeds its domestic and import capacities.

To sum up what Kofman is saying... Russia will struggle to mount large scale offensive operations this year on a scale equal to what it's stated territorial goals are.  If Ukraine is able to successfully withstand whatever attacks do come in 2024, then territorial gains in 2025 are pretty much impossible, leading to 2026 where even the ability to defend what it has already taken my become difficult.

The two presumptions are:

1.  Ukraine continues to be able to inflict significant and disproportionate Russian forces

2.  Russia doesn't figure out a new way to fight that doesn't require massive quantities of ammo an armored vehicles

I have faith both of these will turn out to be more true than untrue.

As I've said since the war started... time is not on Russia's side.

Steve

[The_MonkeyKing]

37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's nice to have some numbers to back up what we've been discussing here.  Namely, Russia's method of war exceeds its domestic and import capacities.

To sum up what Kofman is saying... Russia will struggle to mount large scale offensive operations this year on a scale equal to what it's stated territorial goals are.  If Ukraine is able to successfully withstand whatever attacks do come in 2024, then territorial gains in 2025 are pretty much impossible, leading to 2026 where even the ability to defend what it has already taken my become difficult.

The two presumptions are:

1.  Ukraine continues to be able to inflict significant and disproportionate Russian forces

2.  Russia doesn't figure out a new way to fight that doesn't require massive quantities of ammo an armored vehicles

I have faith both of these will turn out to be more true than untrue.

As I've said since the war started... time is not on Russia's side.

Steve

And the third assumption is that key decisions on Ukraine aid keep being made on time. Also stated in the article.

[Joe982]

4 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

 

Of course it wasn't entirely a gift. The US was hoping to get a friendly and non-hostile Europe out of the arrangement.

It wasn't gifted at all. It was paid for. The UK was broke at wars end. The payments contined for years after. Australia too paid for US equipment. As part of the agreement, useful equipment had to be dumped at wars end. Total waste of taxpayers money!

 

 

 

[Centurian52]

1 minute ago, Joe982 said:

It wasn't gifted at all. It was paid for. The UK was broke at wars end. The payments contined for years after. Australia too paid for US equipment. As part of the agreement, useful equipment had to be dumped at wars end. Total waste of taxpayers money!

 

 

 

It's possible my information was flawed. I'll look into it. I was aware that the UK was broke by the end of the war. But I hadn't heard anything to the effect that it had anything to do with Lend Lease.

[Eddy]

30 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I was aware that the UK was broke by the end of the war.

UK was just about broke by mid '41.  Forecasting at the time was that we would be broke sometime around Autumn '41. We ordered massive amounts of military equipment from the US, on top of the usual imports like oil, food etc, and then took on the French orders as well all prior to lend-lease. Lend-lease itself came in, from memory , March 41.

The debt that was owed, and paid back, was from early war, prior to lend-lease starting. A big war is just about the most expensive endeavour a country can undertake. 

Edited February 13 by Eddy

[Fenris]

Interesting thread with some nice maps re Kupiansk during late Jan 24

 

[Kinophile]

 

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

It's also worth remembering that all of the aircraft currently operating in Ukraine are fourth generation aircraft. My own view is that fourth generation aircraft are obsolete. The capability gulf between fourth gen and fifth gen aircraft is enormous.

I'm not sure if I've posted this video before. But I assume all of us here appreciate the value of simulations for providing insights into warfare: 

 

I watched the whole video and I have some quibbles

Russian fourth gen fighters are unquestionably obsolete, I think the jury is still out on NATO fourth generation platforms, which A is a broad category, and B depends heavily on the exact ECM they are using. The second thing is that S400s have not proven nearly this good at shooting down cruise missiles in Ukraine, Never mind the fact that they can barely detect HIMARS/ATACMS at all as far as we can tell.

My last quibble with all games/simulations involving aircraft and missiles is that it comes down entirely to guess work on real radar cross sections, ECM, Radar ranges and so on. Even after two years of war in Ukraine a lot of this stuff is a guesstimate at best. And of course Ukraine has gotten virtually nothing produced in the last ten years other than NASSAMS, and perhaps some of the Patriot missiles. Lockheed should give those to Ukraine for free, because it has been the most effective advertising campaign in the history of mankind.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Eddy said:

The debt that was owed, and paid back, was from early war, prior to lend-lease starting. A big war is just about the most expensive endeavour a country can undertake. 

AIUI, the early war stuff was cash-and-carry, which saw GB liquidating its global assets to pay for. But that tide was rapidly going out, which is why LL was enacted - GB literally couldn't pay for any more kit under C'nC.

The post-war debt resulted from stuff that was delivered after LL finished in Sept 45.

Some LL stuff was actually returned, but by and large the US didn't want any of it back, so what the recipient didn't want anymore and the US didn't want back tended to be destroyed (presumably to keep the accountants and auditors happy?). Some stuff was kept though, since it was quite often the only kit available for the new and smaller peacetime militaries.

Edited February 13 by JonS

[Centurian52]

25 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I think the jury is still out on NATO fourth generation platforms

NATO fourth gen platforms may perform better than Russian fourth gen platforms. But there is no comparison with fifth gen platforms. Any fourth gen aircraft, including NATO fourth gen aircraft, is hopelessly outclassed by any fifth gen aircraft. The difference is much greater than going from third gen to fourth gen. The difference between T-55s and Abrams might actually be pretty close to the mark. 

27 minutes ago, dan/california said:

My last quibble with all games/simulations involving aircraft and missiles is that it comes down entirely to guess work on real radar cross sections, ECM, Radar ranges and so on. Even after two years of war in Ukraine a lot of this stuff is a guesstimate at best.

Yeah, that's fair. I believe a lot of guesswork had to go into that simulation. That's probably unavoidable unfortunately. It's probable that neither the Russian nor the US equipment was represented quite right. But the Russians generally overstate the capabilities of their equipment. The US by contrast is generally truthful about the capabilities they reveal, but they don't always reveal all of the capabilities a new platform may have. So if the simulation is inaccurate, it is likely that the Russian equipment is overperforming and the US equipment is underperforming.

[dan/california]

 

[dan/california]

Because Putin wants a negotiated solution so badly...

[dan/california]

I do hope the drone bomber was ok. I wonder if a TOS-1 going boom has a particular signature on the infrared satellites the U.S. uses to detect ICBM launches? It would be interesting if there was another source of data on how many of them have been vaporized. 

[dan/california]

 

[dan/california]

Elon isn't getting any saner...

[dan/california]

Read Dmitri every day!

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Yes, there's a fundamental category error here in the utter failure to distinguish Ukrainians, who are overwhelmingly fighting for their nation and elected government, from Iraqis or Afghans who overwhelmingly defer to their local tribal or religious leaders, who in turn decide which flag to salute, or not.

[sburke]

Moscow in FLAMES as huge inferno burns through largest oil refinery in Russian capital (msn.com)

Russia’s largest oil refinery, which supplies half of Moscow’s fuel needs, has erupted in flames.

The fiery glow over Gazprom Neft was first reported at around 2.30am, by residents in the districts of Kapotnya, Maryino and Brateevo.

Footage of the blaze was posted by the pro-Kremlin news outlet Shot, before being taken down later.

The Ministry of Emergency Situations said: “There are no active fires in Moscow.”

It added: “An oil refinery torch frightened residents of south-east Moscow.
“The glow was visible at night in different areas of the southeast of the capital. A column of fire rose from the chimney of the Kapotnya refinery; residents mistook the outbreak for a fire.

“The flare was explained by planned work at the plant.”

 

Edited February 14 by sburke

[pintere]

19 hours ago, Grigb said:

AFAIR, it was so called Z military reporter aka field propagandist. That's why he was without weapons. During the firefight he got confused and ran toward Legionnaires as he thought they are RU (they were not shooting at him). He realized his mistake when Legionnaires shouted to him to surrender (you can see exact moment on video), so he ran back. I do not remember what happened to him after that. 

Hmm I’ll keep that in mind next time my Pixeltruppen in CM flee TOWARDS the enemy when they clearly should’ve just stayed put.

You know, this war has been a great showcase of how really stupid things can happen in modern warfare. And every time this is the case it becomes easier to forgive the mechanics of Combat Mission when it results in outcomes that seem either unrealistic/unfair.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, JonS said:

AIUI, the early war stuff was cash-and-carry, which saw GB liquidating its global assets to pay for. But that tide was rapidly going out, which is why LL was enacted - GB literally couldn't pay for any more kit under C'nC.

The post-war debt resulted from stuff that was delivered after LL finished in Sept 45.

Some LL stuff was actually returned, but by and large the US didn't want any of it back, so what the recipient didn't want anymore and the US didn't want back tended to be destroyed (presumably to keep the accountants and auditors happy?). Some stuff was kept though, since it was quite often the only kit available for the new and smaller peacetime militaries.

The US put restrictions on the resale of LL equipment, in particular multipurpose trucks.  The US auto/truck makers were petrified of this stuff coming back to the US.  With good reason.

I imported a couple of M29 Weasels from Canada (don't know where they came from before that) and I had to wade through a small mountain of import paperwork to do it.  Fortunately, I found a loophole that allowed me to bypass the Form 6 "Significant Military Equipment" application.  The same paperwork I would need to import a thermonuclear capable launch system.

A large batch of Weasels came in from Norway, which used them well into the 1980s before the BV-202 and then BV-206 had fully replaced them.  I had two that came from Norway, complete with Norwegian instruction plates and nifty winter camo paint job.

Steve

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

in particular multipurpose trucks.

Well the Russians hung on to theirs, we have seen a few in Ukraine.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, sburke said:

Moscow in FLAMES as huge inferno burns through largest oil refinery in Russian capital (msn.com)

Russia’s largest oil refinery, which supplies half of Moscow’s fuel needs, has erupted in flames.

The fiery glow over Gazprom Neft was first reported at around 2.30am, by residents in the districts of Kapotnya, Maryino and Brateevo.

Footage of the blaze was posted by the pro-Kremlin news outlet Shot, before being taken down later.

The Ministry of Emergency Situations said: “There are no active fires in Moscow.”

It added: “An oil refinery torch frightened residents of south-east Moscow.
“The glow was visible at night in different areas of the southeast of the capital. A column of fire rose from the chimney of the Kapotnya refinery; residents mistook the outbreak for a fire.

“The flare was explained by planned work at the plant.”

 

"Nothing to see here, move along.  Move along" doesn't work so well when a fire can probably be seen from space, not to mention any apartment building.

The article missed an often overlooked point... percentages matter, but percentages with relative numbers in context matters even more.

Losing 40-50% of vehicular fuel in a regional hub or smaller locale would be a bummer for some people who live and work there, making things inconvenient and more expensive.   However, the fuel supply would likely be available to them without a massive disruption due to the scale of the need.  On the other hand, losing 40-50% of vehicular fuel for the largest city in the country is a whole different thing.  Not only is the scale of disruption massively different, but the surrounding area will not be able to easily provide immediate supply to both its normal customers as well as those from Moscow.

Any disruption of that big of a market is going to have some short term effect at a minimum.  Moscow has large factories as well as a huge population to sustain.  It is also a transport hub for goods and services.  Access to diesel is going to be a cost and efficiency drag until a few months after sufficient capacity is restored.  I'm guessing we'll be disappointed with the extent of the damage as we often are, however it will have a significant impact even if all it does is remind Muscovites that times aren't great under Putin's regime.

Steve

[sburke]

49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

"Nothing to see here, move along.  Move along" doesn't work so well when a fire can probably be seen from space, not to mention any apartment building.

 

Steve

Haven't actually seen a good pic or vid to confirm ,but Reuters has an article that seems to confirm.

Russia's Ilsky refinery plans to restart damaged unit this week, sources say | Nasdaq

[Carolus]

Still waiting for confirmation, but if true. this is truly getting comical.

 

 

[Haiduk]

21 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Still waiting for confirmation, but if true. this is truly getting comical.

 

 

Last breath of LLS "Tsezar Kunnikov" (pr.775, Ropuha-class)

Likely GUR later will post a video of attack. Russian sources say all crew was rescued

 Russian naval TG confirms - "I just got confirmation from BSF. But will be no official release"

Edited February 14 by Haiduk