How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Grigb]

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Can we find accurate reliable numbers anymore? I doubt.

So, how did you get to the conclusion that UKR are incurring big losses? 

 

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

This could be true in earlier stages but since the summer offensive Ukrainians are losing a lot too. 

And you came to that conclusion how? You just admitted you do not have any data to support your conclusions.

 

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Gliding bombs, drones etc have inflicted big damage to their forces, 

Let's be frank, you have no idea what damage these things inflicted on UKR. 

We already saw that the biggest RU effort in using gliding bombs, drones etc at Avdiivka resulted in at most 2:1 losses in favor of UKR. RU forums where you get your information wildly exaggerate the effectives of RU weapons. 

 

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

which repeatedly are being cut off in big cauldrons and get hammered until very last minute withdrawal. 

Neither Bakhmut nor Avdiivka resulted in cauldron. And in the UKR forces did not got hammered until very last minute withdrawal. 

Agent Mur.z about Bakhmut

Quote

UKR, retreating from line to line, calmly used the complete defensive capabilities of the [Bakhmut urban] agglomeration. They were not destroyed, and they were not defeated on the level of capturing or destroying even a [just] brigade headquarters. The remains of the city were taken from them, while [we] suffered significant losses among experienced [RU] fighters...

The result of the "defeat of AFU in Bakhmut," I repeat and highlight this: is the disintegration of the "most combat-ready army corps" of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation as an effective military force, a built and functioning hierarchical management structure, and the destruction of the very concept of such work with military tasks. This is a far greater loss in the long term than any losses sustained by the same corps on the battlefield during the assaults.

Previously posted Murz quote about Avdiivka

Quote

Syrsky skillfully pulled out of the "cauldron" at Avdiivka (which was taken with significant difficulty and wasting a lot of time), even the small part of Ukrainian troops that could still be "smashed" there...

And the enemy, having conducted a defensive battle and suffered, in the best-case scenario for us, unrecoverable casualties of 5-7 thousand within the same period (this is my rough estimate and not known data), says "Goodbye!" and retreats to new, previously prepared positions.

You basically have no idea what's going on in reality. 

 

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Another hint is that we don't see any mass mobilization from Russia this time

Or you simply do not know what is going on. Military wise, RU was intended to call a second wave in the summer/early fall. Putin is personally delaying it (the RU MOD expected Putin to issue an order by the end of the summer or early fall). Which is understandable considering the potential consequences.

 

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

yet Ukraine seems rather eager to gather personnel even asking/forcing people to return from abroad. 

Oh, FFS - because unlike RU UKR army tries to take care of UKR military personnel by organizing regular rotations. UKR army need manpower to rotate previously mobilized troops. RU army told to mobilized - F*ck you. 

 

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Lastly, they keep losing ground every day.

Try not to use RU propaganda talking points on me. It is stupid.

During North Africa campaign British Army lost vast amount of territory twice (pink is map of Ukraine). 

In war you fight your enemy and not just trying to capture as much land as you can. 

So, in reality, every day UKR are inflicting disproportional casualties on RU in exchange for a little bit of land which is war winning strategy. RU strategy of suffering disproportional casualties for a little bit of land is not a war winning strategy. 

 

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Even the little gains of summer offensive in Zaporizhia front. 

In war you fight your enemy and not just trying to capture as much land as you can. 

Have a look at UKR reports on RU non manpower losses (yes, my paint skills are not high but you can clearly see the relevant dates) 

RU trucks

RU special vehicles

RU tanks

All graphs show that before the UKR offensive, RU successfully reduced vehicle losses. This would certainly allow RU to win the war of attrition. However, as you can clearly see - as soon as UKR offensive started the trend was reversed.

The main gain for Ukraine during its summer offensive was not land, but rather an effective reaction on Russia's defensive strategy with a complete reversal of the attrition trend.

 

7 hours ago, panzermartin said:

There are also no signs of any new Ukrainian offensive plan, unless it's being prepared in complete darkness for maximum surprise. But it's very unlikely. 

You have no idea what you are talking about. If you look at the graphs above, you will notice that the attritional trend did not reverse back after UKR stopped their offensive. RU rejected the previous effective defensive strategy in favor of the offensive strategy keeping attritional trend exactly as UKR like.

So, two things. First, UKR does not need to go on the offensive since the RU attrition trend is precisely where UKR wants it to be. Second, the UKR offensive was substantially more effective than most people realize - it terrified RU so much that they abandoned their originally successful defensive strategy in favor of an offensive approach that would be fatal for them for them in the long run (but would allow them to keep UKR on the defensive in the short term).

 

[poesel]

As I understand it, the Russians need: airplanes to drop glide bombs, artillery, (any) IFVs, (any) tanks & lots of men for their 'successes' on the battlefield.

Which of those will run out first?

I thought that would be artillery, as that was heavily targeted by Ukraine for a while. The hope was that Russia would run out of tubes. But that didn't happen, no?

The types of IFVs or tanks used seems to be irrelevant. The difference in duration on the battlefield (between old & new types) seems to be negligible.

[Holien]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:38 PM, panzermartin said:

Probably this war won't be won on western equipment alone but how many personnel Ukraine will have left in the end. 

We are bashing Russia for sending ill prepared troops in human wave style assaults but I haven't seen  mentioning that a lot of UKR troops were lost in encircled traps like in Mariupol, Severodonetsk, Soledar, Bakhmut etc while they could have withdrawn to fight another day with better chances. 

On the contrary RU has shown much more preservance reflexes(at least in defense) , pulling out of unfavorable situations instead of fighting to the last man. I understand the different mentality of someone defending his homeland but it seems these "no step back" decisions are coming from above.

A lot men have left Ukraine as well. And a lot have deserted to the east or joined the DPRs and LPRs and some videos of enforced recruitment have been circulating lately. How many can Ukraine sacrifice and how many losses can the foreign volunteers replace as the war widens. 

 

 

 

@Grigb A post from Panzer Martin a year ago after Bakhmut.

He has form...

Just FYI

Hey maybe he will be right one day...

[The_Capt]

One man's copium is another's despairium. And vice versa.  Every time the UA loses a small town, the Doom fanbois come out of the woodwork.  I think some are trying to leverage western sentiment to put pressure on allies for more support - "see we are on the verge of losing".  Others are pushing pro-Russian crap and trying to convince us that there is no point - "see how mighty Russia cannot be beaten...just like in WW2".  Funny how things stay so quiet when Ukraine takes back a small town.

Neither side really knows what they are talking about.

[TheVulture]

Just now, The_Capt said:

One man's copium is another's despairium. And vice versa.  Every time the UA loses a small town, the Doom fanbois come out of the woodwork.  I think some are trying to leverage western sentiment to put pressure on allies for more support - "see we are on the verge of losing".  Others are pushing pro-Russian crap and trying to convince us that there is no point - "see how mighty Russia cannot be beaten...just like in WW2".  Funny how things stay so quiet when Ukraine takes back a small town.

Neither side really knows what they are talking about.

If you draw a line after the big Ukrainian gains of Kherson and Karkhiv, and look at what has changed purely in terms of territory since then,  Russia gained Bakhmut last winter, then there was the Ukraininan summer offensive which didn't achieve strategic objectives in terms reaching Tokmak, and now we've had Avdiivka. I think if you add all that up, Ukraine comes out comfortably ahead, although neither side has changed the size of the Russian controlled territory by even 1%. If someone is seeing this as Russia having the upper hand, they're seeing what they want to see.

[zinz]

https://archive.is/2024.02.18-043310/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-ukraine-war-soldier-uk-insider-9wbs2kf8q

Behind the lines from the Russian perspective. Not quite up to date but still very interesting 

[Kinophile]

55 minutes ago, Grigb said:

So, how did you get to the conclusion that UKR are incurring big losses? 

 

And you came to that conclusion how? You just admitted you do not have any data to support your conclusions.

 

Let's be frank, you have no idea what damage these things inflicted on UKR. 

We already saw that the biggest RU effort in using gliding bombs, drones etc at Avdiivka resulted in at most 2:1 losses in favor of UKR. RU forums where you get your information wildly exaggerate the effectives of RU weapons. 

 

Neither Bakhmut nor Avdiivka resulted in cauldron. And in the UKR forces did not got hammered until very last minute withdrawal. 

Agent Mur.z about Bakhmut

Previously posted Murz quote about Avdiivka

You basically have no idea what's going on in reality. 

 

Or you simply do not know what is going on. Military wise, RU was intended to call a second wave in the summer/early fall. Putin is personally delaying it (the RU MOD expected Putin to issue an order by the end of the summer or early fall). Which is understandable considering the potential consequences.

 

Oh, FFS - because unlike RU UKR army tries to take care of UKR military personnel by organizing regular rotations. UKR army need manpower to rotate previously mobilized troops. RU army told to mobilized - F*ck you. 

 

Try not to use RU propaganda talking points on me. It is stupid.

During North Africa campaign British Army lost vast amount of territory twice (pink is map of Ukraine). 

In war you fight your enemy and not just trying to capture as much land as you can. 

So, in reality, every day UKR are inflicting disproportional casualties on RU in exchange for a little bit of land which is war winning strategy. RU strategy of suffering disproportional casualties for a little bit of land is not a war winning strategy. 

 

In war you fight your enemy and not just trying to capture as much land as you can. 

Have a look at UKR reports on RU non manpower losses (yes, my paint skills are not high but you can clearly see the relevant dates) 

RU trucks

RU special vehicles

RU tanks

All graphs show that before the UKR offensive, RU successfully reduced vehicle losses. This would certainly allow RU to win the war of attrition. However, as you can clearly see - as soon as UKR offensive started the trend was reversed.

The main gain for Ukraine during its summer offensive was not land, but rather an effective reaction on Russia's defensive strategy with a complete reversal of the attrition trend.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. If you look at the graphs above, you will notice that the attritional trend did not reverse back after UKR stopped their offensive. RU rejected the previous effective defensive strategy in favor of the offensive strategy keeping attritional trend exactly as UKR like.

So, two things. First, UKR does not need to go on the offensive since the RU attrition trend is precisely where UKR wants it to be. Second, the UKR offensive was substantially more effective than most people realize - it terrified RU so much that they abandoned their originally successful defensive strategy in favor of an offensive approach that would be fatal for them for them in the long run (but would allow them to keep UKR on the defensive in the short term).

 

+100

[Grigb]

Few reports about real effectives of RU drones

RU Nat January 18

Quote

I cannot share the optimism of those who report on our superiority in FPV drones. On the front line, [fighters] will definitely disagree with these experts. If we analyze the objective control from [enemy] side, it becomes obvious that FPV drones are becoming the main striking weapon of Ukrainians.

Within a radius of 20 km from the line of contact, Ukrainian drones can destroy any equipment, including tanks with dynamic protection. A real revolution has taken place before our eyes, the scale of which we have not yet realized.

 

Another RU Nat

Quote

Actually, what is the current situation. The enemy [army] is saturated with drones. At the same time, the enemy is very flexible in tactics, all the time improves the work of electronic warfare, improves the drones and [drone] repeaters . Different teams, enthusiasts, and volunteers work for AFU, and they are all very clearly motivated to achieve results...

[And] What we have. For a long time we had a shortage of kamikaze drones. Teams of enthusiasts worked [hard]. Then, they decided to scale up the production of one of the [successful] models. And the troubles began. It turned out that mass production is not always good. Becasue the manufacturer makes the same model without making adjustments, not taking into account that the specifics of drone warfare change every month, or even more often, not taking into account that enemy electronic warfare can quickly adapt to disable drones at a certain frequency, then sooner or later problems will begin. And this is already happening. The mass production is good. But the drone production, I stress it again, implies constant work to improve the model. Otherwise, following happens. Let our field commander spealk:

"As a person who works every day with the FPV group, I will say that drones ........ are managed to fly a little further than our [forward] trenches. We made a bunch of antennas on the same frequency, but the Ukrainians learned how to jam them perfectly.

And theoretically, out of 10 flights, 2 drones reach the target. Now we are trying to find antennas with a different frequency, but this requres time, becasue they are supplied from China. But we need them right now. Such is the reality.

In terms of the number of drones, Ukrainians and we have about the same [number], but unfortunately, they screw us with better quality.

 

RU greatly exaggerates the success of its FPV drone program.

[danfrodo]

A few interesting tidbits here today.  Most items already seen here, but several not.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/2/18/2224138/-Russian-stuff-blowing-up-Prost-gegen-Putin?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web

[Grigb]

6 minutes ago, poesel said:

As I understand it, the Russians need: airplanes to drop glide bombs, artillery, (any) IFVs, (any) tanks & lots of men for their 'successes' on the battlefield.

Which of those will run out first?

Airplanes. RU demonstrated extreme sensitivity to airplane losses. 

 

6 minutes ago, poesel said:

I thought that would be artillery, as that was heavily targeted by Ukraine for a while. The hope was that Russia would run out of tubes. But that didn't happen, no?

They pulled WW2 howitzers out of storage. RU mil reporter Saponkov reported on Feb 3

Quote

An old weapons. 
In the shadow of the lack of artillery (which forced the D-1  howitzers from 1943 to be put back into operation), and the "shell famine", there is one more issue - the problems that the army is experiencing in equipping the infantry.
In the photo and video:

• A fresh photo from Glockmeister [RU Nat weapons expert] showing with what he teaches his studens - RP-46, in his case, made in 1946.
• A photo of an RPD machine gun from the Deadheads [TG] channel, in the hands of a fighter training to be a machine gunner.
• A video with the fighters of the 57th MSBR published recently. The fighters have a Mosin rifle, and 7.62mm caliber AK, instead of 5.45 AK-74/74M.
• The last video is from a year ago, where a fighter shows his DShK (12.7mm) machine gun made in 1944.

Also, UKR claim that RU are replacing losses with mostly towed guns (not necessarily with D-1s) slowly downgrading to WW2 level.

 

6 minutes ago, poesel said:

The types of IFVs or tanks used seems to be irrelevant.

• The infantry is best transported by up armored APC. Even MRAP is ok as it can get in out quickly
• Close support is best provided by AFV with automatic weapon. The best is Bradley with two men crew. MRAP with 50 cal will do the job
• Tank (preferably with HESH rounds) provides long range (2-3 km) fire support against hardened targets (concreted bunkers) using drones for adjustment

The assault technique is as follows

1. FPV drones take out crew manned weapons (ATGMs, HMGs etc)  around objective
2. 155mms pound the objective
3. Tank demolishes bunkers and other hardened targets
4. APCs with Bardleys arrive at objective and clear out remains of the enemy

6 minutes ago, poesel said:

The difference in duration on the battlefield (between old & new types) seems to be negligible.

The biggest difference is APS with ability to counter drones. No APS, no difference. Well, crew survivability of modern AFVs increases overal AFV formation morale and aggressiveness. 

 

[Butschi]

Isn't all of this a fruitless discussion? We've had stunning Ukrainian successes in 2022. To the point that the discussion here had devolved into a meme show (go back, I know I complained about this...). Ukrainian soldiers were larger than life superheroes who made fun of Russia that sucked at war badly. Anyone who wasn't on board of the hype train was suspected of being a Russian troll. We had bets running how many months it would take for the Russian army to collapse, remember? Oh, and of course Leopards! Western tanks in Ukraine, some were already dreaming of a drive on Moscow.

From that perspective 2023 was a total letdown. So now one camp goes "See, Russia can't be beaten, they are too big, sanctions are failing, they will always come out top because WW2. Crap because its not 1942 and, sorry to all history nerds out there, history simply doesn't repeat itself. (Doesn't mean we can't learn from history though). The other camp goes "See, well that year wasn't much of a success but still, Putin started out with the goal to seize all of Ukraine or destroy it. They didn't, and they no in longer have the means to, so no matter what, they can't win. Also once the next Western Wunderwaffe comes to Ukraine, Ukraine will win because Russians are incapable of learning. And Ukraine has to win because they are the good guys and it is always like that in Hollywood."

We are arguing as if this was a game of Combat Mission, where there is some neutral instance that is going to decide who wins and who loses based on some predefined and unchangeable parameters. In reality, the parameters change over time, the points awarded change too and who wins our loses is something the different parties involved will decide for themselves.

 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Grigb said:

The biggest difference is APS with ability to counter drones. No APS, no difference. Well, crew survivability of modern AFVs increases overal AFV formation morale and aggressiveness. 

At 20km range they are going to have to put APS on every truck, jeep and bicycle in order to keep an LOC.  

It looks very much like the UA is using drone warfare (in all shapes and sizes) to offset artillery shortfalls.  It also looks like it is working.  This development is world breaking in land warfare and I suspect things are just getting started.

I do not know what the mech solution is.  Right now dig and disperse along with EW appear to help on defence but no one has really figured out how to project unmanned into offence.  Ukraine did not last summer and Russia sure did not at Adiivka, or at least not what we saw.

So here we are again, scratching our heads and wondering what happens next.

[billbindc]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

At 20km range they are going to have to put APS on every truck, jeep and bicycle in order to keep an LOC.  

It looks very much like the UA is using drone warfare (in all shapes and sizes) to offset artillery shortfalls.  It also looks like it is working.  This development is world breaking in land warfare and I suspect things are just getting started.

I do not know what the mech solution is.  Right now dig and disperse along with EW appear to help on defence but no one has really figured out how to project unmanned into offence.  Ukraine did not last summer and Russia sure did not at Adiivka, or at least not what we saw.

So here we are again, scratching our heads and wondering what happens next.

Two things seem to have to happen in order to  attain offensive capability in a big war: 

1. Total and full spectrum EW domination. 

2. ISR denial. 

That means space operations, that probably means denial of one’s own drones. It likely also means a whole other suite of sensor jamming per Watling’s envisioned future of sound sensors, etc. In other words, it probably means offense is the privilege of an already pretty dominant military. 

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

At 20km range they are going to have to put APS on every truck, jeep and bicycle in order to keep an LOC.  

It looks very much like the UA is using drone warfare (in all shapes and sizes) to offset artillery shortfalls.  It also looks like it is working.  This development is world breaking in land warfare and I suspect things are just getting started.

...

So here we are again, scratching our heads and wondering what happens next.

We know what happens next. More autonomy and flexibility for drones and better munitions.

Here’s a question: What would it take for drones to mostly replace artillery? There are obviously huge advantages in production, flexibility, lack of TBIs/concussions, logistics, training, autonomy add-on etc. But what is missing? Bigger boom? Faster boom?

Related question: If you were outfitting a military from scratch, would you have more drone units than artillery? Would you have any artillery?

[dan/california]

29 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

We know what happens next. More autonomy and flexibility for drones and better munitions.

Here’s a question: What would it take for drones to mostly replace artillery? There are obviously huge advantages in production, flexibility, lack of TBIs/concussions, logistics, training, autonomy add-on etc. But what is missing? Bigger boom? Faster boom?

Related question: If you were outfitting a military from scratch, would you have more drone units than artillery? Would you have any artillery?

I think it is to soon say. We have seen virtually no system beside EW engineered for defeating drones. If you are placing bets right now you have to cover both bases. Because going all one way and being wrong is an excellent way to lose a war, badly. I would be pushing madly on some of the longer range artillery ideas that in various stages of development.

 

Quote

https://www.nammo.com/story/the-range-revolution/

I am sure they are not the only player. We have to pour money at this tech, drones, and counter drone technology. All of which will be horribly expensive. But losing always costs more.

 

Quote

 

The range revolution

For a long time, artillery systems have been able to shoot out to just over 20 kilometers. Nammo is well on its way to change that completely. A new family of ammunition is set to reach distances of up to 150 kilometers.

 

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Quote

Ukrainian forces will likely be able to establish new defensive lines not far beyond Avdiivka, which will likely prompt the culmination of the Russian offensive in this area. (1/9)

2/ The Russian MoD claimed on February 18 that elements of the Russian Central Grouping of Forces completely captured Avdiivka, advancing 8.6 kilometers in depth in the area, and that Russian forces continue offensive operations to capture additional territory in Donetsk Oblast.

3/ Several RU milbloggers claimed on Feb. 18 that Ukrainian forces lack well-prepared defensive positions west of Avdiivka and that Russian forces will be able to advance further into western Donetsk behind “panicked” & “disorganized” Ukrainian forces withdrawing from Avdiivka.

4/ ISW has still not observed footage of disorderly Ukrainian withdrawals to support these Russian claims and would expect to observe such footage if the withdrawal was disorderly on a large scale given the normal patterns of Russian sources with access to such material.

5/ One RU milblogger claimed that a large-scale collapse of the Avdiivka front is “unlikely” as UKR forces withdraw to prepared defensive lines, however, indicating that the RU understanding (or presentation) of UKR defensive capabilities here differs from source to source.

6/ Available imagery, which ISW will not present or describe in greater detail at this time to preserve Ukrainian operational security, does not support claims that Ukrainian forces lack prepared defensive positions west of Avdiivka.

7/ The Ukrainian command also recently committed fresh units to the Avdiivka front to counterattack advancing Russian forces and provide an evacuation corridor for Ukrainian units withdrawing from Avdiivka.

8/ These newly committed units are likely able to establish and hold defensive positions against Russian forces, degraded by their assaults on the town, west of Avdiivka.

 

9/ Russian forces, which have suffered high personnel and equipment losses in seizing Avdiivka, will likely culminate when they come up against relatively fresher Ukrainian units manning prepared defensive positions.

 

 

 

Have not posted anything from the ISW for a while... Like over a year?

But just like @Grigb (By the way great to see you here again, this forum was not the same without your maps and knowledge of Russia's internal politics).

As well as @The_Capt, the ISW seems to be raining on Russia's great victory in Avdiivka.

 

 

Edited February 19 by Harmon Rabb

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, kimbosbread said:

Related question: If you were outfitting a military from scratch, would you have more drone units than artillery? Would you have any artillery?

I think one needs both, they are complimentary - if artillery can match range.  The most dangerous thing about UAS (or any unmannned for that matter) is ISR.  We have seen all these videos and the biggest implication is that we can see.  Drones that can hit and kill are the obvious next step but the capabilities that can mitigate those drones, even fully autonomous ones are all vulnerable to artillery/strike.  So those UAS as ISR can detect and hand off strike to the guns/rockets if need be.  This negates APS almost entirely.  It makes EW nearly suicidal.  It makes conventional mass very hard to muster without being disrupted or even destroyed.

What I would not have is heavy mech.  Or not a most of it.  Ground forces would be as light and fast as I could make them.  They would become the center of the bubble.

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

Two things seem to have to happen in order to  attain offensive capability in a big war: 

1. Total and full spectrum EW domination. 

2. ISR denial. 

That means space operations, that probably means denial of one’s own drones. It likely also means a whole other suite of sensor jamming per Watling’s envisioned future of sound sensors, etc. In other words, it probably means offense is the privilege of an already pretty dominant military.

I am not sure it is possible to do #1 without essentially destroying an opponents ability to strike those EW capabilities in all forms.  This is really hard as EW puts out a lot of radiation and is highly detectable.  So an opponent cannot have deep strike of any sort plugged into a C4ISR system.  Given fully autonomous drones that is going to get very hard.  As to #2 - I honestly do not know what that looks like.  We are talking vertically from subsurface to space.  Horizontally we are talking just about everything from highway cams, security cameras and every civilian smart phone.

 You would need to make an entire country “go dark” which is essentially a WMD level strike.  The legalities of completely shutting down all data in any nation are not small.  Banking, medical, transportation infra, electricity and power…basically everything.  Even attacking centralized internet architecture is not enough as peer to peer still would work.  Add in Starlink type stuff and military tactical mesh nets and that is one tall bill.  To the point that I am not sure it is even possible.

This is my point on world breaking.  I do not know how it will even work in a decade.  I suspect it will be swarms killing other swarms and massive deception campaigns to spoof and dislocate.  Defence looks a lot easier than offence.  Entry costs go up very quickly but Denial costs are dropping.  

[Kinophile]

Further example, dousing of the RU narrative about a chaotic withdrawal. ZSU fell back in order. 

Edited February 19 by Kinophile

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, kimbosbread said:

We know what happens next. More autonomy and flexibility for drones and better munitions.

Here’s a question: What would it take for drones to mostly replace artillery? There are obviously huge advantages in production, flexibility, lack of TBIs/concussions, logistics, training, autonomy add-on etc. But what is missing? Bigger boom? Faster boom?

Related question: If you were outfitting a military from scratch, would you have more drone units than artillery? Would you have any artillery?

You can send more bang farther and faster than with drones.  Drones can make up for some of the reduced bang with precision - if you can always be sure you can target a weak spot you don't need nearly as big of an explosion.

Artillery sends stuff with a speed that you're not going to see in drones unless you start using the shell as a sabot for a smart submunition.  Laser guiding is a sort of in between thing - you can use a spotter drone (the one who's already calling in the artillery) to paint the targets with a laser.

[Aragorn2002]

9 hours ago, Grigb said:

RU is not winning this part. You read BS about Great Patriotic War.

 

RU has no war economy. Western sanctions inflicted critical damage on RU economy ensuring slow death of RU state as we know it.

 

You do know that RU morale is so low that Putin is afraid to call mobilization, don't you? 

 

What drones are you talking about? RU Nat fighter from Avdiivka reported on February 9

 

Do you talk about Shaheds? Last time I checked, 40 out of 45 were taken down.

 

RU military production reached it's peak at the end of December. It cannot increase anymore due to lack of western heavy machinery.

 

UKR NATO 155mm arty needs less shells as it is more effective than RU arty

 

Last time Trump was president he b*tcslapped RU so hard that I laughed whole week reading RU Nat hysterics. 

 

Interesting question. Given that it took RU several months of relentless meat assaults to move front just couple km west and given that there are 560 km to Kiev, RU can be expected to threaten Kiev in 233 years. EU shells will arrive long before that. 

 

Nope, Agent Murz reports how RU learns lessons IRL

 

Except from infamous Tolkonuk letter to Stalin about how Red Army generals learned lessons of war by the winter 43-44 

Remove reference to Germans and it reads like description of Avdiivka battle.

 

I dont like RU propagand but there it is.

 

Great post. Really lifts my spirit. Thanks for that.

[Kinophile]

Interesting. 

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/02/analysis-an-operational-view-on-the-usv-attacks-in-the-black-sea-from-an-admirals-eyes/

 

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, Butschi said:

Isn't all of this a fruitless discussion?

No more or less than it was the day the war started.  We are not in positions of power or decision making.  We do not have crystal balls.  What we do have is curiosity and the ability to discuss it with others who are also curious.  From that comes understanding, or at least a better understanding, of what is going on.  Not everybody's cup of tea.

8 hours ago, Butschi said:

From that perspective 2023 was a total letdown.

Depends on how realistic one's thinking was heading into 2023.  It would have been nice if Ukraine had a better year, but it is still keeping up the fight and that is the most important thing beyond this or that battle.  And from a military basis, Ukraine kicked a lot of ass in 2023 despite not retaking much territory.  Normandy looked pretty bad for the Allies for quite a while before it wasn't.

8 hours ago, Butschi said:

We are arguing as if this was a game of Combat Mission, where there is some neutral instance that is going to decide who wins and who loses based on some predefined and unchangeable parameters. In reality, the parameters change over time, the points awarded change too and who wins our loses is something the different parties involved will decide for themselves.

Sure, the calculations for victory/defeat have not been finalized yet.  That's true for any war that hasn't concluded, why should this one be different?  However, we already know that Russia has lost this war according to any reasonable objective assessment and absolutely according to Russia's own stated objectives.  There's nothing that will change that.  All they are trying to do is lose the war less badly tomorrow than they would if they quit today.

If someone wants to debate this, go back to one of the last 100 times we've covered this, dust off the arguments that Russia's lost, then assess them to see how it holds up to today.  In my view Russia is losing the war worse now than it ever has been.  How can I say that?  For starters... burning oil infrastructure, ships that don't float as well as they once did, and another 10 or so years of Soviet war material burned up for no gain.

I'd bet every Dollar that I have that if Ukraine fully surrendered tomorrow, Russia would still collapse because of this idiocy.  And not too long from now either.

Steve

[poesel]

8 hours ago, Grigb said:

Airplanes. RU demonstrated extreme sensitivity to airplane losses.

If airplanes are the Russian resources that run out first, then the F-16 (or rather its possible stock of western missiles) will make a difference.

It would be interesting to know which missiles they get. But obviously they won't tell for good reason.
I predict a short flurry of downed Russian planes and then an end to the (mass) use of glide bombs from the Russian side.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

9 hours ago, Grigb said:

The biggest difference is APS with ability to counter drones. No APS, no difference.

Do you refer to any existing APS or write in an abstract way (that it would be good if someone developed an APS with such capability in the future?)? Also, does the Ukraine actually use any APS now? 

[Aragorn2002]

1. Support Ukraine to continue to fight, even if that means sending what little we have left ourselves.

2. Rearm like mad, damn the economical consequences, no matter how painful they will be.

3. Make it clear to our societies that this is only the beginning of a very dark time.

4. Prepare for large scale war, because that's what we're heading for one way or the other. +

5. Stop acting as if we have a choice in the matter.

Edited February 19 by Aragorn2002