How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, Kraft said:

2 Bradleys and one Leopard 2 were lost in the last couple days afaik

I haven't seen captured Leo yet. Instead of Bradly, they now show M113.

[Grigb]

Grubnik (Murz close friend and head of the RU Volunteers main supply network)

Quote

So, naïve people, Andrei [Murz] did not discuss 5% of the issues that he was aware of. Which we were aware of. He always sought to behave diplomatically behind the scenes, rather than taking the garbage [to the public].

Basically, what Murz wrote is understatement and not overstatement.

[Butschi]

11 hours ago, Kinophile said:

In fairness...they're never meant to, no? I get the strong impression the pending F16 fleet is intended to push back the RuAF and hit operational level targets, not individual ATGM teams.

True and I should have elaborated on that some more. My feeling is that you can clear the sky all you want, as long as there are minefields covered by dispersed ATGM teams and drones (FPV and recon), you still won't get anywhere. Because none of those problems are solved by having air superiority. And the cost of such a system could possible be invested somewhere else to greater effect.

Re: hitting operational level targets: Given the risk (there would still be all sorts of AA systems around), does Ukraine gain more capabilities than they already have using HIMARs & Co (and maybe Taurus at some point)?

So my impression so far was that F16s are just the next Wunderwaffe that won't fundamentally change the situation.

Am I mistaken?

[Kraft]

11 minutes ago, Grigb said:

I haven't seen captured Leo yet. Instead of Bradly, they now show M113.

Not captured, it and a 2nd vehicle were destroyed by another bradley, only thermal footage was uploaded

[Harmon Rabb]

4 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Mr Murz, he dead

Excellent Heart of Darkness reference, I remember reading that Joseph Conrad novel back when I was a school kid.

Anyway on to the subject. I do find it interesting how the usual pro-Russian suspects like that lowlife David Sacks as well as the convicted sex offender Scott Ritter( I hope you read this David and Scott, I know this topic gets around to some interesting places ), are gloating about Avdiivka.

Yet an actual Russian source who is much more familiar and connected to the war, literally killed himself over this great Russian victory.

 

Edited February 21 by Harmon Rabb

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Barely 10% of Europeans believe Ukraine can still defeat Russia, finds poll

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/21/barely-10-per-cent-of-europeans-believe-ukraine-can-defeat-russia-poll

Going to lay this one at the feet of all those who declared loudly and uncompromisingly that winning this war must mean 100% of pre-2014 Ukraine is re-taken and Russia is effectively crushed - this is where that amateur dangerous narrative gets us.   If we frame victory as a something that large, rife with hazards, then anything less is defeat.  This blatantly violates the principle that all war is negotiation.  It creates a strategic binary box of our own making.

This of course can create either positive or negative effect.  "War is lost, so why keep dumping good money after bad?"  Or, "wow, we had better get our act together!"  I guess we will have to see which one happens.

[Grigb]

6 minutes ago, Butschi said:

My feeling is that you can clear the sky all you want, as long as there are minefields covered by dispersed ATGM teams and drones (FPV and recon), you still won't get anywhere.

ATGM teams and drones are not the primary UKR issue. UKR drones can deal with ATGM teams. UKR can effectively neutralize RU drones at the place of their choosing (they are doing it in Krynki). Mines are the problem, but they can be dealt with. 

UKR main problems are Gliding bombs, Helicopter and Airplane ATGMs (plus luck off shells for offensive operation). They cannot practically deal with them at all. 

 

6 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Re: hitting operational level targets: Given the risk (there would still be all sorts of AA systems around), does Ukraine gain more capabilities than they already have using HIMARs & Co (and maybe Taurus at some point)?

UKR are risking launching HIMARs & Co. Effectiveness of RU AD is exaggerated. There are ways to deal with them. 

 

6 minutes ago, Butschi said:

does Ukraine gain more capabilities than they already have using HIMARs & Co (and maybe Taurus at some point)?

AFAIR UKR explanation, they will gain more flexibility for striking (different platforms have different operational limitations). And it will complicate RU options in countering UKR platforms.

 

6 minutes ago, Butschi said:

So my impression so far was that F16s are just the next Wunderwaffe that won't fundamentally change the situation.

Am I mistaken?

Yes.

1) Literally nobody calls F-16 Wunderwaffe except you.

2) After Patriot downed a few of RU planes in the Kherson direction, RU suspended glide bombing for a few days and considerably reduced bombing activity for almost a month. They only lately resumed bombing at the same intensity.

Once Patriot assisted A-50 in becoming a submarine, RU stopped patrolling the Ukrainian border. They currently patrol around 200 kilometers farther. As a result, they lost radar control over mainland Ukraine and had limited radar coverage over their own troops in the southern operating zone (Kherson and Zaporojye).

[panzermartin]

Yeah, that was Zelensky's and the West's mistake in the first place. To promote the counteroffensive with directors cut videos, to brag about the wunderwaffen Leopards, Bradleys, Himars etc and publicly promote the idea that the goal was to reach Azov and kick the Russians out of Crimea. 

Even Russians believed that and created multiple zones of defense on Crimeas bottleneck. 

The results (while not so disastrous) really discouraged the public in the West

[Bulletpoint]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Going to lay this one at the feet of all those who declared loudly and uncompromisingly that winning this war must mean 100% of pre-2014 Ukraine is re-taken and Russia is effectively crushed - this is where that amateur dangerous narrative gets us.

It's not just some amateur narrative, it's official Ukrainian policy.

Zelenskiy has always said the goal was to get the whole country back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/20/zelensky-keeps-maximalist-war-goals-despite-gop-opposition-aid/

[Butschi]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Going to lay this one at the feet of all those who declared loudly and uncompromisingly that winning this war must mean 100% of pre-2014 Ukraine is re-taken and Russia is effectively crushed - this is where that amateur dangerous narrative gets us.   If we frame victory as a something that large, rife with hazards, then anything less is defeat.  This blatantly violates the principle that all war is negotiation.  It creates a strategic binary box of our own making.

This of course can create either positive or negative effect.  "War is lost, so why keep dumping good money after bad?"  Or, "wow, we had better get our act together!"  I guess we will have to see which one happens.

That's one point. The other is that I really think that part of the Russian (media) strategy works (sorry that I keep repeating this): From a military point of view battles like Bakhmut and Avdiivka may be pyrrhic victories, if that.

But what Joe Average takes away from this is that, despite all the losses, Russia is on the offensive and, once again, Ukraine had to retreat. That ties into the narrative of red hordes we've all been fed since WW2 and, click, in the long run nothing can stop Russia.

That's why I always cringe when everyone laughs about how stupid and ineffective these attacks are. They do have an effect.

Germans are usually in the "why keep dumping good money after bad?" camp. Maybe others are different.

Let's hope the Russian army runs out of steam before we run out of patience.

[Grigb]

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Going to lay this one at the feet of all those who declared loudly and uncompromisingly that winning this war must mean 100% of pre-2014 Ukraine is re-taken and Russia is effectively crushed - this is where that amateur dangerous narrative gets us.   If we frame victory as a something that large, rife with hazards, then anything less is defeat.  This blatantly violates the principle that all war is negotiation.  It creates a strategic binary box of our own making.

This of course can create either positive or negative effect.  "War is lost, so why keep dumping good money after bad?"  Or, "wow, we had better get our act together!"  I guess we will have to see which one happens.

Let us have a bet. If the war ends without Russia withdrawing from Ukrainian land, I will send you a bottle of gin (not cheap, but nice). If it ends with full RU withdrawal, you will send me a bottle of gin.

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's not just some amateur narrative, it's official Ukrainian policy.

Zelenskiy has always said the goal was to get the whole country back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/20/zelensky-keeps-maximalist-war-goals-despite-gop-opposition-aid/

The failure to frame this war effectively is not a problem solely on this board.  I will give the Ukrainian Government a lot of leeway though - I mean what else are they going to say?  They are shoring up resolve etc.  But do you honestly think that they have not developed offramps and contingency.

 

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Grigb said:

Let us have a bet. If the war ends without Russia withdrawing from Ukrainian land, I will send you a bottle of gin (not cheap, but nice). If it ends with full RU withdrawal, you will send me a bottle of gin.

So you want me to make a bet I want to lose?  How about this -  I will send gin if this war ends unconditionally and without compromise - on either side.  And that end comes with a secure Ukraine.  Russia could withdraw right now and still pound Ukraine from afar for years and re-invade a couple years later.

[Kinophile]

55 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Excellent Heart of Darkness reference, I remember reading that Joseph Conrad novel back when I was a school kid.

Anyway on to the subject. I do find it interesting how the usual pro-Russian suspects like that lowlife David Sacks as well as the convicted sex offender Scott Ritter( I hope you read this David and Scott, I know this topic gets around to some interesting places ), are gloating about Avdiivka.

Yet an actual Russian source who is much more familiar and connected to the war, literally killed himself over this great Russian victory.

 

Nah, there's no pictures of naked children here so no Scott Ritter, thankfully. Anyway he probably has to go shout gibberish at some unlucky Chechens. 

Edited February 21 by Kinophile

[Twisk]

1 hour ago, cesmonkey said:

 

I would expect to see more Russian crowing about  a large success but I've not seen much. Overall taking Avdiivka has been oddly muted. This could be just the experience of riflemen on the front who will have had the worse experience even if the overall statistical experience hasn't been bad?

@fireship4 thank you for the PDF. For some reason it did not give me the opportunity to download it

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, cesmonkey said:

 

I think what we have here is the usual non-experts and lowly foot soldier perspective on withdrawals.  The last phase of a withdrawal under intense enemy pressure is almost always chaotic, disorganized, and prone to losing clusters of men/material AT BEST.  Worse is mass captures and slaughter. 

"I was in a platoon that didn't know where we were or where to go and we had to leave half our guys behind" is not incompatible with a well executed withdrawal.  It could be that unit was quite unlucky or was in such a horrible position to start with that getting 20 guys out instead of 0 is a bit of a miracle.

There's a reason that withdrawals under pressure has been considered the most difficult, dangerous, and often disaster prone forms of combat for centuries now.  And it continues to be.  The true measure of a good withdrawal vs. a bad one is complicated to asses.  Beyond NYT and grunts on the ground abilities to fairly assess.

The little information we've seen indicates to me that on the spectrum of withdrawals this was done very well.  Especially given how precarious the positions and escape routes were.  If Ukraine lost 1000 men I'd be very surprised as that is probably the bulk of what remained of the 110th Brigade.  The Russians would be crowing about that and they aren't.

Steve

[Grigb]

7 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Yeah, that was Zelensky's and the West's mistake in the first place. To promote the counteroffensive with directors cut videos, to brag about the wunderwaffen Leopards, Bradleys, Himars etc and publicly promote the idea that the goal was to reach Azov and kick the Russians out of Crimea. 

Here we go again. If you make your enemy believe that something big  is occurring, he is more likely to commit all he was hiding earlier, letting you to attack them with artillery/himars. In brief, Ru panicked and ordered hidden artillery batteries to begin fire, revealing their location to UKR CB.

 

7 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Even Russians believed that and created multiple zones of defense on Crimeas bottleneck. 

The RU idea of trying defense in depth emerged as a result of a review of mistakes made during the UKR Kharkiv offensive. It did not benefit them as much as you believe since they eventually rejected the defensive approach.

 

7 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

The results (while not so disastrous) really discouraged the public in the West

I don't see any evidence that the pro-UKR public has changed its views. I see that the anti-UKR public has become louder. Everyone else is experiencing an emotional roller coaster, which is perfectly natural. They get hyped when they hear the positive news.

[Kinophile]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The Russians would be crowing about that and they aren't.

Steve

So just ball parking here...

From Murz (RiH) - I believe 16k list attacking Avdiivka since Oct 23? 

Let's say from Feb 22 to Oct 23 another 5K lost, conservatively. 

From 2015-2022, say 1 K, conservatively. 

So at least over 20,000 men and 10 years  to capture a ruined, operational Cul-de-sac of 60-70 sq.miles.

Pretty ****ty RoI. 

And not even a breakthrough. 

Edited February 21 by Kinophile

[Butschi]

16 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Yes.

1) Literally nobody calls F-16 Wunderwaffe except you.

Yeah, thanks again, a polite discussion is just not your thing, is it?

I obviously called the F16 "the next Wunderwaffe" in reference to the military utility of the real historic Wunderwaffen and in reference to all the other systems, like Leopards, that were praised before as certainly war winning. Look at the internet, it's full of the poeple using exactly this reference as a warning that F16s will not fundamentally change the situation in this war. I am happy to learn why this is a wrong assessment but no, I'm certainly not literally the only one.

27 minutes ago, Grigb said:

2) After Patriot downed a few of RU planes in the Kherson direction, RU suspended glide bombing for a few days and considerably reduced bombing activity for almost a month. They only lately resumed bombing at the same intensity.

Once Patriot assisted A-50 in becoming a submarine, RU stopped patrolling the Ukrainian border. They currently patrol around 200 kilometers farther. As a result, they lost radar control over mainland Ukraine and had limited radar coverage over their own troops in the southern operating zone (Kherson and Zaporojye).

Patriots aren't F16s, though, and I was talking about the latter.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

First is if the F-16 will have data integration with an AWACS. That would allow the Ukrainians to fly and shoot without active radar. Huge advantage.

That is assumed. F-16's radar is not particularly impressive.

 

1 hour ago, poesel said:

Next is the type of missile. If they get the AIM120D instead of the C they have 160km instead of 105km. Or they get Meteors and now they have 200km.

It is a fairly robust assumption they will not get either. AIM 120D is the newest one in US use, IIRC. The US have never released their latest stuff to the Ukraine. Meteor is AFAIK not integrated with F-16 at all. At least I have never seen it fly with one.

 

1 hour ago, poesel said:

Range doesn't mean you have a certain kill, but you can still spoil an attack even with a missile that missed in the end.

Yes, but you have to do it prior to bomb release - at some point between the AMRAAM max range and 50km release point. The question is what is AMRAAM's practical max range when it is fired in such position,

[pkanarki]

3 hours ago, Kraft said:

I think it needs to be repeated everytime the NYT is quoted but their board has russians working on it, that have previously worked for russian state newspapers.

Anytime they quote "anonymous sources" discard the trash article into the next bin.

So nytimes is run by Russian board member? Who is that? Name of board member? I am very curious....

[Kinophile]

RuAF taking chances, so more losses. Probably The shot down 34s are getting hit because they're doing their job (ground attack) rather than just tricksy UKR AD. 

 

Edited February 21 by Kinophile

[billbindc]

53 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's not just some amateur narrative, it's official Ukrainian policy.

Zelenskiy has always said the goal was to get the whole country back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/20/zelensky-keeps-maximalist-war-goals-despite-gop-opposition-aid/

I think there’s a difference honestly. In DC I think everyone understands that Zelensky would be crazy to give up anything until negotiations begin in earnest. But there were a lot of folks who were pushing the idea that one big offensive might finish the war. I have to admit I am one of the people who was half persuaded by that thinking given that I was hearing it from some pretty legitimate voices. 

 

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, billbindc said:

But there were a lot of folks who were pushing the idea that one big offensive might finish the war. I have to admit I am one of the people who was half persuaded by that thinking given that I was hearing it from some pretty legitimate voices.

This makes sense if they have inside knowledge that the RA is rotten and ripe for collapse.  And they had better be damned sure.  "One more push" did not work out in WW1 when Defensive Primacy is dominating.  But there are plenty of examples where that last push did create enough pressure for an enemy collapse.

The central problem to my eyes is upscaling.  How does one do it without getting picked up and lit up before one can put it into motion?  How does one upscale the seemingly very high bar for setting pre-conditions?

[FancyCat]

Silly thing to suggest that Ukraine's PR revealed the location of their offensive when this forum was settling on that being the quickest most decisive action Ukraine could take. In short, it was exceedingly obvious that Russia needed to shore up it's defenses in the Kherson direction.

Ukraine's PR has been focused on getting Western aid and equipment. If there's any blame to go, certainly I remain exceedingly pissed that we have thousands of Bradleys and have only given 200 to Ukraine.