How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

15 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Chicken and Egg.

This war would be over had any major western power fully commited on day 1, instead of discussing if sending 3 boots and a bandage more would upset putin.

It will be over if the political games in US and Europe continue on and on, that kill service men and women every day. 

Just stop it.  This war would be over in a day if the US and West fully slammed down...and then we would be dealing with the next war right behind it.  In what universe do you imagine Russia quietly skulking back over the border, avoiding all eye contact and gracefully accepting defeat if the West rolled in all the dice?

Should we support Ukraine, absolutely.  Should we fight this war for you, no freakin way.  Don't believe me?  Ok, let's take a look at the last time two nuclear powers got involved in a conventional war...oh wait, there really have not been any.

Closest we ever came was here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts

And this skirmish was within a year of Pakistan becoming a nuclear power (maybe).  So in human experience we have gone to incredible lengths to keep nuclear powers out of direct conventional wars...why do you suppose this is? 

Cut the "West is to cowardly" and "nukes are not a thing" BS because it clearly is an underlying calculation in this war and just because "you think so" is not going to change that.  

[Kraft]

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Just stop it.  This war would be over in a day if the US and West fully slammed down...and then we would be dealing with the next war right behind it.  In what universe do you imagine Russia quietly skulking back over the border, avoiding all eye contact and gracefully accepting defeat if the West rolled in all the dice?

Should we support Ukraine, absolutely.  Should we fight this war for you, no freakin way.  Don't believe me?  Ok, let's take a look at the last time two nuclear powers got involved in a conventional war...oh wait, there really have not been any.

Closest we ever came was here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts

And this skirmish was within a year of Pakistan becoming a nuclear power (maybe).  So in human experience we have gone to incredible lengths to keep nuclear powers out of direct conventional wars...why do you suppose this is? 

Cut the "West is to cowardly" and "nukes are not a thing" BS because it clearly is an underlying calculation in this war and just because "you think so" is not going to change that.  

Vietnam war saw US soldiers die by soviet and chinese equiptment, how much was the US willing to accept before sending nukes to the soviet union for that?

• cumulative 1.395 trillion purely military aid, 1.765 trillion infrastructure by soviet union. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01495R000500050038-4.pdf
• Using inflation calculator, cumulative rate of inflation at 594.6%, thats equivalent to 9.690 trillion military aid in todays worth, killing GIs. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

but sure, sending 31 abrams and a one-use atacms delivery after 2 years is equivalent to cold war tension and escalation. Im not sure, did the soviet union also start by debating whether rockets would be too much to send?? 

Edited March 3 by Kraft

[cesmonkey]

Maybe they are going to try this tech on some Iranian-supplied UAVs?

 

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, squatter said:

Have you both considered that what the single beleaguered toehold Ukraine has managed to cling onto at Krynky is actually evidence of how hard it is for them to cross this river in any significant force? The fact they have just this one marginal battered bridgehead (at the point of the river that's most suited with overwatching higher bank the friendly side, etc) and not several of them is exactly evidence against what you are proposing, not in favour? If Krynky is going well, where are the other bridgeheads?

Two things.  First, as The_Capt said, of COURSE this is a difficult operation.  But the fact that Ukraine has already done it, under intense Russian pressure, proves that they have the capability.  Krynky didn't happen by accident, nor is it being held by happy thoughts.  This is the thing you repeatedly ignore because it totally undermines your extreme position which is that it's either not possible or, even if it is, pointless.

The other thing is that militaries can't do everything all the time everywhere.  They have to make choices.  It is entirely plausible that Ukraine hasn't focused on crossing the Dnepr in 2023 because it thought it could do better with a land attack.  That didn't work and so now it is reasonable to assume that Ukraine is looking at options other than "oh well, I guess we'll do nothing but sit here and be whittled away".

The kind of operation The_Capt and I have been advocating for would require a major effort by Ukraine in order to pull it off.  This means choosing to not do something else in order to free up resources to invest into a river crossing.  The recent announcement of boats MIGHT indicate that is what they intend to do, just like the announcements of large numbers of armored vehicles in early 2023 indicated a large land based operation.

Whatever the case is, you presume that Ukraine doesn't have an option at all.  That's demonstratively false.  That it is difficult and might fail are very different arguments.  If you were making either of those, you'd find that The_Capt and I both agree with you.

5 hours ago, squatter said:

Sorry - which ground that Ukraine gained with light forces this year are you referring to?

The territory that the summer counter-offensive managed to secure despite the massive defenses and effort by Russia to hold them.  The gains may have been inconsequential from a liberation standpoint, but they did happen and they were achieved (mostly) after Ukraine switched back to company sized light attacks with armor in the supportive role.

Steve

[Haiduk]

Reportedly on Avdiivka front "war of reserves" started in full height. Russian threw in the battle 74th motor-rifle brigade and prepare to involve own three territorial troops MRRs (form 1 to 3). Recently they began to assault Krasnohorivka town and could distract there part of 3rd assault brigade. Though this didn't bring Russians almost nothing. In current time intensive clashes are continuing on the line Berdychi - Orlivlka - Tonen'ke. These villages aren't completely controlled by any side. 

Map just for illustration, situation is very dynamical, positions сonstantly change hands, but interesting, Russian miliblogger with regret pointed out that "UKR frorces already don't retreat from Avdiivka, but try to fight back with reserves" 

Also UKR soldier in own twitter wrote the number of Russian sorties with gliding bombs significantly reduced. For yesterday only 4 strikes. 

Edited March 3 by Haiduk

[The_Capt]

Just now, Kraft said:

Vietnam war saw US soldiers die by soviet and chinese equiptment, how much was the US willing to accept before sending nukes to the soviet union for that?

• cumulative 1.395 trillion purely military, 1.765 trillion infrastructure. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01495R000500050038-4.pdf
• Using inflation calculator, cumulative rate of inflation at 594.6%, thats equivalent to 9,690 trillion military aid in todays worth. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

but sure, sending 31 abrams and a one-use atacms delivery is equivalent to cold war tension.

Equipment and money = yes.  Direct action = no.  So you are seriously going to use Cold War spending with this current war?  That is your start point?  Ukraine is happening within an entirely different context.  I mean Cold War defence spending during the Cold War is an entirely different league:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

And now we are back to "what have you done for me lately?"  Like the Western world is some sort of war concierge. 

 

 

 

[kimbosbread]

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Taking the Viking as the example, it comes to roughly 1 x assault boat per vehicle (plus driver):

 https://www.utvdriver.com/yamaha/viking/

https://shop.tacticalinnovations.ca/military-series-assault-boat-140/

You would have to adapt the boat but that is not a serious problem.

So 20 boat rides to get 20 of these beasts across.  Say another 20 for ammo, crews and supplies.  A 40 x boat crossing (say 50 - for redundancy and losses).  Now do you do them in a single lift?  Yes, if you can, but that is likely too big and will get picked up.  So this is likely a 2-3 trip operation. 

I bet you could get a quad (Grizzly) into a zodiac or even a bigger jon boat. They only weight 320kg. No problem. Obviously the mini landing craft/work boats you see all over the PNW would be better; they even have a ramp: https://www.silverstreakboats.com/boats/20-landing-craft-centre-console/. I bet two guys in a canoe could tow a raft with that kind of weight reasonably quickly too as long as the current isn’t too bad.

The sxs (Viking) is at least 600kg and quite bit bigger, so that’s probably out of the range of just shoving it into an easily procured small boat and saying yolo.

[Kraft]

17 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Equipment and money = yes.  Direct action = no.  So you are seriously going to use Cold War spending with this current war?  That is your start point?  Ukraine is happening within an entirely different context.  I mean Cold War defence spending during the Cold War is an entirely different league:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

And now we are back to "what have you done for me lately?"  Like the Western world is some sort of war concierge. 

Did I say direct involvement?

No. My example involved the units that drove into minefields, or as you called it "recon in force".

Now, I surely dont have the military education, but least I invoke the russia is hanging on by mere threads idea, this was mostly true during the first counter offensive, which literally saw police, swat and !sailors! in trenches, had they stopped an armored push the size of 5-7 brigades without minebelts, hedgehogs, bunker and tunnel networks, no FPV or Lancets, and closer to parity air power? Or would it had been a complete collapse? You tell me.

Now say, that instead of 1970s scraps and rusting cold war stock, more units with the hundreds of available Bradleys and Abrams were involved, the outcome would be the same?

But alas, here we are, 2 years later and Kerch bridge attacks upset Mr Putin is still the talking point by which aid is denied. Whatever it takes, though.

Edited March 3 by Kraft

[Haiduk]

Russians started to use new 122 mm HEFRAG shells OF56IM-1P for D30/2S1 howitzers. They have a range on 4 km longer (19....20 km), than Soviet shells (15,2 km). This shells very similar to Chineese 122 mm ammunition with the same parameters, but unknown either this direct Chineese supply with Russian markings or Russian produced.

 

Edited March 3 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

First officially confirmed strike by French AASM-250 gliding bomb on occupied Avdiivka coke plant.

 

[kimbosbread]

Less interesting than the personal watercraft + ATV discussion, but more important: What are Russia’s options for long range fires if the glide bomb approach is no longer viable because too many of their planes have gotten shot down? Push more artillery forward, and hope UA counterbattery has shell hunger/drones aren’t flying that far in?

[Haiduk]

More light on the story with destroyed M1150 - likey it tried to tow damaged and abandoned M1A1

 

[The_Capt]

27 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Did I say direct involvement?

No. My example involved the units that drove into minefields, or as you called it "recon in force".

Now, I surely dont have the military education, but least I invoke the russia is hanging on by mere threads idea, this was mostly true during the first counter offensive, which literally saw police, swat and !sailors! in trenches, had they stopped an armored push the size of 5-7 brigades without minebelts, hedgehogs, bunker and tunnel networks, no FPV or Lancets, and closer to parity air power? Or would it had been a complete collapse? You tell me.

Now say, that instead of 1970s scraps and rusting cold war stock, more units with the hundreds of available Bradleys and Abrams were involved, the outcome would be the same?

But alas, here we are, 2 years later and Kerch bridge attacks upset Mr Putin is still the talking point by which aid is denied. Whatever it takes, though.

FFS, this is just an extension of "it is all the West's fault", a modern Ukrainian "stab in the back" myth in the making.  Could support have been better coordinated?  Could it have been better overall...definitely.  But the poor weak West managed to send in over support greater than the entire Ukrainian pre-war GDP...but that clearly was weak tea.

Now you snap your fingers because we did not send enough Abrams and Bradley's and were cowering under the glare of Putin?

The first rule of warfare is "know the war you are in."  The first rule of coalition/partnership warfare is "do not turn on each other."  But the sentiments you are pushing here are sorely testing my resolve.  

[The_Capt]

32 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

I bet you could get a quad (Grizzly) into a zodiac or even a bigger jon boat. They only weight 320kg. No problem. Obviously the mini landing craft/work boats you see all over the PNW would be better; they even have a ramp: https://www.silverstreakboats.com/boats/20-landing-craft-centre-console/. I bet two guys in a canoe could tow a raft with that kind of weight reasonably quickly too as long as the current isn’t too bad.

The sxs (Viking) is at least 600kg and quite bit bigger, so that’s probably out of the range of just shoving it into an easily procured small boat and saying yolo.

You definitely could.  Bigger means more weight, but greater speed.  Fewer landing options and higher signature (sound and profile).  My best guess is that a smaller lighter force first and then if conditions merit, scale up (if you have the stuff) to larger craft and vehicles. 

Those 14 foot assault boats I posted can carry about 2400 lbs, so just over a metric ton.  Trick with the Viking will be weight distribution and balance.

Then you can get into fast boats/gun boats but they attract a lot of attention.  The good news is that they also have a better chance of outrunning a Russian FPV.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, ASL Veteran said:

I read somewhere that Ukrainian males aged between 18 and 26 can't be mobilized / aren't draftable or something although they can choose to enlist if they want to.  I've also read / heard that the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is something like 44 years old - which is nuts.  You can't even enlist in the US army if you are older than 35.  If true, it sure seems like the individuals that you want most are the ones that can't be had for some unknown reason

The reason is crystal clear.  44 year olds do not have many children, usually. The Ukraine has dire demographic situation and does not want to be in the position, that it survives the war but has nobody to replace the population gap. To put it crudely, it protects the breeders.

[Holien]

1 hour ago, Kraft said:

Now say, that instead of 1970s scraps and rusting cold war stock, more units with the hundreds of available Bradleys and Abrams were involved, the outcome would be the same?

Could have been worse than where we are now as Ukraine would have had to take more troops off the front line to learn and integrate an influx of equipment.

You clearly forget the discussions at the time that we needed to send soviet era kit as easily used by Ukraine.

We could not just dump modern kit into Ukraine and expect it to be used effectively.

People want easy answers. This war isn't easy and there is no magic wand. Sure we need to better upgrade Ukrainian military forces, but that ain't easy...

 

[dan/california]

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Yeesh.  Well on the bright side, Ukraine is infinitely better than the other major war partners we had over the last 25 years (governments of Iraq and Afghanistan).  But it won't be Western support that kills Ukraine in this war - it can damn well hurt it and create really terrible end-states.  But the mess that is western support at times, pales in comparison to what will happen if Ukrainians lose the will to fight.  As we learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan - we can send people all the money and guns, but if the will to create their own future is not there it will all mean nothing. 

If Ukraine loses the will to fight, we could easily see Kyiv fall.  The West will retreat to Poland and draw some pretty stark lines - because it will have to.  It will create a political "out" for the West, "it wasn't us, it was them...oh well."  Russia will stay boxed up.  Western political parties will frame the outcome as a gross negligent failure for "them" and a resounding endorsement of "us", the blame game will go into overdrive.  And we will deal with the post-war mess.  Meanwhile Ukraine will be in for retributions and dark days out of the middle age as Russia enjoys it new gains and make a show of it...all the while the rot and pressure will build to a breaking point later.

 

 

2 hours ago, Kraft said:

Chicken and Egg.

This war would be over had any major western power fully commited on day 1, instead of discussing if sending 3 boots and a bandage more would upset putin.

It will be over if the political games in US and Europe continue on and on, that kill service men and women every day. 

 

 

1 hour ago, cesmonkey said:

Maybe they are going to try this tech on some Iranian-supplied UAVs?

 

These are probably to few and to expensive to be used for front line air defense, but if they could park fifty kilometers back and start swatting Russian Orlan and Zala class UAVs they would make a difference, maybe a big difference. Especially say just to the safe side of the Dnipro. in support of the amphibious operation we have been discussing at length.

46 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

FFS, this is just an extension of "it is all the West's fault", a modern Ukrainian "stab in the back" myth in the making.  Could support have been better coordinated?  Could it have been better overall...definitely.  But the poor weak West managed to send in over support greater than the entire Ukrainian pre-war GDP...but that clearly was weak tea.

Now you snap your fingers because we did not send enough Abrams and Bradley's and were cowering under the glare of Putin?

The first rule of warfare is "know the war you are in."  The first rule of coalition/partnership warfare is "do not turn on each other."  But the sentiments you are pushing here are sorely testing my resolve.  

In regards to the the overall state of the war, we started with  a positive loop in terms of attention, foreign assistance, and morale in both Ukraine and Western capitals, that lasted about eighteen months. Now that feedback loop has mostly gone negative. So we have Western politicians pointing to declining Ukrainian morale and recruitment as a reason to send less aid, and that becomes one of the major factors driving Ukrainian morale and recruitment lower.

The obvious way to break this doom loop is to pass the U.S. aid package and carefully coordinate it with a revised recruiting campaign by the Ukrainians. I suspect that there is no more effective way to recruit more Ukrainian recruits than announcing more Bradley equipped brigades are being stood up. If a couple of more A-50s were to have unpleasant experiences with long range drones, and the F-16s made their first public sorties at the same time maybe we can get this whole thing headed back in a positive direction.

Edited March 3 by dan/california

[Carolus]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

FFS, this is just an extension of "it is all the West's fault", a modern Ukrainian "stab in the back" myth in the making.  Could support have been better coordinated?  Could it have been better overall...definitely.  But the poor weak West managed to send in over support greater than the entire Ukrainian pre-war GDP...but that clearly was weak tea.

I respectfully disagree. 

Defeating the invasion of Ukraine is related to Western interests and the West is not pursuing its own interests due to a mixture of 

1) lack of will

2) lack of skill (military, intelligence and political savy)

3) political corruption 

This is not the fault of Ukraine, and it is very fair that Ukraine feels disappointed by its weak allies and the weak support in an existential war - not only existential for Ukraine, but existential for certain principles the West has built.

It may hurt to admit, especially if one was part of the Western military complex, but the West is not bringing its best.

[_Morpheus_]

Defense of Avdiivka by 3-rd Assault Brigade.

 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/03/russia-bloodiest-month-february-ukraine-war/

Russia suffers bloodiest month of war

Kremlin’s gains in Ukraine come at a cost of some 29,000 men killed or wounded in February alone

 

edited to add headline verbiage from article.

Unfortunately this number wasn't enough. Ukraine needs the munitions to double or triple it, if we don't want to be having this discussion two years from now.

Edited March 3 by dan/california

[omae2]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Reportedly on Avdiivka front "war of reserves" started in full height. Russian threw in the battle 74th motor-rifle brigade and prepare to involve own three territorial troops MRRs (form 1 to 3). Recently they began to assault Krasnohorivka town and could distract there part of 3rd assault brigade. Though this didn't bring Russians almost nothing. In current time intensive clashes are continuing on the line Berdychi - Orlivlka - Tonen'ke. These villages aren't completely controlled by any side. 

Map just for illustration, situation is very dynamical, positions сonstantly change hands, but interesting, Russian miliblogger with regret pointed out that "UKR frorces already don't retreat from Avdiivka, but try to fight back with reserves" 

Also UKR soldier in own twitter wrote the number of Russian sorties with gliding bombs significantly reduced. For yesterday only 4 strikes. 

I think the reason for the decrease is simply lack of intel on good targets. The russians has this go slow, full stop, go slow tendency. I figure when they met with a stronghold they slowly mapping out the defense system and than start to crushing it. Than they try to jump off from the rubble and run into killzones.

Similar thing happened early in a town called Popsana or Pavlovka or something sorry im not good with these ukrainian names. Back than it was mostly arty, but they blow the whole town to proceed. Than himars came and the logistic crumbled.

Same with bakhmut, now with avdiivka. As soon as things get less static the russians lose means to use their superior firepower.

Sad thing that Ukraine cannot force the russians into maneuver warfare properly.

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Carolus said:

I respectfully disagree. 

Defeating the invasion of Ukraine is related to Western interests and the West is not pursuing its own interests due to a mixture of 

1) lack of will

2) lack of skill (military, intelligence and political savy)

3) political corruption 

This is not the fault of Ukraine, and it is very fair that Ukraine feels disappointed by its weak allies and the weak support in an existential war - not only existential for Ukraine, but existential for certain principles the West has built.

It may hurt to admit, especially if one was part of the Western military complex, but the West is not bringing its best.

I take the middle ground.  I think what the West has done thus far has been huge.  Biggest investment NATO countries have made in a non-member state since its foundation.  It is also was highly effective.  Ukraine would arguably have been overrun in 2022 without this support.

This should not be dismissed or belittled.  It was strategically important to Ukraine and, therefore, the West.

However, was it enough in terms of the right mix of stuff and the speed in which it was delivered?  I'd say the answer there is a mixed bag, tending towards "not enough" and "not the right stuff" and "not fast enough".  The dithering of Scholz is the easiest place to look for examples, but there's plenty of that elsewhere.

Back when this war started and people were saying we should send over Abrams and sharks with laser beams on their frick'n heads were wrong.  Wrong then, wrong now.  Ukraine needed stuff they could use IMMEDIATELY and so that is what the West provided.  It is what saved Ukraine from being overrun, not fanciful concepts that were well intended by horribly naive in terms of implementation.

That said, I also stressed that this strategy should be to buy time, not as a the be-all-end-all form of aid.  Can't send F-16s because they take too long to employ? The get started going down that path and send SUs and hybrid kludged NATO weaponry to strap onto them while everything to get F-16s in the air happens in parallel.  The West pissed away a full year on this particular front.  Similar thing with Abrams and Bradleys.  Could have started that much sooner.

This isn't so much about Abrams and F-16s being Wunderwaffen as much as Ukraine needs stuff to replace its losses and there's only so much old Soviet stuff to throw at the problem.  Meaning, even if an Abrams provides no practical improvement over a T-64 or T-80, it is still needed because the T-64s and T-80s aren't going to last forever.

Separately from this are the really bad decisions surrounding weapons like Taurus and ATACMS.  Those should have been in Ukraine's hands last year because a) they were practical and b) they would be very useful.

Soooooo... when people get too down on the West for its failings, that's fine. But it really should be kept in context with all the successes.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, omae2 said:

I think the reason for the decrease is simply lack of intel on good targets. The russians has this go slow, full stop, go slow tendency. I figure when they met with a stronghold they slowly mapping out the defense system and than start to crushing it. Than they try to jump off from the rubble and run into killzones.

Similar thing happened early in a town called Popsana or Pavlovka or something sorry im not good with these ukrainian names. Back than it was mostly arty, but they blow the whole town to proceed. Than himars came and the logistic crumbled.

Same with bakhmut, now with avdiivka. As soon as things get less static the russians lose means to use their superior firepower.

Sad thing that Ukraine cannot force the russians into maneuver warfare properly.

Yes, so far every potential Russian breakthrough has failed for a combination of reasons.  The primary one being that Russia usually achieves its breakthroughs only after it has worn out all of its readily available forces.  Can't exploit if you have nothing to exploit with.

The other major reason is that Ukraine is pretty good at flexible defense.  It can pull back intact and form a new cohesive line strong enough to thwart further Russian expansion.  Mostly because Russia is largely spent.  If Russia had a couple of fresh regiments with decent support, I think we'd see Russia making significant gains after a battle like Avdiivka.

And finally, Russia has shown it is crap at improvised maneuver warfare.  So were the Soviets.  Once they get through a defensive location they really just don't know what to do.  Partly, I think, because it takes them so long to break through they simply aren't prepared for what to do after.  If they had NATO style mindset and organizational flexibility, things would be different.  But they don't so they aren't.

Steve

[Kraft]

56 minutes ago, Holien said:

Could have been worse than where we are now as Ukraine would have had to take more troops off the front line to learn and integrate an influx of equipment.

You clearly forget the discussions at the time that we needed to send soviet era kit as easily used by Ukraine.

We could not just dump modern kit into Ukraine and expect it to be used effectively.

People want easy answers. This war isn't easy and there is no magic wand. Sure we need to better upgrade Ukrainian military forces, but that ain't easy...

 

Training for Leopard started in February 2023. They were in active combat, in June 2023. Had there been the will to send these tanks in 2022, they could have been ready by the time the Kherson/ offensive took place/had commenced. It started even later. This is analog to every other weapons system. 

The "not possible" is just a moral veil for "not in the interest".

Edited March 3 by Kraft

[billbindc]

5 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Training for Leopard started in February 2023. They were in active combat, in June 2023. Had there been the will to send these tanks, they could have been ready by the time the Kherson/ offensive took place/had commenced. It started even later. This is analog to every other weapons system. 

Weak tea when Afghanistan has more Abrams against INSURGENTS? yeah

For the record, the only Abrams in Afghanistan were with the USMC and they were about as useful as a 63 ton doorstop.