How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

19 minutes ago, hcrof said:

. Thankfully the NATO numbers are finally going up at a faster rate than Russia's so hopefully Ukraine will be at least stable soon with regard to the artillery balance. 

This is more my angle, such as it is. Ukraine with a stable and steadily increasing shell supply is very dangerous to Russia. 

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

This is more my angle, such as it is. Ukraine with a stable and steadily increasing shell supply is very dangerous to Russia. 

Also, Russia is not just producing, it is producing and refurbishing old shells. The latter has an expiration date.

The rate is not sustainable. 

We might see unpleasent surprises from China via NK, but for now, everything Russia does has an expiration date.

Edited March 11 by Carolus

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Also, Russia is not not producing, it is producing and refurbishing old shells. The latter has an expiration date.

The rate is not sustainable. 

We might see unpleasent surprises from China via NK, but for now, everything Russia does has an expiration date.

Also, 

 

 

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, Carolus said:

Also, Russia is not not producing, it is producing and refurbishing old shells. The latter has an expiration date.

The rate is not sustainable. 

We might see unpleasent surprises from China via NK, but for now, everything Russia does has an expiration date.

Also, 

 

 

[Kinophile]

Nice, if true. Feels a little inflated, but there's definitely money to be made in shell production these days, so why not. 

 

[Beleg85]

10 hours ago, Kinophile said:

They're pretty polarized personally on domestics, as I understand it, so travelling and acting together on this issue (Ukraine) is significant? 

Perhaps our Polski friends can elaborate? 

It's anniversary visit for 25 years in NATO, at least on the surface- so no major decisions will be taken. You are correct, visit by both PM and president is rather unusual and may be connected to polarized political scene here (one theory say some DC officials think Duda may have some better vibe with Republicans in US than other world leaders and can be used as small leverage/lobby to convince them, but it is far-fetched in my opinion). Both camps speak in unilateral voice for support for Ukraine, though, and Sikorski is animating whomever he can behind the scenes for several months already. So no big news probably; Biden may want to shore crucial NATO countries for the future in case Orange Guy win the race.

 

Perhaps worth to check this article, it's CNN but since they have good contacts in Pentagon it may go beyond another clickbait. 100k shells a month to Ukraine doesn't sound that bad, if realistic.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html

Edited March 11 by Beleg85

[Kinophile]

Confirmation bias on my end is possible, but it does still look like 2024 = Hold in the east, Strike in the South. 

Strike doesn't necessarily mean full ground invasion. 

[Kinophile]

Not exactly "cut", but definitely a latent and growing threat. 

Instead of Russia cutting off UKR grain corridor UKR could start sinking RUS/proxy ships carrying stolen grain from Azov/Crimean ports. 

Wouldn't that be a turning of the worm? 

[Kinophile]

C&C located where, on what coast? For which unit/Service? 

---

Ffs. Fine, whatever dumbass paperwork needs to be done to legally "protect" Germany from Russia attacking. Gimme a break but sure, fine. As if Russia would ever respect legalities or paperwork. 

 

 

Edited March 11 by Kinophile

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

C&C located where, on what coast? For which unit/Service? 

 

Kinda weird that one.  The thing looked beached.

[Eddy]

11 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Not exactly "cut", but definitely a latent and growing threat. 

Instead of Russia cutting off UKR grain corridor UKR could start sinking RUS/proxy ships carrying stolen grain from Azov/Crimean ports. 

Wouldn't that be a turning of the worm? 

This article from H I Sutton is about two ships that had previously carried S300s back from Syria turning back from entering the Black Sea to go the long way round via the Baltic. Although not to do with grain exports per se, it does indicate Russian reluctance to carry presumably sensitive stuff through the Black Sea for fear of Ukrainian USV attack.   

Vital Russian Supply Lines In Black Sea Cut By Ukrainian Drones - Naval News 

 

[Kinophile]

 

 

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, Eddy said:

This article from H I Sutton is about two ships that had previously carried S300s back from Syria turning back from entering the Black Sea to go the long way round via the Baltic. Although not to do with grain exports per se, it does indicate Russian reluctance to carry presumably sensitive stuff through the Black Sea for fear of Ukrainian USV attack.   

Vital Russian Supply Lines In Black Sea Cut By Ukrainian Drones - Naval News 

 

Sutton is a good source. Observant. 

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Also, 

 

 

Gawd, I am sorry but Kofman has built an entire career on being an academic contrarian - a conversation of "reconstitution rate, relative to observed attrition, and time required to generate additional formations..."  Is really just all components for answering the fundamental question of "when will Russia run out?"

So "when will Russia run out?" is the "wrong conversation."  The right conversation is "when will Russia run out?"

[The_Capt]

19 minutes ago, Eddy said:

This article from H I Sutton is about two ships that had previously carried S300s back from Syria turning back from entering the Black Sea to go the long way round via the Baltic. Although not to do with grain exports per se, it does indicate Russian reluctance to carry presumably sensitive stuff through the Black Sea for fear of Ukrainian USV attack.   

Vital Russian Supply Lines In Black Sea Cut By Ukrainian Drones - Naval News 

 

I can recall at the start of this war someone coming on the forum and boldly declaring that Russia would dominate this war because they had control of the Black Sea.  So much for that theory.

[Carolus]

33 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Gawd, I am sorry but Kofman has built an entire career on being an academic contrarian - a conversation of "reconstitution rate, relative to observed attrition, and time required to generate additional formations..."  Is really just all components for answering the fundamental question of "when will Russia run out?"

So "when will Russia run out?" is the "wrong conversation."  The right conversation is "when will Russia run out?"

Okay thank you.

I was seriously doubting my mind because I couldn't make heads nor tails of Kofman's tweet, and wondered if he was just channeling DeGrasse Tyson.

Apparently he was.

Edited March 11 by Carolus

[Vanir Ausf B]

33 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The right conversation is "when will Russia run out?"

IISS says 2-3 years.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Gawd, I am sorry but Kofman has built an entire career on being an academic contrarian - a conversation of "reconstitution rate, relative to observed attrition, and time required to generate additional formations..."  Is really just all components for answering the fundamental question of "when will Russia run out?"

So "when will Russia run out?" is the "wrong conversation."  The right conversation is "when will Russia run out?"

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.

And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.

 

[poesel]

1 hour ago, Kinophile said:

C&C located where, on what coast? For which unit/Service? 

---

Ffs. Fine, whatever dumbass paperwork needs to be done to legally "protect" Germany from Russia attacking. Gimme a break but sure, fine. As if Russia would ever respect legalities or paperwork. 

 

 

FYI - the foreign minister would export Taurus to Ukraine ASAP. But it is the prerogative of the chancellor to decide that stuff. So she cannot say what she thinks.

And what Scholz thinks - nobody knows. Wrong man at the wrong time.

[kimbosbread]

12 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material

Technically, Russia will never exactly run out of mobiks.

[Vanir Ausf B]

9 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material,

That's what I interpreted him as saying. Asking when Russia will run out is like asking when the world will run out of oil. The answer is never, it just becomes more scarce. In fact the IISS estimate I posted above does not actually predict a run dry date, but rather how long Russia will be "able to sustain its assault on Ukraine at current attrition rates".

[sburke]

40 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Gawd, I am sorry but Kofman has built an entire career on being an academic contrarian - a conversation of "reconstitution rate, relative to observed attrition, and time required to generate additional formations..."  Is really just all components for answering the fundamental question of "when will Russia run out?"

So "when will Russia run out?" is the "wrong conversation."  The right conversation is "when will Russia run out?"

The other question is, what are they counting that matters?  Maybe Russia can sustain MBT losses, maybe continue to scrounge artillery shells etc.  But those A50 AEW aircraft are in short supply and appear to be an endangered species.  The UA seems to have a laser focus on strategic assets that have a downstream effectiveness on Russia's ability to fight this war. 

As you said a while back - "- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly."

If the UA can further deplete Russia's C4 capability more options become available to wage strategic strikes on Russia's infrastructure as well as find opportunities to use the F16 aircraft as they become available.

[FancyCat]

pour one out for

Quote

There are rumors out there that Ukraine may have killed Russian general - and commander of Russia’s airborne formations/commander of Russian forces in Kherson/along the Dnipro - Mikhail Teplinsky. If these rumors are true, it’s the most significant RuAF commander KIA in the war

 

 

[kimbosbread]

13 minutes ago, sburke said:

The other question is, what are they counting that matters? The UA seems to have a laser focus on strategic assets that have a downstream effectiveness on Russia's ability to fight this war.

Exactly! I as I asked pages ago, what happens if Russia no longer has the desire + capability to launch glide bombs due to airfleet attrition and risk of remainder being at risk? This is obviously why they are looking at GLSDBsky. Use SRBMs?

[The_Capt]

57 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.

And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.

 

That is really just more academic "technically" speak.  Russia can "run out" much in the same way Germany "ran out" at the end of WW1.  Further there is a spectrum of running out, some lines they likely have already crossed (i.e. running out of an ability to conduct successful operational level offensives.)

Will the raw materials in the ground "run out", no of course not.  Can Russia run out of effective capability production to keep pace with this war...definitely.  I mean sure, technically, if all they have are small arms and conscripts they have not "run out" but at that point they are pretty much ineffective in prosecuting the war.

If Russia "reduces consumption" they run the risk of Ukraine gaining initiative - this is exactly what we have all been afraid of with respect to the UA and artillery ammunition - note how Ukraine can "run out" but not Russia.  Russia can decide to use less, and the UA can decide to retake ground as a direct result.  This all comes back to "when will Russia run out?"  Run out of being able to create, generate, project and sustain effective capabilities that underpin strategic options.

It is like having an electric car...technically you can never run out of gas; however, if you are down to recharging with 9v batteries you have effectively run out of gas.  It is splitting hairs to say "talk of when the electric car will run out of gas is not useful"  when effectively that is what happens.

Russia can definitely run out of effective military production, compared to losses that creates an asymmetric advantage for the UA.  At that point, when the UA start rolling forward...the RA has "run out".  In a war based on attrition, it is the question no matter how it gets dressed up.