How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[hcrof]

14 minutes ago, Huba said:

That exactly. Classic siege artillery work here- hitting the same spot for cumulative damage, eventually resulting in total destruction. 

This is true, and also means you only need to repair one span if you only destroy one span.

On the other hand, the Russians may find it easier to reinforce a single damaged span, for example by laying a tank bridge over the damaged section. That is only a temporary solution though, unless they can solve the himars problem so let's hope the Russians retreat before more damage is done (and forget to blow the bridge properly).

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

What are the chances that Russians will find alternative ways to transport their ammo across the river? Dnieper is very wide, and barges with supplies would be quite difficult to hit if properly protected.

This is what I was talking about above with water based resupply.  Ships are extremely slow to unload and can only dock in very predictable spots.  Cranes used for unloading can easily be neutralized, even by unguided artillery.  Even more so if a ship loaded with ammo is hit.  In that case, the cranes and the docks will be taken out of action.  Russia has very recent experience with docked ships being hit.  It knows what happens.

Ferries are too slow and also vulnerable for the same reasons.  They're not viable.

Pontoon bridging a river this size under contested conditions is obviously not practical.  Again, Russia knows this from first hand experience.

Once the bridge is compromised to the point that Russia can't effectively resupply its forces it has lost the battle for the western bank fo the Dnepr and whatever other fantasy that are based on it.

With one salvo Ukraine just completely and utterly changed the strategic picture.  Think about the implications of that.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Audgisil said:

They could likely unload in various locations, but I would imagine that the loading areas essentially would have to be set up as ammo dump / staging areas and that these would be highly vulnerable to ISR and attack because they can't just be set up instantly or moved around willy nilly.

The issue is volume.  There's a big difference trying to resupply a large force and a small one no matter what the logistics bottlenecks are.  The bigger the force, the less disruption is needed to have a major impact on its performance.  Related, the bigger the supply need, the easier it is to find and target effectively.

The bridge is a good metaphor for the entire Russian invasion.  One doesn't need to destroy the entire invading force.  One doesn't need to destroy its LOCs completely.  One only needs to damage the force and the LOCs enough that Russia can't do what it came to do.

This is the biggest moment in the war since the failed river crossings.  It says a lot more about the near future of combat than it might appear to.  Sometimes a bidge is just a bridge, sometimes it is far more than that.

Steve

[Beleg85]

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is what I was talking about above with water based resupply.  Ships are extremely slow to unload and can only dock in very predictable spots.  Cranes used for unloading can easily be neutralized, even by unguided artillery.  Even more so if a ship loaded with ammo is hit.  In that case, the cranes and the docks will be taken out of action.  Russia has very recent experience with docked ships being hit.  It knows what happens.

Ferries are too slow and also vulnerable for the same reasons.  They're not viable.

Pontoon bridging a river this size under contested conditions is obviously not practical.  Again, Russia knows this from first hand experience.

Once the bridge is compromised to the point that Russia can't effectively resupply its forces it has lost the battle for the western bank fo the Dnepr and whatever other fantasy that are based on it.

With one salvo Ukraine just completely and utterly changed the strategic picture.  Think about the implications of that.

Steve

Sounds promising.

Logical reaction would be to pull troops off on the other bank. Russian reaction will probably be herculeian, pointless effort to supply them nonetheless, later awarder with lots of posthumus medals.

One of Putin biographers marked in one book, that his favourite WWII story he always tell to his guests was from battles of Crimea, about Russian sailors coming through waves with help for desparatelly sorrounded land units. Maybe he will try to put this fantasy into reality.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Beleg85

[Harmon Rabb]

2 hours ago, Huba said:

That's just rich... And he threatened to expand them to whole Ukraine if US sends ATACMS.. 

 

Maybe if Washington provides ATACMS to Ukraine Moscow will go as far as to attack Ukraine or something.

We all know Moscow would have wanted to occupy Kyiv by now if their military was not so incompetent and planning was not so poor.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Harmon Rabb

[Huba]

RU commentators are afraid of another "goodwill gesture"

 

 

[hcrof]

17 minutes ago, Huba said:

RU commentators are afraid of another "goodwill gesture"

 

 

Loving the guy that says 15cm of steel will protect the bridge - genius! Just give up trying to run vehicles on it as well

[Letter from Prague]

I am looking forward to the inevitable Girkin rant about this.

[Lethaface]

12 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

This is good question many people ask here, too. We cannot afford 6 full divisions simply from mapower perspective. HImars'es amounts are bat**** crazy, fully agree about that. However, tanks and APC's are not that much inflated when compared to demands. Possibly it is cover up for giving some of them to Ukraine in future.

Apart from current domestic rhetoric, I think something different and more geopolitically profund is going here about we only know very little now. It seems Washington finally decided it is futile to convince GER-FR block into proper military spending. Even if they rebuild military somewhat, it is clear political will to use them (in case of an attack) will not be necessary there on time. And danger of Russia spiralling into something resembling North Korea with nukes is frankly real enough to force us to think pessimistically. In case US goes into Pacific, Poland by necessity will become giant miliatry hub that will need to protect its own borders on Belarus axis, help Balts (poor guys are really in difficult situation there) and crucially-  Ukrainians (second Russo-Ukrainian war after this one ends is quite possible, regardless who rules Russia). To do this, they need hardware in place at once, not money equivalent or promises for future.

The task is paramount, frankly gargantuistic. If succeed however, security order in Europe will shift significantly. But initiative seem to be coming from Washington, I am also extremely curious what it really is about. I hope it is much more politically-oriented than usual interests of industrial-military complex in US.

Fact is whole of Europe / Nato 'neglected' their military apart from pounding on failed states ;-). The big exception is USA and their MIC. 

Obviously Poland for example was less neglient than Germany, however it is indicative that Poland feels it is now in urgent need of vast masses of military hardware which only one nation can provide in the desired timeframe. 

Personally I hope Europe will learn to stand on it's own legs and not (again) depend fully on USA. Cooperation between allies is of course a good thing.

FWIW France mainly was trying to get a European army and that's what would/could be much more effective militarily imo. But politically.... difficult. 

Instead of various countries with 30-50 airframes and a few hundred tanks max all with their own infrastructure/training/acquirement/etc, an integrated European army could be among the most powerful in the world. 

It's more sustainable long term imo instead of Poland (or other single countries) becoming a huge military hub in record breaking time. 

Because buying a lot of stuff with debt is one thing, maintaining them and keeping the forces trained well and operational for a long time is another thing. How much will the people of Poland be willing to spend on defense in let's say 10 years?

[The_Capt]

33 minutes ago, Huba said:

RU commentators are afraid of another "goodwill gesture"

 

 

Just turning to this development now.  Taking a modern reinforced concrete bridge is tough at a distance.  Doing it by air is normally a job for big stuff like JDAMs.  I don’t think anyone has tried to do it with an MLRS system.

Bridges are pretty tough but gravity is a harsh mistress.  If you punch enough hole in the deck you can definitely erode the bridge and effect crossing weight and speed.  However, the enemy can quickly over-bridge in these sort of situations.  If UA gets the longer range HIMARS missiles, they could do better hitting the bridge laterally from Odessa.  Hitting a pier a few times will definitely do damage to the bridge that is not easily repaired.  But that is a long precise shot on a small target…one for the history books if they can pull it off.

I am looking at the Kherson problem in detail now, more later.

[Harmon Rabb]

Really does look like some kid operating a tank in a video game for the first time.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Harmon Rabb

[Grigb]

16 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

I am looking forward to the inevitable Girkin rant about this.

He is busy ranting about RU gov. Checking if it contains anything useful. 

[Grigb]

49 minutes ago, Huba said:

RU commentators are afraid of another "goodwill gesture"

Something caught my eye, quote from Tsarev: According to my information, not long before the shelling began our military removed the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system from Kherson. Only this complex is capable of repelling HIMARS missile attacks.

RU removing weapon shortly before the strike usually means they judged they are going to lose it during strike. Looks like even S-300 cannot deal reliably with GMLRS and they decided another gesture of good will is needed.

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Really does look like some kid operating a tank in a video game for the first time.

Reminds me of a new CM customer jumping right in to command King Tigers and finding that they bog, are blind in forests, and can be taken out by a Sherman.  They complain that Combat Mission is "broken" and "unfair".  But guess what?  The game doesn't change just because they throw a tantrum.  Russia is finding out the same thing.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, Grigb said:

Something caught my eye, quote from Tsarev: According to my information, not long before the shelling began our military removed the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system from Kherson. Only this complex is capable of repelling HIMARS missile attacks.

RU removing weapon shortly before the strike usually means they judged they are going to lose it during strike. Looks like even S-300 cannot deal reliably with GMLRS and they decided another gesture of good will is needed.

Either that or someone is trying to come up with an excuse about the vulnerability.  "Our air defenses are perfect, therefore they must not have been active.  There is no other acceptable explanation."

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Just turning to this development now.  Taking a modern reinforced concrete bridge is tough at a distance.  Doing it by air is normally a job for big stuff like JDAMs.  I don’t think anyone has tried to do it with an MLRS system.

Bridges are pretty tough but gravity is a harsh mistress.  If you punch enough hole in the deck you can definitely erode the bridge and effect crossing weight and speed.  However, the enemy can quickly over-bridge in these sort of situations.  If UA gets the longer range HIMARS missiles, they could do better hitting the bridge laterally from Odessa.  Hitting a pier a few times will definitely do damage to the bridge that is not easily repaired.  But that is a long precise shot on a small target…one for the history books if they can pull it off.

I am looking at the Kherson problem in detail now, more later.

Obviously dropping the bridge is preferable to degrading it, but in this instance I don't think it really matters because this is their only viable LOC.  Any degradation has an impact on their ability to defend the other side.  The more it is degraded, the more impact. 

Then there is the psychological factor for the forces over there, knowing that they're in danger of being completely cut off from retreat and resupply.

There is also the practical strategic planning impact.  Russia is short of combat power and they know it.  How enthusiastic do you think they'll be to invest more on the western side if they think that at any time they could be swimming back without any equipment or, worse, surrendering en mas?

The battle for the western bank has already been decided.  How long it will take to clear the Russians off it, and in what form it will take, is what is on the table now.  I think Russia knows this as well.  Lavrov can't rant and threaten a way out of this mess.

Steve

 

[FancyCat]

Remember Russia cannot give away Kherson as a goodwill gesture. If Russia loses Kherson, this will spook their Donbas puppets and other collaborators. Not to mention empower pro-Ukrainian elements in occupied territories.

Kherson being taken by Ukraine will be a defeat for Russia, worse than Kiev and certainly worse than any setback for the cities in Donbas.

Russia must keep the city. That or face the prospect of telling the Russian people they are losing, and then when the Russian people call for mobilization to win the war, Putin either mobilizes and signs his death sentence in due course or does not, and must answer why all of Ukraine and Crimea is lost. (Not that mobilization won't result in the same outcome but basically he's screwed)

Therefore, expect Putin to throw everything into holding Kherson.

Edited July 20, 2022 by FancyCat

[keas66]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Obviously dropping the bridge is preferable to degrading it, but in this instance I don't think it really matters because this is their only viable LOC.  Any degradation has an impact on their ability to defend the other side.  The more it is degraded, the more impact. 

Then there is the psychological factor for the forces over there, knowing that they're in danger of being completely cut off from retreat and resupply.

There is also the practical strategic planning impact.  Russia is short of combat power and they know it.  How enthusiastic do you think they'll be to invest more on the western side if they think that at any time they could be swimming back without any equipment or, worse, surrendering en mas?

The battle for the western bank has already been decided.  How long it will take to clear the Russians off it, and in what form it will take, is what is on the table now.  I think Russia knows this as well.  Lavrov can't rant and threaten a way out of this mess.

Steve

 

If they can  cause much the same effect  to the Russians by damaging parts of the span over dry land  on one side - maybe on both sides  - without structurally undermining the spans over water - it would make for a less painful reconstruction effort  in the long run ?

[FancyCat]

Just now, keas66 said:

If they can  cause much the same effect  to the Russians by damaging parts of the span over dry land  on one side - maybe on both sides  - without structurally undermining the spans over water - it would make for a less painful reconstruction effort  in the long run ?

If Ukraine takes the city, Russia will blow the bridge anyway to prevent Ukraine crossing so either way the bridge gets destroyed.

[danfrodo]

30 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Remember Russia cannot give away Kherson as a goodwill gesture. If Russia loses Kherson, this will spook their Donbas puppets and other collaborators. Not to mention empower pro-Ukrainian elements in occupied territories.

Kherson being taken by Ukraine will be a defeat for Russia, worse than Kiev and certainly worse than any setback for the cities in Donbas.

Russia must keep the city. That or face the prospect of telling the Russian people they are losing, and then when the Russian people call for mobilization to win the war, Putin either mobilizes and signs his death sentence in due course or does not, and must answer why all of Ukraine and Crimea is lost. (Not that mobilization won't result in the same outcome but basically he's screwed)

Therefore, expect Putin to throw everything into holding Kherson.

This gets to the point I am most interested in:  Does Putin refuse to bend to reality and continue to try to hold the west bank?  That is classic dictator choice.  He can lose Kherson, or he can lose Kherson and the army holding it.  Hitler continually chose the latter.  My hope is he throws everything into the fight and it turns into Kherson-ingrad.  Though maybe "Kherson Pocket 2.0" works also?  I wonder how many tanks & APCs are in the (soon to be) kessel?  

If he leaves it will have a lot of negative impacts for public opinion & his standing, but he will also have some control in how he spins it.  "as a good will gesture we have temporarily chosen to leave Kherson" or some such.  I think UKR making it very public that Kherson will be attacked was an attempt to get RU to pull out, since it seems impossible to hold.  

[panzermartin]

This techinque of damaging the bridge but not taking it down ahead of an offensive reminds of gamey tactics players are using in Company of Heroes bringing the bridge health bar to a minimum and waiting the right moment to blow it up (Usually when enemy tanks are rolling over it.) Shame on gamey Ukrainians.

And I just came to realize that wargames are way too serious and actual war is more gamey. (I mean dropping grenade from a commercial drone in a T-72 driver's hatch or blowing up an S-300 with an AK?)

Edited July 20, 2022 by panzermartin

[Grigb]

Girkin wrote two posts (+another set of short clips from useless interview with Naval "Girkin"). In first he laughed at Dimon Medvedev Judgment Day threat [Dimon threatened UKR with nukes in case of strikes at Crimea]. Second is a bit more interesting. It looks like Shoigu was an Heir from Military clan. Initial failures of war were unkind to him, but it seems recently he has decided to come out of shadows - being PR person, he hired "grassroot" activists to divert criticism to civilian authorities of Military Industrial Complex. Girkin detected it and tried to smash all hopes of Shoigu.

Let's summarize what we know so far:

• We saw Patrushev pulling State controls closer to him
• We saw Kadyrov became interested in getting Air Defence to Chechnya (BTW Dudaev was killing by RU air strike)
• Now we see Shoigu making attempts to return to politics

Dead man feeling not so good lately. 

[Huba]

35 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Remember Russia cannot give away Kherson as a goodwill gesture. If Russia loses Kherson, this will spook their Donbas puppets and other collaborators. Not to mention empower pro-Ukrainian elements in occupied territories.

Kherson being taken by Ukraine will be a defeat for Russia, worse than Kiev and certainly worse than any setback for the cities in Donbas.

Russia must keep the city. That or face the prospect of telling the Russian people they are losing, and then when the Russian people call for mobilization to win the war, Putin either mobilizes and signs his death sentence in due course or does not, and must answer why all of Ukraine and Crimea is lost. (Not that mobilization won't result in the same outcome but basically he's screwed)

Therefore, expect Putin to throw everything into holding Kherson.

I don't get the today's declaration by Lavrov at all. Kherson cannot be kept by RU, it is physically impossible to sustain it. Writing is in the wall for it, in huge glowing letters. If RU gives battle without some stop-loss mechanizm in mind, it might turn into crushing defeat. 

And this declaration will only make the loss of  Kherson more humiliating. Are they that delusional, or is he preparing ground for something? 

[Huba]

12 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

My hope is he throws everything into the fight and it turns into Kherson-ingrad.

This! He could as well be picturing heroic ferries, delivering supply for defenders on the other bank of the Volga under fire, and assume it to be a viable plan... It's going to be interesting for sure. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Huba

[sburke]

For anyone who lives near enough to Quincy Mass.

Beauty From Ashes | The Sunflower of Peace Fashion Gala and Fundraiser - Beauty From Ashes (qgiv.com)