How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Harmon Rabb]

8 minutes ago, Huba said:

Aged like a barrel of milk and herrings:

 

As opposed to some of the predictions that have been made on this topic that aged like a fine wine.

But yeah, sometimes I also go back to reading some of these comments made by totally not biased pro-Russian "experts" from the beginning of this war for a good laugh.

[Vet 0369]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

My point is that if you focus on a subset of tactical engagements without looking at the other aspects of the war, then yup... drones + artillery seems to be far more important than infantry.  While I agree that drones + artillery are a MASSIVELY important part of this battle, I'd take more infantry over more of that any day.  I'm sure the Russians would too.  Fortunately, they don't have them available.

This! It really doesn’t matter what your other assets are, be they armor, artillery, air, drone, or space based surveillance, eventually, “someone” has to go in and dig the enemy out of their positions. That “someone” is the Grunt. Even if the position is identified by aerial or space surveillance and the armor or artillery reduce the position to rubble, or air drops a MOAB thermobaric  bomb that kills everyone in the enemy position, it’s still the infantrymen who has to clear, occupy, and defend that position. All the others do are to make the infantryman’s job safer or easier (MOAB), or more difficult (arty reducing the position to rubble with fanatic defenders such as Azov). I’ve served in both the USMC Air Wing and the Infantry, and know the strengths and weaknesses of both. I’d also take more infantry in a heartbeat.

[Splinty]

1 minute ago, Vet 0369 said:

This! It really doesn’t matter what your other assets are, be they armor, artillery, air, drone, or space based surveillance, eventually, “someone” has to go in and dig the enemy out of their positions. That “someone” is the Grunt. Even if the position is identified by aerial or space surveillance and the armor or artillery reduce the position to rubble, or air drops a MOAB thermobaric  bomb that kills everyone in the enemy position, it’s still the infantrymen who has to clear, occupy, and defend that position. All the others do are to make the infantryman’s job safer or easier (MOAB), or more difficult (arty reducing the position to rubble with fanatic defenders such as Azov). I’ve served in both the USMC Air Wing and the Infantry, and know the strengths and weaknesses of both. I’d also take more infantry in a heartbeat.

This former Army 11B totally agrees!

[LongLeftFlank]

12 minutes ago, sburke said:

I think you just have an inherent fear of parking garages.

 

 

 

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

First off @sburke deserved the "parking garage lecture", I hope any an all reading this can see that now...and he does not need encouragement.

So the US term is "operational energy", I think it is unspecific (we are talking military application) and too narrow, there is an institutional/strategic component here, Perun has glanced off this in his series.

https://nps.edu/web/eag/operational-energy-essential-knowledge-for-military-officers

https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/OE/OE_index.html#:~:text=The Department defines operational energy,systems%2C generators and weapons platforms.

And it is a parallel part of the overall arms race between nations.

That first link reminds me of a radio report I heard during GW2.  Someone who knew that 1/8 casualties was during fuel movements realized also realized that a big fraction of the fuel was to power air conditioners for the tents, and that by improving the insulation on the tents they could reduce the need for fuel and also casualties in moving it.  Here's an NYT article that also covers it.

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

This! It really doesn’t matter what your other assets are, be they armor, artillery, air, drone, or space based surveillance, eventually, “someone” has to go in and dig the enemy out of their positions. That “someone” is the Grunt. Even if the position is identified by aerial or space surveillance and the armor or artillery reduce the position to rubble, or air drops a MOAB thermobaric  bomb that kills everyone in the enemy position, it’s still the infantrymen who has to clear, occupy, and defend that position. All the others do are to make the infantryman’s job safer or easier (MOAB), or more difficult (arty reducing the position to rubble with fanatic defenders such as Azov). I’ve served in both the USMC Air Wing and the Infantry, and know the strengths and weaknesses of both. I’d also take more infantry in a heartbeat.

It is crazier than that, Light Infantry - which many thought an obsolete concept- have played a central role in UA success. Mech still has a big visible AFV attracting a lot of attention and fires, as the RA found out.  We even had reports of RA relying on Light Infantry.

No matter how one slices it, the denominator of war is still an armed human in a hole.  I suspect we are going to see all sorts of Light Infantry augmentation technology booming.

The big 3 from this war remain - light infantry, indirect fires - of many types and unmanned.  All tied together (or not in RA case) by C4ISR.

[chrisl]

Just now, The_Capt said:

It is crazier than that, Light Infantry - which many thought an obsolete concept- have played a central role in UA success. Mech still has a big visible AFV attracting a lot of attention and fires, as the RA found out.  We even had reports of RA relying on Light Infantry.

No matter how one slices it, the denominator of war is still an armed human in a hole.  I suspect we are going to see all sorts of Light Infantry augmentation technology booming.

The big 3 from this war remain - light infantry, indirect fires - of many types and unmanned.  All tied together (or not in RA case) by C4ISR.

The big unknown seems to be how to take back a big area quickly with light infantry.  The answer might be that you use precision indirect fires to make life so unpleasant that the occupier gives up and goes home.

[chuckdyke]

The strength of infantry is that FOW is more on its side. The predecessor of the Russian army the Soviet Army was infantry based in WW2. Their field craft and infiltration was respected by the Germans. People forget the Soviet army was not todays Russian army Ukraine was part of it as well.  Ukraine remembered the lessons well. Like WW2 they are on their best when they defend their Mother Land invading is not their strength.

Edited August 24, 2022 by chuckdyke

[LongLeftFlank]

51 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It is crazier than that, Light Infantry - which many thought an obsolete concept- have played a central role in UA success. Mech still has a big visible AFV attracting a lot of attention and fires, as the RA found out.  We even had reports of RA relying on Light Infantry.

No matter how one slices it, the denominator of war is still an armed human in a hole.  I suspect we are going to see all sorts of Light Infantry augmentation technology booming.

The big 3 from this war remain - light infantry, indirect fires - of many types and unmanned.  All tied together (or not in RA case) by C4ISR.

... hell, even the 'holes' might be only one potential posture for the 'light' fighter.  Thinking about 'thinning' and deepening the front as a counter to saturation bombardment.  Don't present identifiable targets, or conversely, present a functionally infinite number of vacant/dummy targets.

Ten thousand holes in Blackburn Lancashire / And though the holes were rather small / they had to fill them all...

Those Mad Max dune buggies posted by @Haiduk are quite something, though not especially new to warfare.

...during the 1985 Chad war, the Libyan T55s were unable to rotate their turrets quickly enough to hit TOW-mounted Hilux pickups.  And of course you had the SAS in Cyrenaica 1942.

Imagine (and we don't actually have to imagine much) a higher tech version where the riders hop off into safe hidey holes and then remotely operate the weapon platform in the hot zone.

Like upsized toys, with plug and play modules for AT, AP, air defence, minelaying/clearing, salvage/maintenance of other vehicles, etc. 

[Some pages ago, someone posted a tweet of Russians marveling at an 'indestructible' MG position that turned out to be a remotely-operated BTR turret]

And at that point, the 'poor bloody infantry' is more like something out of Heinlein than a distraught bag of meat clutching a rifle waiting for the shell with his name on it.

Edited August 24, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

45 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Imagine (and we don't actually have to imagine much) a higher tech version where the riders hop off into safe hidey holes and then remotely operate the weapon platform in the hot zone.

Well, imagine where there is no rider at all and instead the vehicle is "manned" by a driver, a navigator, a weapons operator, and a commander sitting 1000 miles away in an air conditioned shopping mall.  Logistics for the crew?  Meal cards for the food court, free bathrooms, and a parking lot where they can safely drive back to a base housing that will never get attacked.

That is the future.  Or I should say near future.  It's coming very soon.

Steve

P.S.  if this is an American op there would be a lawyer added to the crew.

P.P.S. there would also be a lot more women as no problem with combat roles.

P.P.P.S. as long as the crew can get to the control room on time, the 25% of the population that is too fat and out of shape to get into the armed forces is now available for recruitment.

P.P.P.P.S. no problem having 60 - 70 year olds onboard either as typical age problems aren't relevant.  Can have dialysis or hip replacements without affecting operational tempo.

P.P.P.P.P.S. if you think I'm being snarky... you're wrong.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

The big unknown seems to be how to take back a big area quickly with light infantry.  The answer might be that you use precision indirect fires to make life so unpleasant that the occupier gives up and goes home.

I think this is exactly what we are seeing Ukraine do right now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Splinty said:

This former Army 11B totally agrees!

Of course you do

My previous post about UGVs is quite serious, but I don't think it will replace Humans on the battlefield at all.  Everything I said about the limitations of UAVs + Artillery applies to any unmanned system.  Even fully AI controlled slaughterbots won't get rid of the need for infantry, it will just make their lives a bit more interesting.

Steve

[kevinkin]

Given that  Ukraine has either won or is winning this war, will they take massive retribution inside Russia proper? Russia turned their country into toast from what I have seen of urban areas since the spring. And if Ukraine does seek retribution, when and in what form will it take? Perhaps if Putin goes away forever, Ukraine might take mercy on a westernized Russia when the carnage stops. Will hunting down war criminals and hanging them be enough to satisfy the displaced or otherwise shellshocked Ukrainian? If the country is as damaged, displaced and raped as  has been reported,  it would take the most benevolent society to turn the other cheek and just focus on rebuilding even if the West foots the bill.  Many Ukrainians will believe the west owes them. Maybe the strings attached to rebuilding will keep them from continuing the war into Russian - even if they are tempted years from now. 

[LongLeftFlank]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

P.P.P.P.P.S. if you think I'm being snarky... you're wrong.

 

[you know you'd be disappointed if I didn't respond with a meme clip]

And in the War of the Future, all higher commanders will have nice goatees.

In fact, I am totally convinced @The_Capt is in RL a dead ringer for CPT Mitchell from "Hyena Road".  Just like @Beleg85 is in fact Aristotle and @IanL is in fact a cat.  And I am an evil Bakshi wizard with no flesh on his forearms.

Edited August 24, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Grigb]

7 hours ago, Haiduk said:

PS. On your map Blahodatne village should be marked by red color. Russians assaulted it  already three times during a week or maybe two, and likely after 35th CAA elements appearing, they managed gradually to take the village. Two days ago was a report about their "partial success" on southern part of village. Yestarday - the same. Today - "UKR troops destroiyed enemy ammo dump in Blahodatne" (though there are two other Blahodatne in this area). Blahodatne defended elements of 63rd mech.brigade of Reserve Corps.

Yes. Thank you. In the morning when I marked it RU Nats reported that they were still demolishing UKR stronghold on the north end of the village. By the evening reports came that they took it. So, on the next one it will be red.   

[kevinkin]

Juxtaposition: thermite vs. coffee

https://www.the-sun.com/news/6064892/thermite-bombs-rain-down-on-ukrainian-town/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/western-sanctions-are-wounding-but-not-yet-crushing-russia-e2-80-99s-economy/ar-AA10YBr3

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Yes, yes and damn yes.  The question left on the table is versus the West (with the US at its center...right guys?

I think it's pretty clear that the United States is in a league of its own in terms of military capabilities NOW, not to mention 30 years from now.  No single nation on Earth, including China IMHO, can win a conventional war against the United States, including a theoretical matchup with its regular NATO allies.  None. 

However, as Afghanistan and Iraq have proven it is possible to defeat the United States, and all of its defense spending, by simply wearing out the US' desire to keep fighting.

This is important to keep in mind because what it means is that any nation looking to challenge the US to a conventional fight is going to lose, probably pretty quickly and badly.  My advice to a nation looking to fight the US is to not invest in anything other than quality light infantry trained to fight a large scale, dispersed, long term unconventional war with the best weapons for that sort of fight.  A nation is far more likely to win, eventually, with this than with a bunch of expensive stuff that likely won't survive more than a few days of combat.

It's been asked before and should keep being asked... how well would Ukraine do if it went one-on-one with the United States instead of Russia?  Obviously such a matchup is difficult to account for as the US is not looking for genocide and more Ukrainians would probably welcome having the US replace their government than they would Russia   So let's just say, for argument's sake, that Ukraine is as hostile towards the US and it's intentions as it is against Russia in this war.

I think the US would wipe out most of Ukraine's conventional forces in short order even with the rest of NATO arming it.  Talking weeks, maybe a couple of months.  Without NATO armaments it would be effectively defeated (conventionally) within days or a couple of weeks  In both cases the US would likely take major urban areas, perhaps even Kyiv, largely intact with the government collapsing and making further conquest easier.  Casualties would be high for the US, but they would be catastrophic for Ukraine.  The US, basically, would be able to pull off a plan similar to Russia's.

And 10-20 years later Ukraine would win the war outright after the US withdrew and whatever proxy force it left behind was overwhelmed.  Drones, satellites, PGMs, particle beams, hover tanks, etc. won't ever defeat a population determined to never stop fighting.  This is why the US needs to pull its head out of its arse and spend as much money as needed to figure out how to win another protracted war against a determined enemy.  Drones can be a part of it, but if that's all the Pentagon comes up with... defeat is inevitable.

Steve

[Grigb]

7 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Regarding Dugina, did you notice the ceremony was quite private? Not many conducts, caravans etc. If they wanted her martyred, I would expect massive rallies, several highest officialls, perhaps even Putin himself; certainly more than several hundred hardcore followers that happened to pay her last respects. Meanwhile funeral was not small, but not massive either (unless those crowds were underreported in most media).

I am deep in map making so missed everything. But I noticed that propaganda push is too weak for case of sacrificial martyr and the mood is not as hysterical as we should expect. I do remember 1999 bombings and it is not as intense as that bombing.  It does not feel like all state effort. It is more localized.

If nothing changes in RU propaganda tone, then we should shift to the Message theory. 

[sburke]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is why the US needs to pull its head out of its arse and spend as much money as needed to figure out how to win another protracted war against a determined enemy.  Drones can be a part of it, but if that's all the Pentagon comes up with... defeat is inevitable.

Steve

Simple - don't invade a country if you don't have an exit plan and don't assume you can change the nature of a country just because on face value you'll make the average person's life better.  People aren't logical. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Grigb said:

I am deep in map making so missed everything. But I noticed that propaganda push is too weak for case of sacrificial martyr and the mood is not as hysterical as we should expect. I do remember 1999 bombings and it is not as intense as that bombing.  It does not feel like all state effort. It is more localized.

If nothing changes in RU propaganda tone, then we should shift to the Message theory. 

My money is still on GRU sending a message.  Even if something FSB looking comes up tomorrow or in the coming days, I don't think that means I'm wrong because this is Russia   For example:

Let's say that the FSB is about to mount a series of highly staged false flag attacks to coincide with Ukraine's Independence Day.  GRU has a bone to pick with RU Nats and sees an opportunity to bomb Dugin (Alexander or Darya), sending a message to the RU Nats, and sorta being in step with the FSB's plans while also making them look bad at the same time.

Alternatively, GRU did something on its own without knowledge of FSB plans.  In fact, FSB might not even have had plans in place until after GRU's attack on Dugin.  However, it sees an opening for one-upping their rivals and rushes something into being.

These explanations, as far fetched as they might be, do tie the various pieces together pretty well.  However, since there can be only one explanation in reality, I'm going to stick to my more simplistic view that what we just saw is GRU sending a message and anything that might come after is not directly related to it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

Simple - don't invade a country if you don't have an exit plan and don't assume you can change the nature of a country just because on face value you'll make the average person's life better.  People aren't logical. 

Yeah, that's included in what I wrote.  The problem is that right now the US doesn't have an alternative strategy to what it tried in Afghanistan, so if it once again is faced with a similar situation (in Afghanistan or anywhere else) it really should figure out something ahead of time.  Whatever that is I bet it will look far more Machiavellian than the current Nation Building doctrine that is still, I believe, the go-to solution.

Steve

[Calamine Waffles]

I strongly suspect the future game plan for the US is going to be more like what they do in Ukraine: training, funding, weapons, but no direct intervention except in the most extreme scenarios.

[Battlefront.com]

Long article in The Guardian looking at the roots and progression of Germany's dependence upon Russian energy.  Except for a minor quibble at top (when will reporters stop equating $1 in Russian energy purchases with $1 in aid to Ukraine?!?  The math shows this to be FALSE!) it is a good piece that traces back the problem faced by Germany today to the very start of energy trade some 50 years ago.  As important, it also documents the warnings that Germany's allies continually made about the deal with the devil.

Here's an example:

Quote

“In political discussions, we sometimes hear opinions expressed by people who are not interested in the slightest in understanding others; people who have already made up their minds about the other side; people who don’t even bother reading because they think they already know the answer.” - German President Steinmeier, 2016 at Yekaterinburg University

Traditionally Germany's traditional position was that the US didn't really understand the Soviet Union, later Russia, or what was best for Germany and/or Europe.  If this speech had been given even 20 years earlier it would have been aimed almost exclusively at the US and 2 years earlier US, Poland, and the Baltic countries.  With this 2016 speech Steinmeier was finally sobering up enough to include Russia and Germany in the mix of people "not interested in the slightest in understanding each other".  Still wrong, though.  History now shows, and Steinmeier now admits, that for 50 years it was the US that understood the Soviet/Russia problem and it was Germany that refused to listen.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-dependence-russian-energy-gas-oil-nord-stream?CMP=share_btn_tw

It is easy to see how Germany made such a huge mistake.  A combination of genuine good intentions on Germany's part plus Russia inspired corruption, or at least convenient economic benefit, got Germany into trouble.  It was more focused on the fact that supply disruption hadn't yet happened instead of examining the possibility that it might come around at some point.

This is something that the world needs to learn about Russia.  Trade will not improve relations with the country because it isn't interested in improvement.  It is interested in taking the money of others and using it for personal and national gain.  That's it.  Therefore, if positive economic relations with Russia doesn't help curb its violence and bad deeds, negative economic policies should be given an equal chance to work.  Soviet Union and Russia had 50 years with positive trade, I think it should experience 50 of negative trade.  Unless, of course, it's clear they have learned their lesson.

And then we should figure out how to do this with OPEC countries

Steve

[Calamine Waffles]

"Mit dem Angriff Steiners wird das alles in Ordnung kommen."

"Mein Fuehrer..."
 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

12 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

This may be very true; we may overthink whole thing that is in fact simple. Geniuses at Kremlin could came up with an idea they needed a martyr before new wave of strikes and simply checked whom they have in dossier. It could be as simpel as that; I personally doubt it, but it is more probable than mafia-style non-political scores. Steve goes for  FSB/GRU infights, and he  can also be equally right.

Now we have theories that woman in cascet is in fact not her. That is ofc crazy, but note that all Russian newspapers described body completelly charred in the auto- that is the level of chaos they have there, they couldn't even agree on one version.

Remember folks, if you ever visit Russia- do never throw your cigarettes to the ground. It can hit hidden ammo depot.

Galeev on a roll lately regarding magical thinking, 'martyrdom' and the silly season...

 

And all this in a land where chess is a spectator sport.... or used to be, anyway.