How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

13 hours ago, Grigb said:

This is the opinion of Mashkovets regarding bridges. He might be right, but he also might be wrong. Still, it is good opinion to consider.

 

I agree it is good to read and consider. 

On the bridges, I think he's dead wrong.  He's equating some degree of supply capacity with adequate capacity.  If someone gets a head injury that blocks 90% of the blood getting to the brain, guess what?  Brain death is likely.  OK, how about blocking only 25%?  Impaired judgement, blurry vision, and other things needed to perform necessary tasks successfully.  50%?  Stroke, aneurysm, something else really bad?

My point here is that it is NOT necessary for Ukraine to cut off all supply to Russian forces in Kherson.  It is only necessary to reduce the flow of supply enough that the Russian forces can not conduct desired courses of action (minimum goal) and/or are risk of collapse if pushed militarily (desired goal).  Ideally both, but one or the other is still a big deal long term.

From what we can tell Russia has invested very few new forces into the Kherson pocket.  Enough to maybe inch forward a little bit, clearly nothing more than that.  This means either the Russian military is still absolutely clueless about what it takes to gain significant ground or it is making do with the forces it feels it can adequately supply for a given strategic goal.  Either way, there absolutely isn't the sort of force buildup around Kherson that is capable of doing anything more than limited local counter attacks.  To me it seems this is likely due to supply constraint plus general strain on resources front wide.

What we don't know yet is how able is Russia to defend against a significant Ukrainian ground offensive without better supply lines.  Even with a functioning pontoon bridge I doubt it can sustain the sorts of ammunition expenditures that Russian's "new" operational doctrine requires to keep the front from cracking.  I'm looking forward to this being put to the test.

His other two points about fire control against the Russian supply workarounds and evacuation of Russian HQs to the other side of the river are not bad, but they aren't really balanced either.  I doubt very much that Ukraine isn't able to hit the pontoon bridge or the ferries.  Especially now that it has direct satellite imaging access.  To me this indicates there's some other reason Ukraine hasn't smacked them, including the possibility that of gaining some advantage we don't yet understand. 

As for the HQ evacuation, the fact that they can conduct much of their function from the eastern bank is a fair point, but not the one to focus on.  The move now is a clear sign that Russia feels there is a realistic possibility that relocation may not be possible in the near future.  The simple fact that Russia proactively moved its HQs tells us something about their confidence level in keeping LOCs open in any form.

Steve

 

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

You forgot the kids with their Playstation. The console they get is the same, this time they play with the data supplied by satellite. Their dexterity is as vital as a sniper's trigger finger. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by chuckdyke

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, kevinkin said:

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. 

They'll stop at the pre-2014 border. I can imagine them precision bombing military targets a hundred km or so inside of Russian borders, but going beyond the border puts them into the aggressor role and the Russians on the other side into the role of people defending their homes.  It's *much* harder to pursue a war into another country than to defend your own - that's why Russia is struggling (and losing).  Ukraine really has nothing to gain by aggression into Russia and a lot to lose.  Post WWII history is full of powerful militaries that were capable of winning battles at will but incapable of actually taking over a country in a war of aggression. Those really don't work very well, even if they start out looking successful.

I can imagine a negotiated peace agreement that demilitarizes something like 100 km into Russia - far enough that you can't use supply trucks to make more than one round trip in a day from one end to the other.  Ukraine needs a buffer zone, but there's no reason it can't be on the RU side of the border.  It's not like Russia will have a lot of stuff to equip bases with, anyway.  Maybe let the Russians keep some MGs in bunkers and some RPG-7 crews within the DMZ to defend from Ukrainian invasion.

[Battlefront.com]

Good view of the Ukrainian side of the early fighting at Hostomel.  Good first person account of a group that primarily acted as spotters for distant artillery.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

59 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

You forgot the kids with their Playstation. The console they get is the same, this time they play with the data supplied by satellite. Their dexterity is as vital as a sniper's trigger finger. 

So this is 'Ender's Game' where the twitch kidz on their FPS are unaware they're actually fighting a real war?

[poesel]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

 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.

Machiavelli is very much nation building. Most of the book is about how to get a conquered nation/province to like and accept the new ruler and to be part of his nation.

Since you are into SF - have you read John Scalzis "Old Mens War"? A story about infantry in the far future.
There, some soldiers brains hard-wired together. Training consists of blindfolding a soldier and having him run parkour only with the view through his teammates eyes. Thats integrated.

[chrisl]

9 minutes ago, poesel said:

Machiavelli is very much nation building. Most of the book is about how to get a conquered nation/province to like and accept the new ruler and to be part of his nation.

Since you are into SF - have you read John Scalzis "Old Mens War"? A story about infantry in the far future.
There, some soldiers brains hard-wired together. Training consists of blindfolding a soldier and having him run parkour only with the view through his teammates eyes. Thats integrated.

Already been prototyped.  

A cycling coach I used to ride with used to get approached by people with all sorts of training technology.  One of them was a camera & goggle system where he could ride behind a rider with a camera and the rider would have what must have been very, very early VR goggles on and a radio in their ear.  He'd give directions for adjusting their position and they could both see it from behind and feel the effect at the same time.  I never heard of it getting to market, but he said it was really effective for getting riders to make changes that stuck.

[sross112]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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

 

3 hours 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. 

sburke pretty much has it, I'm just surprised there is no reference to mobile multi-level parking establishments.  

I think Steve made his own answer as an offensive war against a population that doesn't want you there is pretty much unwinnable with the transfer of advantage in defensive man portable tech. So the US and every other country just needs to stop trying to control ground. The Gulf War is a good example of how it needs to be done. If there is a good enough reason to go to war, have clearly defined objectives and then go home. If any sort of occupation is the goal, rethink going to war. 

[Huba]

Shoigu considering another goodwill gesture? Thing is, if they just withdrew, I bet UA would continue hostilities against Crimea and Donbas. Perhaps trying to negotiate the end based on Feb 24 borders?

 

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

So this is 'Ender's Game' where the twitch kidz on their FPS are unaware they're actually fighting a real war?

Yes Like Arnie Schwarzenegger in Total Recall. 

[Grigb]

Let's discuss RU infantry and mech forces issue in the current war. Actually, it is not one but two related yet distinct issues.

1. RU lack of infantry

RU army does not and cannot have good infantry force. it hurts them a lot. They literally unable to assault UKR strongholds in timely manner and have to wait till artillery (or TOS) demolish everything. So, RU would benefit a lot from having a good solid infantry force. However, it would not help much with armor issue.

2.  RU armor cannot operate near the frontline

Having enough infantry would not allow RU armor to operate near the frontline. You cannot advance quickly due to ATGMs. You cannot fight ATGMs from cover because drone adjusted arty. The infantry itself does not help with either ATGMs or with Arty. So, this issue is different from RU lack of infantry and requires a different solution.

3. What could help

As I said, danger zone around front line affects ATGMs as well. Even two-man Javelin team is not safe. It is better than RU ATGMs teams but it is still dangerous for them to be there.

But what if the danger zone is not explicitly linked to the frontline? Can we wrap it around our tank? Well, actually yes. 

Drones create danger zones.  So, you can easily do something like this. 

Drones with thermals can significantly complicate life of any ATGM.

You might ask why RU do not do it like this now? Answer is - they want, but they do not have drones for infantry and artillery which is their priority now. As soon as they get enough drones for arty they will start equipping tanks units with drones. I read RU Nats post that top brass already approved general ideal of equipping every AFV with personal drone.

But how we deal with 4 km ATGMs? Well, you add some more drones with recon units

 

And finally, beforehand you infiltrate special force teams with even more drones! You use them to observe convenient spots for ATGMs

Let's summarize - to enable mech maneuver we must protect the mech force with drone bubble that can detect ATGMs teams before they can engage mech force. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Grigb

[chuckdyke]

4 minutes ago, Grigb said:

But what if the danger zone is not explicitly linked to the frontline? Can we wrap it around our tank? Well, actually yes. 

The new Panther Tank. Three crew but there is room for a fourth possibly as the drone operator. A drone could be launched from the 130 mm tube. 

[chuckdyke]

Found the article.

The Next-Generation Drone Launching, German KF51 “Panther” Tank - Warrior Maven: Center for Military Modernization

[Calamine Waffles]

56 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Let's discuss RU infantry and mech forces issue in the current war. Actually, it is not one but two related yet distinct issues.

1. RU lack of infantry

RU army does not and cannot have good infantry force. it hurts them a lot. They literally unable to assault UKR strongholds in timely manner and have to wait till artillery (or TOS) demolish everything. So, RU would benefit a lot from having a good solid infantry force. However, it would not help much with armor issue.

2.  RU armor cannot operate near the frontline

Having enough infantry would not allow RU armor to operate near the frontline. You cannot advance quickly due to ATGMs. You cannot fight ATGMs from cover because drone adjusted arty. The infantry itself does not help with either ATGMs or with Arty. So, this issue is different from RU lack of infantry and requires a different solution.

3. What could help

As I said, danger zone around front line affects ATGMs as well. Even two-man Javelin team is not safe. It is better than RU ATGMs teams but it is still dangerous for them to be there.

But what if the danger zone is not explicitly linked to the frontline? Can we wrap it around our tank? Well, actually yes. 

Drones create danger zones.  So, you can easily do something like this. 

Drones with thermals can significantly complicate life of any ATGM.

You might ask why RU do not do it like this now? Answer is - they want, but they do not have drones for infantry and artillery which is their priority now. As soon as they get enough drones for arty they will start equipping tanks units with drones. I read RU Nats post that top brass already approved general ideal of equipping every AFV with personal drone.

But how we deal with 4 ATGMs? Well, you add some more drones with recon units

 

And finally, beforehand you infiltrate special force teams with even more drones! You use them to observe convenient spots for ATGMs

Let's summarize - to enable mech maneuver we must protect the mech force with drone bubble that can detect ATGMs teams before they can engage mech force. 

I wonder if in the future there will be dedicated ECM/anti-drone tanks

[kevinkin]

3 hours ago, chrisl said:

but going beyond the border puts them into the aggressor role and the Russians on the other side into the role of people defending their homes.  It's *much* harder to pursue a war into another country than to defend your own - that's why Russia is struggling (and losing).  Ukraine really has nothing to gain by aggression into Russia and a lot to lose.  Post WWII history is full of powerful militaries that were capable of winning battles at will but incapable of actually taking over a country in a war of aggression. Those really don't work very well, even if they start out looking successful.

I agree that an invasion of Russia in the traditional way for all to see is very unlikely. But there are other forms of retribution that reach beyond a demilitarized zone. The question is how much pain to inflict and does the pain involve Russian civilians if they get in the way. The process of deciding how to behave toward a defeated yet intact Russia by a victorious but ravaged Ukraine will affect Ukrainian politics for years. Hard line factions vs more benevolent ones. 

[Grigb]

53 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

The new Panther Tank. Three crew but there is room for a fourth possibly as the drone operator. A drone could be launched from the 130 mm tube. 

Personally, I believe tanks (or AFV in general) will have tethered drones and commander will control it with AI assistance. He will put glasses on and will command with the view from up there with AI getting control when needed. A tethered drone is invulnerable to EW, has unlimited endurance and is significantly stealthier. Better suited for tank.

Untethered drones most likely will be used by recon units because it is better to launch them as forward as possible. Plus untethered drone launch is by default dangerous (it starts emitting and competent enemy picks it up and sends free HE gift). So, you better move after launch (after landing) and that means Recon units are more suitable for the job. With AI assistance just one recon vehicle can launch several untethered drones with just one operator and handle job of whole tank platoon.

 

[FancyCat]

Washington Post continues their articles on Ukraine, this time a piece on the defense of Kiev, harrowing stuff. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/kyiv-battle-ukraine-survival/

[Grigb]

38 minutes ago, Calamine Waffles said:

I wonder if in the future there will be dedicated ECM/anti-drone tanks

Based on my observations of drone tactics it is better to push anti drone weapons forward. But drone vehicles are also better to push forward due to current limitations of drone technologies. It makes sense to combine them. On other hand job of recon vehicle is to push forward and cover main force. So, it makes perfect sense to combine all three in one package.

Eventually recon vehicles will become anti-drone tanks.   

[Grigb]

Final Mashkovets map for Kherson.

While this map is not completely up to date, I believe is clear that RU is still trying to be active there.

I believe this is what i called Victory offensive (and what Girkin called Third effective stage). Retrospectively, most probably initial intention of RU command was for Donbass offensive to fix UKR in Donbass then crash UKR forces in Kherson and Kharkiv. But as per our discussions, the situation on the ground is much different from what RU top brass believes. They simply do not have forces for anything serious offensive. But order is order - Ura, Comrades! And that's what we see. Some pushes here and there + thick layer of victorious BS.

Anyway, when we discuss Kherson UKR moves, we do need to keep in mind RU is still trying to advance there. 

[chuckdyke]

46 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Eventually recon vehicles will become anti-drone tanks.   

Drones will become smaller and smaller. The size of flies in the future, science fiction is no longer fiction.

[Haiduk]

@sburke 

Lt.colonel Sergey Privalov, killed on 17th of June. Unit unknown.

 

[riptides]

15 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Drones will become smaller and smaller. The size of flies in the future, science fiction is no longer fiction.

Drones will be the final, disposable solution for hard kills, LEO satellites, parked over the battlefield will significantly improve in their role of ISR.

[chuckdyke]

No need to add more. what beautiful people.

 

[chuckdyke]

8 minutes ago, riptides said:

Drones will be the final, disposable solution for hard kills,

Nanotechnology. Hold my beer. 

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" 

Edited August 24, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Grigb]

8 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Drones will become smaller and smaller. The size of flies in the future, science fiction is no longer fiction.

Well, in the far future maybe. In near future unlikely.

• Endurance and range. It looks like after several months of fighting RU Nats rejected smaller drones (AFAIR Mavic minis type) for bigger drones (AFAIR Mavic 3 type). Less stealth but better endurance.
• Second, bigger drone better resistance to EW. It is all about power and smaller drones have smaller batteries.
• Last is susceptibility to weather - good wind will cause a lot of issues for smaller drones. For example, RU Nats complained that it was not easy to use drones in Mariupol due constant wind
• And the last thing - price. The biggest advantage of current drones is that they are inexpensive and have good availability. Building smallest drone with all required capabilities will not be cheap.