How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Vet 0369]

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

 

This video is prime evidence why Infantry will always be needed. This man is a GRUNT!!!

[danfrodo]

54 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Two possibilities. Either 1) Dannatt's an old Cold Warrior with an inflated opinion of Russian capabilities, or 2) he's Kim Philby.

With a nice sprinkle of Oswald Mosely.

[BletchleyGeek]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So what is the new tank concept?  Is it even a single vehicle anymore?  If you pull the tank apart and disaggregate it across multiple cheap capabilities, would that work?

Exactly: networked, modular and cheap to produce. More like a team of wirelessly networked Universal Carriers than a phalanx of Big Mice with Huge Guns.

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Exactly: networked, modular and cheap to produce. More like a team of wirelessly networked Universal Carriers than a phalanx of Big Mice with Huge Guns.

Who would like to sit in one of these? Going small, cheap and disposible on anything with people in it is a hard sell these days. I think rather a big, heavy, expensive manned vehicle with all the defensive equipment it can get, controlling a small fleet of UGVs. 

[MSBoxer]

So are we talking about an armored formation similar to a carrier task force with 

• Infantry =  subs / scouting and removing threats with precision ordance
• drone hosts = destroyers / identifying threats and protecting larger assets 
• gun platform = cruiser / mid range threat reduction
• MBT = carrier / long range threat reduction & support of other units

I may have the sequencing off or we could add/combine capabilities

Edit: I also forgot to add an air/drone defense unit/ could be in the destroyer class.

Edited August 25, 2022 by MSBoxer

[sburke]

why don't we just hit the guys issuing the orders with that weapon that blenderized Ayman al-Zawahri and call it a day?

[chrisl]

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I was with you until this war.  What Ukraine did via crowd-sourced ISR was frankly terrifying in its potential.  We only have a bunch of social media/OS content and a few decent early analysis right now.  However, what role did the cellphone and civilian cell networks play in Phase 1 of this war?  I saw social media picking up Russian forces and then light Ukrainian infantry/SOF going out and hitting those forces...damn near everywhere at once.  That is not a traditional military kill chain, but damn if it did not work - to the point that it led to Russian operational collapse.

This leads to "What is the cost of the killchain?" and "What is the comparative/competitive costs of the killchain?"

But right now this is conjecture until a full AAR can be done on that whole thing.  My sense is that high precision killchain costs are going down, not up, as every element within them gets smaller, cheaper and more powerful.  Unless you are a western military industrial complex that needs to spend billions on what a few thousand can already do. 

Yes, what they did (and I'm sure still do) via crowdsourced ISR was pretty spectacular,  but the CS-ISR fed a response with weapons that came from the enormous technology machine of the west.  The Javelins, NLAWS, and TB-2s get a lot of their capability from microelectronics and sensors that aren't available to RU and whose development depends on a large and expensive technology supply chain.  And the crowdsourced ISR was augmented by western remote sensing.  It seems like it was a little cautious at first: "Why don't you point your Bayaktar over toward these coordinates and see what's there?  And maybe make sure you have some of the anti-armor rockets", and then followed by artillery and rocket systems that almost let the UA aim for the tea cups of the BTG COs.  

The per-unit costs of the objects in the kill chain goes down as you make things smaller, less energy intensive, and easier to mass produce (thank Gordon Moore for that), but the NRE infrastructure you need to make those things isn't cheap, and the key bits are very export restricted.  Microchips and detector arrays are only cheap if you have wafer fabs that cost billions of dollars.

[chrisl]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia is, by all reasonable standards, completely dependent upon trade with the West.  Logic said that would keep Russia from risking that trade by behaving badly.  Yet Russia never behaved and has, in fact, been behaving progressively worse even though its dependence on the West has been increasing.  In other words, the theory of peace through economic dependence has some serious flaws in it.  Right now everybody is trying to figure out if China also thinks this way.

The other flaw in the theory is that sometimes trade dependency works in the other way.  Germany has been the biggest enabler of Russia's aggression because it has continued to send Russia vast sums of money every year for energy while at the same time openly challenging its own allies when they try to address Russian aggression.  Both the little stuff (assassinations, kidnappings, corruption etc.) and big stuff (invading Georgia, invading Ukraine, annexing territory, etc.)

Putin's made the mistake in thinking that he had the stronger hand in terms of economic dependence.  He was wrong, of course, but that's the point.  Real economic dependence didn't convince Putin to play nice.

Steve

 

I don't disagree with any of that - it's a far from guaranteed way to try to manage a relationship with another country. But the alternative of invasion and long term nation-building is looking a lot worse.  Post WWII superpowers have managed temporary success with it, but in the long run it falls apart.  The US has tried a few times around the world, sometimes with spectacularly bad results, and Russia was successful for a while with Warsaw Pact and the various SSRs that they managed to absorb for a while, but those former states are all now former, many of them have some serious grudges, and even the not quite hostile ones like Kazakhstan have been "thanks, but no thanks" when invited to send troops to help the special operation. 

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, Huba said:

Who would like to sit in one of these? Going small, cheap and disposible on anything with people in it is a hard sell these days.

I think rather a big, heavy, expensive manned vehicle with all the defensive equipment it can get, controlling a small fleet of UGVs. 

But to me, you've just made the case for the opposite:  the purpose of trundling around all those tons of armour, using a huge finicky fuel guzzling engine and super heavy duty drivetrain, is to protect some squishies (crew), who in turn operate a large cannon (or whatever).

...So what if the crew instead hops out of their vehicle a couple of kms from the FEBA, takes cover with their gear (including drones) under some high tech ghillie suits and then maneuvers and fires the UGV remotely. Do you still need all that armour?

Pushing it even further, does our Mad Max Future look something like this? [/tongue in cheek, but only partly]

....The UGV war buggies are so modular, they are literally *designed* to blow apart, leaving certain components salvageable (rather than burning to the axles due to all that extra fuel and ammo cooking off).... Or the launcher is the bit that's designed to blow off, leaving the platform (hull down) able to pull back

...soon to come again, all shiny and chrome!  Witness me!!!!!!

Edited August 25, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Pushing it even further, does our Mad Max Future look something like this? [/tongue in cheek, but only partly]

SSP racers, F YES!  I didn't have the demolition ones shown in the video but had some other ones.  And best off the logistical chain is just the rachet-cord, so could operate indefinitely behind enemy lines.  As long as one has enough crew; I am thinking dozens to pull the cord.

[LongLeftFlank]

23 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

SSP racers, F YES!

Crash bang smashemup! Put em back again.....

Edited August 25, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[G.I. Joe]

6 hours ago, Panserjeger said:

Ukraine will get the Black Hornet 3 drone: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/norway-and-great-britain-to-transfer-to-ukraine-black-hornet-micro-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-and-nightfighter-anti-drone-systems/

I´ve actually used this drone myself, incredibly easy to operate after a short briefing. And it is so small that you can´t hear or see it if it is more than 10 meters away. It is designed to be used in Squads or Platoons for recon, also suitable for urban conditions as it can fly very low undetected to look under bridges etc.

Nice piece of equipment.

I have to admit that the scale modeler side of me is contemplating whether there would be any point in making a model of one any smaller than 1:1 scale...

[chrisl]

1 hour ago, MSBoxer said:

So are we talking about an armored formation similar to a carrier task force with 

• Infantry =  subs / scouting and removing threats with precision ordance
• drone hosts = destroyers / identifying threats and protecting larger assets 
• gun platform = cruiser / mid range threat reduction
• MBT = carrier / long range threat reduction & support of other units

I may have the sequencing off or we could add/combine capabilities

Edit: I also forgot to add an air/drone defense unit/ could be in the destroyer class.

But once I have the first two, do I really need something big, slow, expensive, and easy to destroy to bring in the HE on stubborn fixed targets?  Why wouldn't one of the infantry be carrying something precision guided like a next gen switchblade or the miniature Osprey equivalent and just fly it right into the holes in the defensive position?  If you need more bang, PGMs from artillery or rockets can be called in from mobile platforms further back.  The problem with tanks is that Javelins can hit to the horizon for a 6' tall grunt, and it's an "if you can see it it's dead" kind of weapon that's cheap enough to distribute widely.

Small (semi-)autonomous follow-along tracked weapons carriers, either with tracks or like robo-dogs or robo-ponies, will be harder to spot and less expensive, so you can have more of them, so a single Javelin isn't going to take out your heavy mobile firepower.

[chuckdyke]

The future is here. Besides the ingenious ejection turret the Russians are experimenting with on their T72 tank some whizzkids are also looking at Startrek Movies. Forcefields around tanks maybe the answer.

 

[MSBoxer]

8 minutes ago, chrisl said:

But once I have the first two, do I really need something big, slow, expensive, and easy to destroy to bring in the HE on stubborn fixed targets?

Launching a drone and flying it to a target takes much longer than a 120mm round.  Event calling in artillery takes longer.  Now I know that the MBT or large gun vehicle may take a few minutes to get in position, but once on target it can fire multiple rounds much faster than either artillery or drone while correcting  as needed.   Also upper level support may be occupied by other fire missions. Not to mention the fact that drones and missiles can be intercepted or guidance degraded.  Try that with a rifled round.

Plus, in most cases 120mm don't care about openings, they make their own.

Edited August 25, 2022 by MSBoxer

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

My personal assessment is that I am not convinced the tank as a concept is in fact dead.  I think the old concept of what a tank means may be.  I suspect a heavy unmanned system will replace it, along with other systems shouldering the capability offloads.  I also suspect it’s employment range will also be narrower, however not necessarily less critical.

We've had this discussion multiple times already and 6 months on I'm still of the same (similar) opinion that the tank as we know it is on its deathbed, but not dead yet.  What will hasten its death is a conflict down the road where someone embracing the UGV replacements runs circles around traditional tanks or a conflict where one side with UGVs is able to do things that would have been impossible without heavy fire support but not feasible with tanks.

As fro the heavily armored aspect... I don't think that's really necessary if the vehicles are inexpensive and quick enough to be purchased in large quantities.  Look at the commercial drones vs. the expensive military ones.  Are the military ones better?  Yes, but if I had a choice between 1000 commercial drones or 10 military ones for the same price, I'm pretty sure I'd op for the 1000 and accept whatever limitations it might have.

That said, I think the best strategy is to return to a WW2 mentality of Light, Medium, and Heavy UGVs.  Have lots of Lights running around doing things that require high mobility in many places concurrently, but expect to lose quite a few.  Mediums are there for common difficult issues that will come up often.  Heavy ones are there for the exceptional cases where all you'll do is lose Lights and Mediums if that's all you have.

Combine this with UAVs in similar configurations, artillery, and man portable weaponry and I think there's a pretty slick force in the making.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The T72 is obsolete, the concept of the tank is not. The designers will come up with something. The Sagger made the Centurion obsolete, the next generation had laminated armor. The tank will depend more on combined operations, but it will carry on in some way. 

Every time someone makes a statement like this I (or someone asks) why there are no battleships?  Because the concept became so burdened by costs and size that it was abandoned in favor of smaller, faster, and in the end more lethal replacements.  That is the way tanks are headed.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

13 hours ago, billbindc said:

My money is on a non-state institutional actor (i.e. a oligarch's kvost, an internal fight among Russian nationalists over money, etc) with a lot of opportunistic after-the-fact action.

Could be, but the Dugins don't strike me as being deeply embroiled enough with the sort of people that would blow them up.  Having their car set on fire when they aren't in it, having someone they care about beaten up, etc. I might buy, but a high profile Moscow based explosion?  No, I don't think so.

13 hours ago, billbindc said:

What shall we bet? I'm partial to six packs of unfiltered IPA's myself. 

You're on

Steve

[chuckdyke]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because the concept became so burdened by costs and size that it was abandoned in favor of smaller, faster, and in the end more lethal replacements. 

Battle of the Coral Sea first time no ships fired at each other. Ships carried their own airplanes so capital ships were going the direction of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. I think the lines between SP Guns and Tanks are going to be blurred. But AFVs are going to stay for the time being.

Edited August 25, 2022 by chuckdyke

[chuckdyke]

I don't think some people in the Kremlin will sleep easy. putin took Judo lessons but it won't be enough.

 

[Battlefront.com]

Schlottman has finally updated his map that tracks forces over time:

https://www.uawardata.com/

It's not perfect and has a BIG leap in the timeline between July and August, but it's still a pretty useful tool.

Steve

[sross112]

I think where the small UGV concept could really shine would be in your infantry battalion weapons company. Think of that recent video of the UA machinegun nest that the RA had such a hard time with that turned out to be a remote operated BTR turret. If the weapons company had UGVs hauling their weapon systems they could make for great fast tactical fire support offensively or defensively. Still haven't wrapped my head around the bigger UGVs but the light, medium and heavy concept that Steve just put up is making a little more sense to me. 

There has been some talk of the vehicle mounted 120mm mortar systems and their uses. Thinking of them, how long until the PGM out of one of those could be a loitering drone? Launch the round, 1000m up on the down path the casing falls apart and the drone activates. The gunner or commander has a visual link, selects the target and the drone executes. 1 shot, 1 kill. Could launch recon drones the same way. Could you have one at your company CP that launches recon drones on demand to the squad or platoon that requests one? With digital communications integration the drone just gets transferred to the Sgt or Lt on the front line and immediately the Company CO and FSO get the video feed of the targets as well? 

Man, some crazy sci fi stuff but I don't think it would be impossible. 

[chrisl]

32 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:

Launching a drone and flying it to a target takes much longer than a 120mm round.  Event calling in artillery takes longer.  Now I know that the MBT or large gun vehicle may take a few minutes to get in position, but once on target it can fire multiple rounds much faster than either artillery or drone while correcting  as needed.   Also upper level support may be occupied by other fire missions. Not to mention the fact that drones and missiles can be intercepted or guidance degraded.  Try that with a rifled round.

Plus, in most cases 120mm don't care about openings, they make their own.

Yes, it does, if the tank is already there in LOS.  But you can't afford to keep the tank in LOS until you're sure there aren't a couple of guys hiding with a Javelin or equivalent.  So you have to keep the tank back, then roll it in, hope you didn't miss anybody hiding in a hole with an ATGM, and then get the main gun onto the target.  If the tank has ballistic rounds it's probably going to take a few to get a hit, and depending on the defensive position might take quite a few to be effective.  While someone just over the horizon lets loose with a Javelin++ that has longer range than the standard model puts a hole in the top of your tank.

[Battlefront.com]

We've now passed through Ukraine's Independence Day without any sort of false flag attack within Russia or any retaliation for the Dugin attack.  However, we have seen this as reported by ISW yesterday:

Quote

Russian authorities are deploying security forces to Luhansk Oblast likely in response to waning support for the war and growing unwillingness to fight among Luhansk residents. The LNR Internal Ministry reported on August 23 that LNR Internal Ministry personnel conducted joint patrols with consolidated police detachments from the Internal Ministries of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast in Starobilsk, Shchastya, and Stanystia, occupied Luhansk Oblast.[5] The LNR Internal Ministry also reported on August 22 that Rosgvardia (Russian national guard) units conducted security for Russian Flag Day celebrations in Starobilsk.[6] Ukraine‘s Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported that Rosgvardia elements in Dovzhansk (formerly Sverdlovsk), Luhansk Oblast are not subordinate to the local LNR forces and that Rosgvardia conducted a search of an LNR official in Dovzhansk.[7] The deployment of Russian security forces to police-occupied areas of Luhansk Oblast supports ISW’s previous assessment that LNR residents and possibly militia forces may be unwilling to continue fighting now that they have reached the Luhansk Oblast borders.[8] Recent intensified Russian efforts to forcibly mobilize residents in Luhansk likely exacerbated this disillusionment, and Russian authorities may be increasing Russian security forces’ presence in Luhansk to suppress any internal instability and/or because they are losing confidence in indigenous Luhansk forces.[9]

Russian authorities’ deployment of Rosgvardia elements to security duties in occupied Luhansk Oblast diverts these forces from operations elsewhere in Ukraine, likely contributing to the broader Russian failure to translate limited tactical gains into operational successes. ISW previously assessed that Russian forces had likely exhausted their momentum from territorial gains around Avdiivka and Bakhmut, Donetsk Oblast – a very small section of the whole Ukrainian theater – partially due to their inability to allocate sufficient resources to offensive operations.[10] LNR forces’ unwillingness to fight in the war, coupled with Rosgvardia forces’ presence in the rear instead of near the front will likely contribute to continued Russian failures to make significant territorial gains.

Russian officials may have conducted a false flag event in Donetsk City on August 23 to justify attacks against Ukrainian government buildings on August 24, Ukrainian Independence Day. Social media networks in Donetsk City reported that a strike caused damage to the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) administrative building, where DNR Head Denis Pushilin works.[11] Pushilin was reportedly absent at the time of the strike. Russian media framed the attack as a direct Ukrainian strike on a DNR government building, potentially to set information conditions for retaliatory strikes against Ukrainian government buildings on Ukrainian Independence Day.[12] Ukrainian government authorities previously warned government workers in Kyiv to work from home the week of August 22 to 26 and cited concerns that Russian forces will target Ukrainian government assets as part of an extended missile and artillery campaign on Independence Day.[13] Russian-backed head of Kherson’s occupation administration Kirill Stremousov also claimed on August 22 that his administration was preparing for Ukrainian provocations on Independence Day, which could have been conditions-setting for a false-flag attack.[14]

My theory that the Dugin assassination is directly linked to what's going on in LPR and DPR appears to have received a boost with this information.  Things there appear to be getting much worse, perhaps the early stages of a revolt.  If a revolt should happen the entire "Special Military Operation" as we know it will fall part. 

If either or both does revolt, and it is violent, then whoa boy is this going to get interesting.  I'd put my money on the LPR and DPR forces beating Rosgvardia any day of the week.  Which will mean Russian military forces being diverted to deal with the insurrection.

I don't think a violent revolt is all that likely.  More likely is one or both saying that they're done fighting (LPR kinda did that already).  They might threaten revolt and compromise with sending small detachments to keep up the illusion that they're status hasn't changed.  Putin will decide to sign off on the compromise or try and counter the revolt.  And that will likely be bloody.

Either way, Russia is seriously in trouble without both republics actively in the fight.  If for no other reason than propaganda purposes.

Steve

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

Looks like sburke, Haiduk, and AKD are going to have some busy days ahead.  Reported by ISW:

Quote

The Ukrainian Southern Operational Command reported that Ukrainian missile and artillery units destroyed the ammunition depot and command post of the Russian 247th Airborne Assault Regiment of the 7th Guards Air Assault Division in Chornobaivka northwest of Kherson City and struck the command post of the 331st Guards Airborne Regiment of the 98th Guards Airborne Division in Novovoskresenke just south of the Kherson-Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border

That's potentially 20 Majors and LT Colonels that could have been affected by the strikes.  If all were there and most were injured we could be seeing 4-6 names added to the list over the next month as the info slips out.

Steve