How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[akd]

51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'd ask what the Hell that guy was doing out in the field, but I think we all know why... shortage of officers to man units at the front.

Steve

The 4th Guards Military Base is essentially a reinforced Motor Rifle Brigade with garrison duties in S. Ossetia, so definitely a field unit.

Edited October 2, 2022 by akd

[Artkin]

7 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

a curious oncoming battle of a Ukrainian armored personnel carrier against a Russian infantry fighting vehicle.

Excellent video depicting airburst, it seems they had the ranging off in the beginning. That would be neat to see in combat mission. 

[riptides]

6 minutes ago, billbindc said:

We should all be clear about what the potential collapse in Kherson means. This isn't a fight on the fringes of Lugansk and Donetsk. This will take a large swale of strategically vital territory away from Russia with possibly 10's of thousands of casualties. It's also coming just days after Putin threw down the gauntlet on nuclear weapons and with a rising chorus of Russian nationalists descrying the war effort. That puts us right into the scenario in which use of a tactical nuke will be contemplated. What happens next will tell us quite a bit.

He has already created some doubt with his pipeline attack. Dropping a nuke on his own troops is in play. 

[FancyCat]

 

 

 

[sburke]

49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Just read an article in Washington Post about a Ukrainian captain that goes around pickup up Russian corpses.  He said that 4 out of the 100 he personally handled were booby trapped.

Steve

Read that article.  Felt it was a bit too gruesome to post here.. which is saying something.

[Artkin]

11 minutes ago, billbindc said:

We should all be clear about what the potential collapse in Kherson means. This isn't a fight on the fringes of Lugansk and Donetsk. This will take a large swale of strategically vital territory away from Russia with possibly 10's of thousands of casualties. It's also coming just days after Putin threw down the gauntlet on nuclear weapons and with a rising chorus of Russian nationalists descrying the war effort. That puts us right into the scenario in which use of a tactical nuke will be contemplated. What happens next will tell us quite a bit.

I would have said this months ago, but I didn't want to sound like a maniac. The other day I wondered what it would be like if putin built a nuclear wall at Kherson. Ties with the West seem unfixable with the current administration, and if they arent disposed of, then cooperation wont exist. Russia would destroy the environment, and I imagine the warm water ports they fought so hard for would be useless. 

[akd]

7 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Excellent video depicting airburst, it seems they had the ranging off in the beginning. That would be neat to see in combat mission. 

Most of the rounds are bursting in tree branches, but some make it through to the UKR BTR-4.

[Huba]

Looks like Russians vacated Archangelske too - possibly a sign of general withdrawal from the north ? In any way, it will affect the forces deployed along the Inhulets.

 

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Is it even militarily wise to roll up Cherson pocket right now? I mean, it is complete arse for the Russians to supply. It seems worth it to let the Russians "enjoy" their self inflicted wound some more. Squeeze it to a more manageable area to give arty more options but otherwise I would leave it in place.

I still fancy Melitopol as an axis of advance worth trying. Perhaps too obvious a route and too strongly held, but surely the past few weeks the area has been thinned of defenders some? Perhaps it is too late now, with the autumn mud upon us.

TBH, I was a little surprised by the Lyman operation. I didn't think it would improve the strategic outlook all that much. Initially, it definitely was, with the local defences in disarray. But the initial progress seemed slow and grinding that I really doubted it was going to go anywhere worthwhile.

But second guessing the Ukrainian General Staff really isn't the smart thing to do, I realize.

 

[FancyCat]

Did anyone in February think that Ukraine would have the prospect of a navy in the Black Sea? Obviously Ukraine will not take the vessel until the war is over, but interesting that Russian pressure on Turkey failed to stop the ship from continuing production. 

 

 

[dan/california]

26 minutes ago, billbindc said:

We should all be clear about what the potential collapse in Kherson means. This isn't a fight on the fringes of Lugansk and Donetsk. This will take a large swale of strategically vital territory away from Russia with possibly 10's of thousands of casualties. It's also coming just days after Putin threw down the gauntlet on nuclear weapons and with a rising chorus of Russian nationalists descrying the war effort. That puts us right into the scenario in which use of a tactical nuke will be contemplated. What happens next will tell us quite a bit.

Your saying to crack the good stuff tonight, just in case?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

12 minutes ago, akd said:

Most of the rounds are bursting in tree branches, but some make it through to the UKR BTR-4.

It's the other way around, BTR in the bottom left seems to be doing all the shooting.

[Grigb]

I was attacked today by relatives and had to regroup from home. So, had not time to check what's going on or check the forum. So, sorry if it was already posted but just in case if somebody missed - this is what is most likely going at Kherson direction.

[UPDATE] RU denies capture of Dudchani. Let wait and see.

Edited October 2, 2022 by Grigb

[danfrodo]

14 minutes ago, Elmar Bijlsma said:

Is it even militarily wise to roll up Cherson pocket right now? I mean, it is complete arse for the Russians to supply. It seems worth it to let the Russians "enjoy" their self inflicted wound some more. Squeeze it to a more manageable area to give arty more options but otherwise I would leave it in place.

I still fancy Melitopol as an axis of advance worth trying. Perhaps too obvious a route and too strongly held, but surely the past few weeks the area has been thinned of defenders some? Perhaps it is too late now, with the autumn mud upon us.

TBH, I was a little surprised by the Lyman operation. I didn't think it would improve the strategic outlook all that much. Initially, it definitely was, with the local defences in disarray. But the initial progress seemed slow and grinding that I really doubted it was going to go anywhere worthwhile.

But second guessing the Ukrainian General Staff really isn't the smart thing to do, I realize.

 

Note that the benefits of removing Kherson Kessel (aka Putler's Pocket) would greatly increase UKR capability to attack on Melitopol front or elsewhere.  While RU loses all the units on Kherson front, UKR has all its units to redeploy.  If RU is given time to remove units from Kherson then both sides would get shortened front w ~same # of men, though RU would have lost a lot of kit & supplies.  Advantage to removing kessel is disproportionately in favor to UKR if they can act soon.

Picture the situation post-Kherson.  UKR will be able to very thinly defend right bank since there no way RU could mount a an offensive there even after a successful river crossing.  But RU will still need to fear a UKR river crossing and so would need to keep up more of a defense along that line.  If RU has long stretches of left bank left undefended, UKR might sneak forces into the area and cross to form a significant and threatening beachhead.  Given Putler's obsession w Crimea he can't afford to have UKR on left bank where it could threaten an advance toward Crimea.

[Artkin]

33 minutes ago, akd said:

Most of the rounds are bursting in tree branches, but some make it through to the UKR BTR-4.

Ah yeah, that makes more sense, I see the impacts in the rear there. I also thought seeing both the BTRs on the road that they had clear LOS.

Edited October 2, 2022 by Artkin

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

It sounds like you're quoting Wikipedia here, and I think that passage in the Wiki is incorrect. The Ottawa Convention does cover booby traps:

States-parties commit to not using, developing, producing, acquiring, retaining, stockpiling, or transferring anti-personnel landmines, which are defined by the treaty as mines "designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons."

This would also cover booby traps. But IED's are allowed. And also the M18 Claymore, if it's triggered remotely. Not if it's equipped with a tripwire.

Regarding anti-handling devices, yes, they are allowed by the convention, but the definintion of an anti-handling device is that it activates when somebody tampers with or intentionally disturbs the mine. Key word here is "intentionally".

So it's not a loophole for turning AT mines into AP mines by giving them a sensor to makes them explode when stepped on. But it's allowed to make the AT mine explode when lifted for example.

Ok, let’s play semantics then.  The treaty says:

“Mine means munition designed to be placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person or vehicle”

http://www.icbl.org/media/604037/treatyenglish.pdf

IEDs are allowed because they fall outside the definition of “munition” then so are boobytraps.  A boobytrap is essentially an improvised explosive or non-explosive device, which has Geneva convention regulations but does not fall under the Ottawa treaty.  Further, non-explosive booby traps are also outside the scope of the treaty.
 

Now each nation is free to interpret these finer points as they wish. However, I am pretty sure a good public affairs spin could get the UA off the hook if they employed boobytraps or IEDs in defence of their nation.  Now if they employ a few million AP land mines…

Finally what is actually a matter of international law:

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=26&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2-b&src=TREATY

 

 

[dan/california]

33 minutes ago, Elmar Bijlsma said:

Is it even militarily wise to roll up Cherson pocket right now? I mean, it is complete arse for the Russians to supply. It seems worth it to let the Russians "enjoy" their self inflicted wound some more. Squeeze it to a more manageable area to give arty more options but otherwise I would leave it in place.

I still fancy Melitopol as an axis of advance worth trying. Perhaps too obvious a route and too strongly held, but surely the past few weeks the area has been thinned of defenders some? Perhaps it is too late now, with the autumn mud upon us.

TBH, I was a little surprised by the Lyman operation. I didn't think it would improve the strategic outlook all that much. Initially, it definitely was, with the local defences in disarray. But the initial progress seemed slow and grinding that I really doubted it was going to go anywhere worthwhile.

But second guessing the Ukrainian General Staff really isn't the smart thing to do, I realize.

 

Ukraine seems to want to make a rather emphatic point about the annexation. Specifically that they absolutely couldn't care less. Or could be 100% based on the alignment of military factors, but I m guessing the the annexation had a lLittle  weight on the timing. It doesn't hurt that the Russian forces in the northern Donbas are all but folding. So pushing in Kherson now creates the maximum amount of command stress and bad choices. Putin may be willing to give away Luhansk, but I am fairly sure he didn't want to give it away by Thanksgiving.

[Grigb]

RU troops mood (no surprise really)

Quote

There is a idea [among public] - "Kadyrov to the Minister of Defense".

IMHO: if you give him such a position, he will take [all] power. I would have taken it.

The mood of troops (those with whom I talked) - if someone more proactive and decisive (in military terms) wants to take power - the troops will stand aside and quietly applaud.

This is due to the obvious indecision of the current government and the consequences that we are all observing.

 

[Elmar Bijlsma]

3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Note that the benefits of removing Kherson Kessel (aka Putler's Pocket) would greatly increase UKR capability to attack on Melitopol front or elsewhere.  While RU loses all the units on Kherson front, UKR has all its units to redeploy.  If RU is given time to remove units from Kherson then both sides would get shortened front w ~same # of men, though RU would have lost a lot of kit & supplies.  Advantage to removing kessel is disproportionately in favor to UKR if they can act soon.

Picture the situation post-Kherson.  UKR will be able to very thinly defend right bank since there no way RU could mount a an offensive there even after a successful river crossing.  But RU will still need to fear a UKR river crossing and so would need to keep up more of a defense along that line.  If RU has long stretches of left bank left undefended, UKR might sneak forces into the area and cross to form a significant and threatening beachhead.  Given Putler's obsession w Crimea he can't afford to have UKR on left bank where it could threaten an advance toward Crimea.

I am not at all sure that Putin is willing to pull back across the Dnipr. Putin want his PP big and strong. Aside from him ideologically not wanting to let go of that piece of Greater Russia (as he sees it) it might dawn on him that it would be politically dangerous to fail even more right now.

Even if a withdrawal is attempted, it would be exceedingly costly for the russians at little cost to Ukr, especially if they can get 155mm arty in range of the crossings. I don't think Ukr should try too hard to take what will be given soon enough.

 

You do have a point with freeing up manpower. But it does remove an area where Ukraine finds Russia at a distinct disadvantage. Ru artillery in the pocket itself was reported to be on its last legs so it's practically a free shoot for Ukr. I think long term a greater price can be extracted from the Russians by letting them hold it.

Also, the pocket's removal might allow Russian reserves, if any, to be stationed closer to hand in the (south) east and south.

 

[Elmar Bijlsma]

7 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Ukraine seems to want to make a rather emphatic point about the annexation. Specifically that they absolutely couldn't care less. Or could be 100% based on the alignment of military factors, but I m guessing the the annexation had a lLittle  weight on the timing. It doesn't hurt that the Russian forces in the northern Donbas are all but folding. So pushing in Kherson now creates the maximum amount of command stress and bad choices. Putin may be willing to give away Luhansk, but I am fairly sure he didn't want to give it away by Thanksgiving.

Politically the fall of Kherson would indeed make a very pointed reply to the annexation. It would also dramatically undermine Putin, but whether that is good or bad is up for debate, as it has been here.

Sure, taking the pocket would be a good thing, all in all. But is it the best thing?

[keas66]

3 minutes ago, Grigb said:

RU troops mood (no surprise really)

 

I kind of imagine someone like Kadyrov would be a little easier to get to/target  by anyone who cared to do that sort of thing.

[chuckdyke]

Gives us an idea of perspective of a BTR. The low silhouette of the Russian vehicle makes it more prone against mines Imo.

 

[Huba]

Here's a bit more sober/ conservative take from DefMon

Assuming UA will not just roll straight to Nova Kakhova, I think that still the northern part of RU grouping is in huge trouble, and we'll see the frontline will move to Davidyv Brid - Dudchany line more or less. Which is enough to put the dam in range of 155mm. Russians are set for a worst Monday ever.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, akd said:

The 4th Guards Military Base is essentially a reinforced Motor Rifle Brigade with garrison duties in S. Ossetia, so definitely a field unit.

Ah, so in this case the "base" is not separate from the unit as is usually the case?  Interesting.  I thought the units always had designations separate from the bases.  Thanks!

Steve

[Letter from Prague]

That's a new one.