How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[acrashb]

And a funny from DarthPutin:

 

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, Kinophile said:

It's really odd how an autocratic leader like Putin,  who relies on fear enforced by selective violence,  allows Prigozhin to build up an essentially independent power base with a (for Russia) professional fighting force, while undermining and denigrating his own national military force, including basically decentralising to the republics way more authority and involvement on original force generation. 

It gets tiring to compare Russia to Nazi Germany, but as the saying goes "if the shoe fits, wear it!"

The Waffen SS started out having to source its own equipment from outside of standard military supplies.  Anything that was standard kit was done through negotiations.  This is why early units were armed with a wide array of foreign contract and, later, captured kit. 

This was changed a couple of years into the war where the WSS drew down from standard Whermacht stocks.  Initially they weren't shown great favoritism, but as the war dragged on this changed as the political value increased.  After the July bomb plot WSS gained even more clout.  As the pool of volunteers shrank they were even afforded preferential selection of conscripts.

As the war wound down, Himmler was in nominal command of a large segment of Germany's better armed and mobile forces.  At the very end, Himmler was put in command of non-WSS forces on a massive scale.

In fact, let's remember that Hitler allowed for three conflicting ground forces; Heer, Waffen SS, and Luftwaffe.  In Russia's case it is PMCs, LPR, DPR, Volunteer battalions (under Army control, but still not pure Army), and the regular Army.  I exclude Marines as they are a fairly standard deviation from unified commands.

Historians point to this and say "wow, that was really a bad idea" and yet Putin is doing exactly the same thing.  I think it's pretty clear that the results are also similar.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, Pete Wenman said:

Obviously this is easier said then done, and with a long lead time regardless.

Quite   I look at this "order" for retrofitting T-62s the same way I see the instructions for partial mobilization.  There's what is said to comfort the public, then there's the real plan that has none of what was said in public.  Thermals for even 8 tanks is going to be hard for the Russians to source, not to mention 800 tanks.

The fact that Russia has publicly announced refurbishment of T-62s means they are effectively out of T-72s and T-90s.  It also means that Putin has acknowledged that no meaningful quantity of replacements is coming from outside of Russia.  The Belarus shipments are a drop in the bucket.

I wounder what the ammo stocks for the 100mm guns looks like?  Very old, for sure.  They'll have to set up new production for them and that's another thing Russia will likely struggle to do.

Steve

[keas66]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Quite   I look at this "order" for retrofitting T-62s the same way I see the instructions for partial mobilization.  There's what is said to comfort the public, then there's the real plan that has none of what was said in public.  Thermals for even 8 tanks is going to be hard for the Russians to source, not to mention 800 tanks.

The fact that Russia has publicly announced refurbishment of T-62s means they are effectively out of T-72s and T-90s.  It also means that Putin has acknowledged that no meaningful quantity of replacements is coming from outside of Russia.  The Belarus shipments are a drop in the bucket.

I wounder what the ammo stocks for the 100mm guns looks like?  Very old, for sure.  They'll have to set up new production for them and that's another thing Russia will likely struggle to do.

Steve

But where are the  Armatas !!!

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Sorry for delay, I am in the middle of the North Atlantic right now.

Those were not fighting trenches, they were anti-veh/armour complex obstacles.  That one ditch by the rail head is actually quite brilliant as mineploughs will be stopped by the rail, and anything cresting the rail rise has to deal with an AT ditch very exposed.  It may even cause a serious problem with explosive breaching.

In fact almost all of that video was major AT obstacles being built.  An AT minefield around those ditches is going to be about 400m deep and can be kms long, covered by observation (UAS no doubt) and fires.  To traditional mech warfare these are pure poison and an enemy with time, space and resources to build them is not good news.  First I have seen of this in war, or at least to this extent.

Question will be whether or not they actually work as well as intended.  If the UA is going with light infantry-UAS-arty as the primary offensive mechanism then these types of obstacles will not do as good a job - the Russians are clearly building defensive belts for how they (and we) fight, not necessarily how the UA have been.  Infiltration, isolation and precision hammering may be able to get through these much faster and cheaper; however, we simply do not know that for sure.  If the UA tries a traditional heavy assault on these, it is going to get costly very fast - and we are back to the liabilities of heavy in this war.  Even the weak RA ISR will spot a complex breaching op from, well back, and massed artillery on the choke points of the breach are very bad news (as the RA has already learned).

My sense is that dismounted infantry infiltration of those obstacles along with precision fires will be needed first - along with a pretty good idea of RA weak points - to create a bridgehead of some sort.  Along with deep precision strikes to interdict any counter moves force because this will be a slower process.  And then try for the mech break in, with another light force for the break out, much as they did back at Kharkiv.

The central question will be time.  Can the UA use this distributed method faster than the RA can respond?  If yes, attrition to maneuver still holds.  If not, we could be looking at Defensive primacy at least in this area, unless the UA can find a gap or work around.

I come back to the point I made when I Combatintman compelled me to not be so flippant   Which is that even the most impressive and well executed network of defenses doesn't mean squat if it's not properly manned.  This is, I think, a bigger problem for Russia than the UA's likely capability to breach/bypass, though it is absolutely made vastly worse by Ukraine's proven abilities.

It is pretty clear that Russia is facing multilayered deficiencies in its ability to defend.  Manpower is inadequate in terms of both numbers and quality.  Basic equipment for soldiers appears to be nearly exhausted.  Vehicles of all types are increasingly harder to find replacements for.  Ammunition depletion appears to be entering a new stage.  Specialized systems, such as AD and EW, are in decline and there also seems to be no care being taken to adequately train replacement soldiers for the equipment they still have.  Drones, radios, and anything else tech heavy are a rapidly diminishing resource.  Logistics are in tatters generally and worse for specific geographical areas.  Morale is in the subbasement and going to get worse.

That's just a partial list

If we game this out in our heads using Combat Mission as a guide, it's not too difficult to see how even at a tactical level Russia is going to struggle to hold something that Ukraine is determined to take.  At an operational and strategic level it is even harder to imagine conditions that would allow Russia to thwart a Ukrainian operation designed to take back its land.  The fortifications might up the cost to Ukraine a little bit here and there, both in terms of time and resources invested, but I don't see it changing the picture much beyond that.

Steve

[dan/california]

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-ambassadors-annual-conference-2022-opening-speech-high-representative-josep-borrell_en

 

Read it, read the whole thing, then ponder what I said a few posts ago about how it would be good to increase ammo production.

[Pete Wenman]

a good aerial view of a section of the AT barrier seen earlier. This is literally on the western edge of Hirs'ke. Location is detailed on the image, but to make it easier to locate

48.74203501 38.47920273

 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Pete Wenman

[Lethaface]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Quite   I look at this "order" for retrofitting T-62s the same way I see the instructions for partial mobilization.  There's what is said to comfort the public, then there's the real plan that has none of what was said in public.  Thermals for even 8 tanks is going to be hard for the Russians to source, not to mention 800 tanks.

The fact that Russia has publicly announced refurbishment of T-62s means they are effectively out of T-72s and T-90s.  It also means that Putin has acknowledged that no meaningful quantity of replacements is coming from outside of Russia.  The Belarus shipments are a drop in the bucket.

I wounder what the ammo stocks for the 100mm guns looks like?  Very old, for sure.  They'll have to set up new production for them and that's another thing Russia will likely struggle to do.

Steve

115mm IIRC  
Guess they'll just try the old ammo and or have some old dusty production lines they can reactivate in some form?

Anyway even in CMCW the T-62s aren't top of the line, although they perform decent enough against M60s.

Given the vast amount of T-72s around the world it is rather interesting that they are refurbishing T-62s. Maybe they can get some T-72s from Iraq.

[sburke]

Russia arrests 8, including 5 Russians, in Crimean bridge bombing; US, German weaponry arrives in Ukraine: Updates (msn.com)

[Lethaface]

Another video of the bridge explosion I hadn't seen yet. To me it looks like the truck blew up.

 

 

[chrisl]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Who knows. It's difficult to read irony online when it could just as well be a copy/paste mistake.

There's already so much info to keep up with that it would be better if people just stated their comments plainly, I think.

We just had many pages of truck vs missile discussion, and a substantial piece of supporting evidence for missile (brought up at least by Steve and billbindc is that if Russia claims something it's more likely to be a lie than truth.  Even though I think that the physical evidence that we've seen so far points to "truck", I agree with them that Russia is likely to lie about it and tell us the wrong cause just because they can, even if there's nothing to gain from the lie.

So it was really only semi-ironic. That they're making arrests (as if it's a truck bomb) pushes me closer to the "missile" camp.

(and watch it turn out that the guys who were arrested launched a missile at the bridge, and Russia is obfuscating by not going into detail on the charges).

[kevinkin]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The central question will be time.

I agree. And Putin is trying to buy it at a tremendous cost to save what's left of his regime. I would imagine he thinks the sons of mother Russia in the form of low quality conscripts dictate plugging them into static defenses. Perhaps backed up with mobile reserves just to hold some land in Ukraine over the winter. But I think Ukraine anticipates this now and is conducting operations at a pace designed to minimize losses while maximizing their interests when the war come to an end.  

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Another video of the bridge explosion I hadn't seen yet. To me it looks like the truck blew up.

That one came out on the 2nd day or so after the first one that looked down the road.  For sure this video convinced me that the truck was in roughly the right spot.  However, still not enough detail shown to know for sure.  Could be a coincidence.  As I said many posts ago, there were other trucks on the bridge within camera view.  While not a great chance of a missile striking almost the same spot as where a truck was, it can't be dismissed as life is pretty strange when it comes to coincidences.

Steve

[lerxster]

https://twitter.com/CaptainBlackSe1/status/1580099332048826368?s=20&t=oKNCH7pU4G3_R28qge2QKA

[dan/california]

I am really starting to think that the superiority of the Ukrainian ISR/fires/ADA bubble is reaching the point where the Russians are going to start failing/collapsing at an exponential rate. 

 

Edit: And I don't think a belated attempt at fixed defenses solves that problem.

Edited October 12, 2022 by dan/california

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, chrisl said:

We just had many pages of truck vs missile discussion, and a substantial piece of supporting evidence for missile (brought up at least by Steve and billbindc is that if Russia claims something it's more likely to be a lie than truth.  Even though I think that the physical evidence that we've seen so far points to "truck", I agree with them that Russia is likely to lie about it and tell us the wrong cause just because they can, even if there's nothing to gain from the lie.

While I generally agree with this (I should, since I was making this point myself!), there is one other thing to consider.

Russia usually denies something uncomfortable, which wasn't feasible in this case as the bridge destruction was obvious.  The next step is to "solve" the complex crimes faster than procedural cop shows to show that they are at least really efficient at dealing with the problem that they weren't able to prevent.  If the truth runs contrary to their desired narrative or is too difficult to "solve" quickly, then they lie and fake whatever is necessary to sell the lie (even if only idiot Russians buy it).  If the initial lie doesn't achieve the desired effect, they will shift their position as much and as many times as necessary to get people to move onto something else.

This is standard Russian practice.

If this was a missile they would lie about it, for sure.  If it were a boat/sub (which it wasn't), they would lie about that as it's almost as bad as a missile.  Truck bomb?  Well, if it really was a truck that is probably the most acceptable story for them and it would come with at least some real evidence they wouldn't need to fake.

In short, if it really was a truck bomb then I'd expect Russia to not lie about the cause, though I would expect them to lie about everything after.  The Russian government seems to never waste an opportunity to lie, even when they don't need to.

Steve

[Bulletpoint]

10 minutes ago, lerxster said:

 

https://twitter.com/CaptainBlackSe1/status/1580099332048826368?s=20&t=oKNCH7pU4G3_R28qge2QKA

How do we know this even comes from the FSB? Some random twitter account posted something..

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If this was a missile they would lie about it, for sure.  If it were a boat/sub (which it wasn't), they would lie about that as it's almost as bad as a missile.  Truck bomb?  Well, if it really was a truck that is probably the most acceptable story for them and it would come with at least some real evidence they wouldn't need to fake.

In short, if it really was a truck bomb then I'd expect Russia to not lie about the cause, though I would expect them to lie about everything after. 

I agree. Also, the truck bomb fits well into their general nazi/terrorist narrative, because truck bombs are used by terrorists, so people who use them must also be terrorists.

[Lethaface]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

That one came out on the 2nd day or so after the first one that looked down the road.  For sure this video convinced me that the truck was in roughly the right spot.  However, still not enough detail shown to know for sure.  Could be a coincidence.  As I said many posts ago, there were other trucks on the bridge within camera view.  While not a great chance of a missile striking almost the same spot as where a truck was, it can't be dismissed as life is pretty strange when it comes to coincidences.

Steve

Ah, somehow missed it. Could indeed be a coincidence. The world has drawn quite a number of small chance lottery tickets last few years, so this would be 'another one'. 

[dan/california]

Do we have any satellite photos of how extensive the new Russian defensive line is Luhansk? Is it even in Lukhansk? I can totally see them doing a random five kilometer section for propaganda purposes, and then getting back to the all important vodka bottle.

[lerxster]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

How do we know this even comes from the FSB? Some random twitter account posted something..

You are of course correct! I should know better to check before posting random information from a random source...!

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-russias-fsb-share-fake-x-ray-crimea-bridge-blast-truck-1751118

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, lerxster said:

 

https://twitter.com/CaptainBlackSe1/status/1580099332048826368?s=20&t=oKNCH7pU4G3_R28qge2QKA

FSB continuing the long and well established track record of not noticing, or perhaps caring, about the details. [edit, or in reality it is the more established track record of a faked and/or inaccurately portrayed social media post!  Anyway, my points below are still valid]

As this came in while posting my above comment, I'll add a follow up here.  Even when the Russians are not lying about the big picture, they will like like crazy about the details in order to show they have "solved" the situation.  Put another way, it might have been a truck bomb and when reviewing the X-ray scans they saw the truck was transporting this:

They think "gee, that's embarrassing!  We should have caught that!  Let's grab the scan of some other truck and show that there was nothing obviously wrong with the cargo".

Or it could be "let's look at the scans.  What?  Yuri disconnected the drive and has been using it to download his porn?  That doesn't look good to not have an image 'cuz we're supposed to be competent.  OK, hook the drive back up and we'll grab a scan from the next similar truck and use that".

This is the problem with Russia... even when they are telling the truth about something they lie SO MUCH AND SO OBVIOUSLY that you really just can't ever be too sure about anything they do.

Steve

[Letter from Prague]

Dunno how reliable this is, but the mobilisation seems to be going very well.

Could someone with contacts in Russia confirm or deny?

This is also the level of competence I would expect

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Letter from Prague

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

Dunno how reliable this is, but the mobilisation seems to be going very well.

Could someone with contacts in Russia confirm or deny?

 

This would make sense.  If someone was served a summons, of suspected he would, but couldn't get out of the country then the next best thing to do is at least not stay at home where you can be located easily.  Yet you have to go somewhere.  Going to short term housing (hostels in particular) seems to be a pretty logical place to go and therefore a logical place to look for dodgers.

Steve

[Baneman]

OT, sorry, but this tickled me too much not to post ...