How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I hope as well.

OK, back to some pontificating.

The estimated losses of 10k KIA and 30k WIA sound very plausible, but let's even say it's off by a factor of 2 and we have 5k and 15k respectively for a total of 20k out of a force of about 180k.  That's 11% reduction in forces.

Somewhere in and around the first couple of days of the war I pointed out that what units suffer the losses matters more than the numbers themselves.  For example...

Losing an entire tank company with 100% crews dead results in 30 KIA.  So let's see what 30 KIA difference can make in a BTG:

• 10 Tanks + crews
• 3 AFV/IFV + crews + dismounts
• 15 logistics trucks + crews

Now let's look at how that relates to relative contribution to the fighting capacity of BTG:

• 100% of tanks
• 10% of rifle strength
• 70% of logistics (worse, it could be 100% of fuel as there's only about 5 tankers in total)

Not all 30 KIAs are equal, are they?  Nope!  So the casualty figures don't tell us the full story about how the total number affects total combat effectiveness.  But we can guess based on the smashed trucks that logistics have been hit harder proportional to everything else. 

A single MBT has a big projection of power on whatever tactical situation it is in, but a single fuel truck can determine if an entire company's worth of tanks have any power at all.  If I'm a tactical commander worried about one battle I'd rather lose a fuel truck than a MBT.  But if I'm an operational commander, I'd be pretty nervous about losing too many fuel trucks because the loss of each one has a multiplying effect that goes way beyond any one particular battle.

Which brings me back to my point I made when this whole mess started.  At what point does Ukraine need to get to before, statistically, the operational freedom of action of the Russian force is degraded to the point that it can not carry out its mission any more than the Germans could take Antwerp in The Battle of the Bulge?  Nobody knows in part because what is taken out of action is almost as important as how much. 

I'd say taking 20% of the invasion force out of action is probably the tipping point from a technical standpoint.  If we take Ukraine's casualty figures at face value, they hit that number yesterday.  If we halve the number they could see it sometime this week (remember, attacker casualties tend to increase when mobility decreases).

Low morale, poor communications, lack of confidence in leadership, incentives from Ukraine to surrender, etc. can take whatever the technical tipping point is and lower it significantly.  With that in mind, if 11% is the casualty count now, Ukraine might not need to rack up another 9% to hit the tipping point.  Might already have hit it.

Steve

 

So if the russians actually launch the offensives many believe are imminent during current  'regrouping' phase, then they could easily get to tipping point casualties.  There's this two narrative worlds that seem to have evolved:  either russians are nearly spent and totally f-ed this whole thing up.  Or this is all going according to plan and they are just doing planned regrouping for the long ago planned week 2 assaults.

I am wondering if Putin will now go full psycho and threaten to blow up nuclear power plants, releasing radiation over vast areas.  So which way does the wind generally blow in Ukraine in March?  If he's dumb enough to attack during mud season I don't suppose he'd check the prevailing wind direction either.

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

This @The_Capt you should totally getting a Twitter account and put up a picture of you in a dapper suit and see if you can get some nice gigs as resident military pundit as well

I support that, though I should put in a plug for Combat Mission here because I think you guys (all CMers) better appreciate the implications of all the smashed up Russian stuff more than the think tank guys do.  So many of them continue to talk about this war lasting months, you guys recognize a "bad player" when you see one.  You guys know that if you played 10 QBs with a player this bad, it's unlikely he'll keep playing because he won't find it fun.  And so... in a way... you guys are armed with knowledge that allows you a pretty good feel for possible outcomes.  So take a bow

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

So if the russians actually launch the offensives many believe are imminent during current  'regrouping' phase, then they could easily get to tipping point casualties.  There's this two narrative worlds that seem to have evolved:  either russians are nearly spent and totally f-ed this whole thing up.  Or this is all going according to plan and they are just doing planned regrouping for the long ago planned week 2 assaults.

No, there is absolutely no chance this is going to plan.  None, zero, zip, nada.  It hasn't been going according to plan since about 1/2 way through the first day.  So we're left with the f-ed this whole thing scenario.

The question is what are the Russians going to do next.  This is what The_Capt raised a few pages ago.  What we know the Russians don't want to do is go back to Russia empty handed.  Unfortunately for Russians, the Ukrainians have a big say in if Russia's wants happen or don't. 

Ukraine has two major choices at this point:

1.  Keep fighting and killing Russians until they are definitively defeated.  This means more civilian and military deaths, as well as massive physical damage, but it means a cleaner peace.

2.  Accept significant concessions so that Russia can save some face.  This lessens the immediate misery, but it dramatically increases Russia's ability to continue to cause problems long term

All indications are that Ukraine is prepared to take the civilian casualties if it means ending the Russian threat once and (hopefully) for all.  It's a horrible way to look at it, but Russia has been screwing Ukraine for decades and more recently directly killing its people.  Somewhere around 15k at this point. Letting Russia get anything out of this war AND retaining the capacity to continue undermining and killing the people of Ukraine over time should be totally unacceptable to Ukraine.

I see Ukraine fighting this thing right to the end.  Especially because I think the end is quite near.

Steve

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

Dan, please read up on the history of the region. TL:DR, Kiev was settled by a Swedish tribe that were “asked” by the locals to “save” them from the Slavic rulers. The town eventually became the Principality of Kiev Rus (the name of the Swedish tribe was the Rus) which in time included Moscow. So, in fact, Kiev is the ”Mother” of Russia since Russia, was the name the country took from it’s “Mother.” Here’s a suggestion, Google “History of Ukraine,” and you’ll see how convoluted the truth is for the entire region. Everyone around that region, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, can make the same claim to rule Ukraine as they all did, except not under the same names we know them as today, except Poland has almost always been Poland.

Hey Vet0369, sorry if that came across as testy.  Uncalled for.  I should not have watched update on the baseball lockout then commented on anything -- high class problem compared to Ukraine, I know. 

[dan/california]

12 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sorry if I am not clear.

The analogy is neither to the VN terrain nor their political situation. It is to the the US/ARVN strategy of establishing firebases in contested areas in order to support search and destroy ops by mobile forces.  Same tactics used in parts of A'stan.

But we can both go too far with analogies. I guess I'd rather stick to the topic of, would *today's* Russian Army be able to set up and sustain/support such a defense and how would *today's* Ukrainians overcome it at an acceptable cost?

My contention is that a stalemate would eventually equal a Russian 'win', however pyrrhic. In time the world would prevail on the Ukrainians to accept a cease fire.

Neither the Vietnamese, or the Afghans had very large quantities of missiles that could shoot the wings off of a fly at ranges up to tens of miles. I don't think we have even tried to hold ground in either place if they did.

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I see Ukraine fighting this thing right to the end.  Especially because I think the end is quite near.

Steve

agree.  I think Ukraine looks at the last 8 years and figures - no more.  They are smelling blood.  They don't have to defeat the entire 180,000 men.  They just have to break their will and I think they are doing a damn good job of it.  There will come a point where fragging may become a Russian term if their officers aren't paying attention.

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, there is absolutely no chance this is going to plan.  None, zero, zip, nada.  It hasn't been going according to plan since about 1/2 way through the first day.  So we're left with the f-ed this whole thing scenario.

The question is what are the Russians going to do next.  This is what The_Capt raised a few pages ago.  What we know the Russians don't want to do is go back to Russia empty handed.  Unfortunately for Russians, the Ukrainians have a big say in if Russia's wants happen or don't. 

Ukraine has two major choices at this point:

1.  Keep fighting and killing Russians until they are definitively defeated.  This means more civilian and military deaths, as well as massive physical damage, but it means a cleaner peace.

2.  Accept significant concessions so that Russia can save some face.  This lessens the immediate misery, but it dramatically increases Russia's ability to continue to cause problems long term

All indications are that Ukraine is prepared to take the civilian casualties if it means ending the Russian threat once and (hopefully) for all.  It's a horrible way to look at it, but Russia has been screwing Ukraine for decades and more recently directly killing its people.  Somewhere around 15k at this point. Letting Russia get anything out of this war AND retaining the capacity to continue undermining and killing the people of Ukraine over time should be totally unacceptable to Ukraine.

I see Ukraine fighting this thing right to the end.  Especially because I think the end is quite near.

Steve

That certainly seems to best fit the evidence at hand.  If Putin thought he'd have multi-week fight he wouldn't have assumed he was gonna be at Hostemel airport in first day or two to relieve the airborne units -- and it seems he did a lot of these insertion operations which all failed miserably but only make sense if you think the big boys are gonna show up & save the day pretty quickly. 

I suspect in the end Ukraine will give up Crimea and maybe half the disputed donbass territories, just to get clear borders. And will apply to join NATO ASAP.  They will never agree to not join NATO, that could be suicide. 

And now Finland in NATO.  Yeah, Putin, this was brilliant.  Everything you didn't want to happen you have achieved!  United europe w increased military spending, more NATO presense on your border, Ukraine heading for EU and NATO.  And your own economy and military in shambles.  He's a real genius, just like we've been told many times!

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, dan/california said:

Neither the Vietnamese, or the Afghans had very large quantities of missiles that could shoot the wings off of a fly at ranges up to tens of miles. I don't think we have even tried to hold ground in either place if they did

Sure, but that's the tactical thesis I'm trying to chase here through the fog and smoke and red herrings.....

Ukie "Partisans With Javelins" have been generally kicking the ass of roadbound mech (and air) forces to this point, it looks like....

But that doesn't mean these tactics don't have a suitable counter. 

And I have grave doubts these groups are nearly as effective on the attack, trying to dislodge an enemy who has organized a defensive zone, deployed his own mobile killer teams and moreover has good arty support on call.

I personally think the Russians can do this, especially with their VDV and Chechen units. And others can learn quickly enough.

Not to go back to the confusing analogies thing, but one recurring theme of military history is that you shouldn't assume your enemy remains stupid....

[dan/california]

The Ukrainians don't have to attack, just make the Russians bleed more than they can stand. And we have given them a blank check so far. If the war went static they could get trained up on better, and more sophisticate,  western gear.

[LongLeftFlank]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The Ukrainians don't have to attack, just make the Russians bleed more than they can stand. And we have given them a blank check so far. If the war went static they could get trained up on better, and more sophisticate,  western gear.

Don't disagree mate, but attrition can cut both ways, and gear alone won't take back ground. Or maybe it will.....

RELEASE THE ROBOT DOGS!!!!! 

 

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I suspect in the end Ukraine will give up Crimea and maybe half the disputed donbass territories, just to get clear borders.

This is not what I think the Ukrainians will do.  It is certainly not what I'd do.  Here's what I'd push for:

• I'd have all Russian military forces leave all pre-2014 contested territory.  Period.
• All Russian military forces along the common border to be withdrawn 100km away forever.  Violations would trigger immediate and specific actions backed up by the EU/NATO.
• Crimea to be kept demilitarized, but administration changed immediately to Ukrainian laws.
• I'd set a date for a real referendum for local control to be set for 2 years from the time of the agreement.
• The referendum would be overseen by a real international monitoring group, with Russia included in it as a passive observer.
• If the people of Crimea really want to be a part of Russia, so be it.
• Crimea is to be permanently de-militarized no matter who the people vote to go with.  No ground forces, no air defenses, not artillery, nada.  Remilitarizing would have spelled out consequences (backed by EU/NATO).  Maybe naval support bases allowed, but no armed ground presence.
• Russia to pay X amount over Y years in cash or in resources (oil and gas in particular).  Violation of the terms of this would trigger consequences spelled out and backed by EU/NATO.
• Russian school text books would require a neutral accounting of the war.  OK, that's just me dreaming, but it should be there!

Probably other stuff, but I think you see where I'm going with this.  Short term end to hostilities, long term stability, and reparations.  That's only fair given the facts.

Steve

[BletchleyGeek]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I'd rather stick to the topic of, would *today's* Russian Army be able to set up and sustain/support such a defense and how might *today's* Ukrainian Army overcome it at an acceptable cost?

My contention is that a stalemate would eventually equal a Russian 'win', however pyrrhic. In time the world would prevail on the Ukrainians to accept a cease fire.

Fair point re: analogies. A more similar situation would be that of the Line of Control in Eastern Ukraine right until this war started (thinking of the rump Donetsk and Luhansk rump republics to be a fait accompli of a similar nature as would be land bridge in the south). I am not super familiar with the particulars of that stalemate though, and in this case the perimeter of that "bridgehead" looks significantly longer than the 2014 ones.

[MikeyD]

I think at some point Ukraine is going to have to transition from knocking out tanks and Buk launchers from the air to going after rocket artillery. Each GRAD (or equivalent) knocked out is one less salvo of artillery rockets falling on population centers that evening. Its like fuel trucks. You knock out one, you knock out another, and another... eventually you start to make a dent in Russians' capabilities. 

[Probus]

If 75% of Russia’s conventional forces were on the Ukrainian border before the invasion (which is the main reason I thought Russia would invade in some way) does that give Putin 25% reserves? Or does Russia need those forces for internal and eastern regions?

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-20-22-intl/h_a75912013e1a5572ef733fd4a7167d48

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sure, but that's the tactical thesis I'm trying to chase here through the fog and smoke and red herrings.....

Ukie "Partisans With Javelins" have been generally kicking the ass of roadbound mech (and air) forces to this point, it looks like....

But that doesn't mean these tactics don't have a suitable counter. 

They only have a suitable counter if the Russians have a) the time to develop them and b) the inclination to.  I contend they have neither.

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

And I have grave doubts these groups are nearly as effective on the attack, trying to dislodge an enemy who has organized a defensive zone, deployed his own mobile killer teams and moreover has good arty support on call.

Ukraine most likely eliminated three BTGs in one counter attack yesterday, including killing the Chief of Staff (a Major General) for that sector of front.  In fact, this is the second Chief of Staff in almost as many days, as Ukraine killed the previous one as well.

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I personally think the Russians can do this, especially with their VDV and Chechen units. And others can learn quickly enough.

If there's no cohesive military capacity, then there's no ability to stay in the fight.

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Not to go back to the confusing analogies thing, but one recurring theme of military history is that you shouldn't assume your enemy remains stupid....

I do not assume that Russia is permanently stupid.  I do assume they don't have the time and resources necessary to get smart fast enough for it to matter.

You are thinking in terms of months or years.  I'm thinking in terms of days or maybe weeks. 

You are thinking Russia has another 200k of forces to bring into this fight.  I don't.

You are discounting that Ukraine is bring another 100k into the fight soon.  I don't.

 

Generally speaking, your logic requires an amount of time and an ability to invest resources with assumptions they can counter all of the problems already exposed in order for Russia to simply not lose the slim strips of terrain they have barely managed to secure.  I see no chance of it happening.

You need to start thinking about Russia can do this week and forget about what it might be able to do in the months to come.  Because if it doesn't somehow do a 180 this week, it's show over for Russia.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Probus said:

If 75% of Russia’s conventional forces were on the Ukrainian border before the invasion (which is the main reason I thought Russia would invade in some way) does that give Putin 25% reserves? Or does Russia need those forces for internal and eastern regions?

The remaining 25% are spread very thin along the Baltics, China, and it's various frozen conflicts.  Heck, there's some 1500 troops in Moldova's frozen conflict, apparently at a horrifically low state of readiness.  So out of that 25% it seems very little of it can be easily moved to Ukraine and some portion of it is unlikely to be much better than the units already there.

The solution, of course, is for Russia to draft a whole bunch of new recruits.  Their biannual callup is coming, however it won't do them any good unless they can squash Ukrainian resistance well ahead of then.

Found this just published document on this aspect of the Russian war effort.  Their conclusion?  Not surprisingly, Russia can't raise good enough forces quickly enough for it to matter:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/explainer-russian-conscription-reserve-and-mobilization

Steve

[dan/california]

China is looking at all that empty in the Russian far east, looking hard.

[Begemot]

[Russian Fascist Photoshoped Propaganda Piece Deleted by Moderator]

New leader of the free world?

[dan/california]

9 minutes ago, Begemot said:

 

New leader of the free world?

Not even good trolling.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Not a good fake either.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Begemot said:

 

New leader of the free world?

Nah, he's just the defender of it.

Oh, and I deleted your Photoshoped propaganda piece.  We do not support trolls here, especially ones that support Fascism (the real kind, not the fantasy kind Putin tells stories about).  What we do have is a wonderful vacation plan for trolls.  Do you wish to sign up for it?  All you need to do is post another one like that and you're automatically qualified.

Steve

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Not a good fake either.

but an excellent way to have a permanent vacation!  Damn ninja'd by Steve.  No fair you said you were going to bed!

Edited March 8, 2022 by sburke

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Not a good fake either.

Hah.  Found the original pre-Photoshop.  You'll never guess where?  RT.  Which I'm surprised I was even able to connect to.  No wait, I'm not.  The connection is down now and the full image didn't finish downloading.  Not that it matters.

Steve

[Doc844]

So President Zelensky is going to be addressing our British PM and parliament this morning and is going to ask that a No fly zone or whatever wording they wish to use, be implemented over Ukraine airspace by Nato.  What's everyone's thoughts on this because I cant see it happening?

[Begemot]

Steve,

You have a problem with the truth. Ukraine has a Nazi problem like here, the famous Azov battalion:

If you want to pretend otherwise, fine. So if you and your chums can't face the reality then go ahead and be the little Nazi you are and send me to the Gulag.