How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Taranis said:

I have this in my "archives" :

 

And this is from 2 months ago, they have fired a few hundred more since then... 

And back to AMX-10, it isn't using the standard high-pressure 105mm, is it? The fact that they are sending them anyway is interesting, it looks like they must have solved for this somehow and think it's worth establishing srparate ammo logistics just for the unit(s) that will be using them. It will be really interesting to learn how they managed that, after the war of course. 

[The_Capt]

Just now, Beleg85 said:

I am in serious doubt if Ukrainians will be able to push RU military out of their Feb'24 borders without massive sacrifices on their part. Perhaps on themselves they can be even greater than they took during these 10 months. So question of for example "Is Crimea really worth it?" will inevitably come with time for Kyiv.

Unless the RA fold first.  But a solid point.  I think the cost/value of Donbas and Crimea will remain part of the overall political calculus even it remains unspoken.

Just now, Beleg85 said:

Mind you, despite massive downfalls Russians did surprised us somewhat. That what I meaned with Kherson- it took much more blood and time to dislodge them than we initially predicted here (ca. 2 months of difference if I remember) and retreat- let's face it- was very successfull operation. They weren't also so completelly cut off from logistics as we previously thought as well. The same was for Svatove axis- their supply roads were supposedly being cut with fire...but they somehow still manage to hold it. Shortage of ammo do exist and is fortunatelly growing, but it seems to be connected to increased consumption rather than broken logistics.

Well here I think you are being a bit pessimistic in assessment.  The UA took Kherson with somewhere between a 1.5-1.0 to 1.0 force ratio, which is just nuts.  Against a dug in defender who had held the terrain for over six months?!  They retook a major urban area of about 300k people without being pulled into an army eating street fight.  They attrited Russian supply lines to the point the Russians were forced to pull out, delivering a major strategic blow to Putin - and you wanted more?!

As to Russian logistics, how many abandoned vehicles and high value equipment, reports of antiquated Russian equipment, horror stories of Russian wounded, broken Russian guns and solider cell phone intercepts do we need?  Oryx is showing over 2000 lost logistical vehicles and these are just the ones someone took a picture of.

As to Russian economic prospects - well I guess it depends on who you listen to (I am no expert in this field): 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2022/12/05/russias-economic-prospects-have-gone-from-bad-to-terrible/?sh=5c5e104474bc

https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88664

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/russias-economy-end-2022-deeper-troubles

Seems to be "not good".  Now is it country-breaking "not good"?  Well I do not know, especially when combined with somewhere between 250-350k casualties, a string of battlefield defeats and increasing abandonment by Russians well off enough to get out.

This is a downward trajectory, but is it steep enough?  Don't know.

Also keep in mind Ukraine militarily is on an upward trajectory while the RA continues its slide.  At some point something is going to give (again) on the battlefield.  The question is "will it be enough?"

[womble]

11 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The frozen conflict scenario that you envision above isn't really sustainable for a sanctioned and ever devolving Russian economy. And believe me, those sanctions aren't going anywhere in any significant way until Russia has made peace with Ukraine. In fact, from what I hear, the ability of the US and allies to tighten the screws is getting better as time goes on. The die has been cast. Russia has a year or two at best.

I was thinking this, too. How long can they keep their bombers flying and their missiles rolling off production lines once sanctions get tightened and the loopholes they're currently using are closed down?

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

With that much they probably could

 

Hitler had 3 Army Groups and didn't manage it...

[Taranis]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

And this is from 2 months ago, they have fired a few hundred more since then... 

And back to AMX-10, it isn't using the standard high-pressure 105mm, is it? The fact that they are sending them anyway is interesting, it looks like they must have solved for this somehow and think it's worth establishing srparate ammo logistics just for the unit(s) that will be using them. It will be really interesting to learn how they managed that, after the war of course. 

And then it's a fairly light vehicle for the caliber it uses and therefore easier to send abroad and I would say to maintain. They accompanied us to Afghanistan. I was happier to have them nearby because they have enough to solve the problem of those opposite and then I admit that they would probably have been more of a priority target than us in the column (we were in VAB). We didn't lose a single one during the time I was there and it was able to pass everywhere even in very narrow ridges like in Uzbeen.

From (french) wikipedia :
 

Quote

 

The AMX-10 RC is armed with a 105  mm caliber gun bearing the designation of Model F2 or F2 (MECA) or even BK MECA. The barrel has a length of 48 calibers (barrel of 5.04 meters), is not self-fretted and is covered with an anti-arcure sleeve . It has a semi-automatic vertical wedge breech allowing automatic ejection of the casing after firing. Its oscillating mass is 720  kg for a recoiling mass of 560  kg . The movement of the barrel in elevation is from +20° to -8°.
Close-up of the end of the gun tube with its M553 volley mirror and the muzzle brake model used by the AMX 10 RC since 1989.
The F2 (MECA) is a low-pressure gun, the most powerful of its caliber , designed specifically to be mounted on a light armored vehicle from 10 tons to 15 tons, its recoil effort is limited to 13 tons thanks to its brake of mouth and its recoil length of 60  cm . Its maximum allowable chamber pressure is 210  megapascals when firing an OCC 105 F3 11 ammunition . The entry into staffing of the arrow ammunition in 1987 required the installation of a new muzzle brake between 1987 and 1989.

 

FYI (for those who don't know), the RC of AMX-10RC = Roue Canon (Wheels, Gun). AMX is for Atelier d'Issy-les-Moulineaux (Issy-les Moulineaux Factory). The 10 is for the weight (even if in the end the vehicle weighs more than 10t with the improvements etc)

[FancyCat]

Official confirmation,

 

[FancyCat]

I will preempt the Germany bashing accusations by stating, these moves to give equipment are done in coalition lockstep largely, so as long as Scholz pledges the Marders within a month to Ukraine, no bashing will occur. 

But definitively optics matter, sure we can debate if that is a IFV or APC or tank or what not, but I think the average person when looking at the below image, will conclude France is giving more than Germany. Marders may not cut it.

 

 

[The_Capt]

Just now, billbindc said:

The frozen conflict scenario that you envision above isn't really sustainable for a sanctioned and ever devolving Russian economy. And believe me, those sanctions aren't going anywhere in any significant way until Russia has made peace with Ukraine. In fact, from what I hear, the ability of the US and allies to tighten the screws is getting better as time goes on. The die has been cast. Russia has a year or two at best.

Hezbollah has been doing it to Israel on a shoe string for a very long time.  Russia could out-source to Wagner and other PMCs to do all sorts of "illegal non-state sanctioned actions" on that border for years.  This is before factoring in subversion and state sponsored terrorism inside Ukraine itself. 

Russia's mistake was thinking that it was 1990 and hard (and very expensive) conventional military power would work. 

I guess the real question is "Russia, Ukraine what the f#ck is up with that?!"  Like seriously is Ukraine really worth this much to Russia in the end? 

[Huba]

13 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Official confirmation,

 

I'm 100% positive he used the "light tanks" on purpose here It looks like the taboo is broken now. 

[FancyCat]

Who reads French?

 

[Harmon Rabb]

17 minutes ago, Huba said:

I'm 100% positive he used the "light tanks" on purpose here It looks like the taboo is broken now. 

I hope Ukraine gets some "light jets" sent its way this year.

Hey, the F-16 is relatively small and only has a single engine.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

I hope Ukraine gets some "light jets" sent it's way this year.

Hey, the F-16 is relatively small and only has a single engine.

Turboprops are jets about as much as AMX-10 is a tank

[Billy Ringo]

9 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Who reads French?

 

Until victory, until peace returns to Europe, our support for Ukraine
 will not waver. I confirmed it to President Zelensky: France will 
provide light combat tanks and continue its support in terms of air
defence.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Billy Ringo
Improve delivery

[cyrano01]

8 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/maximum-pressure-brought-down-the-soviet-union-and-other-lies-we-tell-ourselves/

This is a good article on how the western story of soviet unions collapse is mostly false. It was not ever determined and could have easily gone the other way.

They also have a podcast series ongoing about the subject (paywall): https://warontherocks.com/episode/therussiacontingency/28031/the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-part-1/

I am thinking that the common meme thinking about "collapse" is mostly just that, a meme. Everything is always collapsing, China, USA, EU economy, Iran .... When we look back in history collapses are quite rare.

Very true. there is, as Adam Smith observed of an earlier geo-strategic Charlie Foxtrot, 'a great deal of ruin in a nation.'

Edited January 4, 2023 by cyrano01

[The_Capt]

Just now, Billy Ringo said:

Until victory, until peace returns to Europe, our support for Ukraine
 will not waver. I confirmed it to President Zelensky: France will 
provide light combat tanks and continue its support in terms of air
defence.

You forgot..."good news, remember at election time!"

[billbindc]

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Hezbollah has been doing it to Israel on a shoe string for a very long time.  Russia could out-source to Wagner and other PMCs to do all sorts of "illegal non-state sanctioned actions" on that border for years.  This is before factoring in subversion and state sponsored terrorism inside Ukraine itself. 

Russia's mistake was thinking that it was 1990 and hard (and very expensive) conventional military power would work. 

I guess the real question is "Russia, Ukraine what the f#ck is up with that?!"  Like seriously is Ukraine really worth this much to Russia in the end? 

Sure. But Russia isn't a hardscrabble insurgency decades in the making with a compelling invasion narrative to work from. If anything, that's Ukraine. And at some point, the resources just aren't there anymore as Ukraine's build and build.

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

I'm 100% positive he used the "light tanks" on purpose here It looks like the taboo is broken now. 

It is broken. No one can deny AMX-10 is not a tank. It is not an MBT but it is a light/scout/cavalry/TD tank. And it is 100% western design.

You can call it a armored fighting vehicle but you can also call MBT that.

Edited January 4, 2023 by The_MonkeyKing

[The_MonkeyKing]

and more importantly average european politician cannot tell or explaint the diffence. 

I want to see Olaf Scholz trying to explaing in a press breafing why exatly this is diffent than sending leopards haha

[The_Capt]

Just now, billbindc said:

Sure. But Russia isn't a hardscrabble insurgency decades in the making with a compelling invasion narrative to work from. If anything, that's Ukraine. And at some point, the resources just aren't there anymore as Ukraine's build and build.

True. Russia is a crumbling empire (again) with a massive inferiority complex sitting on over a trillion dollars in oil and gas.  We can choke it out of this war.  We can choke it out of global influence.  I am not entirely sold we can choke it out of its near abroad indefinitely.  We can push Russia into being North Korea, but North Korea is still freaking North Korea.

Worse, we isolate it too much and we could wind up with an extremist nationalistic ideology that makes Putin look like a Sunday School teacher.

I agree that the resources to prosecute this war can be savaged to the point of breaking, but are we really talking about rendering Russia completely defenseless?  Except for those 6000ish nuke of course.  Something like that, even if it is decided as a good idea, is going to take longer than 2 years to engineer.  You take it too far and you might wind up with several million starving Russians pouring over the border.

I suspect we will be risk-managing that troublesome border for years, or at least until Russia finally comes to its senses...which ought to be any minute now? 

[dan/california]

43 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Sure. But Russia isn't a hardscrabble insurgency decades in the making with a compelling invasion narrative to work from. If anything, that's Ukraine. And at some point, the resources just aren't there anymore as Ukraine's build and build.

Russia COULD establish a Hezbollah like subnational entity in its territories facing Ukraine, but the cost would be very high. I would add that this also in direct contravention of the annexations that that were just passed ~three months ago. Russia would basically have to allow Wagner, or something like it to rule at least a couple of oblast of Russian territory. And Unlike Hezbollah there is no obvious religious difference to base this statlet on. It would just be cancerous dumping ground for Russia's disaffected. The D/LPR were doing some of this before the war, but i really don't think status quo antebellum is remotely achievable. Among other things all of the nutcase/disaffected/former prisoners that would have to man the armed forces of such an entity would vastly more dangerous to the Russian State than they were before the war. Ghirkin, Prigohzin, and several similar monsters, would no doubt nominate themselves to be the "Government" of this unhappy little polity. Could the Kremlin tolerate any of this?

 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I guess the real question is "Russia, Ukraine what the f#ck is up with that?!"  Like seriously is Ukraine really worth this much to Russia in the end? 

What he said!

Edited January 4, 2023 by dan/california

[billbindc]

https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/misunderstanding-soviet-power-in-761?sd=pf

Not sure where I came across this but well worth reading with high application to the current war.

[Huba]

Oh, and it looks like Bradleys are quite confirmed:

 

[Beleg85]

Damn, I just accidently deleted long post in response for @The_Capt. Ok, next time, as these were mainly tea leafs anyway.

 

On lighter note seems the action was partly true:

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-space-dmitry-rogozin-shell-fragment-france-ambassador-war-ukraine/

The question is- is this connected to Macron suddenly playing Napoleon? Let's hope so.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Beleg85

[Grossman]

9 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

 I’ve been stressing this for a while. It’s my primary perspective. Repeated very recently in this discussion:

 

Maybe a different topic? I was musing on the ways the entire war itself might end. I’ve already said I realize and respect the scenario you have elaborated on. I believe it is along the lines of a negotiation without bloody battles in Crimea and the Donbas. Instead for them to be administered by an (unspecified) international body for perhaps ten years, followed by them voting on their status. Also, deals with Russia to pay reparations, install a more rational if still evil dictator, and respect the borders. For this they receive restored trading with the West. It’s pretty detailed! Do I have it fairly correct? I’m sketching it from memory of your earlier posts. It’s a good scenario. You’ve been selling it pretty consistently.  I do think it’s a bit of a stretch though. And I’m skeptical that Ukrainians would embrace it warmly. No idea how the Russians would read it. There are a lot of moving parts to achieve. But I’m not dismissing it! It is one of many scenarios, regardless of our opinions.

You find your.scenario reasonable, and I suggest a nastier one may be more probable, where the force of arms drives one of the parties to believe it has no better choice than to sit down and accept terms. Or another scenario perhaps more likely, Russia largely retreats but without negotiating, in hopes of fighting another day. A messy conclusion with Russia a heavily militarized state, fuming and  resentful. Rather like a far larger North Korea.. Unclear why those don’t seem even faintly possible. Iirc, neither Vietnam’s war, nor the Syrian civil war ended by negotiation. Somebody won, and somebody lost. The Korean War still isn’t over. Sure, some major conflicts end by negotiation! But certainly not all of them. We don’t know how this one will end.

Most people here would cheer if NATO somehow agreed to bring Ukraine in while the war is raging. But It isn’t unreasonable to see this as a not high probability event. We should entertain lots of scenarios. I think it wise to rate them for probability. Separately from our personal preference. I think that has worked well here for speculating on what might happen next as events on the battlefield unfold - just as you mentioned . I think we are weaker when it comes to assessing the outcome of the war itself, and even being able to discuss it.

 

For my 2 cents, Crimea is the key politically. The UKR will surely head for Melitopol or points west to the Sea of Azov, break the Kerch Bridge and isolate Crimea and Russian forces to the west. A massive envelopment.  Losing Crimea would cause political destabilisation in Russia. Then we may see a start of peace talks, with fighting still continuing, with the Russians on the defensive. 

[Haiduk]

On 1/3/2023 at 11:06 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

An elegant weapon for a more civilised age?

Your Shwarz is as big as mine (C) 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Haiduk

[NamEndedAllen]

7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Your original post that started this discussion read as “we can only see victory as driving the Russians out by force from all of Ukraine”.  

I can’t find that quote from me in this discussion. I do see what you’ve said as *a* scenario for forcing a party to the negotiation table, and that it appears to be Ukraine’s current position as stated by its President. But I have said repeatedly that there is a large range of possible outcomes for this war. I don’t think I can be clearer than that. I also have stressed separating the possibilities from our preferences. We agree on this, yes? I didn’t assign probabilities here because that is a different topic. Here is what I first said 21 hours ago:

“We’ve seen a range of possible outcomes from (improbable) total Ukraine defeat to some sort of fairy tale Russian change of heart, staying intact and playing nice with both Ukraine and the West under a new rational government 

AND:

Other realistic but negative outcomes are a debilitating stalemate with continued agony, death and destruction; or a slackening of Western resolve coupled to strengthened ties for Russia and other outlaw nations like Iran and North Korea to deliver more weapons and matériel …

AND 20 hours ago:

“To be clear, I am looking for a range of outcomes, not one prediction that must happen. Not absolutes. I assume that the extreme on either end of most or least preferred outcomes tend to be the least likely ( kind of like life!). So I seek examples of outcomes along the spectrum of possibilities, always keeping in mind the difference between what I prefer and the squishy probabilities of what could happen”

You were put off by my use of “weaker” in discussing end of war scenarios. By that I don’t mean their content, but their overall assessments. They are not being laid out clearly by how probable each scenario may be, and even more so in breaking down each step in individual scenarios. So these scenarios appear to be typified more by how much we prefer them. In my reading, there is more care in assessing the likelihood of specific next moves in each phase of the war fighting, separate from our preferences. If you don’t agree, that’s fine. That’s been my impression and I may be wrong. 

Lastly, you said:

“There are many variations on these visions, even in the political signalling going on. I think maximalist positions are dangerous and may do more harm than good but obviously others disagree.”

In this we are in total agreement! You’ve said “maximalist”, I’ve said “extreme”, and suggested they can be laid out along a spectrum of probabilities- and that *ordering* could be debated by the fine minds here, eventually distilling a best estimation and a rough group prediction. You’ve just elaborated a Russian defeat and how bad it may be. I wonder what percentages you would assign to several  notches of just how bad? 

Edited January 4, 2023 by NamEndedAllen