How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

As 100% of Forumites will know, 'Tank' is an English word, originally a WW1 codename.  Both Americans and Russians adopted the term, hence yбак.

...But as @Taranis and our other copains here can advise us, the French term is char, which is applied freely to a broad range of tracked and wheeled military vehicles (e.g. char d'assaut), both armoured and unarmoured, as well as, wait for it, ordinary cars (voitures). Specific chars are differentiated by adjectives (e.g. light, etc.).  But I believe even the VBCI (Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie), which Anglophones would call an IFV is still un char for short.

And since the first modern pattern 'tank' is the FT17, the Armée de Terre has as good a claim as anyone.

...Meanwhile, panzer is literally, armour (as in a mail coat).

(OK, the Acadian branch of my family is proud of me now, in spite of my miserable French marks)

P.S.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Taranis]

53 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

As 100% of Forumites will know, 'Tank' is an English word, originally a WW1 codename.  Both Americans and Russians adopted the term, hence yбак.

...But as @Taranis and our other copains here can advise us, the French term is char, which is applied freely to a broad range of tracked and wheeled military vehicles (e.g. char d'assaut), both armoured and unarmoured, as well as, wait for it, ordinary cars (voitures). Specific chars are differentiated by adjectives (e.g. light, etc.).  But I believe even the VBCI (Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie), which Anglophones would call an IFV is still un char for short.

And since the first modern pattern 'tank' is the FT17, the Armée de Terre has as good a claim as anyone.

...Meanwhile, panzer is literally, armour (as in a mail coat).

(OK, the Acadian branch of my family is proud of me now, in spite of my miserable French marks)

P.S.

 

 

It is true that it is often the use that is made of it that takes over. In France, in 1940, there was AMC-35 (automitrailleuse de combat (literally = combat machinegun car while google translated it as armored car) which in fact was a light cavalry tank.  This comes from the fact that during the interwar period, the infantry benefited from tanks (infantry tanks) when the cavalry (=the armored branch) benefited from light vehicles of the semi-tracked and scout car type (they kept these titles).

This. This is exactly one of the interests of selecting this vehicle for Ukraine with its strategic mobility. Like a CAESAR, it is easy to send abroad.

I really imagine the Ukrainian army using them as an independent battalion/company assigned to the corps or the army and sent to areas where a breach is possible or possibly in ad hoc support of a quick offensive as it may have been the case during the Lyman Offensive. They would then be put back in reserve, repaired, resupplied etc in order to benefit as much as possible from their mobility while reducing their weakness (armour)

Edited January 5, 2023 by Taranis

[LongLeftFlank]

There are no words. No, sadly, there actually are.....

... As rousing oratory, this one is right up there with Himmler's '1000 Russian women killed digging an antitank ditch' tub thumper.

Look at the faces around this yutz.

[poesel]

4 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

"RUMINT" from Germany regarding the Pumas: Possibly the problems were intentionally exaggerated for political reasons

RUMINT? It's been in the evening news.

But correct - 17 of the 18 Pumas have been repaired because there were only minor issues. One had a cable fire and was seriously damaged. So a deliberate exaggeration, but I don't know by whom or to what cause. Given how poorly it was executed, my guess is the ministry of defense.
There is a lot of talk about firing the minister, but due to political reasons she stays (for now).

[kevinkin]

34 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

No, sadly, there actually are.....

I hope there isn't a special place in Hell for this guy because Hell would be to good for the cocksucker. 

[LongLeftFlank]

Epic trolling 

This could of course be a Photoshop job, but I will quote the epic line from "Patton"

- Sir, did you say if you found your army between the Germans and the Russians you'd attack in both directions?

- No, I never said that. I never said any such thing. But I wish I had!

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Holien]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The Eurasia Group (influential think tank) just put out a short report/prediction that Russia has so totally lost this war that it has no option but to go rogue like Iran (surrender, obviously, isn't an option). 

https://www.eurasiagroup.net/live-post/top-risks-2023-1-Rogue-Russia?campaign_id=249&emc=edit_ruwb_20230104&instance_id=81832&nl=russia-ukraine-war-briefing&regi_id=77867169&segment_id=121571&te=1&user_id=06eb42ecc9056dd32ea63af0c30707b6

They predict Russia will ramp up its asymmetric warfare against the West and cause major problems just shy of getting into a shooting match with NATO.  They see more explicit nuclear threats as being part of the package, but clearly state they don't think Russia will do more than threaten.  However, saber rattling alone could accidentally produce a real effect through incompetence and/or accident.

The way this article is written shows the authors are carefully considering the situation, not shaping a message to fit a pre-war bias or some sort of political agenda.  I can't say I disagree with their conclusions that this is a fairly real, if not inevitable, direction for Russia to go.  The potential flaw in their prediction is that it requires Russia to be able to maintain the war in Ukraine without collapse and to keep things quiet on the homefront. Much of our discussions here since the war started has come back around to questioning if Russia can in fact do both.  Because if it can't, then Russia has as much chance of pulling off an Iranian style strategy as it did taking Kyiv in 3 days. 

Steve

 

Quote

Russia will likewise intensify its efforts to destabilize the United States and Europe—but with greater asymmetric security capabilities than Iran, and with the world's biggest nuclear arsenal as the ultimate cover to deter Western retaliation. 
 

Russia has been at war with the West for many years already and has undertaken efforts to destabilize America and Europe already. (Elections meddling, Murders, Theft, Sabotage, Bribery etc...)

I am not sure how they can ramp it up (they would have ramped it up already) other than start direct attacks on supply lines (Gas, Oil and Data) and one too many of those will lead to the West taking more direct action against Russia as you can only deny so many of these lines being cut.

Lets hope the current leadership do change in Russia as a result of the failure in Ukraine, but if not I don't see how they can escalate what they have already been doing to us.

[Zeleban]

The tank crushes the infantry in the trenches, while its actions are corrected from the drone. I have already seen this before, when a Ukrainian tank crushed Russian infantrymen lying in cover, and the commander with a quadcopter at that time controlled it, suggesting exactly where the soldiers were.

An interesting fact, we talk a lot about the imminent death of the tank, but at the same time it seems that the infantry will soon be useless, because the tank attacks without visible infantry support. At the same time, it is clearly visible from the air what the enemy infantry is doing at this moment. If you add a drone operator to the crew, so that he controls enemy infantrymen in real time and determines the location of the anti-tank systems. Infantry escorts would become much less important than is currently believed.

 

Transparent armor (thanks to video cameras around the perimeter of the tank) will also help reduce the role of escort infantry

Edited January 5, 2023 by Zeleban

[Bulletpoint]

4 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

The tank crushes the infantry in the trenches, while its actions are corrected from the drone. I have already seen this before, when a Ukrainian tank crushed Russian infantrymen lying in cover, and the commander with a quadcopter at that time controlled it, suggesting exactly where the soldiers were

 

I'm not seeing it crushing any infantry in this clip though. Thankfully.

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

 

I'm not seeing it crushing any infantry in this clip though. Thankfully.

You can clearly see the movement in the trenches to the left of the tank

[Zeleban]

 

[LongLeftFlank]

On 12/31/2022 at 4:19 PM, Zeleban said:

New post from Mashovets. Russia strengthens grouping in the Bakhmut direction

...

- In the Bakhmutsko-Soledar direction, the command of the enemy forces also concentrates units of the 7th airborne assault division (up to the 4th-5th armored personnel carrier from the 56th and 108th airborne regiments of this division). It is likely that the enemy will deploy this tactical group of his airborne forces as an operational-tactical reserve of the grouping of troops that operates in this direction.

In this regard, the fact that the Russian "Dyusantura" is concentrating and deploying right "behind the back" of the assault units of the PMC "Wagner" looks quite revealing and eloquent.

Soledar, which guards the north flank of Bakhmut.

Dubious source, so unconfirmed but UKR side twittersphere admits situation in Soledar is difficult:  'attacks from 3 sides'.

This guy is pro-RU, but a decent variety of maps.

Geolocation of footage (Bakhmutske)

HeliosRunner's topo map from 18 Dec.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

You can clearly see the movement in the trenches to the left of the tank

I don't see any movement to the left, but I see one guy on the right running into a dugout. No crushing though. The clip stops after the tank fires a round into the ground, maybe to prevent anyone from getting close.

Crushing or not - I would not order my tank to do this in Combat Mission unless I were drunk.

Are there any follow-up videos about what happened?

[billbindc]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I agree.

For all that is good about how Ukraine is fighting this war, it finds it difficult to combat a determined and well resourced Russian force.  Even though Ukraine comes out ahead, sometimes way ahead, the losses are huge and progress very slow.  By contrast, when Ukraine has faced an enemy force that is not sufficiently resourced it is capable of major advances at relatively low costs.

The two examples to contrast are Kherson and Kharkiv/Luhansk offensives.  Kherson saw a few significant territorial gains by Ukraine, but at huge cost and after quite a bit of time.  Kharkiv, on the other hand, took days and casualties were light until they finally hit a reconstituted Russian defensive line.

Even with all the "shaping" and favorable advantages it had for taking back Kherson, it was slow and bloody. As you said above, for Ukraine to take back significant territory at an acceptable cost, it is going to have to figure out where the Kharkiv opportunities are and steer clear of Kherson type engagements if at all possible.

Steve.

A quibble on the slow progress idea. This war began less than 11 months ago. Ukraine has retaken something like half of the territory it lost in the first phases of the war, has wrecked whatever options Moscow still had to widen or change the trajectory and is one big victory in the south away from potentially putting the war into it's end phase. That's *fast*. 

[Grossman]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The Eurasia Group (influential think tank) just put out a short report/prediction that Russia has so totally lost this war that it has no option but to go rogue like Iran (surrender, obviously, isn't an option). 

https://www.eurasiagroup.net/live-post/top-risks-2023-1-Rogue-Russia?campaign_id=249&emc=edit_ruwb_20230104&instance_id=81832&nl=russia-ukraine-war-briefing&regi_id=77867169&segment_id=121571&te=1&user_id=06eb42ecc9056dd32ea63af0c30707b6

They predict Russia will ramp up its asymmetric warfare against the West and cause major problems just shy of getting into a shooting match with NATO.  They see more explicit nuclear threats as being part of the package, but clearly state they don't think Russia will do more than threaten.  However, saber rattling alone could accidentally produce a real effect through incompetence and/or accident.

The way this article is written shows the authors are carefully considering the situation, not shaping a message to fit a pre-war bias or some sort of political agenda.  I can't say I disagree with their conclusions that this is a fairly real, if not inevitable, direction for Russia to go.  The potential flaw in their prediction is that it requires Russia to be able to maintain the war in Ukraine without collapse and to keep things quiet on the homefront. Much of our discussions here since the war started has come back around to questioning if Russia can in fact do both.  Because if it can't, then Russia has as much chance of pulling off an Iranian style strategy as it did taking Kyiv in 3 days. 

Steve

Rogue Russia is to be expected. The most interesting observation is the Putin has had to employ measured escalation at every reverse. The  Russians use of subterfuge and asymmetric warfare has been homed over decades so clearly that will be their natural recourse. The crucial question: at what point will the ordinary Russian, the man in the street, wise up to what's happening. Not likely in my view. There is decades of indoctrination over the Patriotic War, Mother Russia et al. Those that could, left, and Putin did not seal his borders, they were permitted to leave. I think its going to take a major reversal on the battlefield, "loss" of Crimea, but even then not certain. UKR may just have to push the Russian's back on the battlefield to their borders. 

There are echos of a past conflict. The intensity of the fighting in Bakhmut (Stalingrad)for little purpose, use by the Russians of indiscriminate missiles (V2), the overriding power of the technology of the west ( 1943 and on). Hitler ran out of men by 1944 and lost the technology and logistics war. 

[Taranis]

For History : about Black sea.
 

[The_Capt]

56 minutes ago, billbindc said:

A quibble on the slow progress idea. This war began less than 11 months ago. Ukraine has retaken something like half of the territory it lost in the first phases of the war, has wrecked whatever options Moscow still had to widen or change the trajectory and is one big victory in the south away from potentially putting the war into it's end phase. That's *fast*. 

I also question the “huge losses” part.  Proportionately how huge were they really?  Do we have valid data? What were the attacker/defender loss ratios and how do they compare to historical examples?  I argue at Kherson in retaking a major urban centre - the overall operational objective - the losses were incredibly light compared to other urban battles.  Kherson costed, but it was no Verdun or Stalingrad.  

By that French report Ukraine has 600-700k volunteers in the pipe that need training support.  So we know they are not out of human capital.  The UA seems very capable of operations and is looking to create “3 new army corps” by this spring - this is not a battered military force.

I think part of the problem is that this is a war of the old ways.  It is attritional in nature, of which “corrosive” is a new spin but still attritional.  That means a grinding fight until one side collapses.  This entire war is a meta-attritional exercise built on corrosive operations. I think we in the west are shocked by this and somehow convinced ourselves that we had evolved away from this type of war.  I also think technology has shifted that evolution towards attrition by stressing and countering what made “fast and easy” possible before.  Corrosive warfare is essentially “faster precision attrition” in nature but it comes with a cost.  But those costs must remain manageable for one side over the other.  In this war, it is pretty clear that the equation is in Ukraine’s favour for now.

In the end Kherson is a clear example of a breaking RA system.  One that has been breaking and failing since end-March, largely because it was not designed for this war.  The UA is designed for this war, they are excelling at it.  “How long, where and when” are simply the adjectives of Russian defeat, a defeat that has already happened.  Russia is isolated and alienated, its deterrent power based on conventional military capability at a nadir. It has united NATO and the West in ways none of our leaders could - Finland and Sweden FFS.  And it political house is shaking.  Russia has failed to achieve any of its strategic objectives, and in many ways has made things worse for itself - the war could stop right now and none of that would change.

 

[Taranis]

Vladimir Putin orders a ceasefire in Ukraine on January 6-7

Quote

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday ordered his forces to implement a ceasefire in Ukraine on January 6-7 on the occasion of Orthodox Christmas, after a request to do so from Patriarch Kirill, the Kremlin said. .

"In view of the appeal of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, I instruct the Russian Defense Minister to introduce a ceasefire regime along the entire line of contact between the parties in Ukraine from noon, on January 6, of this year until midnight, January 7,” he said in the Kremlin statement .

 

Source : Le Monde

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, Taranis said:

Vladimir Putin orders a ceasefire in Ukraine on January 6-7

Source : Le Monde

No way this precedent should be allowed to happen - the only agreeably ceasefire at this point is the one happening after RU withdrawal.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Holien said:

 

Russia has been at war with the West for many years already and has undertaken efforts to destabilize America and Europe already. (Elections meddling, Murders, Theft, Sabotage, Bribery etc...)

I am not sure how they can ramp it up (they would have ramped it up already) other than start direct attacks on supply lines (Gas, Oil and Data) and one too many of those will lead to the West taking more direct action against Russia as you can only deny so many of these lines being cut.

Lets hope the current leadership do change in Russia as a result of the failure in Ukraine, but if not I don't see how they can escalate what they have already been doing to us.

Oh, they can escalate.  They absolutely have the capacity to do a lot more than they have, though their most effective tools (bribery and disinformation) have been significantly curtailed because of sanctions and awareness.

One thing the Eurasia Group didn't talk about is the "red lines" these sorts of nefarious activities have.  The Biden Admin, for example, made it very clear that cyber attacks on critical infrastructure would be considered an act of war.  Given that Russia often gets caught doing its higher profile activities, there is reason for the Russians to be concerned.  They also know that the US and its Allies have extremely powerful resources to devote to a retaliatory action, which means that the US doesn't have to invoke Article IV or unilaterally send over some B2s to whack targets.  Nope, the US could simply respond in kind but on a larger scale.  Russia should not be confident of what might happen in that situation.

In a sense, Russia's ability for causing problems all fit into the same category as nukes.  The capacity is there, but the ramifications of using that capacity may be catastrophic for Russia.  Since Russia, as a state, still operates as a rational actor that is at least concerned about picking fights it will likely lose, quite a bit of what the Eurasia Group fears might happen probably won't.  That said, it all hinges on Russia being a rational actor and I would agree that is not something we should count on as Russia grows more desperate.

Steve

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

No way this precedent should be allowed to happen - the only agreeably ceasefire at this point is the one happening after RU withdrawal.

It proves how pressed the Russians feel, though. Ukraine should attempt to double HIMARS strikes both days, just to make a point.

[The_Capt]

17 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

However please do recognize that proper forecasting assessments must apply likelihood; whether by percentage or a set of narrative labels defined by percentage ranges. They should be specific, include the dependent assumptions, and time frames - not indefinite.

You want that for a shooting war?  Look up Dunning-Kruger and then maybe have a cup of tea.  I am not sure what military operations you have been on or what generals you have served under but I would be fascinated to hear how you applied “percentage or a set of narrative labels defined by percentage ranges” to an active combat AO.

You do realize we are talking about managed chaos here?  The land of tacit knowledge and old fashion instinct?  In fact you missed “consequences” from your likelihood framework - ie “how important is this particular event, and then how likely is it to happen”, which is only one way to conduct a forecast assessment.  

Well this was fun but time to move on.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Grossman said:

The crucial question: at what point will the ordinary Russian, the man in the street, wise up to what's happening. Not likely in my view. There is decades of indoctrination over the Patriotic War, Mother Russia et al. Those that could, left, and Putin did not seal his borders, they were permitted to leave. I think its going to take a major reversal on the battlefield, "loss" of Crimea, but even then not certain. UKR may just have to push the Russian's back on the battlefield to their borders. 

If Ukraine somehow managed to take back Crimea before there was a general Russian military or political collapse (I think this is not likely), then I do think it would be enough to cause at least an overt political challenge to Putin's regime.  It's the cornerstone that Putin used to buy himself another 8 years as leader.  Losing that would likely cause a dramatic change of opinion about Putin's fitness to lead Russia.  And I think that would be the view amongst civilian and institutions.

Steve

[Huba]

After the AMX-10RC and Bradleys, it looks like some Panzers might finally be on the table too:

Marders are reportedly considered now:

And there are to be some talks about "Leo2 pool":

 

[FancyCat]

Did I post this yet? If yes, oh well.

There were reports of heavy strikes on the corridor between the Donbas and Crimea, and isn't the weather improving the next few days that maybe offensive operations are possible?

Fire more missiles, make it clear there is no Christmas peace, just like Russia fired missiles to celebrate the new year.