How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

I was mistaken regarding apartment blocks, these are reportedly all on public buildings, a much more sensible approach.

Last photo is building of Russian MoD

[sross112]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Funny... I woke up thinking about this very thing!  I agree, and the solution is different states where a section of front can be shifted from static to dynamic depending on circumstances.  Even this is sustainable for only so long, which means unit rotations become more of a need for sections that aren't necessarily actively engaged in combat, but are actively under threat of it.

The distances that have to be covered are already vast (historically) and seem to be getting even longer over time.  However, there is the funnel effect.  Units far to the rear occupy a much larger space, which means detection is less efficient.  Especially when considering that sensors at 100km need to deal with civilian "false alarms" far more than they do at 1km. 

Next, at 1km there's a huge array of weaponry that can be used, much of it older and cheaper technology.  The further you go towards that 100km mark, the fewer systems are capable of hitting anything that is identified.  These systems are also always going to be amongst the most expensive, so the ability to react to good ISR is further compounded by a shortage of whatever capable systems exist.

Lastly, the relative safety of distance means that reusable defenses can be layered to help shield deeper spaces from detection and/or interdiction.  Layering at 1km is not impossible, but it is more difficult and has less room for error than trying to layer over 10s of KMs.

Therefore, I think the biggest thing going for a long distance starting point is that it's physically harder for the enemy to spot and track you, not to mention engage.  The further out from the front, the more likely the enemy will need to concentrate on high value targets such as HQs.

Steve

I was thinking about this as well and agree. My thoughts were that the no man's land will get wider, how much I guess depends on the enemies capabilities. If you are fighting the west you are going to need to have a very large space between you and them and you are going to need comparable systems in order to keep them at bay. Or you are going to have to fight like the VC and grab your opponent by the belt buckle so he can't drop a JDAM on you without killing his own people. 

So the size of the no man's land will be determined mostly by your ISR abilities and your indirect fire abilities. I honestly don't think that the RA has the ability to hit targets accurately at any decent range. Even if they did have good ISR right now I don't think it would be as advantageous as we have seen them struggle to hit islands and factory sized targets at long range. It is the combination that is deadly so it will be that combination that determines the stand off distance. If the UA was fully armed with western arty and rocket systems instead of just having a few penny packeted around a 1000km front I believe we would see this phenomenon in action. 

As for conducting operations in such an environment, I think the (I'll probably mess up the @The_Capt's terms) diffused mass that concentrates and dissipates as needed will be the way. Being able to keep things dispersed enough to limit losses but able to have the coordination, command and control to concentrate for action and then disperse again. Very fluid concepts and probably only works if you have abundant space to operate and sacrifice as needed. That will be a very limiting factor as well. Fighting on the continental US would be much more forgiving than fighting in Estonia for instance. 

So if you don't have the space needed for such an operational doctrine because of either political or physical reason's, how do you do it? 

[poesel]

5 hours ago, Zeleban said:

why did they send howitzers? After all, howitzers are much more deadly than tanks. This is too strange a decision to be viewed through the prism of pacifism.

Howitzers are not tanks. Also, they are defensive. Don’t you know that? Sheeesh…

5 hours ago, Kraft said:

I'd argue it takes a spine to stand up against your electorate/rotten party to do what must be done. Unless he too thinks that way, then we are back at the intentional, malicious actions stopping support.

He is NOT working against his electorate or party. That is what most posting here do not understand. Germany is at best split 50/50 on the decision to send tanks.

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

.To some up... Scholz's position is consistent, but seemingly illogical and stressing its relationship with NATO countries.  And yet he is still doing it with the seeming full support of his party.  I don't think their worries about opinion polls has much to do with it either.

The last sentence is wrong. Polls have a lot to do with it.

 

I really hate having to defend Scholz here and I won’t. But you are interpreting too much into this. The mood in Germany is different from this forum and likely different from the country you live in.
Also, I can’t leave Butschi stand alone here

[FancyCat]

I quite like how they structure their videos, a run down of the course of the battle of Kyiv.

[Sojourner]

12 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Last photo is building of Russian MoD

Wonder if they also placed one on Ministry of the Interior.

[Der Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, poesel said:

I really hate having to defend Scholz here and I won’t. But you are interpreting too much into this. The mood in Germany is different from this forum and likely different from the country you live in.
Also, I can’t leave Butschi stand alone here

The thing is, Scholz scholzing it like this makes complete sense for him and the SPD because it doesn't alienate the leftist base of his party, it doesn't make the electorate go crazy (remember, Scholz was only "forced" to send the tanks by the evil warmongering Americans ), and it also manages overall escalation risks with Russia by showing the West as weak and fragmented. In the worst case of direct NATO-Russia military escalation, Germany will have the least responsibility for it. That's Scholz's thinking, in essence.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Der Zeitgeist

[Kraft]

44 minutes ago, poesel said:

He is NOT working against his electorate or party. That is what most posting here do not understand. Germany is at best split 50/50 on the decision to send tanks.

Well I was basically done with paying attention about Scholz for today, since you replied I feel obliged to respond.

This is exactly the opposite of what I was saying.

I said to go *against* his electorate & party line would require a spine, if he believes that arming Ukraine is the right thing.

He is either spineless, unable to do what he feels is right.

Or he does not actually think that arming Ukraine is right, going with the flow of his party/electorate whatever, which doesnt make him brave as claimed, saying things about stopping Russia and helping Ukraine but then doing the opposite.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Kraft

[Huba]

If Scholz finally says "Nein!" tomorrow, I wonder if Morawiecki will follow with his promise to act unilaterally. I'd say it would be much funnier if we didn't say nothing, and denied that the Leopards that appeared in Ukraine are ours - after all, you can buy these in any tank shop, right?

[Zeleban]

 

[Zeleban]

 

The 30mm autocannon fires at infantry from a long distance. As you can see, the dispersion of shells is huge

Edited January 19, 2023 by Zeleban

[Haiduk]

23 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I quite like how they structure their videos, a run down of the course of the battle of Kyiv.

Many of these "clashes with sabateur groups" inside Kyiv, turned out clashes between different UKR units, because chaos, lack of communication and control and "sabateur-mania", feeding by Russian PsyOps. Alas this is "uncomfortable truth" about first days of war and significant part of UKR society are not ready to know about this, like showed first unofficial publications on the level of social networks. Authors received enough hate and blaming like "this is all Russian propaganda", even despite many participants of Kyiv defense were confirming, this is true... I'll write about most known episodes, which became myths, but in real its were tragical pages...

[Huba]

I dare anyone here to try to pronounce "Żądło"

Edited January 19, 2023 by Huba

[Zeleban]

Attempted mass Russian infantry attack across the field with sad consequences

[Beleg85]

12 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Many of these "clashes with sabateur groups" inside Kyiv, turned out clashes between different UKR units, because chaos, lack of communication and control and "sabateur-mania", feeding by Russian PsyOps. Alas this is "uncomfortable truth" about first days of war and significant part of UKR society are not ready to know about this, like showed first unofficial publications on the level of social networks. Authors received enough hate and blaming like "this is all Russian propaganda", even despite many participants of Kyiv defense were confirming, this is true... I'll write about most known episodes, which became myths, but in real its were tragical pages...

Yup. I even heard from one of our analysts that blue on blue firefight near Kyiv zoo could take up to several dozens of casualties. One or two columns of UA military vehicles crossing the city were ambushed as well. Not that Russian saboteurs were not involved either.

[Haiduk]

27 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Attempted mass Russian infantry attack across the field with sad consequences

As far as two days ago there were several RUMINT-level reports in twitter, that Russians tried a probe somewhere between Orikhove and Huliaypole, but failed and lost about platoon of infantry and two armor. General Staff today confirmed this.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

2 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Yup. I even heard from one of our analysts that blue on blue firefight near Kyiv zoo could take up to several dozens of casualties. One or two columns of UA military vehicles crossing the city were ambushed as well. Not that Russian saboteurs were not involved either.

There weren't ambushed columns near zoo. It's too deeper inside the city, than real developments took place - in this film author correctly pointed a place near "Beresteyska" subway station. But as I know in that episode there were no casualties, at least fatal, only destroyed truck or two...

[Bulletpoint]

https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-war-drone-footage-shows-marinka-devastation-12788935

 

[JonS]

1 hour ago, sross112 said:

So the size of the no man's land will be determined mostly by your ISR abilities and your indirect fire abilities.

Just to refine that a bit: no-mans land will be defined by the duration of your OODA loop. If it takes 12mins to observe-orient-decide-act, and the enemy advances at 20km/hr then you need 4km of no-mans land. If the enemy's missiles fly at mach3 ... then you need more. A lot more.

[Beleg85]

32 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

There weren't ambushed columns near zoo. It's too deeper inside the city, than real developments took place - in this film author correctly pointed a place near "Beresteyska" subway station. But as I know in that episode there were no casualties, at least fatal, only destroyed truck or two...

You are probably correct, this material of Wolski was like 6 months ago so I would need to search for it, but supposedly based on his own Ukrainian sources. He also claimed that many such engagement took place over the capital first 3 days (or rather nights) and still public does not know exact scale of it; suggesting that some UA personnell lost that nights was unfortunatelly friendly fire. There will be a lot of stories to uncover for future historians writing about this war.

Perhaps we will have more time discussing this on 1-year anniversary in a month. Entire Russian operation of taking Kyiv by "shock and awe" alone is very interesting case of hubris in military planning- just by th look of it, the expectations put on various BlackOps and SpecOps alone were absurdly ambitious.

 

Any Dutch guys here perhaps can comment more about it?:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-19/netherlands-says-open-to-paying-for-leopard-tanks-for-ukraine

[Lethaface]

25 minutes ago, JonS said:

Just to refine that a bit: no-mans land will be defined by the duration of your OODA loop. If it takes 12mins to observe-orient-decide-act, and the enemy advances at 20km/hr then you need 4km of no-mans land. If the enemy's missiles fly at mach3 ... then you need more. A lot more.

Retro fitting that perspective to the current war could mean the French AMX-10RC could make a lot of sense due to it's speed. Spot something with drones/whatever, relay it to the vehicle and have it race to a fire position, fire a couple of shots and put the throttle again towards 'safety'. 

A bit oversimplified I guess.
But raw speed will definitely be helpful preventing you being selected as a target for a guided PGM during the enemy OODA loop, or help from being effectively targeted/struck.

[Combatintman]

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

 

Christ on a bike ... when do the targets for the attendance of girls at secondary schools get announced ...  Afghanistan anyone?

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Retro fitting that perspective to the current war could mean the French AMX-10RC could make a lot of sense due to it's speed. Spot something with drones/whatever, relay it to the vehicle and have it race to a fire position, fire a couple of shots and put the throttle again towards 'safety'. 

A bit oversimplified I guess.
But raw speed will definitely be helpful preventing you being selected as a target for a guided PGM during the enemy OODA loop, or help from being effectively targeted/struck.

That's useful for raiding and harassment, but not super useful overall. Besides, the range of the AMX weapon systems are ... what? Maybe 1km if you're lucky with the terrain? That leaves it very exposed for a long time as it wombles forward through an area awash with active and passive sensors looking for exactly that kind of movement.

You'd be better off with a good old fashioned artillery raid: id a worthwhile target, roll a couple of good SP guns to within about 40km, release a few pgm krakens, and scoot back to safety. You still won't have done much more than annoy the enemy, but you'll have done it more effectively (12x 155mm PGM vs 2-3 direct fire 105mm), and from a far safer distance (40km vs 1km)

Edit: for really HVTs you could set up a raid package, akin to USAF strike packages once the target is id'd: SEAD and then EW a/c to open an ISR window, a light infantry company (air mobile? wheeled?) to clear routes to dispersed firing positions, bring up the guns, go nuts for 5 or 10 minutes, then run away leaving behind a smoking crater where there used to be a brigade HQ or dump of bridging equipment.

An offensive would follow broadly the same pattern, but on a larger scale, including feints and diversions, and with the intent of staying in position - there probably wouldn't be any direct fire ground engagements. Ie, the new-ish US multi-domain-operations doctrine, but in a continental context, rather than island hopping towards Taiwan.

Edited January 19, 2023 by JonS

[Lethaface]

11 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Christ on a bike ... when do the targets for the attendance of girls at secondary schools get announced ...  Afghanistan anyone?

If properly this can be done as secure or even more secure compared to 'papertrail' procedures. But indeed some of the data can be very harmful in the wrong circumstances. Especially if combined.

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, JonS said:

That's useful for raising and harassment, but not super useful overall. Besides, the range of the AMX weapon systems are ... what? Maybe 1km if you're lucky with the terrain? That leaves it very exposed for a long time as it wombles forward through an area awash with EM radiation.

You'd be better off with a good old fashioned artillery raid: id a worthwhile target, roll a couple of good SP guns to within about 40km, release a few pgm krakens, and scoot back to safety. You still won't have done much more than annoy the enemy, but you'll have done it more effectively (12x 155mm PGM vs 2-3 direct fire105mm), and from a far safer distance (40km vs 1km)

Didn't realize the crappy range of the gun. Lol in CMRT I had a Jagdtiger make a 2200m kill against a SU-122. Anyway point taken, standoff distance is of course always preferable if effective.

My thoughts were more towards what a speed speed advantage could bring in the current war. With a decent ranged directfire AT gun I'd imagine a drone coordinated fast 'glass cannon' could be useful tactically. If only based on CM experience: the hellcat concept in a modern environment.

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, Huba said:

I dare anyone here to try to pronounce "Żądło"

Hah, let they try Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz from Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Haiduk