How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/19/russia-ukraine-economy-europe-energy/

Quote

 

The World Economy No Longer Needs Russia

 

Global warming and the miracle of capitalism have wrecked Putin's plans utterly, if you want the short version.

[Kinophile]

For sure Poland will move ahead, without Germany.

Hell, I'd be surprised if they even pay whatever fines etc for breaking the re-export contract  permissions. They could just say they will, swear it up and down the street - and never do, just like Brave Soldier Scholz.

Unlike Scholz, the Swedes know how to decide and then deliver:

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

11 hours ago, sross112 said:

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.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm thinking is a possible solution.  We have to keep in mind that THEORETICALLY 100km is only a couple of hours drive on decent roads.  An attack could, if well coordinated, form up in relative safety dispersed over 100s of KMs, then drive like Hell for a specific sector of the front, smash into it, take some ground, leave a holding force in place, then withdraw all the heavy stuff before it gets knocked out.  The holding force would be protected by the same type of linked systems I described the defender using.  Because, essentially this new forward deployed force is now defensive in nature.

Progress like this will be far slower than classic "Blitzkrieg" style warfare, however it seems that style of warfare might be over except if the attacker has overwhelming superiority of networked ISR/PGMs.

11 hours ago, sross112 said:

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? 

Two constant variables in warfare are time and space.  If you have lots of time, you don't need lots of space.  In the Baltics, for example, the terrain is some of the worst to fight a mechanized war in.  This means progress by Russia would be slow and costly. 

Estonia has about 150-175km of depth.  That is not a lot at all!  But if a Russian attack stalled out within the first 30-50km of the front, then it might have the depth it needs to disperse and still be close enough to concentrate when it needs to.  This is especially true for a country that knows where the enemy will invade from.  Before the invasion starts the vulnerable stuff can be dispersed in the areas deemed safe, then brought forward when the time was right.  Ukraine did a lot of this in February, so for sure it can be done. 

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

For sure Poland will move ahead, without Germany.

Hell, I'd be surprised if they even pay whatever fines etc for breaking the re-export contract  permissions. They could just say they will, swear it up and down the street - and never do, just like Brave Soldier Scholz.

Unlike Scholz, the Swedes know how to decide and then deliver:

 

Thanks for posting this video.  Puts some imagery to the stuff we're talking about regarding rapid PGMs.  There is almost no chance of a vehicle like this will receive counter battery fire because the shells haven't even hit before the vehicle is leaving the firing position.  Even if the first outgoing round was detected and backtraced, the counter battery fire would not arrive in time.  This is presuming that counter system has the range to hit it. 

This system is also quite interesting because it carries a small crew (3-4, including driver) within a very robust compartment.  The system requires no manual loading, therefore the crew is never exposed when the weapon is in use.  BAE even says only a driver is needed, which means the entire system can be slaved to a remote station or act on preloaded information.  In the latter case the driver just gets the vehicle into place, hits the "GO!" button and then leaves when the fire mission is over.

Picture 12 of these driving around all day and night without firing from the same place twice.  Imagine a drone being used to determine what to fire and where.  How the Hell can you defend against something like this?  Even if you have hunter/killer drones flying around looking for them, it is a needle in a haystack even if there is air parity or better for the side trying to kill these things. 

Steve

[chrisl]

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm thinking is a possible solution.  We have to keep in mind that THEORETICALLY 100km is only a couple of hours drive on decent roads.  An attack could, if well coordinated, form up in relative safety dispersed over 100s of KMs, then drive like Hell for a specific sector of the front, smash into it, take some ground, leave a holding force in place, then withdraw all the heavy stuff before it gets knocked out.  The holding force would be protected by the same type of linked systems I described the defender using.  Because, essentially this new forward deployed force is now defensive in nature.

I was thinking more like a flash mob or mycelium into mushrooms model - they wouldn't form up and attack so much as just show up in the right place and time from a lot of different directions.  It would take really good (and secure) communication to get the timing right, as well as a really effective IFF system.  But it would avoid the risk of getting spotted at the rendezvous point and hit on the way from there to the actual attack.  An army with a lot of remote/autonomous support could do it better than one without - the UAV/UGV systems would be out front in any case and timing their arrival would be easier and lower risk than for the live troops supporting them.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Estonia has about 150-175km of depth.

Lake Peipus simplifies Estonia's defensive problem quite a lot.

To be sure, though, "no-man's land will be 100km deep" only applies to spherical cows on an infinite plain. In the real world, ground dictates, as it always has and always will. The distance isn't really important, it's the OODA time that is. Distance is a simplified, tangible proxy for that.

[Huba]

Finally! 

 

[Huba]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think Putin had those systems put up on roofs so that if the Ukrainians attack they won't be abandoned and towed away by Ukrainian farmers

Steve

Dunno, there are other security risks to consider:

 

[JonS]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is almost no chance of a vehicle like this will receive counter battery fire because the shells haven't even hit before the vehicle is leaving the firing position.

CB these days (and for the last decade+) can have rounds going out before the incoming rounds have landed. Sure, theres some assumptions there about dedicated resources, linked up and waiting for the fire-finder radar to detect something, but technically it is completely doable.

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Picture 12 of these driving around all day and night without firing from the same place twice.  Imagine a drone being used to determine what to fire and where.  How the Hell can you defend against something like this?  Even if you have hunter/killer drones flying around looking for them, it is a needle in a haystack

It's a pretty small haystack, though. After a few missions you'll know which gridsquare(s) the fire is originating from, so that's all the area you need to search. A bit of simple map recce will then tell you where the hides are likely to be, and bingo you're in business.

(A hide is where the guns, uh, hide between missions, where the crews rest and eat, where planning for the next mission occurs, and where maintenance and ammo resupply occurs. SPs carry very small amounts of ammo, and will be bombing up - and refuelling - a lot. Caesar, for instance, only holds 36 rounds.)

Edited January 20, 2023 by JonS

[Huba]

And one more news before the Ramstein meeting starts 1 hour from now. $400M is a lot of money, and Finland has a lot of artillery:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks for posting this video.  Puts some imagery to the stuff we're talking about regarding rapid PGMs.  There is almost no chance of a vehicle like this will receive counter battery fire because the shells haven't even hit before the vehicle is leaving the firing position.  Even if the first outgoing round was detected and backtraced, the counter battery fire would not arrive in time.  This is presuming that counter system has the range to hit it. 

This system is also quite interesting because it carries a small crew (3-4, including driver) within a very robust compartment.  The system requires no manual loading, therefore the crew is never exposed when the weapon is in use.  BAE even says only a driver is needed, which means the entire system can be slaved to a remote station or act on preloaded information.  In the latter case the driver just gets the vehicle into place, hits the "GO!" button and then leaves when the fire mission is over.

Picture 12 of these driving around all day and night without firing from the same place twice.  Imagine a drone being used to determine what to fire and where.  How the Hell can you defend against something like this?  Even if you have hunter/killer drones flying around looking for them, it is a needle in a haystack even if there is air parity or better for the side trying to kill these things. 

Steve

 

Archer is impressive, but RCH155, even though quite goofy-looking, takes CB avoidance to another level. Fire on the move sound's like the next logical steps for SPGs. I guess it might add a bit to the rounds dispersion at range, but for guided rounds this shouldn't be an issue:

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Huba

[Kraft]

[Butschi]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

punish Poland for taking the tanks it paid

I agree with what you said, except this point. You know better than that. Or else I should definitely make more of the CM code that I paid for.

It's in the contract what you get for your money or else I could freely distribute my copies of CM, try to crack the encryption of those btt files, etc. Everyone who buys military equipment knows that there are restrictions to what you can do with that equipment, Poland knew, too.

All here who think breaking contracts to do what is currently perceived as "the right thing" should think about double standards and about the fact that this can backfire. At the very least that is a slippery slope. This sets a precedent and soon everyone might break contracts because of [enter favorite lofty goal here] and poof goes part of our rule based order.

 

[Gpig]

10 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I agree with what you said, except this point. You know better than that. Or else I should definitely make more of the CM code that I paid for.

It's in the contract what you get for your money or else I could freely distribute my copies of CM, try to crack the encryption of those btt files, etc. Everyone who buys military equipment knows that there are restrictions to what you can do with that equipment, Poland knew, too.

All here who think breaking contracts to do what is currently perceived as "the right thing" should think about double standards and about the fact that this can backfire. At the very least that is a slippery slope. This sets a precedent and soon everyone might break contracts because of [enter favorite lofty goal here] and poof goes part of our rule based order.

 

I understand what you are saying. However, I feel that sometimes there is a need for action that can transcend "the favourite lofty goal" and be recognized as a worthy (if rare) departure from the rule-based order.

Ukraine needs some of that kind of exception.

[Kraft]

13 minutes ago, Butschi said:

All here who think breaking contracts to do what is currently perceived as "the right thing" should think about double standards and about the fact that this can backfire. 

Since you put quotation marks around "the right thing", what is ""right"" to do in your opionion?

Edited January 20, 2023 by Kraft

[Butschi]

3 minutes ago, Gpig said:

I understand what you are saying. However, I feel that sometimes there is a need for action that can transcend "the favourite lofty goal" and be recognized as a worthy (if rare) departure from the rule-based order.

I generally agree with that sentiment. And really, I'm not arguing against giving Leos to Ukraine. My point is that this worthiness is totally subjective. Should then everyone decide for himself when this subjective threshold is reached? I mean, sorry, 14 tanks won't decide this war, one way or another. It is a symbol.

[Huba]

21 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I generally agree with that sentiment. And really, I'm not arguing against giving Leos to Ukraine. My point is that this worthiness is totally subjective. Should then everyone decide for himself when this subjective threshold is reached? I mean, sorry, 14 tanks won't decide this war, one way or another. It is a symbol.

Fact is that doing the actual right thing, and German-bashing for the sake of scoring votes is so much intertwined in Morawiecki's actions that he might perceive it as one. Playing hardball the way it was done here is not the most constructive, but both increases the pressure on DE and appeals to people's emotions and certainly wins him more supporters than opponents at the moment. And it's a calculated risk, cause in practice the chance that DE will not budge and block deliveries from other countries is minimal.
If it came to Poland going alone, there might be some options to make it work too - for one, other countries might follow, which would be a catastrophe for DE. Or PL might send say a whole battalion, asking other countries to step up with military presence in PL, again shaming Germany.
It is a very good blackmailing scheme - if DE won't submit, it will be painted as the bad guy and Morawiecki as uncompromising leader. If it budges, it's thanks to Morawiecki putting pressure. Given that he doesn't really care about good political relations with DE, this course of action was a fruit hung very low by Scholz himself.
 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Huba

[Butschi]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

Fact is that doing the actual right thing, and German-bashing for the sake of scoring votes is so much intertwined in Morawiecki's actions that he might perceive it as one. Playing hardball the way it was done here is not the most constructive, but both increases the pressure on DE and appeals to people's emotions and certainly wins him more supporters than opponents at the moment. And it's a calculated risk, cause in practice the chance that DE will not budge and block deliveries from other countries is minimal.
If it came to Poland going alone, there might be some options to make it work too - for one, other countries might follow, which would be a catastrophe for DE. Or PL might send say a whole battalion, asking other countries to step up with military presence in PL, again shaming Germany.
It is a very good blackmailing scheme - if DE won't submit, it will be painted as the bad guy and Morawiecki as uncompromising leader. If it budges, it's thanks to Morawiecki putting pressure. Given that he doesn't really care about good political relations with DE, this course of action was a fruit hung very low by Scholz himself.

Yes, very well said. And no matter what else I might think I have to admit: Well played Poland.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

16 hours ago, holoween said:

The core issue starts at another lesson this war reemphasises namely determined infantry cannot be shot off an objective with firepower alone. You can cause casualties but you still need to clear it with your own infantry. This point i dont think i need to elaborate on.

The next iussue is that infantry has difficulty gettin onto an objective using its own firepower and artillery only slightly changes that. This difficulty increases and decreasess with force density. Just compare the charkiv to the kherson offensive. Or if you want to experience it yourself atka a random cm map and fight a series of attacks starting at tiny size and eventually going to huge.

I disagree on both points. 

First, the Russian attacks in Donbas in May-June 2022 were mostly artillery bombardments with infantry follow-up essentially to see if Ukrainians have withdrawn. On many occasions the withdrawal was explained by the village in question being so ruined by artillery fire that it afforded no protection anymore. In my opinion the conflict shows is that this method may work, but has severe limitations - it is very slow and requires enormous ammunition expenditure. In other words, the lessons of I World War have been confirmed.

Second, my impression is very much the opposite. Successful attacks follow after heavy artillery use, both in the role of battlefield interdiction (as both sides do not use aircraft for that) and preparatory barrage on target. I have not seen much evidence of massed tank breakthroughs. in Kharkiv Russians were so few on the ground that this may be an exception, however my impression is still that the initial break-in around Balakliya was by infantry supported by artillery more than tanks. They just quickly managed to go around Balakliya to exploitation phase, where they used tanks and AFV mounted infantry much more. There is just no alternative to tanks for exploitation

[Zeleban]

Footage of the Russian assault on Ukrainian positions (on the right side of the screen). Ukrainians actively use grenades (you can clearly see how dangerous grenades among the trees are for the throwers themselves)

[Zeleban]

https://t.me/tpkr1775/17713

Someone previously wondered how the placement of air defenses affects property prices. It looks like it's becoming a trend.

They write that the video is dated January 6th. An air defense system was placed near the village of Zarechye in the Odintsovo urban district of Moscow. Putin's residence, by the way, is located 10 km from this place.

[Holien]

In regards to Russia having some sort of hold over the German establishment it is surely possible and very very likely IMO...

Just look at what has happened in the UK.

There is a reason why the Tory party does not want Rusian Influence in Brexit investigating and as they control the levers at the moment that truth will not be found or investigated.

Quote

2.5 years since Russia Report found credible evidence of election meddling, Govt STILL turns a blind eye - ignoring national security issues because of political inconvenience. Delighted our landmark

@allthecitizens

court case is proceeding - the future of democracy is on trial

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616034580376567813

There certainly has been bribery campaigns in Europe and it is beyond belief that Russia will not have been doing so in Germany...

So what sort of campaign has been held by the Russians in Germany? - Maybe one day in our life time we will find out.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Holien
Tidy Up

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

All here who think breaking contracts to do what is currently perceived as "the right thing" should think about double standards and about the fact that this can backfire. At the very least that is a slippery slope. This sets a precedent and soon everyone might break contracts because of [enter favorite lofty goal here] and poof goes part of our rule based order.

Breaking the rules to do the "right thing" is a bit of Polish style, I am afraid. All those insurgencies and conspiracies in our history were technically illegal. The "Rules based order" applicable in Polish territory the past 250 years was mostly based on rules imposed by others, and when this is the conclusion you get during history lessons throughout your education, it underlines some important things about rules: they are created by someone to achieve something, and there is nothing sacred about them. 

Having said that, I do not believe that Morawiecki would actually act in breach of the Leopard supply contract. He is not a a tough politician at the heart of the matter. But defying rules to do a good thing looks particularly well in Polish eyes and I am sure he felt good saying that. And It may even work!

[poesel]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Seriously though, I would like your take on this question:

If a large part of Germany, and an even larger part of the SDP, are against sending heavy weapons to Ukraine, then why is Scholz unable to articulate a policy that is both consistent with this view AND clearly stated?  Why is Scholz instead often making a muddled mess of everything by making statements that quickly fall apart, then doing it all over again and then again and then again?  Why does he not just say what the policy is, be honest about the differences in a way that scores points at home and respect abroad for his honesty, and then stick to it?

Adding to what others already said, I guess I'll have to explain some stuff especially for you US types...

Currently, the German parliament has six (6) parties. 3 of them form the government (SPD, Greens, FDP(*)). Since the SPD is the biggest, it gets the chancellor. SPD cannot form the government alone, it needs partners. For political reasons, the coalition can only be these three.

Of the 6 parties, 3 are for sending tanks (Greens, FDP, CDU), 3 against (SPD, Left, AfD). The 'for' fraction in the parliament would have a majority.

You might have noticed, that this issue splits the government AND the parliament in half. This is one reason, why there is no articulated policy regarding this issue. Since the population is also split in half on this issue, we actually have quite a good representation. But unfortunately, that is not very helpful at all.

 

(*) Should you stumble over the description of the FDP as 'liberals' - that means nearly the exact opposite of the US meaning in Germany. This is a pro-market, pro-freedom party.

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Breaking the rules to do the "right thing" is a bit of Polish style, I am afraid. All those insurgencies and conspiracies in our history were technically illegal. The "Rules based order" applicable in Polish territory the past 250 years was mostly based on rules imposed by others, and when this is the conclusion you get during history lessons throughout your education, it underlines some important things about rules: they are created by someone to achieve something, and there is nothing sacred about them. 

Having said that, I do not believe that Morawiecki would actually act in breach of the Leopard supply contract. He is not a a tough politician at the heart of the matter. But defying rules to do a good thing looks particularly well in Polish eyes and I am sure he felt good saying that. And It may even work!

Interesting, thanks for the insight. Well, it should surprise noone, that Germans on the other hand, very much like things to go their regular course and the way it was agreed upon...

[Bulletpoint]

5 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Interesting, thanks for the insight. Well, it should surprise noone, that Germans on the other hand, very much like things to go their regular course and the way it was agreed upon...

What is the sanction built into the Leopard contract, if any, for breaking the terms of the contract and providing these tanks to other countries without German consent?