How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

@BeondTheGrave

I'm not former military but even just opening CMBS gives you a visual understanding:

RUS BTGs (Battalion Tactical Group) are a few companies with heavy tactical support but low numbers of actual Infantry. Paramilitary and tier 2 units are needed for rear area security and some services. So you have a thin, hard, very dangerous FEBA crust but a much squishier, less reliable rear area. And this is exactly where UA has been hitting , no-  shoving their fists, right up the BTGs arses, grabbing hard and pulling their insides onto their outsides. 

US BCTs (Brigade Combat Team) are a few battalions with strong organic support and some heavier elements attached. They have plenty of infantry and a lot of internal redundancy and mutual support -logistics, tactical fires, medevac, some air. Combat support services and the like. A very well rounded, cohesive, internally sec-commed and structured formation, from front line units to furthest rear area.

BTGs are great tactically but are like really strong fist on a very weak wrist. 

US BCTs are the whole shoulder, arm, wrist, hand - beefed up, mutually supportive and internally homogeneous.

BTGs are a response to a lack of something (enough volunteer infantry, fundamentally).

US BCTs are the result of an abundance of something - plenty of volunteer infantry, fundamentally.

You can literally see it on BS, in terms of how many models on the map.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

ISW confirms several things that we've been speculating on regarding the activities of the Russian Black Sea Fleet:

1. Russian amphib ships are empty and being floated towards Odessa to keep Ukrainian forces tied down
2. Russia is out of cruise missiles, which has been suspected for a bit already

The Marines that should be on those ships have been penny packeted around the front as far up as Kiev.  Why?  Because the war is going so well that they gave up a strategic asset in order to shore up a half dozen tactical points of contact with the enemy?  Not my read on it

It seems Ukraine has either figured out that the Black Sea Fleet is toothless or they had yet another intel break that confirmed it.  Either way, significant forces have been moved out of Odessa area and are now participating in the counter attack from Mykolaiv.

So the answer as to what the Black Sea Fleet is up to is... nothing much of anything.  It's effectively out of the picture as there's no mission for it that can influence the outcome of the war.

Link:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-17

Steve

[sburke]

51 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

I would love to hear from someone with western experience, how does this compare to the way other NATO, esp US, forces are organized? IIRC the US also uses a BTG approach. How, if at all, are US BTGs organized differently than Russian? Does this speak at all to what were seeing on the ground? 

I think it was @The_Captwho covered this earlier.  in short, the Russian BTG is a different unit than a US Battalion unit.  It really doesn't have the support units necessary for more staying power and soft factor stuff.  A good example is medical services.  The reason so many Russian dead are still on the battlefield is the medical services in a Russian BTG are simply lacking. Casevac is lacking so 1 more soldiers die 2 morale suffers as you know chances are you may get left on the battlefield.

Edited March 18, 2022 by sburke

[Kinophile]

Btw what's happening with Belarus and those explosions? Attempted false-flag ops by Russia? Destruction of dumps as they GTFO of there? Belarus attacks on RUS units?

[Battlefront.com]

I made the call on the 3rd day of the war that unless something dramatic happened by the 5th day that Russia would lose the war.  I then make the call that on day 10 or so (the end of the first full week of combat) I predicated that if something dramatic didn't happen that Putin be ousted.  By the end of the second full week (roughly day 17) I predicted that all the conditions exist for a sudden military collapse.  I stand by all three predictions.

Some might wonder how I can stand by this when so far the war is not over, Putin is still in command, and the Russian Army hasn't collapsed.  Because I didn't say Russia HAS lost the war, Putin HAS been removed from power, and the Russian Army HAS collapsed.  I simply made the call at points in time when other theoretical possibilities (Russia could win the war, Putin could remain in power, and the Russian Army doesn't have a chance of collapse) seemed less likely than what I predicted.

The one I'm least sure about is the collapse of the Russian armed forces.  Oh, I am sure they are headed in that direction... I'm just not sure if a significant challenge to Putin's power center might preclude it.  If there is a successful coup tomorrow then I expect the day after there would be an unconditional ceasefire option.  If that were agreed to then the Army, in particular, would not disintegrate.

Since none of us have a crystal ball my calls can't be fully judged by anybody, even me, until there is some sort of definitive end to the war.  And unlike me calling the housing bubble collapse 5 years before it happened, I don't think it will take more than a few weeks or months for us to be able to start making preliminary assessments.  Probably will take many years to really get into the details, though.  It takes a while for that sort of research to be completed.

Steve

 

 

[BeondTheGrave]

11 minutes ago, sburke said:

I think it was @The_Captwho covered this earlier.  in short, the Russian BTG is a different unit than a US Battalion unit.  It really doesn't have the support units necessary for more staying power and soft factor stuff.  A good example is medical services.  The reason so many Russian dead are still on the battlefield is the medical services in a Russian BTG are simply lacking. Casevac is lacking so 1 more soldiers die 2 morale suffers as you know chances are you may get left on the battlefield.

Sorry if this was covered earlier then, Its been hard keeping up with the fast moving thread lol. But thanks for that, its sort of what I was suspecting but was hoping to get some confirmation. 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Btw what's happening with Belarus and those explosions? Attempted false-flag ops by Russia? Destruction of dumps as they GTFO of there? Belarus attacks on RUS units?

Three theories:

1. false or misunderstood reporting ("explosions" could be sonic booms, for example)
2. Russian false flag operation to try and goad Belarus into war
3. Punitive attacks on Belarus units to keep them inline instead of mutining

So far none of our eyes and ears here have picked up on any new information that could answer what is going on in Belarus.  Even the apparent withdrawal of a large number of attack helicopters to Russia tells us nothing as there are a couple of explanations for it.

From a mystery standpoint, what is going on in Belarus is the one I am personally most interested in solving.  There's going to be some very interesting books written about this when it's all over, that's for sure.

Steve

[THH149]

39 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

BTGs are great tactically but are like really strong fist on a very weak wrist. 

US BCTs are the whole shoulder, arm, wrist, hand - beefed up, mutually supportive and internally homogeneous.

I get the point, but the US BCT are way bigger than the BTGs. Also the book Russian Way of War suggests that the Russian BTGs are meant to be used as part of a regiment level formation, which would seem to feature much of the missing parts when comparing the BCT and BTGs. Apparently the BTGs are meant to maneuver with their partners, though thats tough if they can't go off a sealed road.

[Kinophile]

Correct good point - US BCT is functionally independent in many respects.

BTGs need partners and "filler" units, and usually operate in teams of 2-3 BTGs.

---

Thanks Steve!

Edited March 18, 2022 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

And no sooner did I post something about the movement of Russian attack helicopters OUT of Belarus, the Ukraine General Staff is reporting Russians are massing aircraft and fuel trucks at a base in Bokov, Belarus.  That's a bit to the west and north of Kiev.  I can't find the original report or the Maxar satellite image that shows the buildup.  The info was relayed to me by someone who is in Kiev and I trust, so good enough for me for now.

I did find the report from the Ukrainian General Staff saying they believe Russia has expended all of its "smart" missiles, including Iskander, that were made available for the war.  Whatever they have left is likely deployed elsewhere and removing them means denuding that area of Iskander support.

Steve

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FGeneralStaff.ua%2Fposts%2F274825134830572

[Kinophile]

I'm going to make a little idea - Crimea is the key to Putin's reaction.

If UKR can break though Kherson lines and actually take back Crimea (big if) then it 8s something that Putin cannot deny/ignore. 

Hell doubtless try to Rally-around-the-flag etc, and there will be a natural surge of Rus patriotic fevrvour but still - it's something that cannot be fully hid back home.

All the other operations can be tactically adjust/suspended - but the Loss of Crimea cannot be ignored.

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Actual data is always hard to come by but this is what the reforms under Shogyu looked like. 

Shoygu also focused on forming battalion tactical groups (BTGs) as the permanent readiness component of the Russian army, rather than brigade-sized formations. According to sources quoted by the Russian Interfax agency, this was due to a lack of the manpower needed for permanent-readiness brigades. BTGs made up the preponderance of units deployed by Russia in the Donbass war. By August 2021 Shoygu claimed that the Russian army had around 170 BTGs

 

 

And here is another aspect of Shoygu's reforms....

 

Full thread here. I cannot recommend Galeev highly enough.

https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[chuckdyke]

Hitler was on the backfoot from 1941. It took three more years before D-Day and Bagration could commence. I don't think the Ukraine can shift their current strategy any time soon.

 

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, THH149 said:

I get the point, but the US BCT are way bigger than the BTGs. Also the book Russian Way of War suggests that the Russian BTGs are meant to be used as part of a regiment level formation, which would seem to feature much of the missing parts when comparing the BCT and BTGs. Apparently the BTGs are meant to maneuver with their partners, though thats tough if they can't go off a sealed road.

There's a lot more too it than the actual organization of each.  And this gets at the heart of Russia's difficulties.

Russia, and the Soviet Union before it, recognized that coordinating different types of units with different capabilities and purposes together is really hard work.  There's all kinds of things that have to be in place for this to work successfully.  And those kinds of things are expensive.  Equipment, professional soldiers, dedicated training, practical exercises, refinement over time, etc.  With limited budget and obvious deficiencies in these areas, these things really don't exist outside of NATO.

The Soviets and Russians aren't stupid.  Knowing that they don't have what it takes to coordinate units in this way, they didn't really try.  Instead, the designed their force structures, equipment, and doctrine to try and work around these deficiencies and still field a capable armed force.  In WW2 this strategy worked for the Soviets, so it has merit.

As with anything that is engineered, there are pros and cons.  The pro is a decently large and reasonably well equipped force that looks GREAT marching in Red Square (a big need for a totalitarian regime) and able to intimidate its enemies.  The con is that it either requires the enemy be less capable of resisting *or* have sufficient replacement forces to overwhelm the enemy despite friendly losses.  The Soviet Union could afford to take huge losses, Russia can not.

BTW, this is similar to Russia's air forces.  They simply are not structured to fight a combined arms war in either the air or in conjunction with the ground forces.  Equipment, training, doctrine, etc. are insufficient to get the sort of performance that is found in NATO.

I'm not a naval guy, but I'm sure it's similar there as well.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's a lot more too it than the actual organization of each.  And this gets at the heart of Russia's difficulties...

I'm not a naval guy, but I'm sure it's similar there as well.

 

 

[THH149]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There's a lot more too it than the actual organization of each. 

Yep, I think the Russian focus on a BTG is kinda wrong when they could be emphasising regimental combat teams made up of several BTGs, as thats where the coordination becomes tough but the outcome is force multiplier. BTGs are just a bit shallow and feel like theyre fighting alone or with a very limited objective.

I would give some kudos to the Russ though for trying to do something un-Russian ealry on - airborne assaults, Tigr's in recon, fast moves on roads while Ukr were unawares - but that lasted about 2 days.

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

And here is another aspect of Shoygu's reforms....

 

I'll read that article, thanks.  There's another thing though about the reforms... they were never completed.

As with most things the Russian government does, it makes a big splashy announcement, then struggles to meet the requirements (either at all or by a particular date or both), and finally doesn't carry it out across all sectors of whatever it is they are trying to reform.  Tank upgrades, for example, are one of the most obvious things.  And of course there is the whole Armata disaster.

Worse, the reforms designed to reign in corruption were wildly unsuccessful.  Which means that if they were destined to half arse something, they wound up with a quarter arse to show for the expense.  The amount of money siphoned off for personal gain must be a pretty good chunk of the money allocated to military spending.

This is not surprising.  Russia's economic power (that of Italy's) simply had no chance of producing a force both large and sophisticated enough to challenge NATO.  Since challenging NATO was a top priority for Russia, it took it's money and created something that looked menacing on a large scale, but in reality wasn't menacing on a large scale.  And that's what we're seeing getting slapped around sideways in Ukraine now.

Steve

[THH149]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The Soviet Union could afford to take huge losses, Russia can not.

It seems in this post Modern era, all armies are small, so if you lose a few hundred tanks thats a big deal as with that comes the loss of what should be crack level and moitvated crews and the economic cost of replacing lost equipment means it rapidly falls on less trained crews and second class equipment. This come as you are war delivers high casualties and limited capacity to replace them. 

I think its the case in the Russo Ukro War that Russia started with 110k men plus 20-25k separatists, while Ukr started with 90k men, 20k reservists and 900k territorial defense. Now Ukr are playing total war while Russia is playing limited war. eventually Ukr numbers will win if they can get ammo and time to train the territorials.

Russia needed to pay their pply well to get the best and have a NCO Commissar in each platoon to enforce training standards, and Procurement Commissars to montor military spending.

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Excellent read, thank you very much for that.  Everything he said has been said here several times over, though we've all skipped the kinda obvious about the money blown on a weak navy could have instead been spent on a stronger army.  I remember a point in time (mid 2000s?) when there was a big debate within Russia about the wisdom of revamping their failing navy. Ego and threatening NATO won out and so the Russians have an expensive navy that really isn't of much use.  Exhibit A?  Russia can't get any ships through the Bosporus Straights without attacking a NATO country.

All the praise aside, I'd nitpick this one point he made:

Quote

Putin had a good reason to believe so. Indeed, in 2014 Russian regulars ("ихтамнеты" = "there aren't any of them there") easily destroyed Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo and Ilovaysk. He saw that Ukrainian army is weak and he can easily route them simply sending Russian regulars

While I agree with him that Russia should have taken the hit and invaded Ukraine fully in 2015 (after a year of buildup) when it was considerably weaker, I don't agree that Ukraine's forces were "easily destroyed".  Russia had, in fact, quite a bit of difficulty dealing with them despite all the negatives of Ukraine's state of being vs. Russia's.  Yes, Russia would not have faced a united Europe/NATO at the time, nor would Ukraine have had the time needed to become the formidable fighting force it is today (militarily and culturally), but I do think Russia would have taken quite a few casualties in the process.  I also think that eventually the Ukrainian distaste for Russian rule would eventually result in rebellion and, maybe not right away, kick out Russians again.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

The C2 in real life. This is what is required by a non-superpower. It doesn't look like the Russians are managing it very well. The days of primary school +three years high school are truly behind us. 

Signals Officer provides a career path suitable for both technical and non-technical officers. The Corps requires officers with degrees in Communications, Electrical or Electronic Engineering, in Computer Science and in Information Systems. Officers with such qualifications will undertake regimental postings as well as key appointments requiring their specialist technical knowledge throughout their career.

[Machor]

13 hours ago, OldSarge said:

 

I don't think this has been posted, or at least I didn't see it. Looks like more reinforcements on the way. The question is what good is it if Turkey won't let them into the Black Sea? Perhaps an airlift from Syria?

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/russian-tank-landing-ships-spotted-near-japan-may-be-heading-to-ukraine

This is an interesting, and potentially escalatory situation (I am unfortunately out of likes today). Turkey's enforcement of keeping the straits closed would be an unprecedented event: They have only been closed in the past during WW2, but then the German and Italian navies never attempted to enter the Black Sea through the straits.

As the ships appear to be carrying vehicles, an airlift from Syria makes little sense: The same airlift would have been possible from Vladivostok, and much more sensible to send them by rail. I am thinking about two scenarios:

1- The vehicles are reloaded onto civilian ships in Syria. It is not clear to me if Turkey would then still be able to block passage through the straits.

2- This could give Russia its infamous 'escalate to deescalate' card. The ships could steam towards the Dardanelles, with Russia stating that Turkey has to let them through since there has been no declaration of war, that hitting the ships is a casus belli, and that Russia would have the right to retaliate with tactical nukes. This could then force NATO to the negotiating table to pressure Ukraine to cede territories, or at least agree to a ceasefire leading to a frozen war.

[Peregrine]

"The GUR reported that the Russian military ordered its base in Hmeimim, Syria to send up to 300 fighters from Syria to Ukraine daily. The GUR additionally reported that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has promised to recruit 40,000 Syrian fighters to deploy to Ukraine. The GUR reported Russian authorities are promising Syrian recruits that they will exclusively act as police in occupied territories."

The above was from the understanding war summary that several people linked too. If largely true what bigger sign could there be that Russian forces are failing at every level and they are already at the stage of fighting where they are prolonging a war hoping that the something is going to magically change and everything work out.

As a country Russia has been looking at Ukraine for 8 years+ in some form of military invasion/active combat sense and 3 weeks after openly invading the recruiting of 40000 Syrians to be police is necessary. The thought of the "liberated" areas of Ukraine being policed by a Syrians would seem to be a wonderfully terrible idea in every sense. How desperate must they be for manpower if this is even remotely being considered.

 

[Machor]

12 hours ago, Haiduk said:

First visually confirmed lost Bayraktar. Kyiv oblast

Interestingly, Aaron Stein leaked intel that most TB2 losses have been to Russian aircraft, not ADS:

 

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, THH149 said:

Now Ukr are playing total war while Russia is playing limited war. eventually Ukr numbers will win if they can get ammo and time to train the territorials.

Yes, and this is exactly why I've predicted Russia losing this war years before it happened.  Ukraine is prepared and capable to fight to the death of several hundred thousand of its people over years if necessary.  Russia is not capable of even a few tens of thousand and would not likely survive a very protracted (years) conflict.

There's just no way Russia can achieve the goals Putin laid out when this whole mess started.  It just isn't possible because ultimately it is the Ukrainian people, not elites in Moscow or thugs in the field, that have the power here.  And clearly that power is supremely pissed off and focused on bringing down Russia as hard as it can.

Steve

[Cobetco]

1 minute ago, Machor said:

Interestingly, Aaron Stein leaked intel that most TB2 losses have been to Russian aircraft, not ADS:

a very smart friend informed me that the TB2 moves slowly enough that enough Russian SAM systems have a hard time tracking it. now I have no way to verify this and I have my doubts, but considering he was dismantling a AIM9 (L?) on his webcam I give the information more weight that your average joe.