How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In the US we have such divisions of manuals as well.  FM = Field Manual, TM = Technical Manual.  FMs are for the gorillas that operate the stuff (and hit everything that doesn't work with a hammer), TM are for the refined grease monkeys sitting in the rear

TMs are also subdivided into "echelons", or at least they used to be.  IIRC there are generally 2 echelons, the first being the field repair shops and the second factory repair shops.  No point instructing a field repair shop how to fix something that is beyond their training and equipment.

Steve

This is pretty much correct, except that it’s a tad insulting to the “Grease Monkies,” and there is a more nuanced difference. I can’t speak to Army or AirForce manuals and maintene “levels,” but in Navy/Marine Corps Aviation, we had “Flightline,” Internediate,” and “Depot” level maintenance. The basic mechanical training for all levels was done in the same training school classes. When you finished your training, you were assigned to either a Squadron (Flightline), a Headquarters & Maintenance Facility (HAMS) Facility, or a Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF), you would receive some additional training for each, but you wouldn’t receive “a bigger hammer!” It all depended on the tooling available to you. In fact, the NARF  was considered to be equivalent to the original Factory that built the engine or the airframe. When I was writing procedures for the engines on the F/A- 18A/B, we wrote for Line, Intermediate, and Depot Manuals in the same office and frequently moved from one team to another depending on need. Our most driving factor was the Navy requirement that the procedures be written at a reading comprehensive level of 9th grade or lower (for folks not familiar with U.S. education, High School, our secondary school, started at 10th grade). That was in 1985 though and might be down to 6th grade by now. In fact, the Army at that time sent out Line Maintenance instructions for armor and helicopter turbine engines in comic book form.

[sburke]

12 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

That was in 1985 though and might be down to 6th grade by now. In fact, the Army at that time sent out Line Maintenance instructions for armor and helicopter turbine engines in comic book form.

Nah they just google everything.  They are all rocket scientists now, didn't you know?

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Harmon Rabb said:

For those of you who have never heard of this system before, lets read a description from RU propaganda source Sputnik. Reads like an advertisement for this thing.

 

 

FlyEye + Himars at work. High-level fire mission; note they corrected fire and hit two times. Russians barely introduced this new Hawk system and already lost one.

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/russia-deploys-the-newest-yastreb-av-system-to-war-against-ukraine/

Good to see perhaps one's donated money at work.

Btw. a propos last clips of Himars targeted by Russian missiles, Wolski claims he has good internal sources that at least two Himars sets were eliminated so far, with several more damaged.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Harmon Rabb said:

For those of you who have never heard of this system before, lets read a description from RU propaganda source Sputnik. Reads like an advertisement for this thing.

 

 

Crap that thing looks expensive.  Was that a HIMARs strike?

[The_Capt]

Double post - hey Happy New Year and check out CMCW in the gift shop!

Edited January 2 by The_Capt

[Haiduk]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Anybody else take any particular pleasure in seeing Russia's extremely expensive and self described invincible hypersonic missile (Kinzhal) is shot down as often as cheap Iranian drones, while older tech (such as the Kh-101 and S-300) have a much better chance of hitting SOMETHING?

Steve

If we had PAC-3 in Kharkiv and more NASAMS/Iris to close the holes, effectiveness of Kh-101, S-300 and maybe Onyx, Kh-22 would be much lower. Since we lost enough of S-300 complexes and I suppose we have a lack (or near) of missiles for them, AD system now more concentrated around cities and the range often reduced from 75 km of S-300 to 40 km of western mid range SAMs. Russians search holes in our radar fields and AD cover arcs, they use combined strikes with sophisticated  routes of cruise missiles or drones, so interceptions more and more happen over our heads, not on approaches to our cities. 

Thus, we critically needed long-range SAMs like PAC2/3 and Mamba as well as more mid-range complexes. Interesting,the latter was delivered to Ukraine,but no any info about it work or even mentions of it duty service

Edited January 2 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

3 hours ago, dan/california said:

It is also has a relatively short range. Which is why you repeatedly see it being used on cities like Kharkiv. Patriot and

Iris-T might be able to intercept them, but they can't be pushed far forward enough with acceptable risk.

PAC3 and Mamba only

[Haiduk]

4 hours ago, poesel said:

How come that S-300 rockets are so good at ground attacks? They were build for ground-to-air combat!? Why do they hit anything, and why are they intercepted so seldom?

To Zeleban's answer I add S-300/400 complexes have also integrated surface-surface mode, turning them into short-range ballistic missile with powerful HEFRAG warhead. The range of such mode depends on missile type

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

And here you run into the force generation problem.  Western training requirements are too damned high for a sustained high intensity war.  Driven by equipment and complex systems, the UA cannot afford 6 month force generation time lines. It also puts the UA upside down on cost/return.  They spend 6 month's training someone and lose them in 30 days...that is unsustainable.

Just another spin we were not ready for - WW2 training quantity but 21st century quality requirements.  Russia solved it by dropping the first one - Ukraine and the West are still trying to figure it out.

I have read that during WW II, the prime requirement for tank driver was having been a heavy construction vehicle operator (bulldozers) or driving a tractor on a farm. Also, with many soldiers having grown up maintaining and fixing their own vehicles and farm equipment, a “field repair” by almost anyone was much easier to accomplish it because of the lack of complexity. Today, manufacturers put pushbuttons in vehicles because everything is controlled by computers and most people can’t tune or time a reciprocating engine by ear as many in my generation could. I lament that I can’t maintain, tune, and fix my vehicle without all sorts of computerized equipment.

[Vet 0369]

2 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

For those of you who have never heard of this system before, lets read a description from RU propaganda source Sputnik. Reads like an advertisement for this thing.

 

 

Aw, come on, that’s nothing. The Russians were wiping out companies of Leopards and Bradly’s weeks before they arrived in Ukraine!

[danfrodo]

14 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

I have read that during WW II, the prime requirement for tank driver was having been a heavy construction vehicle operator (bulldozers) or driving a tractor on a farm. Also, with many soldiers having grown up maintaining and fixing their own vehicles and farm equipment, a “field repair” by almost anyone was much easier to accomplish it because of the lack of complexity. Today, manufacturers put pushbuttons in vehicles because everything is controlled by computers and most people can’t tune or time a reciprocating engine by ear as many in my generation could. I lament that I can’t maintain, tune, and fix my vehicle without all sorts of computerized equipment.

This is all true, but I look at it a little more glass half full:  new cars are harder to work on, but they don't break nearly as much so not as big of a deal.  When I was young a car hitting 100k miles was on its last legs, having required a lot of repairs along the way.  Today one expects nothing except routine maintenence before 100k miles.  I greatly prefer the latter.  Of course, one could do the german tank design method in WW2 where you had both complexity and unreliability.

[Vet 0369]

3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

This is all true, but I look at it a little more glass half full:  new cars are harder to work on, but they don't break nearly as much so not as big of a deal.  When I was young a car hitting 100k miles was on its last legs, having required a lot of repairs along the way.  Today one expects nothing except routine maintenence before 100k miles.  I greatly prefer the latter.

That was really more dependent on whether or not the owner properly maintained the vehicle. Regular oil changes and other preventative maintenance worked wonders. In the 1970s, hitting 250,000 miles on an engine was common on properly maintained cars trucks, and vans. Especially the Japanese vehicles. Even today, vehicle user manuals recommend changing the oil at about 3,500 miles and what most folks don’t realize, flushing and changing the brake fluid on anti-lock brake systems every two to four years because the brake fluid is hydroscopic, and the water can damage your anti-lock components.

[JonS]

4 hours ago, dan/california said:

That would include longer training on the complex stuff, they need to quit trying to do six month trainings in six weeks.

Wait.

Are you not the guy who's spent the last 20 months shrilly demanding that the west "SEND SOMETHING ANYTHING NOW YESTERDAY!"?

Are you not the guy who has demanded that people follow your lead by "writing your representative NOW!"?

Are you not the guy who dismissed people pointing out that equipment integration is a difficult and slow process by handwaving that the "Ukrainians are smart - they'll figure it out!"?

If you are not that guy, I refer you to the matter of Cox v. Cleveland Stadium Corp (1974).

[Kraft]

The army can decide whats useful and whats not.. that spare parts for active service NATO tanks are missing is a result of the Bundeswehr being a paper weight.

These spare parts are missing in the repair facility in Lithuania, not on the UA frontline! Maybe Amazon Prime could offer their services, if these parts are in stock at all.

Imagine how the NATO spearhead troops will be fighting 2 months into a conflict at current loss rates, if they cant supply parts to 20? Leo2A6s. Im sure Putin is keeping a close eye.

As for damage by the crews, I think it is equally likely they knew these tanks would not return for ages if sent away to outside repair shops so they tried to gerry rig it as best they could to get it in the field asap for the offensive/Avdiivka.

----------------

Edited January 2 by Kraft

[NamEndedAllen]

6 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

Cruise missile destroyers would be nice, but I think cruise missiles would be better.

the video “shows Ukrainian SBU drones firing at Russian boats that jumped out of one of the Crimean military ports to sink the drones. But the drones, instead of running away, turned around and opened fire in return.”  https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraines-drone-boats-are-now-firing-rockets-at-russian-ships

Autonomous armed surface platforms showing up in the fight.

[dan/california]

17 minutes ago, JonS said:

Wait.

Are you not the guy who's spent the last 20 months shrilly demanding that the west "SEND SOMETHING ANYTHING NOW YESTERDAY!"?

Are you not the guy who has demanded that people follow your lead by "writing your representative NOW!"?

Are you not the guy who dismissed people pointing out that equipment integration is a difficult and slow process by handwaving that the "Ukrainians are smart - they'll figure it out!"?

If you are not that guy, I refer you to the matter of Cox v. Cleveland Stadium Corp (1974).

Yes, yes I am.  Because if all the stuff we sent last summer had gotten there NOV 22 before the mines got laid and Russia cobbled together some abortion of a system to keep fresh meat flowing to grinder, the Ukrainians very well might be back at their Feb 22 borders. But this war has clearly entered a different phase with essentially static lines. NATO and Ukraine needs to take deep breath and make a two year plan, not six four month plans that can't possibly work.

The fact they got 155 cluster munitions two months AFTER the summer offensive started makes me utterly crazy...

They STILL don't have the M-26 DPICM rockets for HIMARS, Biden needs to fire Jake Sullivan and hire someone with a clue.

 

Edited January 2 by dan/california

[Sojourner]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In the US we have such divisions of manuals as well.  FM = Field Manual, TM = Technical Manual. 

Maybe they need to return to the style of manual used when the M-16 was first issued...

 

Not sure where this fits in, sub-FM perhaps? 

[Zeleban]

11 minutes ago, Sojourner said:

Maybe they need to return to the style of manual used when the M-16 was first issued...

 

Not sure where this fits in, sub-FM perhaps? 

In fact, our journalists have already reviewed similar comics on the operation of HMMWV, M113, M2 Bradley. Similar manuals are already freely available online in Ukrainian. However, the problem is most likely in the qualified repair of Western equipment, and not in its maintenance.

[Zeleban]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

This is all true, but I look at it a little more glass half full:  new cars are harder to work on, but they don't break nearly as much so not as big of a deal.  When I was young a car hitting 100k miles was on its last legs, having required a lot of repairs along the way.  Today one expects nothing except routine maintenence before 100k miles.  I greatly prefer the latter.  Of course, one could do the german tank design method in WW2 where you had both complexity and unreliability.

This is true. The new technology is much less demanding on the user's skills. Listen to the stories of Ukrainian mechanics and drivers of Leopard tanks or Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. They all unanimously claim that this equipment is much easier to control than their Soviet counterparts (I’m sure that F-16 pilots will say the same when comparing them with the MiG-29). However, modern technology is much more difficult to maintain and requires qualified personnel.

[Kraft]

Maybe less informative but documentary about 110th Brigade (Avdiivka), dubbed in english+subtitles, for those interested in it.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

To be fair, many did, including (for various reasons) many politicians. Let's remember that we didn't shove these things at Ukraine, on the contrary, it was the Ukrainians who demanded them - not always in the most... diplomatic way.

That is not to say "your own damn fault, you wanted it, now deal with it". I guess anything was (and is) better than nothing and maybe Ukraine believed a little too much in what the ads promised.

What I was trying to say is that the West should have promised things like Abrams and F-16s right as soon as there was agreement on what Ukraine should standardized around (which is politically difficult, but it's been done before).  However, these things should not have been held back while Soviet type systems and specialized systems (HIMARS, Storm Shadow, etc) were sent immediately.  After this old NATO stuff that could be viewed is disposable (Leo1, Marder, etc.) could be sent to fill the gaps. 

This would buy time for Western resources to focus on making sure whatever was agreed to could be delivered and sustained.  The time would allow companies like GDLD and Rheinmetall to take inventory of their parts and start producing more of the obvious replacement parts. 

There is no indication this happened.  In fact, we saw exactly the opposite.  We all remember months into the war the Germans still claimed they hadn't inventoried any of their old stuff!  The US (and others) only talked about ramping up artillery shell production instead of fast tracking it to happen.

There's a lot of reasons for all of this, but the basic point here is that it was never practical to send Ukraine a bunch of different NATO platforms and have them stay in service for very long.  Even with proper planning and resolve it would take a long time.  That is not NATO's fault per se, but not having a plan definitely is.

Steve

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What I was trying to say is that the West should have promised things like Abrams and F-16s right as soon as there was agreement on what Ukraine should standardized around (which is politically difficult, but it's been done before).  However, these things should not have been held back while Soviet type systems and specialized systems (HIMARS, Storm Shadow, etc) were sent immediately.  After this old NATO stuff that could be viewed is disposable (Leo1, Marder, etc.) could be sent to fill the gaps. 

This would buy time for Western resources to focus on making sure whatever was agreed to could be delivered and sustained.  The time would allow companies like GDLD and Rheinmetall to take inventory of their parts and start producing more of the obvious replacement parts. 

There is no indication this happened.  In fact, we saw exactly the opposite.  We all remember months into the war the Germans still claimed they hadn't inventoried any of their old stuff!  The US (and others) only talked about ramping up artillery shell production instead of fast tracking it to happen.

There's a lot of reasons for all of this, but the basic point here is that it was never practical to send Ukraine a bunch of different NATO platforms and have them stay in service for very long.  Even with proper planning and resolve it would take a long time.  That is not NATO's fault per se, but not having a plan definitely is.

Steve

I think the major strategic mistake, and it was entirely foreseeable, was thinking that if we built the UA to look like a western military that it would prevail.  First off I am not even sure a western military would prevail.  Second trying to bolt the UA into one, while it is fighting a war is a major rookie mistake.  I was very concerned when everyone got scope eye on tanks and IFV which all cost money and take up weight.  Artillery, AD, unmanned was in the mix but it wasn’t politically high profile so we pushed the heavy stuff.  And of course we did it in a mixed up mess.  There was no centralized control of coord of the support mission.

So rather than focusing on game changers and cheap disposable systems, like UAS and self-loitering, we spent billions in sending tanks and IFVs that while useful and better than nothing, were  not deterministic on a modern battlefield.  We compounded the problem by sending complex and logistically heavy stuff, in mixed fleets, which made the UAs job harder.  We should have seen that fast, light, cheap, dispersed and many were what we needed in this war.  Ammo for PGM was doing more than a freakin tank ever could.

Now we are playing catch-up.  The good news is that the stuff we sent looks like it can do defence fine.  But we wanted rapid offence and we sent exactly the wrong hardware for this war to make that happen.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

Because if all the stuff we sent last summer had gotten there NOV 22 before the mines got laid and Russia cobbled together some abortion of a system to keep fresh meat flowing to grinder, the Ukrainians very well might be back at their Feb 22 borders.

I am not sure.  The capacity of equipment they likely needed was too large for them to absorb to keep the momentum of Fall ‘22 going.  Further no of that equipment solved the unmanned ISR problem.  I think the UA was stressed to try and pull together enough to consolidate its gains, let alone bounce into another set of operational offensives.  I mean the UA pulled off two separate offensives over 500km apart, while being missiled.  Asking for a third of fourth over the winter is a bar I am not any nation could reach for in this type of war.

Now what we should have done was get more serious about the UA before the war even started.  We had from 14-22, eight freakin years.  The is definitely a lesson there.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, JonS said:

you to the matter of Cox v. Cleveland Stadium Corp (1974).

 2024's funniest put-down so far. The threshold has been raised... 

Sorry @dan/california, but... 

[David Jaros]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Please stop posting pro-Russian propaganda unless it is clearly labeled as such.  Nobody here has any interest in garbage trying to be passed off as real information or informed opinion.

I spent 1 minute confirming this is pro-Russian propaganda by tracking down who made it:

https://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2020/11/04/conspiracy-blogger-tony-cartalucci-reveals-his-identity/

You have now posted twice and both times were of this nature.  You are now officially warned and there will be no further warnings.

NOTE - if I ban you from this thread you are banned from the entire Forum and that ban is *FOREVER*.  Consider this carefully before polluting this thread again.

Steve

Hi Steve I will not post any more videos . Do not worry!! Can not wait for news about CM games and If you give us  update for Shock Force 2 then I will start posting pro-west propaganda instead haha

Edited January 3 by Jarosak