How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Offshoot said:

A couple of videos of drone teams, one using the Baba Yaga and another in Kherson. They show the communication between recon drone and attack drone teams.

 

 

Ukrainians training soldiers on semi-automatic shotguns as a counter to drones - Ukrainian military practices to counter drones with guns

Good English translations.

I particularly like the first video when the operator was asked about remote mining and who would do it if there were no drones.  His answer was nobody or SOF only.  And now?  A small unit can place mines anywhere in the enemy's rear whenever they want with pretty good certainty and a LOT less risk to personnel.  What used to be a very limited event, reserved only for extremely important operations, is no longer a big deal.

Another aspect of drones that have changed the face of war.

Steve

[cesmonkey]

Interview with the American PBS newtork:

 

[Battlefront.com]

43 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

What’s with the reports of the Krynky bridgehead being expanded? That seems like a bright spot of good news.

Yeah, I'm waiting to hear from Haiduk (hopefully tomorrow) about what this might mean.  Obviously if any of it is true, it's good news for Ukraine.  But did Russian forces really just abandon their positions?  Did Ukraine catch them during a rotation?  Did they voluntarily withdraw according to a higher level plan?

Steve

[Fenris]

Footage from infantryman with 3rd Assault near Avdiivka.  English subs work. They end up having to pull out after being hit by mortar fire, sounds painful but hopefully not too bad, they manage to get out on their feet.  Interesting ~6:30 mark to see co-ordination of command, recon and FPV operator to attack the mortar position.

 

[cesmonkey]

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This might all be true, however it's not the full picture.  I read a couple of articles last night that had Iran and military experts agreeing that Iran's attack was deliberately uncreative.  It was designed to send a message, not cause real damage.  The case made for this rings true for me after having watched what Russia's been doing to Ukraine for the last 2 years.  All the tricks of flight paths, mixes of different systems, timing, etc. we've seen Russia do were absent from Iran's attack.  They basically just lobbed them.

The point is that not only does Ukraine have a massive size and resource disadvantage against Russian attacks, but it also defending against an enemy that is trying hard for maximum damage.

Steve

 

Edited April 16 by cesmonkey

[panzermartin]

16 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Heard about this tactics before, but don't recall the clips from it:

This war provides never-ending stream of challanges as how to siumlate it for potentiall future Combat Mission games.

Who knew, motorcycles (and sidecars) would finally make it in CM BS2 as an assault element

[Maciej Zwolinski]

17 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

Heard about this tactics before, but don't recall the clips from it:

I have seen a fair number, but they were in black and white, motorcycles had sidecars with MG 34 and the soldiers had funny helmets.

On a more serious note: this bizarre throwback to 1940 got me thinking and I realised, that in all those films of both Russian and Ukrainian defensive positions I have not seen much of barbed wire. Since so much of this war is dismounted infantry assaults, theoretically it should be very helpful. What is going on? Is it not useful anymore? Too easy to destroy with modern artillery, or what? 

[zinz]

https://mastodon.social/@ChrisO_wiki/112279689602601908

Russia is discussing how to deal with the destruction of their refineries. The proposed lowering of standards would seriously damage their more modern vehicles. 

[Letter from Prague]

2 hours ago, zinz said:

https://mastodon.social/@ChrisO_wiki/112279689602601908

Russia is discussing how to deal with the destruction of their refineries. The proposed lowering of standards would seriously damage their more modern vehicles. 

Fascinating. If they do it, it's going to be the signature Russian short term thinking.

I also want to say I'm glad seeing someone post on mastodon instead of Xitter (pronounces ****ter) so I can actually read it.

[holoween]

3 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I have seen a fair number, but they were in black and white, motorcycles had sidecars with MG 34 and the soldiers had funny helmets.

On a more serious note: this bizarre throwback to 1940 got me thinking and I realised, that in all those films of both Russian and Ukrainian defensive positions I have not seen much of barbed wire. Since so much of this war is dismounted infantry assaults, theoretically it should be very helpful. What is going on? Is it not useful anymore? Too easy to destroy with modern artillery, or what? 

It takes a lot of wire to close any length gap and it takes quite some time to set up.

[Battlefront.com]

50 minutes ago, holoween said:

It takes a lot of wire to close any length gap and it takes quite some time to set up.

For sure, but why not right in front of the trenches themselves?  Or the flanks, which seem to be the preferred entrance point for assaults?  That doesn't take much... maybe 40-60m worth per emplacement.  Given how much resources go into the average fortification, I am also surprised we don't see wire.  I'm sure NATO would provide plenty of it if requested.

Steve

[The_Capt]

24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure, but why not right in front of the trenches themselves?  Or the flanks, which seem to be the preferred entrance point for assaults?  That doesn't take much... maybe 40-60m worth per emplacement.  Given how much resources go into the average fortification, I am also surprised we don't see wire.  I'm sure NATO would provide plenty of it if requested.

Steve

Given the ISR environment, not sure having a bunch of wire in front of a position is such a good idea.  

[cesmonkey]

The drama in the U.S. House is continuing:

 

[kimbosbread]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Given the ISR environment, not sure having a bunch of wire in front of a position is such a good idea.  

If you have a lot of wire, make a bunch of fake positions too. Plus some old school booby traps with Punji sticks, if all else fails.

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

 

Thanks for that.  Obviously I have great respect for ISW's take on things, so case closed IMHO.  Last night I was reading another report that went into more detail about how the attack unfolded and was making the point that the Iranians appear to have been trying to mimic Russia's attacks, but didn't do a good job of it.  You know things are bad when you try to mimic Russian military tactics and can't!

This is relevant to the Ukraine war because of the recent reporting that Iran is transferring ballistic missiles to Russia.  If so, I wouldn't want to live in the Kursk or Belgorod regions.  Sounds like there's a better than 50% chance Russia will hit something there rather in Ukraine.

The other related aspect is we don't know what other things Iran has been, or was planning on, supplying to Russia that may be on hold now because Iran needs to take care of itself.  As we've discussed for a long time now, Russia and its allies suffer from many of the same production shortcomings that the West has working against it.  It's just that Russia and its allies started out with much larger stockpiles to draw from, so it's been less noticeable.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Given the ISR environment, not sure having a bunch of wire in front of a position is such a good idea.  

Given the ISR environment I don't think it matters   While it is possible to obscure individual positions within a fortified area, there's pretty much no way to hide that an area is fortified.

Steve

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

If you have a lot of wire, make a bunch of fake positions too. Plus some old school booby traps with Punji sticks, if all else fails.

That is a lot of squeeze for probably not much actual juice.  ISR means fake positions are easier to spot as well.  Punji sticks and all that crap looks good in the movies but really does little in reality.

Wire is heavy, takes time to lay out (all out in front of enemy ISR) and can be blown through pretty quickly...likely from the air now.

Based on how easy it is to make, I can only guess that it has had limited utility for both sides in this war and why they are not using it a lot. 

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

The drama in the U.S. House is continuing:

 

Q: how do you know when you're an extremist without the ability to think clearly?

A: when you brand an extremist on your team as working for the other side.

Let's hope that things improve this week.  I am sure Johnson will try everything in his power to sabotage the process in any way he can think of, but it is at least finally moving towards moving towards motion.

Steve

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Given the ISR environment I don't think it matters   While it is possible to obscure individual positions within a fortified area, there's pretty much no way to hide that an area is fortified.

Steve

If one cannot hide a fortified position then wire is probably not doing much for defenders in the first place.  Enemy can hammer the position until wire is gone because he can see it from space.  We have seen dug in defence in this war and it got severely pounded.  Dispersion and mobile defence may be a better way to go.

The other reason may be that most infantry killing is happening at distance.  We have seen some trench clearing but a lot of the engagements are happening well out with infantry running away.  I am sure dismounted infiltration is still happening but if they can see all the wire, all that effort won't do much.

Wire can be tossed out but building an effective obstacle with it is labor intensive and takes a lot of time.  My guess is that most troops are either not trained to do it, or have decided it is a waste of time.

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

That is a lot of squeeze for probably not much actual juice.  ISR means fake positions are easier to spot as well.  Punji sticks and all that crap looks good in the movies but really does little in reality.

Wire is heavy, takes time to lay out (all out in front of enemy ISR) and can be blown through pretty quickly...likely from the air now.

Based on how easy it is to make, I can only guess that it has had limited utility for both sides in this war and why they are not using it a lot. 

Yup.  As I said a couple of posts ago, if Ukraine wanted wire they would get wire.  Heck, even Scholz would have sent at to Ukraine in the beginning of the war, along with the helmets and MREs.  So it's definitely a situation where Ukraine doesn't view it as having much value.  Which is puzzling since NATO doctrine emphasizes the use of it.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which is puzzling since NATO doctrine emphasizes the use of it.

I think it is very safe to say that NATO (and pretty much all western) doctrine is going to need major re-writes after this war.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I think it is very safe to say that NATO (and pretty much all western) doctrine is going to need major re-writes after this war.

Yup.  I even bet the section on latrine building will need revision.

Steve

[holoween]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure, but why not right in front of the trenches themselves?  Or the flanks, which seem to be the preferred entrance point for assaults?  That doesn't take much... maybe 40-60m worth per emplacement.  Given how much resources go into the average fortification, I am also surprised we don't see wire.  I'm sure NATO would provide plenty of it if requested.

Steve

It doesnt sound like much but youre looking at a full truck worth of wire for a platoon position and depending on how its delivered quite some time to set up. In an environment where trenches are quite often not even reinforced it seems to me to simply be too far down the priority list.
Also my rl experience is were usually putting wire obstacles to channel the enemy to particular places by blocking paths in areas where there is not much freedom of movement like paths through a forest.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:43 AM, The_Capt said:

The issue with fully autonomous is that it offers superiority for a deterministic system.  That driver will pretty much ensure any attempts at regulation/proliferation are going to fall apart.  Now if autonomous systems achieve the level of a WMD with a MAD component, perhaps.  But the best counter to stop fully autonomous weapon systems...are other fully autonomous weapon systems.  We already have this in maritime warfare with missiles and point defence systems.  The CWIS is entirely autonomous once someone flips the switch.  They can target and engage on their own.  Why?  Because a machine can react far faster than a manned gun.

This where I see an issue with autonomous drone usage - namely friendly fire and civilian casualties. I'm not sure how big the issue will be, that will be based on how these automatic targeting systems work. Friendly fire or killing of civilians could be a serious problem with autonomous drones if this isn't handled well / correctly.

The comparison to the Navy CWIS autonomous systems doesn't really work because there is a clear exclusion zone around fleets and warships to the point that if some civilian wondered inside that area they would get no sympathy when they get whacked. So, those systems can be weapons free and autonomous for certain ranges without risking civilian or friendly casualties. In other words humans have managed the space those autonomous systems work in so that they can target anything that comes with in them "safely".

Autonomous drones hunting enemy soldiers, tanks and other vehicles do not have that kind of space. They have to operate in a much messier and chaotic environment. Lots can be done, make the targeting smarter, geo-fencing, range cut offs etc. but the issue is none of that is as clear cut as "get within 100m of a destroyer you die".

All of those problems have solutions of varying degrees of effectiveness some of which can now be attacked (geo-fencing really should not be relied on for this) or have short comings that have unknown or known failure points (targeting only enemy AFVs is not actually easy and since these systems are actually trying to kill people that problem is more important to deal with).

I'm not saying there will not be autonomous drones or that we should try to ban them. I don't think we can do that. I am saying that these systems are going to have problems that human controlled systems don't. Or perhaps a better way of saying it would be they are going to have different failure issues and those failures are going to hit the public's ear differently and that needs to be managed.

Or not I suppose  

[hcrof]

30 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat said:

This where I see an issue with autonomous drone usage - namely friendly fire and civilian casualties. I'm not sure how big the issue will be, that will be based on how these automatic targeting systems work. Friendly fire or killing of civilians could be a serious problem with autonomous drones if this isn't handled well / correctly.

The comparison to the Navy CWIS autonomous systems doesn't really work because there is a clear exclusion zone around fleets and warships to the point that if some civilian wondered inside that area they would get no sympathy when they get whacked. So, those systems can be weapons free and autonomous for certain ranges without risking civilian or friendly casualties. In other words humans have managed the space those autonomous systems work in so that they can target anything that comes with in them "safely".

Autonomous drones hunting enemy soldiers, tanks and other vehicles do not have that kind of space. They have to operate in a much messier and chaotic environment. Lots can be done, make the targeting smarter, geo-fencing, range cut offs etc. but the issue is none of that is as clear cut as "get within 100m of a destroyer you die".

All of those problems have solutions of varying degrees of effectiveness some of which can now be attacked (geo-fencing really should not be relied on for this) or have short comings that have unknown or known failure points (targeting only enemy AFVs is not actually easy and since these systems are actually trying to kill people that problem is more important to deal with).

I'm not saying there will not be autonomous drones or that we should try to ban them. I don't think we can do that. I am saying that these systems are going to have problems that human controlled systems don't. Or perhaps a better way of saying it would be they are going to have different failure issues and those failures are going to hit the public's ear differently and that needs to be managed.

Or not I suppose  

The way I see it is that if you bombard and area with artillery then everything in an ellipse of hundreds of meters is at risk of dying. I don't see much difference in designating a killbox for drones and letting them go for it. In fact a killbox is better since it can be defined more precisely and the stroke can be closer to your own troops.