How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

4 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

No-no-no. Alas. Production of Kvitnyk was stopped in 2014. About half of components had Russian origins.

So according to your information this quoted article is wrong?

Ukraine Strikes Russian Armed Forces with Kvitnik Semi-active Laser Guided Ammunition - MilitaryLeak

[JonS]

On 4/3/2022 at 5:13 AM, Vet 0369 said:

You missed one of the more important changes. He has added a battalion of infantry. Also, how are “Light Infantry” being defined? Based on my service in the USMC,I honestly wouldn’t consider a Marine Platoon, Company, or Battalion to be “Light Infantry.” 

'Light' and 'heavy' are fundamentally logistical terms. It refers to how many linear metres on transport aircraft and ships are needed to get the unit into theatre, and then the flow of tonnage required to keep the unit in the fight.

Not coincidentally, there is a pretty direct relationship between that and combat power, but combat power isn't what it's meant to express. A mechanised battalion with APCs, IFVs, SPGs, and tanks is going to need a shedload of ships and flights to get all the men and kit into theatre, then a shedload more every day to keep up with the prodigious demand for fuel plus heavy and bulky ammo. Meanwhile, an entire mountain or airborne battalion could be squeezed into a couple of 747s, and kept supplied with a daily herc flight or two.

There is a famous photo from when the 173rd dropped into northern Iraq of a perversely overloaded paratrooper all but crushed under his kit. Similarly the paras and marines yomping and tabbing across East Falkland carried loads that were inhumanely heavy, but /logistically/ all those forces are considered to be 'light.' In fact, that /why/ those particular forces were used in those places.

 

Edit now I'm not on my phone ...

Ironically, for the actual soldiers - rather than the logisticians - 'heavy' forces tend to routinely carry less directly on their bodies since they always have a mechanical mule (truck, track, etc) with them, whereas 'light' forces have to literally carry all their stuff with them everywhere they go.

173rd:

Marine commandos:

Paras:

Edited April 3, 2022 by JonS

[Haiduk]

12 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

So according to your information this quoted article is wrong?

Ukraine Strikes Russian Armed Forces with Kvitnik Semi-active Laser Guided Ammunition - MilitaryLeak

I think, yes. 

Of course, I want to belive that we had time to produce at least several dozens of Kvitnyk ammunition, but... there was no information neither from official and semi-official resourses, nor from "insiders" in social media. Also there was no one training with such ammunition. Our media show all achievments of our defense productions, but there was full silence about Kvitnyk.

I suppose, this guy found Kvitnyk in wiki or somewhere else and cried Evrika! Sensation! Here it! 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Haiduk

[DesertFox]

1 minute ago, Haiduk said:

I suppose, this guy found Kvitnyk in wiki or somewhere else and cried Evrika! Sensation! Here it! 

Well, let´s leave this open as unconfirmed, however I have no other rational explanation for these precise arty hits shown in the vid within that article.

Quote

 

 In 2017 developers demonstrated a pre-production version of the Kvitnik with no Russian components. In 2018 development was complete and Kvitnik was ready for production once again.

 

 

[Vet 0369]

4 hours ago, Ultradave said:

"Light Infantry" is usually referring to infantry that has no mechanized (armored) vehicles. So in the US, 82d, 101st, Ranger Battalions, 9th ID - all "light infantry," regardless of the weapons that the walking infantry carries.  Just a term.

Dave

Thank you UltraDave. My search on the net was pretty consistent in saying that the term is primarily determined by the units function, i.e. skirmishes, flanking units, those who carry lighter weapons than the standard, etc. Except as UltraDave stated, most of the definitions seem to apply to pre-Twentieth Century formations, so I don’t think the term is applicable to any other units.

[DesertFox]

 

 

[Vet 0369]

4 hours ago, akd said:

Initial reports only, so treat with caution, but I’ve already seen multiple images of dead civilians with hands tied from Bucha:

 

Or possibly collaborators?

[Haiduk]

10 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Well, let´s leave this open as unconfirmed, however I have no other rational explanation for these precise arty hits shown in the vid within that article.

 

Between "ready to production" and "ammunition in storages" in Ukraine can pass more than 10 years. 

Last mentinons about this project is September 2020. New version of Kvitnyk now has name Barvinok and in that time it only prepared for state test program. And this in not so quick process. Especially in that time, when former Minister of defense Taran almost disrupted State Defense Ordering Program.

https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/kvitnyk-staye-barvinkom-ta-gotuyetsya-do-derzhavnyh-vyprobuvan/

So, I doubt we have such ammunition. If we didn't capture Russian Krasnopols somewhere, of course.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Of course this is true but you took this out of context of the post.

The point I was making is that the whole world knew that RU was going to pull out of Kiev region 48- 24 hours before they did. That's not sound military practice because it invites the enemy to plan pursuit ops. The fact that UA did not exploit this advance knowledge may indicate that a RA withdrawal absent of UA military action was agreed as part of talks. Is it merely a coincidence that the Russian announcement about the withdrawal without UA response has all occurred after talks in Istanbul? I think not!    

And Zelensky would agree to this, since it means Ukraine could swiftly but peacefully re-patriot the region (than they might otherwise), relieve the local population given the huge numbers of casualties, besides the fact that they are no UA maneuvre units in that area that are equipped to take advantage of such a pursuit and/or encirclement opportunity. 

Ah, got it.  Yes, well, that is a curious thing.  The timing surely is interesting and for sure there was benefit to Ukraine with this as well.  However, here's the counter argument...

The incentive to bag and destroy that many Russian forces seems to me worth the time and pain it would take to do it.  The areas to be fought over are already pretty trashed and evacuated, so it's not like there was much to save. 

Destroying the forces would also prevent the forces from reinforcing the most vulnerable part of the Ukrainian lines, which is exactly what Russia said they would be used for.

A huge capture of Russian soldiers would also be very, very, very good for boosting friendly morale and trashing Russia's.

Then there's the whole problem of trusting Putin to do keep his word.  Could be that he would use the semi-cease fire to swap in new troops for the old (though Ukraine would likely see that in progress).

So I hear you about the announcement ahead of time, but I'm guessing there was some other purpose for it that I can't quite put my finger on right now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, JonS said:

There is a famous photo from when the 173rd dropped into northern Iraq of a perversely overloaded paratrooper all but crushed under his overloaded pack.

Hah!  I remember that poor sod.  I hope they gave him a Bronze Star just for humping all that gear.

Steve

[Ultradave]

18 minutes ago, JonS said:

'Light's and 'heavy' are fundamentally logistical terms. It refers to how many linear metres on transport aircraft and ships are needed to get the unit into theatre, and then the flow of tonnage required to keep the unit in the fight.

Not coincidentally, there is a pretty direct relationship between that and combat power, but combat power isn't what it's meant to express.

There is a famous photo from when the 173rd dropped into northern Iraq of a perversely overloaded paratrooper all but crushed under his overloaded pack. Similarly the paras and marines yomping and tabbing across East Falkland carried loads that were inhumanely heavy, but /logistically/ all those forces were 'light.' In fact, that /why/ those particular forces were used in those places.

Doesn’t need to be a famous photo. We always jumped like that. It was hard to walk up the ramp of the aircraft. Sometimes you even needed help. Really it was a relief to get on the ground and out of the parachute harness. At least then you could do some load management and you weren’t hogtied anymore. Parachute harnesses are TIGHT ( with good reason )

[Splinty]

2 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Doesn’t need to be a famous photo. We always jumped like that. It was hard to walk up the ramp of the aircraft. Sometimes you even needed help. Really it was a relief to get on the ground and out of the parachute harness. At least then you could do some load management and you weren’t hogtied anymore. Parachute harnesses are TIGHT ( with good reason )

Facts. I can attest to all of that.

[DesertFox]

10 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

So, I doubt we have such ammunition. If we didn't capture Russian Krasnopols somewhere, of course.

Thanks for explaining. I agree building up stock needs time and training procedures with that kind of ammo also. Still...I want to believe...:-) 

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ah, got it.  Yes, well, that is a curious thing.  The timing surely is interesting and for sure there was benefit to Ukraine with this as well.  However, here's the counter argument...

The incentive to bag and destroy that many Russian forces seems to me worth the time and pain it would take to do it.  The areas to be fought over are already pretty trashed and evacuated, so it's not like there was much to save. 

Destroying the forces would also prevent the forces from reinforcing the most vulnerable part of the Ukrainian lines, which is exactly what Russia said they would be used for.

A huge capture of Russian soldiers would also be very, very, very good for boosting friendly morale and trashing Russia's.

Then there's the whole problem of trusting Putin to do keep his word.  Could be that he would use the semi-cease fire to swap in new troops for the old (though Ukraine would likely see that in progress).

So I hear you about the announcement ahead of time, but I'm guessing there was some other purpose for it that I can't quite put my finger on right now.

Steve

I don't think we know actually how much damage was done to the Russians in retreat.  There is certainly a large amount of smashed armor, indications of guys abandoning loot etc.  There was a video early on when Russia pulled back from Bucha, the Ukrainians first checked the area by drone and waited a day.  Could be a tactical reason, mobility issue., Russian mines and booby traps.  I definitely don't think it was a deal that would preserve Russian troops.

[acrashb]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And let's not forget the Marshall Plan had competition... the Morgenthau Plan.  I think we can all agree that the Marshall Plan was the better of the two.

The number of people needing to be killed and dispersed to permanently crush an entire good-sized nation is astonishing; I don't know enough about history to know how often it has successfully been done.  The Carthaginians come to mind, and that worked partly because the dispersed part of the population could not communicate, unlike today.

The military science fiction writer David Drake, who knows not much about science and technology but a lot about history, and who had personal combat experience in Vietnam, identified the difficulty of oppression in his first book "Hammers' Slammers": "And the ones we kill - doesn't every one a' them have a wife or a brother or a nephew", etc.  Also an instructive dialogue in "Cross the Stars" (a re-imagining of the Odyssey) on pages 247 / 248 (original edition) about how much killing is needed to to successfully oppress a population with force. 

I'm sure there are more conventional commentators on this matter, but Drake's thoughts are accurate.

In short I agree, the Marshall Plan was better.  Things like the Morgenthau Plan, even if they work, which is clearly seldom, can only leave a long-term brutalizing stain on the people who enact them, regardless of how righteous it seems at the time.

Not to take away from the well-earned fierce feelings and expressions of Ukrainians experiencing their homes, friends and family being savaged in real time.  In the words of one of my Ukrainian friends, "I am all out of tears" - and that was only a week in.  Now, as we see building evidence of not just one-off but systemic atrocity, it is much worse.

 

[Battlefront.com]

36 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Well, let´s leave this open as unconfirmed, however I have no other rational explanation for these precise arty hits shown in the vid within that article.

Drones and very good artillery.  The primary problem with good weapon and crew is accuracy and not precision (JonS, you taught me well!).  Meaning, a good artillery setup is physically capable of slamming a round into a specific spot (precision) repeatedly, but the defects in target acquisition and observation mean not knowing exactly what the right spot is leads to rounds not hitting their targets (accuracy).

A drone with a laser and GPS can tell the artillery FDC to within at least 1m where they need to aim.  If they have the skills and equipment to account for all the variables (wind, humidity, etc.) then it is reasonable that they could hit exactly what they are aiming for.

Drones can also affect artillery ambushes where the guns are already sighted to a specific spot, like a stretch of road.  The drone tells the artillery when to let loose.  Or an IED hits the first vehicle and the rest are known to be sitting still.  Either case, then it is just a matter of slamming rounds in to the breach and letting them fly.

There's all kinds of ways drones change the game.  Their ability to pair with artillery is probably the most significant one in this war.

Steve

[sburke]

The problem in the Russian army as noted isn't that there are a few examples, but rather it is systemic.  It's like the medieval raids of the English into France during the 100 years war or viking raids in terms of the looting etc.  It is a reflection of an army with utterly no discipline.  No wonder they fight like.. excrement.  They aren't soldiers.  They are thugs in uniforms.

Adam Kinzinger Shares Video of Russian Soldiers Allegedly Mailing Loot Home (msn.com)

Edited April 2, 2022 by sburke

[DesertFox]

Very good

 

 

[JonS]

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, acrashb said:

In short I agree, the Marshall Plan was better.  Things like the Morgenthau Plan, even if they work, which is clearly seldom, can only leave a long-term brutalizing stain on the people who enact them, regardless of how righteous it seems at the time.

The Morgenthau plan was basically WW1 Treaty of Versailles all over again.  Morgenthau's plan was obviously based on the concept that the reason Versailles failed is that it wasn't tough enough.

Historians, economists, and pretty much everybody that matters has a negative opinion of the Morgenthau Plan and an extremely positive one of the Marshall Plan.  Morgenthau was short sighted and vindictive, but also totally unrealistic.  Things turned out very well under the Marshall Plan, I don't think Morgenthau Plan would have been anything but an abject failure.

Steve

[sburke]

this is actually pretty funny

 

Quote

Russia’s ambassador to the UK has warned that British weapons supplied to Ukraine are “legitimate targets” for the Russian army.

Russia vows to target British weapons as UK missile downs helicopter (msn.com)

What the heck does that even mean? "We are going to target them by flying helicopters at them!!"

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, JonS said:

Good, I got it right.  I didn't want to get a virtual spanking by you for f'n it up   If you have only done one good thing your life, it was to get me to finally understand the difference between accuracy and precision.  Anything else good you've done is icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

Folks have to remember that over the last 8 years the Ukrainian Army has had a lot of practical trigger time on the frontlines of Donbas.  The use of drones is not something they came up with a few weeks ago.

Steve

[Vet 0369]

4 hours ago, sross112 said:

When I first heard of the Marines giving up the armor my reaction was the same: WTH? Then reading on the "littoral" brigade concept it makes sense. The other thing I read was the intent to get more in line with their traditional mission instead of being a heavy assault force like they've been used for awhile now. There was also an article awhile back talking about how the SEALs are changing it up as well moving back toward their traditional maritime missions. Really I think this does show that the Navy and Marines are looking toward the future and what their primary mission will be with the primary threat they need to contest. 

Logistically, especially after this conflict and considering that the mission of the Marines was to establish beachheads and ports for the heavies to follow, instead of 1 60 ton tank you get 60 tons of SMAWs/NLAWs/Javelins/drones, etc. That isn't even accounting for the additional space freed up by the support elements for the 60 ton tank. When considering the mission I reckon it is a sensible transition. Unless they are tasked with assaulting Fallujah again instead of maritime ops, in which case everyone will look back and think Berger failed. If they bottle up the South China Sea and wreck havoc then everyone will look back and think Berger was a visionary genius ahead of his time. History will be the judge.

Well, for once, I think the right person was in the right spot at the right time. IMHO, with the exception of the Inchon amphibious landing, Marines haven’t been used correctly (per their mission statement) since they landed in Pusan, South Korea. The Marine Corps didn’t even have full membership on the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 1978. During WWII, FDR wanted to designate the Marines as Commandos like the British. The Commandant fought that suggestion because that would mean the Corps would lose all it’s supporting arms, i.e. Armor, Artillery, and Air Wings. Also, the Marine Corps Mission states not only to “seize and secure advanced Naval bases,” but also to defend those bases.

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

April Fools joke, I'm sure.  We've not made anything specific for this conflict and I am not aware of any of our Pro customers doing so either.  Though they do have access to all of CMBS' forces.

Steve

BACK THE TRUCK UP

"All"  of CMBS's forces? There's more than the 3?

 

 

 

[danfrodo]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

this is actually pretty funny

 

Russia vows to target British weapons as UK missile downs helicopter (msn.com)

What the heck does that even mean? "We are going to target them by flying helicopters at them!!"

the amount of utter, ridiculous bulls-t to come out of Russian gov't is astonishing.