How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Sure for initial aiming, but over 20-30km distance you have external ballistic factors, so we can all agree that drones help tremendously with adjustment fire, but certainly not for first shot hits of a single gun on a target the size of 4x3metres. As I understand it for "dumb ammo" average miss distance on stationary target is still somewhere in the 20-30m ballpark in ideal conditions on a 3m target.

See page 69 here:

alexander_robert_m_197708_ms_119723.pdf (gatech.edu)

[sross112]

7 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Sure for initial aiming, but over 20-30km distance you have external ballistic factors, so we can all agree that drones help tremendously with adjustment fire, but certainly not for first shot hits of a single gun on a target the size of 4x3metres. As I understand it for "dumb ammo" average miss distance on stationary target is still somewhere in the 20-30m ballpark in ideal conditions on a 3m target.

See page 69 here:

alexander_robert_m_197708_ms_119723.pdf (gatech.edu)

That paper was produced in 1977. Wouldn't the advent of GPS for the firing units, GPS for the drones and just general improvements in propellants, ballistic designs, etc have a big improvement in 45 years? Not a cannon cocker myself so I don't know if there have been large improvements or not, but I would think just having GPS on both ends would significantly increase your first shot nowadays. Anyone experienced or educated able to chime in?

Edit: DesertFox, sorry I don't know your professional pedigree. I didn't mean to be insulting by asking for a resident professional to chime in. When I read my post I thought "Crap, what if he is the resident professional?" If you are, my bad.

Edited April 2, 2022 by sross112

[Vet 0369]

4 hours ago, danfrodo said:

I guess that settles the whole "is Kraze out of line" question.  I can't criticize anyone for hating people who come to their country to kill and enslave them.

I think the lead-in”Initial reports” says it all. You are assuming that those are Ukrainians that were executed by the Russians. We don’t know that. To be honest, they could be Collaborators executed by the Ukrainian towns people.

[Battlefront.com]

Some of the most interesting points in ISW's April 2'd assessment:

Quote

However, the Russian units withdrawn from northeastern Ukraine for redeployment to eastern Ukraine are heavily damaged. Russian forces likely require an extensive operational pause to refit existing units in Donbas, refit and redeploy reinforcements from other axes, and integrate these forces—pulled from several military districts that have not yet operated on a single axis—into a cohesive fighting force. We have observed no indicators of Russian plans to carry out such a pause, and Russian forces will likely fail to break through Ukrainian defenses if they continue to steadily funnel already damaged units into fighting in eastern Ukraine.

Basically, "here is what the Russians need to do for success, but we doubt they'll do it because they seem keen on losing"

Quote

The Ukrainian General Staff reported on April 2 that out of the 75 Russian Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs) it assesses have participated in operations in Ukraine, 16 BTGs have been “completely destroyed” and 34 more are currently combat ineffective and recovering.1 ISW cannot independently confirm these numbers, but Russian forces will be unlikely to be able to resume major operations if two-thirds of the BTGs committed to fighting to date have been rendered temporarily or permanently combat ineffective.

That's pretty huge numbers if accurate.  Seems about right, though.  Back of the envelope calculations for a quick check:

Presume BTGs have 700 personnel average.  Assume all 16 "destroyed" BTGs completely wiped out to the last man.  That's about 11,200 KIA.  Presume all 34 "combat ineffective" BTGs are wounded to the last man that's about 23,800.  Using the low end estimates of Russian casualties so far, this seems plausible.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

BACK THE TRUCK UP

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

Not sure what you mean by that, but I'll clarify... the Pro version has all CMSF2 and CMBS forces available to license holders.  There's also customized stuff that isn't part of any commercial game.  Pro doesn't have access to the "on hold" CMBS Module content.

Steve

[sburke]

Gonna take a pretty huge arse barrel to scrape up enough to make up for those losses.  

[DesertFox]

3 minutes ago, sross112 said:

, but I would think just having GPS on both ends would significantly increase your first shot nowadays. Anyone experienced or educated able to chime in?

It does, but still arty is no precision weapon with increased first shot accuracy. Remember the guns used are basically of the warpac time and over 30 years old. Adjustment fire is still needed.

[Kraft]

10 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

I think the lead-in”Initial reports” says it all. You are assuming that those are Ukrainians that were executed by the Russians. We don’t know that. To be honest, they could be Collaborators executed by the Ukrainian towns people.

They could be, but their physical state of decomposition suggests this was not done a day or two ago and they certainly didnt litter the streets with dead collaborators while the russians were still looting and pillaging.

Also, Ukr towns people dont usually have weapons if they were occupied by russians and if you look closely, bullet wounds to the back of the head.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Kraft

[DesertFox]

More high end gear

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Sure for initial aiming, but over 20-30km distance you have external ballistic factors, so we can all agree that drones help tremendously with adjustment fire, but certainly not for first shot hits of a single gun on a target the size of 4x3metres. As I understand it for "dumb ammo" average miss distance on stationary target is still somewhere in the 20-30m ballpark in ideal conditions on a 3m target.

See page 69 here:

alexander_robert_m_197708_ms_119723.pdf (gatech.edu)

Yikes, 1977 is not relevant.  FDC has come a very long way since then.  And the sorts of errors that require adjustment are basically FDC related.

The traditional problems with initial accuracy have largely been solved by technology.  Traditionally knowing exactly where the gun is in relationship to the target was very difficult to determine.  Being off by even a little bit could introduce significant error.  GPS eliminates that problem, both for the gun crew and for the spotter. 

The next problem is correctly taking all the variables into account to leverage the targeting data.  Now a days there is an app for that   The data that can be sampled at the local level to account for accuracy affecting variables is pretty inexpensive these days.  Heck, you can get most of this stuff on Amazon for a few hundred bucks.  Our 1977 counterparts didn't have this sort of stuff therefore the initial accuracy would suffer with whatever the margin of error was for the technology of the day.

The last part of the equation is the practicality of getting all of this to work with enough time to be effective.  Drones roaming around looking for stuff to squash can find and track targets in realtime so that when the tubes are ready to fire they can do a last minute correction for the target's location if necessary.  And do it nearly instantly thanks to all the whizzbang stuff.  Back in 1977 it would take precious minutes by which time the enemy might have moved out of the optimal kill zone.

Soooo... gunner knows exactly where he is.  Gunner knows exactly where the target is.  The variables that matter are taken into account by fancy computer stuff with (ideally) local sensors providing critical atmospheric data. If the target moves he'll get updated data that can then be fed into the system and have a targeting solution in almost no time.  When the lanyard is pulled it should go right on target first round.

Steve

P.S.  note that I am not a professional cannon cocker, I only play one on TV.  However, my comments above do seem to be a fair representation.  Happy to be corrected if I'm off.

[DesertFox]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yikes, 1977 is not relevant.  FDC has come a very long way since then.

The traditional problems with initial accuracy have largely been solved by technology.  Traditionally knowing exactly where the gun is in relationship to the target was very difficult to determine.  GPS eliminates that problem, both for the gun crew and for the spotter.  The next problem is correctly taking all the variables into account to leverage the targeting data.  Now a days there is an app for that   The data that can be sampled at the local level to account for accuracy affecting variables is pretty inexpensive these days.  Heck, you can get most of this stuff on Amazon for a few hundred bucks.  The last part of the equation is the practicality of getting all of this to work with enough time to be effective.  Drones roaming around looking for stuff to squash can find and track targets in realtime so that when the tubes are ready to fire they can do a last minute correction for the target's location if necessary.  And do it nearly instantly thanks to all the whizzbang stuff.  Back in 1977 it would take precious minutes by which time the enemy might have moved out of the optimal kill zone.

Steve

Good to know. Then they need no more volleys, but can now snipe over 30km. The commanders will be happy I guess and those fancy high tech ammo producing companies go outta business, because all they need in the future are drones and a GPS satellite. If all would be that easy...

[akd]

1 hour 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!!"

Actually, I think it is dumb for the British government / government actors (or any other donating nation) to be claiming credit for “their” weapons in individual incidents.  This lets Russia refocus from “we’re fighting Ukrainians” to “we’re fighting NATO,” which is a narrative they sorely need domestically.  STFU about what you are giving Ukraine, when you are giving it, and when and where it is being used.  Response should just be “the Ukrainians are effectively using all their tools at their disposal to defend their nation” and nothing else.  Britain, in particular, perhaps reflecting the narcissistic personality of their PM, seems to have decided this is some sort of international competition that they (or rather Johnson) needs to win.

Edited April 3, 2022 by akd

[DesertFox]

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Good to know. Then they need no more volleys, but can now snipe over 30km. The commanders will be happy I guess and those fancy high tech ammo producing companies go outta business, because all they need in the future are drones and a GPS satellite. If all would be that easy...

I tidied up my post while you were typing this, but yeah... in theory it is possible to snipe with dumb rounds against stationary targets.  To hit moving targets effectively, that still takes a precision munition.  The Russians don't seem to understand yet that sitting still isn't a good idea.

By the looks of these wrecks and the drone footage we keep seeing, for the most part either the targets were stationary or the artillery was set up to ambush a particular spot.

I know you were being a bit tongue in cheek about the companies making expensive ammo being upset by this, but yeah... drones are making a LOT of big defense companies very unhappy.  Very.

Steve

[akd]

This seems to suggest that the 1st Battalion of the DPR’s 9th motor-rifle regiment (naval infantry) was destroyed in the assault on Mariupol:

https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/2036

[Gary R Lukas]

From what I'm hearing it looks like the Russians are pulling out all of their troops from the Chernobyl area, I can't believe their unit commanders had these soldiers digging in around the nuclear plant that had a blown reactor in 1986. For every hour that Chernobyl's core was open, it was releasing the equivallent of 2 [two] Hiroshima bombs every hour for almost 8 days. So the reactor released enough radiation equal to 384 Hiroshima Bombs, now all these soldiers have radiation poisoning and are in a Moscow hospital that was made for treating people with radiation sickness. I'm sure the soldiers didn't know what happened there in 1986, but their Commanders should have known,

[DesertFox]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

I know you were being a bit tongue in cheek about the companies making expensive ammo being upset by this, but yeah... drones are making a LOT of big defense companies very unhappy.  Very.

Steve, don´t get me wrong. I guess we are pulling at the rope from the same side. I just think you are a tad bid overoptimistic what dumb ammo can and cannot do. However I admit I left the army business 30 years ago and there surely were interesting developments going on, but the fact that not only russia, ukraine, china and the rest of the world are developing "intelligent" laser or GPS guided arty ammo has a reason.

Example: Excalibur ammo, 92% of rounds falling within 4 meters (13 ft) of their targets:

[dan/california]

It is much easier to make a guided mortar round than it is to make a guided artillery round. So if Ukraine was 80% of the way to a guided 152mm round, they were 99% or maybe a 101% of the way to a guided mortar round. The U.S. also has some very nifty guided mortar rounds, and I think they would be one of the very simplest systems to train the Ukrainians up on. 

[danfrodo]

50 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Some of the most interesting points in ISW's April 2'd assessment:

Basically, "here is what the Russians need to do for success, but we doubt they'll do it because they seem keen on losing"

That's pretty huge numbers if accurate.  Seems about right, though.  Back of the envelope calculations for a quick check:

Presume BTGs have 700 personnel average.  Assume all 16 "destroyed" BTGs completely wiped out to the last man.  That's about 11,200 KIA.  Presume all 34 "combat ineffective" BTGs are wounded to the last man that's about 23,800.  Using the low end estimates of Russian casualties so far, this seems plausible.

Steve

FIFTY BTGs out of the game!!   w 16 destroyed!!!!!  That's 10% totally gone and a nearly 1/3 of entire Russian complement of 168 BTGs (is correct number?).  And out of the original 120 that's nearly half.  That is astounding!  (well, astounding to me, at least).  Dang, I feel better already

 

[DesertFox]

Lets see how that turns out.

 

 

[DesertFox]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

FIFTY BTGs out of the game!!   w 16 destroyed!!!!!  That's 10% totally gone and a nearly 1/3 of entire Russian complement of 168 BTGs (is correct number?).  And out of the original 120 that's nearly half.  That is astounding!  (well, astounding to me, at least).  Dang, I feel better already

 

Yep that is very good news. Well sort of. We dont know what is coming next from the lunatic war criminal and his criminal hordes. My bet is on chemical warfare after a false flag. I hope history will prove me wrong.

[The Steppenwulf]

20 minutes ago, akd said:

 Britain, in particular, perhaps reflecting the narcissistic personality of their PM, seems to have decided this is some sort of international competition that they (or rather Johnson) needs to win.

This is certainly true! Johnson's Govt is desperate to demonstrate that the UK is leading in Europe.

Brexit has been a disaster, exposing many short-comings of British policy introduced on the back of the change, although this hasn't been fully recognised by the electorate YET.... so the Govt is trying to head off the fallout now with any contingency measures it can employ to prevent the inevitable landslide in public opinion.

Very specifically, a strong criticism of Brexit, as pointed out by the remain camp during the campaign was the likely diminished influence of the UK at the European table. The current crisis has obviously threatened to expose this vulnerability. This explains the UK Govt's approach to the crisis, as it attempts to cover up this prevalent weakness in UK diplomatic power. It's a form of over compensation intended for domestic consumption. With that, and other issues that are currently plague the UK Prime Minister, he needs consistently good newspaper headlines.   

[BletchleyGeek]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The last part of the equation is the practicality of getting all of this to work with enough time to be effective.  Drones roaming around looking for stuff to squash can find and track targets in realtime so that when the tubes are ready to fire they can do a last minute correction for the target's location if necessary.  And do it nearly instantly thanks to all the whizzbang stuff

The real bottleneck with today's tech would be for filtering out false positives from the potential targets identified and prioritising them so it suits operational needs. I guess, just guess, that if a fire request came right away from ground forces it would put in a queue and processed automatically as fast as spotting drones and tubes were available, with no need for a "human in the middle".

In any case, the integration of UAVs, computer vision and automatic scheduling and planning transform artillery into a fearsome "precision" offensive weapon.

[OldSarge]

Vlad pulls out Plan B, no surprise here, Victory in the East by May 9th.

Quote

Russia has revised its Ukraine war strategy to focus on taking control of the Donbas and other regions in eastern Ukraine with a target date of early May, according to several US officials familiar with the latest US intelligence assessments. 

More than a month into the war, Russian ground forces have been unable to keep control of areas where they have been fighting.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is under pressure to demonstrate he can show a victory, and eastern Ukraine is where he is most likely to achieve that, officials say. US intelligence intercepts suggest Putin is focused on May 9, Russia’s “Victory Day,” according to a US official.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-04-2-22/h_e57a54c0a2217e8fa5a9bf3950cbef2f

It also looks like he is warming to the idea of a central commander (aka fall guy) in charge of overall operations.

Quote

The US also assesses Putin is now preparing, for the first time, to name an overall commander of the war to achieve greater Russian successes, two US officials said. The US believes Putin will likely name a general who has been in the southern part of Ukraine because that is a place where Russians have succeeded in their objectives.

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by OldSarge

[THH149]

Question for those that know about BTG and their mother Brigades or Regiments, how permanent is the BTG force as an allocation from the Birgade? 

I understand that the BTG is task focussed to achieve the Brigade's daily objectives on a mission say, but what happens if they take losses? Are these made up from the Brigade or does the BTG fold back into the Brigade to be recontituted again when ready/able once again to perform key missions for the Brigade?

My only background here is my reading of the Grau/Bartles Russian Way of War, which suggests that the Brigade is the key formation, and it may creat a BTG to perform key functions on the way to the Brigade objectves, but the BTG lives in  and draws forces from the brigade as a temporary arrangement. Eg a BTG would be created for breakthrough/exploitation but it wouldnt necessarily be the cas when the Brigade went into a defensive posture to loot etc.

Also, the BTG could make up strength from Brigade forces, if the Brigade thought that was reasonable, so measuring losses of a BTG may be better thought of as losses of the mother Brigade.